Senate Standing Committee on Health

The Senate Committee on Health will come to order. Good afternoon. First, file item number one, AB 1088 by Assemblymember Bains. And file item five, AB 1779 by Assemblymember Davies have been pulled from today's agenda. That leaves us 10 bills on the agenda with three of them on our proposed consent calendar.

File item seven AB 197 by Assemblymember Addis. File item nine AB 2081 by Assemblymember Stefani, and file item 12 AB 2756 by Assemblymember Ahrens. We will begin as a subcommittee of one until a quorum has been established. Very excited to see that our first author is here. So we will begin with file item two, AB 2575 by Assemblymember Ortega.

And strongly ask if there are any other authors that would like to present, you can come down to the room. And any other Members of the Health Committee, you may come down as well. Assembly Member Ortega, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you Madam Chair and Senators when they arrive, for the opportunity to present AB 2575 today. First, I'd like to thank the chair and the, and her staff for their work on this bill. And I accept the committee amendments. These amendments will be crossed in Senate labor and will address opposition concerns about the length of the disclosures that the bill requires. And will remove the requirement for a ninety day notice.

AI may offer promise, and healthcare workers are relying on it more and more. But what happens when AI gets it wrong? In the real world, clinical judgment relies on more than data inputs. Healthcare workers use sight, sound, touch, and smell to make the right call. AI models can generate false alarms, miss serious conditions, and reflect the same biases that exist in the data they were trained on.

AB 2575 is built around a simple principle. In healthcare, artificial intelligence should support clinical judgement but never replace it. AI is a new rapidly developing technology that we are still experimenting with. AB 2575 would provide guardrails to ensure these high risk tools used to save human lives have human oversight. AB 2575 has three key provisions.

First, the bill requires employers to provide workers access to key information about the limitations and intended uses of the tools they use. Second, the bill prohibits employers from retaliating against a healthcare worker for using their professional judgment to either override or follow an AI recommendation in good faith. Third, it prevents a developer or employer from avoiding liability by shifting all the blame to healthcare workers when their models get it wrong. AB 2575 is about accountability, transparency, and patient safety.

It's about your right as a patient to receive care that is tailored to you, not just what pops up on a screen.

Today, I have witnesses testifying in support with me. They are president of the California Nurses Association, Sandy Redding, and Sarah Flocks from the California Labor Federation. I also have Carmen Comsti from the California Nurses Association who is here to answer any technical questions you may have.

Thank you. You will have a combined total of five minutes for your presentation.

Good afternoon Chair and Members, senators when they come. I'm Sandy Redding, a registered nurse and president of the California Nurses Association, a proud cosponsor of AB 2575. After more than thirty years as an operating room nurse, I know that safe patient care is never just about what is on a screen or in a chart. Patient care is about understanding the human being in front of us through assessment, observation and clinical evaluation.

But when employers ask nurses to rely on technology that we cannot meaningfully evaluate, override, our patient safety is at risk.

For example, in the emergency department, an AI triage tool might estimate a patient's severity of illness is low based on certain data in their chart. But the tool may not account for full clinical picture, like pain, shortness of breath, or other warning signs that have historically been dismissed or untreated for some patients. As a triage nurse using, her senses may identify a condition if her patient, that that the tool cannot capture.

Maybe the patient is pale, cool to the touch, or even holding they can't even hold themselves upright. We're always assessing our patients and looking at the total clinical picture.

Maybe the patient came in with epigastric pain which is near their upper abdomen and the AI tool says, oh, it's a stomach issue but it's actually a heart attack, which can be deadly. In those moments, nurses must be able to use our professional judgment to override inappropriate and AI outputs and care for our patient without being pressured by our employer to defer to a machine. Importantly, Clinicians should have basic information about the AI technology being used in patient care. Clinicians like myself.

And hospitals and tech developers should not be able to escape responsibility for unsafe AI systems because the clinician is somewhere in the loop.

And that clinician could be me. Nurses are not anti tech. In fact, I'm an OR nurse. We save lives every day with technology. I've been around long enough to see new technology come around that is life saving pulse oximeters like you may have seen in during Covid.

So we're not anti tech. We're very pro tech as long as it doesn't take away from my patient care. When technology is used in patient care, we wanna make sure to understand it, question it, and intervene to protect our patients. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Madam Chair, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. And thank you so much to the committee for your great work on this bill. We are a proud cosponsor of the measure. And I want to start by saying that the opposition in their letters and their testimony has said that as health facilities, they currently do not deploy AI related technologies to make care decisions and that they support a human in the loop at all times. We fully agree with them on that policy and practice.

But if artificial intelligence is as powerful as they claim it is, then it's not sufficient just to have policies and procedures in place.

It's not enough to just have a human in the loop when you're dealing with powered up powerful black box technology like generative AI. What workers, patients, and the public need are standardized and statewide guardrails on the use of artificial intelligence tools in health care. What AB 2575 does is codify the the guardrails necessary to ensure that human healthcare professionals are in command of AI tools and not commanded by them.

The requirements in the bill create those conditions that allow healthcare workers like Sandy to do their job using AI tools in ways that are the most effective, equitable, and safe. Innovation and regulation can and have coexisted for years.

This we see this in pharmaceuticals, in medical devices, in precision medicine, and many other areas. So this bill simply puts in place accountability to support the safe development and use of AI tools by human healthcare professionals for the benefit of patients, workers, and the public. We urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone else in the room that would like to register their support for this bill, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position only. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association sponsored this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Eric Barades with the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Robles with Health Access California also on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals also in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Connor Gressman on behalf of Teamsters California and the Engineers and Scientists of California in support.

Thank you.

June Sugar, California Alliance for Retired Americans. I was a nurse for seventeen years and I used protocols and algorithms. I can assure you they are not perfect. Thank you. And I'm glad I have experience.

Thank you.

Seeing no other Members of the audience that would like to register their support for this bill, if there's anyone who would like to speak and lead opposition to this bill, this is your time to come forward to the table.

Seeing no other Members of the audience that would like to register their support for this bill, if there's anyone who would like to speak and lead opposition to this bill, this is your time to come forward to the table.

You will both have a total of five minutes for your presentations.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. George Soares with the California Medical Association. We're here in opposition to AB 2575 by Assembly Member Ortega. We wanna thank Senator Weber Pierson and the committee for the recent discussion around amendments to seek to refine the disclosure requirements in this bill. California's healthcare system is entering a period of extraordinary financial uncertainty.

Recent analysis project the federal healthcare coverage reductions associated with HR 1 could result in millions of Californians becoming uninsured over the coming years, placing additional strain on physicians, hospitals, clinics, emergency departments, and safety net providers. At precisely the moment when healthcare providers will be asked to care for more patients with fewer resources, this bill will increase costs, create operational uncertainty, and delay or limit the deployment of technologies currently helping Clinicians manage growing patient demands. We would never be okay with placing clinical judgement with artificial intelligence.

However, we are asking to preserve the tools that help Clinicians deliver care more efficiently. AI assistive technologies are already being used to support radiological review, identify patients at risk of deterioration, reduce administrative burdens, improve care coordination, and allow Clinicians to spend more time with patients rather than paperwork.

This bill threatens these benefits by creating requirements that will cause Clinicians to scale back or delay the use of proven technology. The timing could not be worse. When HR 1 is inevitably, inevitably results in significant coverage losses, Clinicians will never or will need every available tool to maintain access to care. Physician practices will face increasing uncompensated care, workforce shortages, and financial pressures. This bill will only exacerbate those issues.

This bill also risks creating confusion regarding clinical accountability. Existing standards of care already required licensed professionals to exercise independent, medical judgment. Physicians remain responsible for patient care decisions regardless of whether technology is used or not. Creating new statutory frameworks that blur accountability or interfere with established clinical governance structures will undermine rather than enhance patient safety and could potentially lead to the unintended consequence of bias interfering with clinical decisions. We all share the goal of ensuring AI is used responsibly, transparently, and safely.

However, this bill goes beyond reasonable safeguards and risk reducing access to care at a time when California can least afford it. For these reasons, we urge your no vote. And thank you, and at the appropriate time, happy to answer questions.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce here in opposition to AB 2575. We'd also like to thank Senator Weber Pierson and the committee for the recent discussions related to the disclosure the disclosure requirements. We do believe there are still significant issues with AB 2575. To be clear, Cal Chamber believes AI in health care should not replace clinicians.

It should be there to support them in the practice of medicine. Medical professionals can and should use their professional judgment when using AI tools. With that said, AB 2575 would undermine current patient centered policies and conflict with medical staff guidelines by protecting any worker who provides direct patient care from corrective action. This bill would essentially allow health care workers to make independent subjective decisions about patient care without true oversight or accountability, even if those decisions fall within their scope of practice.

