Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
In addition, discarded canisters are hazardous and expensive to re recycle. Pressurized canisters can explode during collection or processing, damage equipment, and endanger workers' lives. It also costs a county upwards of $60 to recycle each of these containers, which far exceeds the cost of actually purchasing them. This one is purchased for $34.99 For all of these reasons, several California counties and cities in California, including Orange County, which I represent, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach, have already restricted the retail sale of nitrous oxide tanks. SB nine thirty six builds on these local efforts by establishing a clear statewide standard.
Speaker 30
Specifically, SB nine thirty six would prohibit the retail sale of nitrous oxide canisters larger than eight grams while preserving legitimate uses in medical, dental, and culinary and automotive settings. Importantly, the bill does not ban nitrous oxide outright, and it does not affect standard eight gram whipped cream chargers that are commonly used in culinary applications. SB nine thirty six also does not create new possession crimes. Instead, it focuses on restricting the sale and distribution of high risk products using civil penalties and regulatory tools rather than criminalization. We have taken a series of amendments to address some of the opposition concerns, clarifying that restrictions apply only when a distributor knows or reasonably should know that a product will be used for inhalation, ensuring items like balloons or bags are not accidentally captured.
Speaker 3
The amendments also move the bill into the Health and Safety Code for more effective enforcement and make clear that local governments can continue to adopt and enforce stricter restrictions if they choose. By targeting the specific products most commonly associated with misuse, this bill aims to reduce youth access, prevent impaired driving, and protect workers in California's waste management systems. With me in support, I have two supervisors, Supervisor Katrina Foley of Orange County and Supervisor Michelle Bushnell of Humboldt County.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Thank you, Chair Wahhab and members. Thank you for hearing SB nine thirty six, and thank you to Senator Blake Sphere for bringing this bill forward. I'm Katrina Foley, Vice Chair for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. SB nine thirty six is, about the nitrous oxide products, how they're packaged, flavored, marketed, sold.
Speaker 4
In addition to the comments by senator Blake Sphere, I bring personal knowledge of the devastating impacts of the unregulated sale and distribution of nitrous oxide in our communities. I've personally engaged with families living through the wreckage of nitrous oxide addiction, Families who've endured experiencing the lives of their beautiful, talented, creative, athletic, young adult children destroyed in no time. I've personally engaged with families who watched their young adult children, siblings, and loved ones develop a psychosis, mirroring schizophrenia, reaching out to the county for involuntary commitment in and out of emergency rooms and on repeated involuntary holds. I've personally met patients who suffer from neuropathy, loss of balance, tingling of the hands and feet, and other neurological symptoms that they may never recover from. I've spoken to neurologists who worry about the increase in young adults they treat due to nitrous oxide abuse.
I've personally heard from first responders who see the aftermath of crashes, people passed out while cars are running, empty canisters, and balloons scattered everywhere, lives injured and worse, lives lost and families forever changed. I've seen how quick and easy devastating high becomes an outlet for people struggling with addiction, and I've personally seen it tear apart families destroy stability and leave people trapped in a repeated crisis. These oversized canisters with slick graphics, some larger than fire extinguishers, sold in flavors like strawberry and watermelon, along with balloons and attachments designed for inhalation
Speaker 4
Are for recreation, not for any per public purpose. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Hi. Good morning. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today to support SB nine three six. I'm Michelle Bushnell, Humboldt County supervisor.
Thank you to senator Blakespeare. I am here not just with facts, but with urgency. Nitrous oxide, laughing gas, whippets are no longer a harmless novelty. It is a growing epidemic and public health concern, especially among young people. Easy access flavored cartridges, as you have seen, and aggressive marketing my thingy is not gonna go up.
So sorry. Oh, there we go. Aggressive marketing have turned into substance into something more far more dangerous. I have personally been affected by nitrous oxide. Ten years ago, my car was stolen by a young woman who wrecked and killed a man, hit a man while she was doing whippets while driving.
Speaker 11
The the man was killed on the freeway. She left him like an animal and drove off and said she had hit a cow. It was terrible, and she had been doing nitrous. She was 21 years old, and she had been doing nitrous for about five years. Also, this young lady is Anisha, 19 years old, was killed five months ago by someone that was driving while doing nitrous.
Speaker 5
They wrecked and hit a PG and E truck. The driver did. She was ejected and killed instantly. This is Nicholas Cartier, 21 years old, an employee of mine, who was found dead with a whippets in his hand. 21.