If a patient is harmed or even if harm is averted, after a clinician overrides an output, the health facility would be unable to take remedial measures.

This would shift health care away from physician led care to compliance driven care, which raises serious patient safety concerns. For patients, AI technologies are improving health care outcomes. With the help of AI, sepsis is being detected hours earlier than before. There have been significant improvements in accuracy of cancer screenings, and patient medication orders can be screened for interactions, allergies, and a and errors to name a few.

AB 2575 puts the these benefits at risk by discouraging the use of AI in the clinical setting and, worse, dissuading the innovation and creativity of future tools.

We share the goal of responsible of responsible AI use in health care, but, unfortunately, AB 2575 does not achieve these goals. For those reasons, we respectfully urge Genovo. Thank you.

If there's anyone else in the room who would like to register their opposition to this bill, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position only. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition. Did wanna thank the chair and the staff for their work on the amendments related to the disclosure section. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of the California Dental Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jackie Hawkins with Sloat Higgins Johnson on behalf of the Advanced Medical Technology Association. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. MJ Diaz on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in opposition.

Thank you.

Jen Chase on behalf of the University of California in opposition.

Missette Short on behalf of Adventist Health in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Stephanie Watkins on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies as well as the California Association of Health Plans in Opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in Opposition.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Society of Pathologists, the California Radiological Society, the California Podiatric Medical Association, and OCHIN in opposition. Thank you.

Christie Foy with the California Kidney Care Alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Zoe Johnson with California Life Sciences in opposition.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of Scripps Health in opposition.

Allison Barnett with Platinum Advisors on behalf of Sutter Health in opposition.

Good afternoon. Gilbert Lara here with Biocom with opposed unless amended position.

Good afternoon. Jasmine Vai on behalf of Civil Justice Association of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no further members of the audience that would like to speak in opposition, I will now turn it and see if there are any comments. Senator DeRaza will move the bill at the appropriate time.

So, Assembly Member Ortega, wanna thank you so much for bringing this bill forward, for allowing for us to have this conversation, for taking your time on the weekend to talk with me about this bill and also to, those who are in support and opposition to this bill. I wanna be very clear that in this particular committee, we only dealt with the section within the health code and that was around the disclosures.

And hoping that what we've done should have allayed some of the concerns around the disclosure because I do believe that they were very burdensome. The delay I think was unnecessary. The amount that was required.

I looked at some of the stuff and even as a physician, I couldn't understand half of it because it was very technical. I did not see how requiring that amount of information would have benefited me as a provider nor would it have benefited my patients or their outcome. So I wanna thank you so much for working with us and accepting those amendments. I will be supporting the bill today because again, in this committee, we are just dealing with that particular portion of the code.

As I have discussed with, the Assembly Member and the sponsors, I have significant concerns with the other portion of this bill.

Assembly Member started off talking about the fact that AI can get it wrong. Yes, AI can get it wrong. It is not a perfect instrument. But humans can as well. Clinical judgment is extremely important.

We all must have that. We all must be able to utilize that. But clinical judgment can also be wrong. And sometimes it's not based on inadequate training. It's sometimes based on the biases that we have.

And we have worked as a legislature very hard to deal with bias within healthcare. We've had multiple bills dealing with implicit bias training, for those who work on labor and delivery and with pregnant patients. And we talk about bias, implicit, bias, whether it's conscious, subconscious because it is a reality. It is a part of our society.

And to remove the ability for an employer or a supervising individual to step in when that clinical judgment was wrong and you had an error or a missed error is extremely, extremely problematic for me.

You know, I am in the OR as well. And I often remember of a couple of cases I did right before I came up here to the assembly actually. Two patients, exact same procedure. One patient, the first patient was someone who was white and when the procedure was done for those who have ever been in OR, you know it's pretty cold. She got the warm blankets and everything and cleaned up very well, as we were waiting to extubate her.

The next patient, same procedure, same team, nothing changed except the race of the patient, the perceived race of the patient because the second one appeared to be of African ancestry. And when the procedure was over, the nursing just looked at her. There was no attempt to go get a warm blanket. There was no attempt to clean her up.

It was just let's just sit here and watch her get extubated until I said, well, can we get her the same warm blanket that we got the last patient?

And I was like, oh, oh, yes. So it wasn't it was unconscious bias. More recently in December, unfortunately my son was in ICU for a little while and a friend of mine's child was in the ICU. She had come in with a very interesting injury that kids, you know, one of those freak accidents. Very high risk for sepsis after the surgery.

And her mom for days while the patient was recovering had been saying, I think my child has a fever. I think my child has a fever. They use the head thermometer and we know that that has bias because those of us who are melanated don't get as much accurate readings as the same with our pulse ox machines, which is why we have a bill dealing with that. But ignored the mom for about two days.

Never touched the patient, never went on to do anything else that we as Clinicians know that we should.

Unfortunately, when another nurse came in, found out that the patient had a temperature of like a 104, 105, this beautiful little black girl, six, seven years old, ended up in the ICU for the next intubated for like the next two weeks. She was septic. So we know that there is bias that is out there. And to say that when there is harm or a missed harm that there will be no repercussions is so dangerous.

It is so problematic and it is going in the complete opposite direction of what we have been trying to do here in the legislature.

So my hope is that as you continue with this bill, you fix that, you make it extremely clear that it does not cover the bias that we as humans have. And unfortunately, history has shown has can seep in, has seeped into our medical profession and changes how certain patients are treated and certain outcomes happen based on your race or gender ethnicity. So that as this bill moves forward and finally gets to the floor, I can support the final version.

Because if it doesn't, just because I support it here today, does not mean that I will be supporting it on the floor. And with that, you may close.

First of all, once again, thank you madam chair for the discussion that we had over the weekend. You know, I too have experienced a bias as a Latina immigrant in the healthcare space since I was nine years old. I've had to translate for my parents. Actually, since I was in kindergarten when I learned to speak English, I had to go with them to every doctor appointment, every Whether it was for them, my brothers, my sisters, my neighbors, because they didn't have the language to help them.

And I saw through those experiences the bias that happened in the healthcare space.

And unfortunately, some of those biases are being integrated into the AI tools that are being used. And so you absolutely have my commitment to address your concerns and figure out a way to move this bill forward. But ultimately, my goal in today's hearing is to address some of the health care questions. And and we did with I took your amendments because I agreed with them. And I respect you as a health care provider and the input that you had, in this bill.

As far as, you know, some of the other concerns that were brought up with the opposition, my door is open. I'm happy to continue the conversation. And I would ask that they update their opposition letters, because they're still creating this narrative or moving this narrative from a bill that was in print, in January. I've made significant amendments throughout this process, because I do wanna get to a place where all of my colleagues can support it and then we can get a signature on.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you. And when we have a quorum, we will take Senator Durazo's motion up. Thank you. Thank you. Alright.

I see that we have another Assembly Member here. Appreciate that. Would also call for any other Assembly members who wish to have their bills heard today to come down to Health Committee 0 Street Room 1200. But as of right now, we will go to file item number three, AB 634 by Assembly Member Gonzales Jeff Gonzales. And you may begin whenever you are ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the committee. I'm here to present AB 634, which would prohibit the manufacturing, distribution, or sale of products containing or marketed as containing tineptine in the state of California. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the committee chair and staff for working diligently with my office to get this measure ready for today.

I can't say enough about how our staff just works behind the scenes to make things happen for all of us, here in the legislature. So big thank you to to staff members.

AB 634 will prevent Californians from being exposed to tineptine, a dangerous substance dubbed gas station heroin. Gas station heroin is often sold over the counter at retail establishments such as gas stations, tobacco retailers, and small markets with no age restrictions. This means that when a child, when children go to buy their favorite snack, they also have access to gas station heroin.

Despite not being approved by the FDA for any reason, some companies are distributing and selling products containing tineptine to consumers, including products with high doses. While approved in some European and Asian countries to treat depression or anxiety, This substance can produce both an opioid like high and an opioid like addiction when used recreationally.

Many other states have already acted against this substance from placing it on a schedule to to restricting its sale. Amendments to the bill taken in this committee have narrowed the focus of it to a restriction on commercial activities only. Joining me today to testify in support of this measure is Ryan Sherman on behalf of the California Narcotics Officers Association. Ryan.

Thank you. You have a total of five minutes for your presentation.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Just take a couple minutes to briefly go over. I think the Assemblymandid a really good job explaining what the bill does and appreciate the work of your staff and your willingness to hear this bill. In strong support of the bill, Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association also representing a number of other peace officer associations listed in the analysis as well.

You've heard what this product is. We've got serious concerns and there's been serious problems in other states. So with that, I would just submit that we respectfully request an Aye vote.

Thank you. If there's anyone else in this room that would like to register their support for this bill, please come forward. State your name, your organization, and your position.

George Soares with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone in the room that would like to speak as lead opposition witness, this is your time to come forward. Seeing no one, if anyone would like to register their opposition, Please state your name, your organization, your position.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and strong Opposition.

Sarah Webber with the Drug Policy Alliance in Opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else that would like to speak, bring it back to the committee for any comments. Well, I would like to thank you so much assembly member for bringing this bill forward. This particular drug came to across to be about a year or so ago. I was actually gonna do a bill on t n f tine and then my staff looked to into it and saw that there were some federal things that had been done at the time.

But I definitely think that it is something that is very dangerous, deadly and deceptive because you can just walk up and buy it. And so I really appreciate you taking this lead and bringing this bill forward. And with that, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I'm confident that we're on the right track to protecting Californians from the dangers of gas station heroin through this measure and respectfully request your eye vote when appropriate.

Thank you so very much. And when we get a quorum, we will do that. Thank you. Alright. I see that we have another author who has come in and would also, recommend that if Assembly Member Aguire-Curry or Assembly Member Elhawary or Assembly Member Irwin would like to come.

I see Elhawary has arrived. You can come down and, present your bills. But we will now go to file item four, AB 1607 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzales. You may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all this afternoon. Under federal law, every patient that walks through the doors of an emergency room must be treated regardless of their ability to pay. Over the past decade, emergency departments across California have received almost 15,000,000 visits annually, and approximately one in five of their patients were uninsured.

When an uninsured patient cannot pay for their care, hospitals and emergency physicians rely on the Maddy EMS Fund to partially reimburse the cost of life saving medical intervention.

This program is supported by a small add on of $2 to every $10 of court fines. AB 167 keeps these critical lifelines in place by extending the sunset on the Maddy Fund, ensuring we can keep dedicated physicians on shifts, ambulances on the road, and emergency room doors open. Without the support, hospitals will be forced to stretch care within their already dwindling numbers of physicians, which means longer wait times and greater cost to care.

With millions of Californians bracing to be stip stripped of their health coverage due to HR 1 impacts, the number of uninsured patients seeking treatment in emergency departments may grow exponentially. A v 16 o seven simply asked for more time.

More time for the Maddy EMS Fund to exist, and allows its lifeline for emergency medicine to continue. This bill protects access to care at the most critical moments when seconds matter, and we need all hands on deck at this time. Because when someone dials 911, the last thing on anyone's mind should be whether the system can afford to save their life.

This afternoon, primary witnesses in support with me today to highlight the impact of this bill is mister Tim Madden on behalf of the American College of American Physicians, California chapter, and John Pullen, regional executive director of Sierra Sacramento Valley EMD Agency. Take it away.

Thank you. You will both have a combined total of five minutes for your presentations.

Thank you Madam Chair. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians for a cosponsor of AB 1607. Last April, Rand republished a report on the challenges EDs are facing nationwide. According to Rand, the viability of emergency care as we know it is at risk. This was before HR 1 was passed.

HR 1 as you know is taking billions out of the hospital based care system and will leave approximately 2,000,000 Californians uninsured, leaving them nowhere to go but the emergency department. While HR 1 will disproportionately hurt the health of our most vulnerable communities, the timeliness and quality of care that each of us receives when we walk into an emergency department is exactly the same. Because all patients are treated based on their condition, not their insurance.

Quite simply, the Maddy Fund results in more physicians work working in emergency departments. Without AB 167, less money means every patient walking in waits to see fewer doctors that are working.

If this bill does not pass, wait times will increase and patient outcomes will worsen. The already fragile emergency care system has no financial bandwidth to absorb this cut. Medical reimbursement for the most complex and acute patient visit is a shocking $108 The Medi Fund reimburses even less for patients with no insurance. This cannot be sustained. Since 1987, the Medi EMS Fund has been the only source of reimbursement for emergency physicians when treating uninsured patients.

If AB 1607 is not passed, it'll be another cut to the already fragile, fragile funding for the emergency care safety net all cal and forties depend on. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Hello, Madam Chair and committee Members. My name is John Pollan, Executive Director of the Sierra Sacramento Valley EMS Agency. I'm here on behalf of the Emergency Medical Services Administrators Association of California representing 34 local EMS agencies serving all 58 California counties. We appreciate the, member Gonzales for his work on this bill.

The legislature previously determined that EMS providers, physicians, surgeons, and hospitals as part of a requirement to provide emergency medical care to all patients regardless of their ability to pay or higher cost for their services, but often receive partial or no payment for patients.

As a result, a series of laws were enacted to provide compensation for patients who cannot pay for their medical care. California law authorizes counties to establish a Maddy Fund to reimburse physicians, surgeons, and hospitals for the cost of uncompensated emergency care and for other essential EMS system purposes. It also authorizes counties to establish a Ritchie's Fund as part of the Maddy EMS Fund to provide funding for pediatric trauma centers throughout the county.

If no pediatric trauma centers exist, the funding must be used to improve coordination of pediatric trauma and emergency services in the county. The Maddy EMS Fund and Ritchie's Fund are funded through revenues generated from local penalty assessments of fines and forfeitures for criminal offenses and motor vehicle violations.

The original authorization for the additional penalty assessment was previously extended through 01/01/2027. EMS is an essential component of California's health care safety net. At a time when EMS providers are being forced to reduce or cease providing critical emergency medical services and hospitals are at increased risk of closing, it is vital that the current EMS system funding sources be maintained. As such, we respectfully ask for your support of AB 167. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone else that would like to speak in support of this bill, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position only.

Hello. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Children's Hospital Association in support.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Counties of Ventura and Santa Clara here in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Brenda McCarthy with California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, Member, Jial Dentes on behalf of the De La Mira County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Kevin Guzmano to California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Hi there. Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Snyder with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.

Thank you.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the County of San Diego in support.

Thank you.

Jeff Neil representing the County Of Contra Costa and Yolo both in support.

Thank you.

Farrah Mc Daid Ting on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of Cottage Health in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else that is coming up to speak, if there's anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this bill as a lead witness, this is your time to come to the table. You will have five minutes for your presentation.

Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm alleged advocate with ACLU Cal Action. The ACLU is a proud member of Debt Free Justice California, where our mission is to reduce the harm of the criminal legal system and to end unjust fees. I'd like to acknowledge the importance of the AMS Fund and how many lives it has saved. We stand firmly behind this fund and its mission to provide dignified care for everyone, regardless of their insurance status, in order for people to receive the treatment they deserve.

However, we must stop relying on a system that extracts wealth from people for their mistakes and actively looks for new ways to punish them. Black and brown Californians are subject to targeted policing and overrepresented at every stage of the criminal legal system. They face significantly more criminal criminal fees and associated debt because of this reality. This is not just an economic justice issue, but a racial justice one as criminal fees are used as a racial wealth extraction policy lever.

There's a profound irony in funding health care for one vulnerable population by extracting wealth from another.

We cannot claim to value dignity and equity when our solution to one crisis realize exploiting realize on exploiting a vulnerable community. Research demonstrates that criminal fees cause life lasting financial and emotional harm to people that are system impacted and their families. Often forcing families who choose between putting food on the table and paying their debt.

True care shouldn't be funded by punishment, and we must find more sustainable methods to support this important EMS fund that does not rely on stacking monetary punishment for people who make mistakes. In addition, the recent people v cop decision by the California Supreme Court will make collections for the EMS Fund increasingly unstable.

The ruling held that fees assessed to individuals must consider an individual's individual's ability to pay such fees. This is likely to reduce any revenue previously generated from this increased fee and will require additional funding to operate at its current capacity. Rather than extending the sunset on this exploitative model, we encourage the author and policy makers in this room to reconsider more stable sources of funding that do not severe severely burden low income Californians.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 167 unless it is amended to strike the sunset extension. Thank

you. Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their opposition, this is your time to come forward. State your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee.

If anyone has any comments, Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And first and very clearly wanna thank the author, for taking on this issue of healthcare. So many of us continue the the fight, to make sure that everyone without exception has access to healthcare. Unfortunately, the system is rigged against poor people and people of color and that's the system we have right now.

So, I will support the bill. I I'm gonna ask the author just to understand from my point of view the issues that have been raised by the ACLU and I know you believe in those as well. So we're on the same side of what we believe in, what needs to happen. But somehow, every time this issue comes up, I think we need to push in a different direction than just accept the money from where it comes from and and Okay.

Not make that a part of of of our thought processes.

How we pay for these programs really matters. And this bill relies on criminal fees and vehicle code violations as its as its source. I'm encouraged by the Supreme Court's, decision in COP, but that process still requires individuals to come forward and demonstrate their inability to pay. And I think there are far too many low income Californians who may never make their way into a courtroom to make a showing of inability to pay. So when criminal fees go unpaid, the consequences can be very significant.