He lived in my apartment. And when I cleaned out his apartment, I found 10 black garbage bags full of nitrous in his apartment. I urge you to take consideration of how dangerous nitrous is and to understand that this is an epidemic. I have constituents in my district begging for some kind of regulation and legislation around this.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? I don't know if you guys are walking towards me.
Lead opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go to Me Toos, both in support and opposition. State your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.
Speaker 6
You. Good morning, Chair and members. Ryan Schirmer with California Narcotic Officers Association. We're in support of the bill and support all of these, nitrous oxide bills this year. Thank
Speaker 7
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Santa Barbara and Santa Clara, as well as the urban counties of California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Good morning. George Stories of the California Medical Association in support.
Speaker 6
Alex Allenese, on behalf of the American Nurses Association of California, in support.
Speaker 19
Kaylee Morris, on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, in support. Morning. Amy Jenkins on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, cosponsor of the bill, as well as the California Cannabis Operators Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning. John Kennedy, rural county representatives of California. Happy to be a sponsor of the bill along with the others.
Speaker 9
Good morning. Cassandra Moore on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no other me too's, we're going to move on to committee comments. Would anybody like to comment? Senator Archuleta?
Speaker 13
Thank you, senator, for bringing this forward. And, imagine if these were beer bottles and wine bottles and whiskey bottles and alcohol. Obviously, we would be jumping right across the counters to go ahead and stop it. And I think with our young that are dying, and we just heard someone who was killed by a driver who's obviously impaired by this. I'm so proud of the work I'm doing.
And the senate and the committee, all of us are doing this stop the drunk driving that we hear about. But obviously, when, young people have access to something like this, that's gonna cause even further problems than we can even realize. Next generation coming up. Imagine the lives we're gonna save by stopping this sort of thing. But senator, I do ask, when you mentioned that that container there obviously should be banned, no doubt.
But when you mentioned that, eight grams, that would be permissible. Explain how that would be a difference because I would like to see it stop completely.
Speaker 3
I mean, the the focus on this size is that this this is a size that's being routinely abused right now because of its you know, obviously, size. And it's being they're being sold as if they're for culinary uses, but they're actually for illicit uses to get high. And so we're focusing on this because it's just such a prevalent problem.
Speaker 13
Well, I I I support the bill when it's appropriate. I'll move it. Thank you. Anybody
Speaker 1
else? Seeing none. I I do just wanna say, just as as the former chair of public safety, we do see a lot of violations of these types of things, things that we don't think about, whether it's Sharpie pens or whippets, I guess. Right? But I do wanna say that there is typically a process, that where the licensee, the the individuals that are selling these particular items, there is agencies that kind of oversee their license.
And so I just wanna make sure that, you know, as this bill moves forward, that, you know, there is some consideration of the current agencies and their enforcement practices and how we can strengthen that as well. I do wanna flag that there is a difference between the, civil penalties versus the criminal, but this is getting more and more rampant. In fact, I was driving in San Francisco, and I saw a guy with, in my opinion, was a whipped cream bottle. And, you know, you don't even wanna drive next to them because you're like, I I can't stop them if they pass out. And I was in in kind of shock.
So I do wanna say that this is an issue that we do see in in the public, and obviously kids are abusing it too. So my recommendation is an I, but I do just wanna flag for the author to try to work with the agencies that currently oversee the process. We will move it at the appropriate time. We do not have quorum yet. Let me see.
We do not have quorum yet, so we're gonna just put it on on file to bring up in a minute. Thank you. May I close? Yes.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I appreciate the comments, and it enforcement is really important. I think the reality this is a photo of a liquor store in Orange County, which, some people might not even ever go into a smoke shop, but people are in liquor stores all the time for all sorts of things. And this here, right at the front, is just huge displays of these. So there really is a normalization of this.
And so changing the law so that it this is this is something that we don't see in liquor stores is what's really important. And I'll also just I wanna highlight that because we had ACLU opposition to this bill in the first committee, we really have been working with them. They were concerned that those who are selling plastic bags or balloons for other uses might get caught up in this, some sort of prohibition on the sale. And so we've dealt with that concern by making that clear that if you're just buying balloons or plastic bags, you're not gonna end up in violation of the law. So with that, I very much appreciate the involvement with this important bill, and I respectfully ask your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. So as I said earlier, we still do not have quorum, so we're gonna move on to the next bill. Senator Richardson, if you would like to present file item number six, s b thirteen twelve, and then I believe you have item number seven, SB thirteen forty, right after.