Had adverse credit impacts and wage garnishments and so many other things. They are the same people who can't afford to pay for their health care. How's that? The same We are talking about the same people.

The legislature has repeatedly recognized concerns around fines and fees and I know in my first few years here at the legislature, I was supportive of a number of repealing a number of fines and fees. Senator Mitchell at the time led that and we actually repealed 46 of 90 criminal fees. That that had a significant impact. I also have a long term I have concerns about the long term term stability of this funding source.

If we're going in the direction that I hope we continue to go in, then more and more or less and less money will go into into these funds.

So I'm just asking you to think about and incorporate into your your thinking. I don't not suggesting a very specific amendment, but to look at two ideas, a fire of in the five year a five year sunset. So that stakeholders can return to the table and, find a source that doesn't rely on criminal and vehicle code violation fees. And the other idea is a phased in reduction in the amount collected through these fees culminating in the sunset year.

And that's to encourage stakeholders to work towards a more stable and equitable, funding mechanism.

Again, I I we are not going I'm not suggesting in any way that we stop fighting the funding that's needed. But how do we do both? How do we make sure that we have health care for those who are too poor to pay for it, but then not take it from the fees that they'll be paying on the other side. So those are my thoughts and again, I will support the bill. I just asking a consideration of these other issues.

Thank you very much.

Well, I wanna thank you very much, Assemblymember Gonzalez for bringing this bill forward. It is, it is an extremely important, fund to help, ensure that those who may not have the means do are able to get the medical care. And we know that they'll get the medical care.

But the question is, will there be any reimbursement for the providers that are able to provide it and the hospitals that give it in order to to be able to keep their doors open for others that will need, care as well. I do want to echo, the statements from my colleague, Senator Durazo.

Because even though we're helping out one group of people, it's often times those same people that we're extracting resources from to do this. And, you know, I know that you have a lot of time here in the legislature. And so I'm sure that you will think about this as this bill now extends it for another ten years, of another way in which we can get these funds and hopefully more and in in a way that's more sustainable.

So that we are not constantly going after the same individuals to cover services that really should just be covered. So wanna thank you and with that, we'll allow you to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my Senator. And and yes, we do share the same sentiments and values and and we do agreeing time and time again on us. Pick it lines and protest lines and talking about access to systems, especially to a system that's broken and working against us immediately on day one. And I appreciate, your comments on that, and we'll go back, to discuss with the coalition.

And I wanna extend my gratitude, to the stakeholders like ACLU, Debt Free Justice, Sunella, and Baker Center for their work in this space. I'm looking forward to coming up with a plan, especially as we've seen nationally with HR 1 cuts and what it's going to do to those same communities as well. And and we have to put everything on the table to push back and fight back against that as well. So I I wanna thank you for that.

And we'll take that back to the coalition as well.

But in an emergency, the doors must always stay open. This fund is a small fee that helps keep life saving care within reach of every Californian regardless of their color of their skin. This is a reminder that illness does not check your insurance card first. A heart attack does not wait for your paycheck to arrive. Our safe doctors cannot wait either, not when every moment counts.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. And when we have a quorum, we will take a motion and vote on your bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We will now move to file item six, AB 196 by Assembly Member Aguire-Curry.

Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning or good afternoon. Thank you Madam Chair and Members. I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments today. I'm pleased to present AB 196, a bill to ensure all Californians have access to at home cervical cancer screening tests.

AB 196 requires coverage of these tests without cost sharing as ordered by a patient's provider. Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers when detected early. But screening for it can be invasive and inconvenient. Working women and those who live in healthcare deserts struggle to access these tests, which are essential to detecting the disease early. Research shows that rural women are more likely to die from cervical cancer, and black and native American women have far higher mortality rates.

Allowing patients to test in their homes expands access for rural and working Californians, increases preventative screening levels, and reduces strain on our healthcare system. Research from the CDC shows that increased screening has reduced cervical cancer incidents and deaths by seventy percent since the nineteen fifties. AB 196 will promote early detection, reduce health disparities, and strengthen preventative care across the state. I will be accepting the chair's amendments, which align coverage with clinical guidelines, limit test orders in thus excuse me.

Limit test orders to in network providers and apply the bill consistently across the health plans.

With me today, I have Angela Pontus on on behalf of Planned Parenthood and Christine Smith on behalf of Health Access.

Thank you. And you both have a total of five minutes for your presentation.

Good afternoon. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, here today in support of AB 196. The 109 Planned Parenthood health centers in California collectively provide 1,300,000 patient visits each year. This includes nearly 100,000 cancer screenings and 2,600,000 STI tests. While routine screenings can detect high risk HPV and precancers, unfortunately, up to ninety percent of HPV infections are asymptomatic, and timely screening remains a challenge.

At home testing offers a safe and effective option for patients who may otherwise delay or forego care. AB 196 would require coverage for at home cervical cancer screening kits, which were recently FDA approved. This bill also addresses an ambiguity in existing law to clarify that Medi Cal providers can utilize existing bill billing codes for at home STI testing.

This will expand access to critical preventive care, and it will help to ensure that Medi Cal patients have the same access to care as those with commercial coverage. We ask for your Aye vote on AB 196.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Christine Smith with Health Access California, and we're here in strong support of AB 196. At Health Access, we work to ensure all Californians can get the care they need when they need it at a price they can afford. This bill is a strong step toward that goal. Cervical cancer is one of the most preventive cancers preventable cancers when detected early.

This when caught early, the survival rate is about ninety one percent, but that drops to about twenty percent when diagnosed at a later stage. The difference is access to screenings. Yet too many Californians face barriers to in clinic screening, including cost, lack of time off work, transportation challenges, provider, and provider shortages, especially in rural communities. At home screening tests help remove those barriers and make it easier for people to get screened on their own time and in their own homes.

From a consumer perspective, no one should miss out on life saving preventive care because it is not covered or accessible.

This bill will ensure that both, that both privately insured Californians and Medi Cal enrollees can access these tests without out of pocket costs. It also promotes a smarter health care system by investing in prevention, helping avoid more serious and costly health issues down the line. Expanding access to screening will improve early detection, reduce disparities, and save lives. Ultimately, this bill is about making our health system more equitable, more affordable, and more responsive to patients' needs. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your Aye vote.

Thank you. And before we ask for additional supporters, we do have a quorum, so we're gonna go ahead and establish it. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Quorum is present. Alright. Now, if anyone would like to register their support on this bill, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Thank you.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in support.

Thank you.

Andrea on behalf of CPCA Advocates in support.

Thank you.

Jennifer Robles registering sorry. Jennifer Robles registering support for Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Thank you.

Jennifer Snyder with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Life Sciences in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Omar Altamimi with CPAN, the California Pan Ethnic Health Network here in support.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District nine in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Gilbert Lara with Biocom in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further individuals who want to register their support, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak as a lead opposition witness, please come forward. State your name, your

Madam Chair, Member Stephanie Watkins. On behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies, as well as the California Association of Health Plans, would first and foremost like to thank the author and the sponsors and all committee staff for working with us so diligently. We're hopeful. We're presenting these to our members tomorrow. So we're hoping to have a reevaluation of our position going forward. But again, we appreciate all the time and commitment that was given to review this.

What was a previously kind of old antiquated mandate and sort of conforming that and doing some code clean up. So thank you for that.

You're welcome.

Thank you. If anyone else would like to register the opposition, you can come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Seeing the bill has been moved by Senator Durazo. Seeing no other comments, I wanna thank the assembly member for your continued work in this area.

It is one of your passions.

It is a passion.

And really appreciate that. Appreciate you accepting the amendment so that we can align this bill with actual, clinical guidelines. And with that, you may close.

First of all, I wanna thank you for, identifying the one that we had out of of out of whack with the feds. So I really appreciate that. You think you know everything about a bill and then you find out, maybe you don't. Anyway, AB 196 expands access to cervical, cancer screening by ensuring Californians can access at home test without costing share. The true urban analysis shows the benefit comes at a very, very low cost, about 1¢per member per month.

Early detection prevents more intensive and expensive treatments, down the line, reducing cost pressures for the patients and plans and the patients. So without a respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the committee on appropriation. Secretary, please call the Members.

[Roll Call] 6, 0.

6,0. will place that on call.

Thank you very much.

We will now move to file item number 9, AB 2247 by Assembly Member Elhawary. And while she's coming up, we will take the consent calendar. Consent calendars file item 7, 9 and 12. ABs 1907, 28, 2081 and 2756. Do I have a motion on the consent calendar?

Move Motion made by Vice Chair, Senator Valladares. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] 6, 0.