Speaker 15
Well, good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I come before you today to ask for your support for SB thirteen twelve. It's a follow-up bill to last year's SB seven seventy seven to address the issue of abandoned cemeteries. When a cemetery is abandoned, the people interned and the property are subject to vandalism and theft, desecration of burial plots. There are 187 private cemeteries in the State of California that are subject to abandonment.
The number of abandonment cemeteries has already grown. We have a list of more than 10 that are already abandoned currently, and more are growing each day. You might ask why. When a cemetery becomes full, it is no longer profitable. You can no longer sell new plots.
And so, people who own these private cemeteries have no further interest if there isn't a profit to be made. One of the challenges that we see is that individuals, when they purchase a plot, you pay for towards an endowment. An endowment is intended to provide continual care of that particular cemetery. The challenge is, many people purchased their plots many years ago, and so the amount of money that would have covered for adequate maintenance for a cemetery back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and so on, is no longer sufficient. When cemeteries lose their owners, they lose protection.
I asked the sergeants to I gave them a copy of an article. Just a day before yesterday, one of the cemeteries was vandalized because they have limited funds in order to protect because people are coming in stealing markers, opening graves. I mean, it it gets to the worst. I do have a copy of the news coverage, but I didn't wanna send it to you over the weekend, blindly. I wanted you to hear the information before us today.
But at this particular cemetery, they had, three or four dogs that were there to provide protection and security. One dog was killed. Two others were stabbed. So to say that cemeteries can just kind of somehow continue with no protection, with no real direction of how an appropriate cemetery that's abandoned should be cared for really needs to be changed. So the Private Cemeteries Act was intended to regulate the ownership, control, and maintenance of private cemeteries.
Currently, the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau manages the endowment fund, accounts for abandoned cemeteries, and maintains the contracts for burials, but it is not responsible for the care and maintenance of the property itself. As a result, responsibilities necessary for the care of the cemetery grounds often falls to loved ones of those interred or other volunteers, which often have passed away themselves or have limited resources to adequately maintain the grounds. SB seven seventy seven, which was chaptered last year some of you might recall I came here at that time called for the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau to convene a work group of effective stakeholders by March 1, which was just last month, to explore options for ensuring the continued care and maintenance and embellishment of the abandoned cemeteries. SB thirteen twelve will serve as the vehicle for those options and recommendations. So just to summarize, I came before you last year.
We had specific recommendations of what could be done for abandoned cemeteries. Apparently, the year before that, Assembly Member Berman on the Assembly side had brought forward a bill to give people an opportunity to meet and collaborate and discuss options. So I agreed to, honor that in my bill last year. Now that they have met, we're waiting for the funeral bureau to give us recommendations. We have the same recommendations as we did previously, but we want to make sure to incorporate the community's input and individuals who serve in this industry.
So that's why the bill is coming forward to you today. We expect to have specific recommendations over the next couple weeks, and I'll certainly come back if you deem it necessary. But today, I would hope for your aye vote so we can can continue forward with the path of legislation. With that, I will, pause for any questions or comments.
Speaker 14
Chair and members, not in opposition, but, fine with the bill as it moves forward. Jerry Desmond with the Cemetery and Mortuary Association of California. And we embraced the SB777 initiated process to look at the problem of abandoned cemeteries and come up with solutions. We've been participating in that working group, together with, representatives of this committee and other committees and Senator Richardson's office, and we put some ideas forward to try to identify where the flaws are in the current system, what the tools the Cemetery Bureau has today, through its inspections, through its review of reports, through its ability to increase the amount of funds that a cemetery must deposit into the Endometric Care Funds. And we have some ideas.
Speaker 16
We've even engaged with the stakeholders who work, in the counties where there are abandoned cemeteries. And so, we look forward to what form the bill will take when the recommendations come out, because we don't know what the recommendations will be, either. But we do see some opportunities already to address before a cemetery is declared abandoned, and they lose their certificate of authority and it's revoked. And we're coming up with some ideas to identify early on when a cemetery really has been abandoned. It's not being maintained.
It doesn't have sufficient funds. The community can't get in. And can we give authority to the bureau to take action then to say, hey, let's look at how we're going to manage it. Who is there an owner? Is there some liability?
But the bureau would still have some authority over that cemetery. So we're engaged in the process. We're optimistic that we've given this input to the bureau, and that when it comes out in the form of amendments to this bill as it moves forward, that we'll be able to embrace them. So, we are engaged, and we do think there will be some positive outcomes that we can work together with. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We have any me too's? Me too in support or opposition? Seeing none, before we come back to the committee, I'd like to establish quorum.
Speaker 17
Archeletta here. Adegine? Caballero? Here. Caballero here.
Grayson? Here. Grayson here. Menjivar? Menjivar here.
Nilo?
Speaker 1
Alright. And with that, would anybody in the committee like to comment? Senator Choi?
Speaker 18
Yeah. I have some question. I I know abandoned cemeteries are very big problem. This one is addressing for the future prevention, or I will it deal with the current abandoned cemeteries?
Speaker 15
It would include it is our intent to include the current cemeteries that are abandoned and those going forward.
Speaker 18
Okay. Next question is that we do have a funeral bureau already within that department. There should be a new personnel or division created to deal with this problem rather than creating advisory committee, which is another bureaucracy. What the who's gonna also provide a bureau, funeral bureau, or the committee. Later, it'll be confusing who will have authority of management, future management, or prevention of future of abandoned cemeteries.
Speaker 15
Chair? Yes. I was going to give a more extended answer, so I wanted to seek her permission. So Senator Choi, the situation is the Consumer Bureau still exists and will maintain the ultimate authority. The working group was established to discuss what potential options.
We wanted to make sure that the funeral and cemetery industry participated, that LAFCO, for example, in Los Angeles, LAFCO is a body that's created that deals with many interagency issues. They, LAFCO itself, actually works with cemeteries, and in some cases they are abandoned cemeteries. So there are various processes, but we wanted to make sure that all of them, that working group, had an opportunity to share with us the recommendations. So to my understanding, there's not going to be a continued working group. What we're looking to do is the working group is giving us the recommendations.
Those recommendations will be incorporated as amendments into this bill. And essentially, the Consumer and Funeral Bureau, their responsibility is to hold the funds, the endowment funds. So, for example, Lincoln Abandoned Cemetery in my district has an abandoned has an endowment fund of $1,000,000 which equates to about $3,000 per year. So they can do basic maintenance for $3,000 a year, but as we know, dollars 3,000 is nothing. You can hardly cut your own lawn, you know, every month for $100 a month, let alone a massive cemetery property.
So the intent is to provide more direction, so when a cemetery is abandoned, who now would have the authority? What work can be done? There just needs to be a greater ability to handle these abandoned cemeteries. And currently, all the consumer bureau does is manage the endowment account. But it's not saying, oh, we're going to send so and so company out to provide maintenance, to provide security.
They're not doing that work. And so that's why I provided you with the article that shows a cemetery just two days ago that was vandalized and dogs were killed.
Speaker 18
You sound like the current funeral bureau is just nothing but fund management vehicle rather than regulation.
Speaker 15
They do provide regulation in the sense of current cemeteries. So what the witness was talking about, a current cemetery, I believe it's annually, they have to submit a report. What's in their endowment account? How many current plots are sold. There's basic information that they have to provide, and an audit is conducted.
So the cemetery and funeral bureau is more in the activity of the current active cemeteries. What the witness was saying is that we need to get past what the current cemeteries are doing. We need a plan to make sure that current cemeteries don't become abandoned. And we currently have 187 that potentially could. So this will only be a growing problem throughout the state.
Speaker 18
So working committee has come up with the recommendations to protect the remaining 186 cemeteries and not to become abandoned in the future?
Speaker 15
Yes. And now we're waiting for the Consumer Bureau to give us those recommendations that we can then incorporate into this bill. So we will have a process going forward.
Speaker 18
Yeah. Your concern in dealing with the, you know, solving the current problem and the future problems is really highly, you know, supportable. Only thing was that the working committee, advisory committee to be newly established above and beyond the current funeral, which should do everything, anything to do with the cemeteries because as the name says, and also you mentioned that they do have regulatory management above and beyond the management of the down endowment funds. So I mean, that bureau can be strengthened and if necessary, one or two new members can be hired rather than coming coming on with the regulatory advisory committee, two two separate ones. To me, for the consumers and the future cemetery companies will be more confusing and the two different bodies to go through.
Speaker 15
Yes, sir. Yes, the advisory the essence of the advisory committee was to form to give us the feedback. They have formed, they have met. Think they had probably at least maybe six to seven meetings. And so now they reported that feedback to the bureau.
So the bureau is still in charge and will give us ultimately what their recommendations are.
Speaker 20
Two things. First of all, you say this is Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery in Carson City, and Carson City, of course, is in Nevada. You mean the city of Carson?