6, 0 will place that on call. Assembly Member Elhawary, you may proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 2247, a bill that would establish the trauma, healing, and resilience investment for victimized and exposed youth act or the thrive act In four counties that funds fast and responsive mental health services for people 25 and under impacted by gun violence, including victims and witnesses. In 2022 alone, nearly two thousand children and youth 25 were injured or killed by an act of gun violence.

While gun violence affects all communities, black and Latino youth, as well as youth in low income communities, are more likely to experience or witness gun violence, often with lasting mental health impacts. Existing systems that are supposed to act as safety nets to provide mental health services to survivors are riddled with red tape, can be a financial burden, and often difficult or impossible for youth to meaningful meaningfully access.

Youth need access to timely and responsive mental health support in the wake of tragedy. Trauma can lead to long term harm and cycles of continued violence. Research has shown that timely access to mental health care protects against these long term consequences.

A B 2247 aims to simplify the process that impacted children and young people endure while seeking help by reducing wait times, providing survivors with a list of mental health care providers or peer support specialists in the county, and establishing a mechanism to ensure survivors are not required to pay for these services out of pocket or wait wait to be reimbursed.

When children and youth who have experienced violence get the support they need in the immediate aftermath to heal, they are set up for a brighter future.

With me here today is Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, who will read a statement from Giselle Eastman, who's a youth survivor, and Gabriel Garcia with Youth Alive.

Thank you. You will have a combined of five minutes for your presentation.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Gabriel Garcia, and I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for Youth Alive. We're a community based organization in Oakland that has several public health approaches to gun violence prevention, intervention, and healing. Prevention is upstream.

It's youth programming. Intervention is services tailored for those who are most likely to pull a trigger or be shot, and healing is tailored for those who have already experienced the greatest traumas, losing a loved one to gun violence or surviving a gunshot wound. Today, I'm gonna talk about healing and specifically our mental health counseling.

When it comes to survivors of gunshots, they experience many barriers to accessing care, whether it's lack of awareness of available resources or simply not feeling adequately served by general account counseling services that may be available to them, or it's the complicated bureaucracy and paperwork requirements that they have to navigate in order to receive care. That is why AB 2247 is so important.

It helps remove some of those barriers and and us at Youth Alive, we provide free mental health counseling to survivors, you know, of gun violence in Oakland. We wanna make sure that opportunity and those resources are available to other youth survivors of gun violence throughout California.

This pilot project will allow us to make that a reality, will allow counties to help figure out how to make this easy, accessible, and at no cost to gun violence survivors, especially those young folks who have the most opportunity to heal and the most capacity for resilience. To share more, Capri is going to read a statement from one of our clients who received mental health counseling services after she was shot. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair members, Capri Walker with CSJ, reading a statement on behalf of Jazzy, who is a client of Youth Alive, and a survivor of gun violence. Jazzy was unable to be here with us today, but she still wanted to share her story. So the statement I am reading will be read from her point of view. When I was 16 years old, I was shot in the face.

A group of friends were over for a sleepover at my house in Villajal, California. All I remember is being on the phone the next morning when a boy, who I thought was my friend, suddenly got up and fired his gun. I still don't know why he shot me or why he had that gun. That was two years ago. In the weeks and months after I was shot, I felt like nobody felt my pain, both physical and emotional.

I needed help. I signed up for California's victim compensation twice, but never got support. It wasn't until I met a mental health counselor at Youth Alive that I started getting resources and learning it's good to talk about my trauma. A therapist changed everything. Having a solid support system helped me get back to myself and focus on the fact that I'm still here.

My therapist provided a warm, safe, and quiet space, and I finally felt heard. By passing the Thrive Act, we're saying that survival should not come with lifelong suffering. Dignity, protection, and care are not privileges. They are rights. I'm grateful I was able to get support, but there are countless survivors still going without.

That's why I still rise, and I'm urging our state legislators and governor to support AB 2247 that thrive back. Thank you. And thank you to Jazzy.

Thank you. If anyone else in the audience would like to speak in support of this bill, this is your time to come forward. Please state your name, your organization, and your position only.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Prosecutors Alliance Action in support.

Thank you.

Hi there. Sarah Webber with the Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else that would like to speak in support. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak as lead opposition to this bill, this is your time to come forward. Seeing no one, if you'd like to register your opposition, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization and your position.

Seeing no one, we'll now bring it back to the committee. Vice Chair Viadares. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, first of all, I wanna I wanna applaud you for bringing forward this this bill and and what you're trying to accomplish. My community is no stranger to gun violence. We had a horrific shooting in Saugus where at Saugus High School where two students were killed. As a childcare provider, I remember one very vivid recollection recall recollection of a of a four year old that was new to our school and who had witnessed his mother being shot.

And I also remember his reaction and his trauma during thunderstorms. And I understand the the need for services for for victims having also been a victim of of gun violence myself. I still sometimes live with the trauma of that day twenty something years later. And I understand what you're trying to do, and I'm supportive. But I have some concerns with with the bill.

One of my concerns is that, I'm not quite understanding why we would just limit this to gun violence and why we wouldn't expand this to other situations and scenarios where, knives or any other type of deadly weapon, is used and would like to kind of understand that a little bit more. And also understand, is this not something that could be, moved under California's victim compensation, board and fund. And and then I'll and I have, yeah. Yes. So for the the sponsors of the bill.

We would love to see any survivors of violence. I didn't get into this. We have a at Youth Alive, we have a responsive program where in addition to gunshot survivors, we help victims of stabbings, physical assaults. For this criteria, being able to delineate the line between an assault, a stabbing, I think there there is clarity around surviving a gunshot wound that would make this program easier to administer.

But we also have a concern around cost, Knowing the state budget situation, having a more limited pool for us to start from with this pilot program would allow us to show proof of concept that if it works out, we could then identify other criteria to bring in, showing that Alameda County, San Bernardino, was successful at identifying how to deliver these services to victims and survivors.

Would love to open the conversation on down the line, how we can open that eligibility because we know that anybody who experiences trauma, especially as a result of any kind of violence, is going to live with that until it is treated. This pilot program is an opportunity for us to do something about those that are experiencing the most urgent, most deadly, fatal, forms of violence, but absolutely wanna see all survivors of violence have these resources.

And then maybe to the author, is is there any was there any consideration to moving this

Yeah.

Under the the victim compensation? Yeah.

It's a good question. You know, there's already limited funds there, and folks are already struggling with limited funds that are there to make sure that we are compensating victims of crimes overall.

And so I think that the, there is consideration, but I think the likelihood is low because folks really do feel like it's a limited pot. And to take some of that away to give it to these young people who are, who are experiencing not only, you know, directly gunshot wounds, but even vict witnesses, excuse me, or their family members or loved ones who are survivors.

We are looking at various opportunities, creative methods for funding this and taking the time to really figure out where it could best fit. It's not to say that we've ruled out the victim's compensation piece, but I just want to double down on, you know, like, the even in this budget, the expectation to expand it to hold what already exists, has been tough.

And so for folks who are really, big advocates of that fund, adding another kind of, space that we would want is really hard, I think.

Okay. And then my last

I have additional response to that.

Through the Chair at Twitching?

Yes. Would that be helpful? In in Jazzy's story, you you heard that she applied for victim compensation twice and never got the services that she needed. Her experience is an isolated incident. One of the key things that we do for victims and survivors at Youth Alive is navigate them through the process of applying for victim compensation. And even with somebody by their side with expertise on how to do that paperwork and complete the requirements, not all of our victims and survivors get approved or get services.

Being able to design a pilot program that is really specifically trying to reduce some of those bureaucratic paperwork requirements that are, ingrained within victim compensation is one of the goals of this piece of legislation, and that's one of the reasons why it it wasn't built in from the start.

But, as the assembly member shared, if victim compensation was able to hold us and was able to identify ways that we can remove some of that, bureaucracy that so often gets in the way of victims and survivors getting the the timely support that they need, we would be happy to consider, holding the program there. Okay.

And and this is kind of where my biggest my biggest barrier for supporting this bill is right now. This next, portion is, so the pill the the bill, says that grantees shall not require, as a condition of receiving mental health and counseling services that a youth survivor of gun violence report any crime to law enforcement agency or require documentation from law enforcement of the incident of gun violence. And I really struggle with this because, you know, in child care, in in so many things now, we have mandated reporters.

So I'm not able to reconcile if the program knows that there was a violent crime that was committed. They're not mandated to report that crime.

Is that accurate? Because that's what I understand from the language.

This language wouldn't get in the way of any mandatory reporting requirements. It simply takes the requirement off of the individual applicants, so the youth survivor in this case, to report. So the, one of the constant barriers that our victims and survivors run into when they're applying for victim compensation is that the requirement for a, police report sometimes is the end all be all for victim compensation to consider whether somebody is eligible.