Speaker 20
Yes. Just want to clarify that. So I am a definite, decided, and certain maybe because I don't know what the recommendations are. And I think we are effectively approving whatever recommendations are to come. You said you come back and report, but this is premature.
I strongly suspect that I would be in favor of it, but I have a hard time approving this, which is a tacit approval of what they are yet to come up with. So I'm gonna lay off.
Speaker 15
Sure. A maybe is better than a no, sir. And the other point I would make is we have to adhere to the timeliness of the legislative schedule. So since they just concurred and had to complete their report just two weeks ago, we want to make sure that we're incorporating what the community has wanted to provide. But I will certainly have those updates for you when it comes before you again.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We will let the senator close. I do just want to highlight that this type of issue has come before us as the senator explained. Clearly, we want the bureau to be thinking about these things, and so we're obviously very excited to collaborate as this bill moves forward. My recommendation is an eye because we have talked about this not just in the two bills that you referenced, but even previously.
So with that, would you like to close?
Speaker 15
I would respectfully ask to be the first vote that you would send over today, is SB thirteen twelve.
Speaker 1
Thank you. With that, we have a motion by senator Archuleta, and aye Rocco from the chair. Can we call the roll?
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed to senate appropriations committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye.
Adegaine? Cab Carrero? Aye. Carrero, aye. Grayson?
Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Nilo? Smallwood Quavis? Strickland?
Aye. Strickland aye. Hamburg.
Speaker 1
Alright. That bill is on call, and we appreciate it, senator. I I do just wanna ask again for file item number two. We had a motion by senator Archuleta on SB nine three six by senator Blakespeare. I just want that to let's get some votes there.
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed to senate appropriations committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye. Choi?
Speaker 17
Choi aye. Archeleta aye. Archeleta aye. Adegaine? Caballero?
Aye. Caballero aye. Grayson? Meenjivar? Aye.
Meenjivar aye. Nilo Nilo aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Strickland?
Speaker 1
That bill's on call as well. We're moving on to file item number seven, SB thirteen forty by Senator Richardson.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Madam Chair. Today, I'm here before you to ask for your support on SB thirteen forty. California's small businesses are drivers of our economic growth and mobility. In 2025, California reported a total of 4,300,000 small businesses. These businesses created 7,600,000 jobs and made up 42.3% that's $70,100,000,000 of the state's annual exports.
In 2022, the Legislature emphasized the importance of small businesses contracting with the State Of California, requiring a 25 procurement participation goal for small businesses. Yet, in 2024, 37.3% that's almost over that's actually over a third of our state agencies reported that they did not meet this mandated percentage. Example number one, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and number two, the Department of State Hospitals. Additionally, the total awarded state dollars from mandatory agencies to small businesses and micro businesses decreased by $2,970,000,000 in 2023 to 'twenty four compared to twenty twenty two-twenty twenty three numbers. California leads the nation in the number of patents, quantity of research, institutions, investments, and deploys more venture and equity capital than any other state.
So, in California, small businesses have a significant footprint in our economy. So, what's the problem? One answer is the longevity of the state and local contracting. With small businesses contributing significantly to the economy, California must ensure it is consistently and adequately providing outreach and interest and an understanding of the competitive value of these businesses. SB thirteen forty will help further California's progress in reaching the mandatory 25% participation goal.
Essentially, SB thirteen forty will require a state agency's current small business liaison to annually submit the Department's contract information to the Office of Small Business Advocate, created in 2011 in order to advocate for small businesses. The following information included in the report will also be posted online: a list of all current contracts between the state agency and a small business a list of all contracts of the state agency that include a subcontract with the small business and their respective expiration dates the total number amount of each contract, including charge orders, and then finally, the total dollar amount paid to a small business under a contract or subcontract. By utilizing this data to ensure meaningful procurement participation, California can increase small businesses' and micro businesses' ability to compete. If I could just share one example for you. When I was in my hiatus in between doing public service, I worked with a company to help them develop their federal contracts.
And one of the best ways that a small business can begin to get a government contract is to do a subcontract to the prime contractor. And when you have this kind of information as a small business, you can then anticipate and go to that prime contractor and say, hey, I can fulfill 10% of your contract, and thereby help you to meet your participation goals. But if they don't have the information of what the amount is, what the contract is, what the term is, all of those details, it really hinders a small business from being able to effectively participate in the future procurement process. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And we don't have a lead witness. Correct? No. Okay.
Do we have lead opposition? Do we have any support or oppose, witnesses? In the me too's, again, state your name, your organization, and that you support and oppose. No additional commentary.
Speaker 3
Good morning. I'm Regina Evans, chief of staff to controller Malia Cohen, who's the sponsor of this bill. Unless you have questions, I think the senator clearly delineated what we're trying to accomplish here. You, in passing a b twenty nineteen, set the standard across state government for all state agencies and departments to have a 25% contracting goal, this bill just goes a step further. Not only do we have to report that we're entering into those contracts, but now we're gonna capture actual payment, which is huge and a step in the right direction.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Do we have any other me too's? Seeing none, we're gonna turn it over to committee. Committee, team, nobody?
All right, senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahab aye. Choi?
Speaker 17
Choi aye. Archeletta? Aye. Archeletta? Adeguin?
Cabrera? Aye. Cabrera aye. Grayson? Aye.
Grayson aye. Menjivar aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo aye.
Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland? Aye. Strickland aye. Could
Speaker 1
Alright. That bill is on call. Senator, I do appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you for having me.
We are gonna move on to file item number one, s b nine zero three by senator Padilla.
Speaker 23
All right. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Pleased to present SB903. I'd like to begin by thanking the chair and staff for working with us on this bill. As many of you already know, artificial intelligence has many upsides and potential to improve the lives of Californians across our state, but only if we ensure that it is used responsibly.
AI has been integrated into many industries, with great promise to expand capacity and assist with efficiency and tasks. In an industry with its high stakes, as the practice of mental health treatment, we must ensure that adequate guardrails are in place to prevent these algorithms from being deployed in a way that is potentially harmful to patients. We've already seen some real world consequences of inadvertently irregular AI in mental health care, with chat bots powered by AI algorithms on the market claiming to provide therapy or therapeutic services. Websites where these bots are available often use taglines like, and I quote, 20 fourseven AI Therapist, always at your fingertips, unquote, or quote, AI therapy in your pocket, literally, and claim even to go as far as to provide cognitive behavioral therapy. Many people, including children, have turned to these chatbots for mental health support.
However, there's a growing body of research that shows that these tools can do more harm than good. A recent Stanford University study found that AI therapy chatbots may not only lack effectiveness compared to human therapists, but could also contribute to harmful stigma and dangerous responses. Clinicians, very large and growing number of clinicians, are raising concerns that chatbot therapists pose data and privacy concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause client overreliance, give incorrect treatment recommendations, and have the inability to detect subtle communication cues such as tone and eye contact. Last year, I authored SB five seventy nine, which would have created a working group to assess the ways in which AI is used in mental health treatment and establish best practices. While that bill did not progress, we continue to see the dangers the data set that point to dangers growing and expanding.
In fact, many other states have looked to this same issue. Last year, the Illinois legislature passed the Wellness and Oversight of Psychological Resources Act, which prohibited the advertisement or offering of psychotherapy services if they're not being conducted by an individual who's a licensed clinician or professional, and also set clear legal guardrails protecting mental health care from unregulated artificial intelligence use. This bill would build off this model and protect individuals seeking therapy or psychotherapy services by ensuring they are only provided by a qualified licensed professional, not an algorithm. SB903 sets standards for use in therapeutic practice and settings by requiring disclosure and affirmative informed consent, and always keeping a human in the supervisory loop. The bill would also reinforce that use of AI tech in psychotherapy records must comply with already existing confidentiality laws.
AI has the potential to increase clinical capacity, but only if it is utilized in a way that does no harm. It draws a clear line. It can be a tool in the hands of licensed professionals, but it cannot be the professional. Joining me today to testify is Ilana Marcucci Morris, a licensed clinical social worker at Kaiser Permanente, here today representing the National Union of Healthcare Workers, and Tyler Rinde, representing the California Psychological Association.
Speaker 32
Good morning, Chair and Committee members. My name is Alana Marcucci Morris. I'm a licensed clinical social worker at the National Union of Healthcare Workers and proud co sponsor of SB903. The important healing work that professionals like me provide cannot be replicated by technology because empathy is fundamentally human. If you ever have felt assured or healed by another person's empathy, you know that AI mimicking those same words would not produce the same effect.
Speaker 24
Effect. We returned from Zoom post pandemic because human connection is irreplaceable. One of the specific dangers that SB nine zero three will protect against is bias. AI has the potential to supercharge bias and discriminatory patient treatment. A growing body of evidence shows that AI is biased against non English speaking and non Western cultures.