And within that police report, there are many things that can disqualify somebody from receiving services. Like, if, somebody's too traumatized to talk to the police and there's language in their report that says that they were noncooperative because of that, they can automatically be disqualified.

So that barrier is one of the reasons why we wanted to, at least protect the individual who is applying from having to go through that process because we, one, see it be restrictive at times to to require that, and two, understand that it could be retraumatizing for somebody to to go through that experience of reporting an incident.

One of the ways that we try to account for that is if they have a statement from another kind of victim service organization like us, for example, who can testify to the fact that this person experienced a violent incident. But this in no way, shape, or form would get in the way of any kind of childcare agencies or any organizations entities that have some stewardship over an individual especially a young person from reporting. It's simply taking the onus off of the youth themselves to report.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Senator Caballero.

Thank you Madam Chair. That's a good I appreciate that explanation. So the only question I think this is a really important program. Then my question has to do with the four four counties.

How did you determine these particular four counties? And the reason I ask it is not because none of my counties were chosen which is the reason I ask it. But also because, I did violence prevention programs, that were that were focused on building capacity within the community to build the the necessary relationships to reduce it was used in gang violence. And when I looked at when and this has been a while. When we looked at statistics, it, the choice was interesting.

There may be a reason why, you know, you picked a, maybe a county that doesn't have as much gang or youth violence shootings. It's not always gangs, but, in our instance, in my community, it was.

I'll start by saying we, initially I represent Los Angeles County. We have, rates, that are incredibly high when it comes to gun violence. We talked to our, sponsors and coalition that we've brought together, and so we kind of came together to really think about, which areas would have the most impact given what we've seen, especially more recent, acts of gun violence, that have really impacted communities. One in particular happened in Stockton earlier this year or might have been at the end of last year.

And so we, that was part of how we decided.

I don't know if the sponsors wanna add anything else related to those four counties.

But So so we're just talking the the reason I ask is this the communities we looked at that were was I was in Salinas. So it's a rural agricultural community, but we had very high in incidents of gun violence. Were Los Angeles, Stockton, and Oakland. And so that's why I'm I'm curious. Yeah.

Solano County is Stockton is located in, San Joaquin County. It's not one of them. Alameda County would be, and I maybe San Bernardino is the other one. Anyway, it's Yeah. I'm gonna support the bill but I just wondered if if there was if there was some analytical reason why you picked those four counties.

So thank you for that.

That's a good question. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

No. I just wanted to commend the author for bringing this bill forward. Really important discussion and it sounds like a lot more work needs to be done in this area to ensure that particularly our youth who are impacted by gun violence get the the services that they need. I just wanted to point out too that the least we can do is ensure that they get services because we haven't moved meaningful gun control laws.

We have we have an administration that has has an abysmal record on on gun control laws.

And so, I'm happy to move the bill when the time is right. And, thank you for your your work in this space.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments, would like to thank the author, for bringing this bill forward. It is definitely a needed service. Just a couple of comments. I would recommend that you go back and rethink where this is placed.

You know, DHCS oversees. Yes, they oversee mental health funding. But they don't necess, they do not currently administer other programs that provide compensation. And so, what you would be asking them to do is establish and set up a brand new program. And yes, some of the programs out there aren't perfect.

Maybe tweaking that would be better than trying to build something up from ground up. Right? Okay. So that's one thing. And the other one kind of goes off of what, Senator vice chair, Balladares was bringing forward as to the requirement for documentation.

Understanding that that should not be a barrier but one of the concerns that I have is being able to have documentation that some event occurred. We are now in a situation where things that we're doing at the state that may not have had as much oversight as should have had. Other people are now looking and saying, oh, there has been fraud in this area.

And maybe not requiring you to have a, b, c, d, and e, but just to say that there was a report whether it's I live in an area that has a ton of gun gun violence and I can bring you 15 reports I'd say that it happens. But just some evidence to say that, yes, this particular individual did experience this and does really need these services, is something that I would recommend that you you probably consider.

But, we'll be, supporting the bill today. And with that, you may close.

Thank you. We will definitely, take all of those recommendations into consideration. Really appreciate, my colleague from across the aisle also sharing some of your concerns, but even thinking about opportunities for us to be thoughtful in funding. And and just overall, I think the documentation piece is a good one for us to, really take back and talk about. Thank you for bringing up the county's question as well, Senator.

Really wanna make sure that we're being really thoughtful and have a stronger kind of explanation around that. Lastly, I just wanted to share that, I was invited to San Quentin, prison, now rehabilitation center, about a month or two ago, because the, men who are incarcerated there found out about this bill and mentioned that they truly believe that had this bill been around when they were children, that their lives would be very different.

Many of them have spent 30, 40, 50 years in prison, and their understanding of how to respond to gun violence, because they didn't have mental health services, was to retaliate with more gun violence, was to continue the cycle that we know we need to end. And, they asked how they could support, how they could show up, from where they sit.

And recognizing the importance of a bill like this, I think, is really important for us to really think about how we we truly invest in community safety and public safety, and not continue the cycle of violence, through just incarceration and not recognizing the importance of of true rehabilitation through that.

So thank you all so much for for the opportunity, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. The motion has been made by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. The motion is due passed and re referred to the committee on judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] 8 to 0.

8 to 0. We'll place that on call.

Thank you.

And we will now move to file item 11 AB 2531 by Assembly member Erwin. And after Assemblymember Erwin, the only author that we need would be Senator Rubio for file item number eight. You may begin.

Well, good afternoon, madam chair and members. I am, pleased to present AB 2531 today. In December of last year, the Trump administration finalized a rule to prohibit the Veterans Health Administration, know as known as the VA, from providing abortion care. The potential effects of this decision are profound. Veterans in California who have worn the uniform and put their lives on the line are now being denied basic reproductive health care from the VA because the Trump administration's discriminatory policies toward women.

Throughout my tenure in the legislature, I've always maintained a steadfast commitment to our veterans. Whether it was through my time as chair of military and veterans, of of the military and veterans affair committee or through the legislation I ran to place proposition one on the 2024 ballot, it has always been a priority to ensure that we take care of the people who served our country. And taking care of our veterans is exactly what this bill does.

AB 2531 puts our veterans first where the Federal Government has failed them. It narrowly expands access to our existing grant program so that it will include veterans whose federal health care coverage no longer includes abortion services.

This will ensure that veterans who cannot receive abortion care or abortion counseling through the VA system are not left behind. The bill also requires the California Department of Veteran Affairs to include a link to the abortion.ca.gov in their existing list of resources for veterans to ensure that our, for veterans to ensure that our veterans know they have access to this critical, care coverage. With me to testify in support of the bill today is Angela Pontes from Planned Parenthood.

Thank you. You will have a

total of five minutes for your presentation.

Thank you, chair and members. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We are a proud sponsor of AB 2531. In 2022, following the Dobbs decision, Senator Weber Pearson had the foresight to author AB 2134, which created the uncompensated care program to ensure abortion and contraception would be accessible to Californians and to support the safety net providers offering such care.

A B 2531 narrowly expands this existing program to include veterans in the eligibility in response to recent federal action as stated that severely restricts access to abortion care through the federal VA system.

Under this new policy, the VA can only provide abortion in life threatening circumstances. This is intentionally this is an intentionally high threshold that has dangerous and cruel consequences. Despite California's constitutional protections for reproductive freedom, our state's veterans and VA providers cannot obtain or provide abortion care or even abortion counseling. Without this bill, veterans may only access abortion care if they have the means to identify a non VA provider and pay out of pocket.

A B 2531 addresses a significant inequity for a small population in a simple way.

We ask for your eye vote on AB 2531.

Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support for this bill, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and proud support.

Thank you.

And then I'm Avizka on behalf of CPCA Advocates in support. Thank you.

Martin Rudasovich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Henry Reinen on behalf of Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kudlakis in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9 in support.

Thank you.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. Alright. Seeing no further individuals wanting to register their support. If there's anyone who would like to speak and lead opposition to this bill, this is your time to come forward. Thank you.

You will have a total of five minutes.

Thank you, chair and members. My name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council. AB 2531 is framed as caring for veterans. But true care means providing support that addresses the need for both mothers and children. Not using taxpayer dollars to expand abortion funding.

This proposal claims veterans are being denied health care. But abortion ends a human life and murder is not health care. Look at what our veterans actually face. According to HUD and the VA, on a single night this past January, 32,495 veterans were homeless. They are still waiting on housing, on mental health treatment, on help with their disability claims.

This is the unmet need. Yet just this February, the state sent 90,000,000 to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, and AB 2531 now asks us to spend more? If we truly want to honor those who serve, our priority should be meeting those urgent needs, not writing larger checks to abortion providers. Our veterans carry some of the highest rates of PTSD, depression, and suicide in the nation. Many already live with deep trauma.