In fact, a recent study found that large language models often propose inferior treatments for minority patients when their race is indicated. NUHW clinicians have already seen AI technology implemented in our workplaces, and we've already seen cases where AI is recommending the wrong type of treatment for our patients. These are two things that I two more things that I, as a human practitioner, have that AI does not is anxiety and accountability. Through training, I use my human anxiety to identify safety threats to my patients. And as a licensed professional, I am accountable to the state.
SB nine zero three protects patients by ensuring that a licensed human professional is always in the loop. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Ms. Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 26
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Tyra Rindi on behalf of the California Psychological Association. We represent over 2,000 licensed psychologists and are proud co sponsors of SB nine zero three by Senator Padilla. We're grateful for Senator Padilla's commitment to protecting Californians and appreciate the thoughtful analysis by the committee. SB nine zero three establishes clear, reasonable standards to protect consumers as artificial intelligence enters the mental health space.
Speaker 25
Increasingly, individuals are encountering tools that resemble therapy but lack the training, accountability, and ethical obligations of licensed professionals. This bill ensures that care remains safe and regulated to protect consumers. Critically, as had already been stated, SB903 remains maintains a human in the loop. AI can support care, but it cannot replace the clinical judgment or responsibility of a licensed provider. The bill requires professional oversight and prevents AI from acting independently in delivering mental health services.
AI is a new and rapidly evolving technology, and thoughtful guardrails are necessary now to protect patients while allowing innovation to continue. We also want to note that the cosponsors are committed to working with the stakeholders to continue conversations on concerns that have been raised. For these reasons, we respectfully ask your aye vote on SB nine zero three. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? You'll each have two minutes.
Speaker 12
Morning, chairing members. My name is Doctor. Karthik Sarma, and I practice psychiatry, including psychotherapy, at UCSF, San Francisco General, and the VA. I'm the founder of the UCSF AI Mental Health Research Group, and I'm here representing the California Medical Association. CMA is respectfully opposed unless amended to SBIC-nine zero three.
We appreciate this bill's intent to protect Californians from untested, unapproved, and potentially unsafe AI applications, and we welcome the recent amendments on consent and enforcement. We look forward to continuing to work together. We believe that when thoughtfully implemented, AI can enhance rather than replace clinical decision making. As currently drafted, however, SB nine zero three risks creating unintended consequences that may lead to worse mental health outcomes for Californians. Some of the bill's definitions are overly broad and unclear.
Speaker 5
For example, the definition of psychotherapeutic communication may cover compassionate statements in almost any context. Psychotherapy is a planned, structured, skilled, and deliberate clinical intervention, not simply the offering of empathy. Without clarity, clinicians will face uncertainty about what technologies are permissible and potentially discouraging the use of beneficial tools. These broad definitions could restrict appropriate evidence based digital tools today, such as the VA CBTI coach for insomnia, and would potentially bar future AI digital therapeutics that complete clinical trials and receive FDA approval. Broadly restricting tools that detect emotions or mental states could also bar current tools that assess suicide risk and stop crucial research into accelerating diagnosis and improving treatment.
Speaker 12
Similarly, banning all training on psychotherapy data, even when collected in research studies with consent, could bar the development of scientific deep brain models intended to understand disorders like autism, dementia, and schizophrenia. We recommend amendments that would focus on barring the use of untested and unapproved devices that purport to treat mental illness without convincing evidence of safety and efficacy, remove or revise multiple definitions listed in the bill, and provide explicit language that would allow for ethical research and development, overseen by IRBs. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Speaker 2
Robert Good morning, Chair members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet. I am here today to respectfully oppose SB nine zero three unless it is amended. While we appreciate the author's engagement and the goal of ensuring safe, clinician led care, we feel the bill, as recently amended, would significantly restrict beneficial uses of AI in health care. First, even when a licensed professional remains fully responsible, the bill would limit widely used tools such as patient check ins, journaling, and workflow support that improve continuity of care.
As noted in community analysis, these tools are increasingly being used to expand access and reduce stigmas around mental health care. Second, the bill creates internal conflicts and operational challenges, mainly around triage and screening. One section allows AI use with consent, while another effectively prohibits the core function of triage, accessing symptoms and determining care needs. In practice, this could require providers to unwind structures already deployed across the healthcare ecosystem. The committee analysis itself flags this ambiguity and suggests further clarification is needed.
Speaker 34
Third, certain provisions may undermine patient safety and innovation. For example, the prohibition on detecting emotional or mental states conflicts with other policies regulating AI that rely on these capabilities to identify self risk. And a blanket restriction on using data to improve systems can hinder efforts to develop safer, more effective tools. Lastly, we agree with the author that AI should not be advertised as replacing licensed professionals. However, AI tools, when responsibly deployed in a clear and consistent manner, can help increase access to care.