Even the American Psychological Association acknowledges that some women experience clinically significant depression and anxiety after an abortion. For veterans already hurting, this is not a risk the state should be funding. Nothing in this bill requires that a veteran be told about adoption, pregnancy resource centers, parenting assistance, or other life affirming options. It points to one path and excludes alternatives that many women would choose if they knew the help was available to them. Our veterans deserve better than taxpayer funded abortion and one-sided information.

They deserve real support, real resources, and real hope. Abortion does not heal trauma. It adds to it. Give our veterans real care, not state funded murder. Vote no on AB 2531.

Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their opposition, this is your time to come forward. State your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to committee members to see if they Senator Menjivar.

I felt compelled as the only veteran on this committee to respond to those comments. I'm a recipient of the VA. That's the only health insurance I've had for the past fifteen years. I can tell you, there are a lot of services for veterans. The VA I go to specifically has a section for women veterans.

And they do baby showers every single month for pregnant, female veterans, to provide them with anything they need for, to become a new mother. They have group counseling, for for women if they're look if they're pregnant. They cover fertility services, six rounds of IUI if they wanna be become pregnant. There's a lot of services that exist, for female veterans in the reproductive care. But now because of this Federal Government, one option is being taken away from them.

So while the VA is providing all other options, your bill steps in and provides that extra option that isn't allowed right now. So I wanna thank you for that additional support.

Well, I wanna thank you so much, Assemblymember Erwin for, recognizing this issue and stepping in to fill that gap. Really wanna thank, my colleague, Senator Menjivar for, giving an accurate assessment of what the VA already covers in terms of, reproductive health options, and support and services. And recognizing that this is one very critical service that they are not providing, but it is allowed here in the state of California as a reproductive health state.

Just one further, point I wanna clarify is that this is not providing any extra funding. The funding is already there.

We are just expanding who is eligible for the funding because of what this Federal Government has done. And with that, I will allow you to close.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Would entertain a motion at this time. Moved by, Senator, Caballero. Motion is do pass and we refer to the committee on military and veteran affairs. Assistant, please call

the roll. Senators Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Valadares?

Caballero? Aye. Caballero, Aye. Durazo. Aye.

Durazo, Aye. Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, Aye. Grove.

Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, Aye. Padilla. Perez.

Aye. Perez, Aye. Rubio. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye.

Smallwood Cuevas, Aye.

70 on call.

70 will place that on call. Thank you. And while we wait for Senator Rubio to come and present the last bill, we will go from the top starting with the consent calendar. Assistant, please call the absent members. Senators Gonzales?

Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grove?

Aye. Menjivar, aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye.

Rubio?

90. We'll place that on call. We'll go to file item number two. Motion was made by Senator Durazo.

The motion is do pass and re refer to the committee on labor, public employment, and retirement assistant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Seven to one. We'll place our call. We'll go to file item three. I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Moved by Senator Valladares. Motion is do passed and we refer to the committee on judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

8 to zero will place that on call. We'll move to file item four AB 167. I'll entertain a motion. Moved by vice by Senator Durazo. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

8-0 will place that on call. We'll open the roll for file item six, AB 196. Assistant, please call the absent members. Senators Gonzales? Aye.

[Roll Call]

9-0 will place a call. We'll move to file item 10, AB 2247. Assistant, please call the absent members. [Roll Call] 8-0 will place that on call.

We will now move to the final bill today, file item eight, AB 1915, which is going to be presented by Senator Rubio on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel and Assemblymember Wicks. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam Chair, and members of the committee. Good afternoon everyone else. I'm pleased today to present on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel AB1915. This is a measure that will support California's neighborhood restaurants by cutting red tape and modernizing outdated regulations. Neighborhood restaurants, as we know, are the backbone of our communities and they're struggling and they need our support Across California, they help employ so many of our community members.

They also have the most diverse workforce in the state, but too many are continuing to struggle and have not recovered since the pandemic, especially with all the other regulations that, as a state, we've put on them. You know, after enduring such unprecedented challenges, during the pandemic, these beloved businesses, you know, are really grappling with staying open or are closing. And these are major challenges, especially as we know right now we have cost pressures across our state.

AB 1915 will support California's neighbourhood restaurants by modernizing California's food facility code to reflect realities of how small businesses operate, amending outdated facility requirements around restrooms, ventilation, equipment, and creating a streamlined permitting pathway to allow qualified contractors to self certify routine equipment installations, making it less expensive to open and operate a restaurant. AB 1915 was written in partnership with small business leaders to address these issues head on.

And in doing so, AB 1915 will help keep our restaurants afloat and assist them on the long road back to recovery. AB 1915 is supported by a coalition that includes the Los Angeles County Business Federation, BizFed, the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, the California Restaurant Association, local restaurants, business council. And I'm pleased to have here with me, in support to testify Eddie Navarrete, here on behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, and Alan Morales, owner and cofounder of Civil Coffee in Los Angeles.

And with your permission, I'd like to turn it over to them.

Thank you. You will have a combined total of five minutes to present.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Erina Varete. I am president of the Independent Hospitality Coalition representing a diverse, network of small business owners across the LA County landscape. Our industry is not stabilizing.

It is contracting. In Los Angeles, more than 84% of restaurants reported declining business last year with many operators experiencing revenue losses between 30 to 80% due to economic shocks, declining tourism, and reduced consumer spending. At the same time, the cost of doing business continues to rise across the board including food, labor, insurance, rent, all increasing faster than revenue, creating sustained pressure that small businesses are struggling to absorb. AB 1915 directly addresses a piece of that pressure that we can actually have the ability to fix.

It removes a hidden cost embedded in outdated building and health codes requiring that no longer reflect requirements that will no longer reflect the businesses, how they operate today, but still drive thousands and in many cases, tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary construction.

This bill will allow simple like for like equipment replacement such as an ice machine or a stove to be replaced without months of delay. It eliminates construction triggers like additional restrooms or ventilation systems where there is no measurable impact to public health. It updates the food code to reflect modern operations including temperature monitoring monitoring, practical hand washing standards, and flexibility for smaller or older spaces.

Although some of these minor technical changes, they are real cost drivers that in most cases can make all the difference for a small business. AB 191515 is also the result of meaningful collaboration with health officials and regulators to identify where the code can evolve in a way that maintains safety while reducing unnecessary cost and delay, creating clear standards, improving consistency, and allowing enforcement to focus on real risks.

At a time when vacancies are rising, small businesses are closing and our local economies are under significant strain. This bill provides a practical and immediate way to reduce the cost of doing business and support the businesses our communities depend on. On behalf of the Independent Hospitality Coalition, the community that we represent, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Chair and members, my name is Alan Morales and I'm the cofounder of Civil Coffee, a Mexican American coffee company established in Los Angeles in 2015. My brother and I built, our company from a simple pop up into multiple cafes in Highland Park in Downtown Los Angeles in Studio City, employing dozens of people. My family is immigrated to this country in search of opportunity.

My parents worked hard to build a modest life, and their support has allowed us to take a chance on a dream and eventually open up our first brick and mortar, as I said, in Highland Park. What surprised us was that one of the biggest challenges was not serving our customers or creating jobs, actually navigating regulations that often treated our small coffee shop like a full service restaurant, despite the low risk nature of our coffee preparation.

The mandatory requirement, as an example, to add a urinal added thousands to our construction costs before we could even open, and continues to cost us in maintenance over time. For small businesses, these dollars matter. Another example is outdoor dining. Our city of Los Angeles' temporary emergency order outdoor dining program increased our seating capacity by roughly about 50% and helped us grow revenue about 20%. In an industry with slim margins, that additional revenue can be the difference between surviving and closing.

However, current building codes for additional restrooms on outdoor patios do not reflect the value that these spaces bring to not only our businesses, but also our community. AB 1950 recognizes that there's a smarter way. It modernizes outdated requirements and rec creates practical solutions that maintain safety, creating meaningful ways that can increase revenue all while reducing unnecessary costs, delays the bureaucracy for small businesses that do not have the financial backing to hire people to navigate the difficult code.

Beyond civil coffee, AB 1915 helps future entrepreneurs who are trying to create jobs, invest in their communities, and pursue the same opportunities that my family had the opportunity to do. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support also on AP nineteen fifteen.

Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Chris McCailey here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you, doctor Robert Pearson.

Thank you.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of the California Travel Association in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you.

The South Floors of the California Restaurant Association in support.

Thank you.

Ana Maria Santiago, policy intern with the Mesa Verde Group, here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City and California Community Foundation

in support.

Thank you.

Amanda Bloom on behalf of the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators in support of

the bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Megan Varve with Kaiser Advocacy here on behalf of the Cameo Network in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else that would like to speak in support, if there's anyone who would like to speak and lead opposition to this bill, this is your time to come to the table. Thank you. You will have five minutes.

I promise I will be quick. Chair Weber Pearson and fellow senators. I am Rebecca May on behalf of the state license board. The board voted to oppose AB 1915 unless amended at its June 5 board meeting. We would like the author to consider removing the self certification provision from the bill.

This bill would allow contractors to bypass an inspection performed by local building departments if they self certify that they're replacing like for like commercial restaurant equipment and that the installation meets all state and local code requirements. The permit inspection process provides essential oversight to protect consumers and business owners from harm by requiring a contractor to resolve any non compliant work before a final permit is approved. The installation of like for like commercial restaurant equipment may seem straightforward.

However, replacing equipment that is a few years old might require an electrical or gas line upgrade. And the installation, if not installed correctly, can present a fire risk or danger to the employees and customers if not installed correctly.

Examples would include the tipping risk of a deep fryer that's not leveled correctly. A leaky gas connection when swapping out a commercial range for the same model. An ice machine that doesn't drain properly causing water damage or mold growth. When local building officials aren't able to catch these faulty installations through an inspection, the responsibility for code compliance is effectively diverted from local building departments to CSLB without providing additional resources to perform investigations or enforcement action.

Restaurant owners who inevitably experience subpar installations will seek resolution by filing complaints with CSLB.

We very much appreciate the author staff and the bill sponsor for working with us to address our concerns and I'm, hopeful that we can come to a resolution as

the bill moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their opposition, this is your time to come forward. State your name, your organization and your position.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to, senators. Senator D'Orazo. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

It's good to good to see you all here. I plan to support, this bill today. However, I do have similar concerns as has been raised by the contractor state licensing board. So many of the other parts of the of the bill are fine. There's no issue and that should make the issues that you raised.

Right? They deal with a lot of the issues, the red tape and this and that. Like, an establishment that is take out only to operate without customer restrooms. I mean, there's a whole list of good things that that I don't have any issue with. I am I am concerned about a contractor who does this work on your behalf, on an owner's behalf, self certifying that their work has been done correctly and safely.

So I'm I'm worried about that because who's you know, it's like the fox looking. When they say fox checking out the the hen house, you know, the hen house. So, you know, if we put that very very important responsibility in the hands of the same person who performed the work, are are we assured are you assured that that it is the safest possible procedure that's that's been taking place. So it could create risk to public safety and and yourselves as as property owners.

So I really ask that as you continue to move through the process, I wanna strike the right balance between what you're asking for, which is efficiency and but also safety.

And I I know, Senator Ruby is not the author, but if Senator you or, your witnesses can give me an update on any kind of conversations that's been taking place, on the role of building officials in the inspection process.

If there's any Would you like to address that? Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. We were just recently informed about the opposition position. I know the vote was in June 2, but this was just recently we would love to be able to work with the CSP further. On this, I think there's a lot of refinement in the language of the self certification of what can be included in there when it comes to when you meant someone mentioned about upgrading electrical system or upgrading a gas line, those items would not be eligible.

So we really wanted to be careful that we thought about this, you know, thoughtfully and thought with safety in mind. These are very usually simple permits that oftentimes a restauranteur in desperate need will do themselves. What this does is it provides a pathway for those restaurant tours for things like an espresso machine or it could be, again, we mentioned a deep fryer. Things that have already been in place that might be working for a long time and just need to be replaced.

And in those instances, we were hoping that this could be again through further refinement, create that safe environment, so that we could have a a self certification for contractors that are experienced with these types of installations.

Okay. And and, you know, maybe there's others I'll I'll reach out and let you know what we've done. I've had several bills come through to my local government committee that have to do with very similar issues of health and safety and yet wanting to do it faster and or, you know, with less less expensive. So I'd be glad to share those thoughts with you as well. They're not identical but they are very similar in nature as far as what we're trying to accomplish.

So be glad to work with you on that as well. Great.

Thank you. Senator Caballero.

Thank you. My my issues were the same as, Senator Durazo and as long as they can be resolved then, I'll be happy. I think we need to make sure public safety is principle which is part of the reason that CSLB exists in the first place. But I do appreciate, this bill because the opportunity to streamline and to get moving and get things done quickly is really important in in especially in the restaurant business.

And and for a a coffee shop such as yours to have to wait is really a a detriment.

So appreciate you coming forward. Thank you for being here and Aye, the author's not here but, I'm gonna support the bill today and it'll come to the floor. If it doesn't get resolved, I I won't be supporting it on the floor because there is safety at stake here. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Grobe. Thank you. Madam chair. I just wanna clarify, these are simple projects.

Projects that businesses shouldn't wait months to be able to facilitate and upgrade their facilities to meet the needs of their clients. And they're signed under penalty of perjury. Right? So they certify it. They self certify it, but it's under penalty of perjury.

That if they were lying and they did do something wrong, I mean, again, you'd have the aftermath, but it would affect their contractor's license as well. So it's under penalty of perjury. Correct?

I can't I'm not sure about that detail but that does sound

correct. Yeah.

I think we discussed that on our call. Yep. Okay.

Okay.

Yeah. It is under penalty of perjury. Sorry. I should have asked it a different way. Thank you.

I appreciate the jobs you create. I know it's hard. I've been in business for thirty six years, sometimes in the state in spite of the state. And it is very hard to upgrade. It is very hard to navigate.

Wait till the burner thing comes out, you guys are all gonna be in big trouble And the exhaust system on the fan. It's I don't know how you're gonna make it through it. But this is a good step forward. Thank you for being here.

Senator Perez.

One, I want to express my support for the bill and, thank I know we have Senator Rubio presenting it today, but both Assemblymember Gabriel and Assemblymember Wicks for authoring this. My family comes from the restaurant industry. My dad owned the Taco room in El Sereno for many years on top of being an electrician. Full time, I spent my weekends in the restaurant as a child growing up with him as he was operating and managing that restaurant.

My family also owns very famous Manuel's Al Tapayak located in Boyle Heights.

They also have another offshoot in the city of industry. And in East LA, it is, you know, considered to be, really kind of like a historical monument in the community. And so, you know, restaurants play such an important role in kind of, bringing together the community, acting as a gathering space for people, and really creating identity that I think is so critical and important. But operating a facility and really trying to design one, that's unique.

Especially when you are a, small business owner who's just starting out and really wants to bring something unique to the area, can be so incredibly challenging.

I watched my dad do it while he balanced two jobs and it was hard. It was so incredibly hard. So I understand, you know, the concerns that have been raised today and I have no doubt that the authors will work on resolving some of those challenges. But I do think that there does need to be some streamlining of the processes here. Sometimes our laws frankly don't make sense in practice as we're actually working on building out these types of spaces.

And we we wanna make sure that our restaurant industry is successful. Anybody that's in local government can tell you what an impact it has when you have a successful

It is a game changer. Corridor. It is a game changer. Thank you. Thank you.

restaurant business in your downtown corridor.

Seeing

no further comments, I wanna thank the Senator for presenting on behalf of assembly member Gabriel Ann Wicks. Thank those who came to speak out today in support and in opposition of this bill. Do wanna note that this bill is triple referred and so the portion that deals with health of this bill was actually in a bill from 2024 that came out of this committee on consent.

And so I think a lot of the issues that were brought forward will be either addressed in the committee on housing or the committee on BNP. But with that, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. And I appreciate the, the witnesses here as they discussed. This is just a practical solution that will continue to maintain, safety. These are just quick fixes.

And I just wanna share and, highlight that as a body, as a legislative body, we have evolved from the strict regulations, as now we allow pop ups on the street corners and parking lots, and they don't have to follow any regulations. You know, we've seen full kitchens with propane tanks.

And the problem is that we're asking restaurants to follow so many rules, so many regulations, that the biggest concern that I that I hear and complain from local restaurants is having to compete with restaurants in front of them without an actual brick and mortar. You know, they just come up and compete whether it's tacos or whatever the food is. And again, these are restaurants that have done everything that we've asked them to do.

And I think that we should allow them to at least be competitive with those that don't have to follow regulations. With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Would entertain a motion at this point. Moved by Senator Grove. Motion is do passed and we refer to the committee on housing assistant. Please call the roll.

Senators Weber Pearson?

Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye.

Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye.

Durazo, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grove?

Aye. Grove, Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, Aye.

Padilla. Perez? Aye. Perez, Aye. Rubio?

Aye. Rubio, Aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, Aye.

100 on call.

1000 will place that on call at this moment. If you have voted on all the bills, you are good to go. If not, we are gonna start off at the top with our consent calendar. Assistant, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]