Speaker 2
With that said, we look forward to working with the author, the sponsors, this committee, and the many stakeholders to ensure these tools remain available to support patients and providers throughout California. Thank you for your time today.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We're going to move on to Me Toos. Either state your name, your org, and whether you support or oppose.
Speaker 27
Morning, Chair. Jorge Cruz on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association, proud to co sponsor and strong support.
Carol O'Hunter, on behalf of Teladoc Health. We align our comments with those who are opposed, unless amended. Look forward to working with the author on those.
Speaker 9
Good morning. Samaya Nehaar on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, one of the proud cosponsors of the bill, strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Hi, good morning. Mark Farooq on behalf of the California Hospital Association. Oppose unless submitted, but did want to thank the author, the staff, and sponsors for the ongoing discussions and the amendments. Look forward to talking more. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Alex Alaniz on behalf of the American Nurses Association of California in support.
Speaker 24
Dennis Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Dennis Guillaume Stromeda with the California Primary Care Association Advocates. Really want to express appreciation to the author and staff. We were opposed unless amended. With those amendments, we're moving to our opposition.
Speaker 5
Good morning, Chair Members. Ruth Sosa on behalf of Power CA Action, representing 13,000 young adults across the state in strong support.
Speaker 29
Morning, Chair Members. Elmer Lazardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Speaker 30
Senator Padilla, one of the things that my wife talks to me all the time is about how, well, one, on social media, you know, she dislikes people providing mental health advice with a not even licensed clinical therapists. Talks about how chatbots are being used to provide therapy and so forth. These are issues that are brought up a lot often in my home. But she also talks to me about how writing notes and documentation, she hates it. All new therapists, all therapists here, it's a lot of time that it's taken.
And she gets distracted from watching our shows. I'm just kidding, though. No. She's not. She's definitely not watching.
No. In all seriousness, I'm wondering if this would preclude therapists from using AI to streamline their note taking after a session. Because it's not providing the therapy for them, but it helps them. I know that takes a huge chunk of their time.
Speaker 23
Doctor. Madam Chair, Senator, thank you for the great question. I would argue no, although I would acknowledge, and for the benefit of the entire committee members, that we are working actively with those who have some critique of the existing definitions and language because it's clearly our intent not to affect pure administrative support that reduces timeliness, responsiveness, clarity, efficiency, all about that. I think what we are trying to get at and I would argue we're fairly clear about it in the draft language is that we're addressing therapeutic communications, therapeutic and supportive dynamics between a clinician and a patient in a clinical setting, in a psychotherapeutic setting. That's what we're getting at.
We always want a human in the loop. We want to we're all about helping support efficiency. But as the committee is well aware, as we speak, as we sit here today, a lot of these services are, in fact, being advertised in an online setting as psychotherapy, as clinical setting support, and not at all involving a licensed professional.
Speaker 30
100% agree with that. Is that part of I know opposition mentioned they're going to be working on some clarity and amendments to the gentleman. I'm wondering if that's the clarity that's needed. And tie into, I know opposition mentioned, like journaling that helps with therapy. Is that also something, since it's not the direct providing, that's going to be clear?
Speaker 23
Great. Thank you for the follow-up, Madam Chair. Senator, the bill draft provides specifically that if A. I. Technology is going to be deployed in a clinical setting for simply recording or note taking or other memorializing of the session, it requires notice and informed consent.
It is just strengthening that so that the patient is in the loop and the doctor is in the loop, everybody is understanding how, what, and to what extent AI is being deployed in a clinical setting or in a therapy session.
Speaker 30
And see if I understood correctly, one of the opposition's letter I read please clarify, Senator that there's conflicting information where it allows for FDA approved AI to be used, but your bill also says no FDA approved. So I just wondered if you can comment on that.
Speaker 23
Madam Chair, Senator, I need to clarify a little bit of that myself because I take a little bit of issue with that. And so we will provide that. That is not my understanding. But another inconsistency while you have it, there was another critique in the same letter that addressed language in SB two forty three Your bill. That my bill that the Governor signed last year.
And I just want to point out, this bill addresses an entirely different scenario. That bill deals with a vulnerable or a minor person in the open online market engaging with an algorithm and putting inputs into the conversation that should be flagged and trigger protocols to protect that individual. This bill, again, specifically addresses the clinical therapeutic setting. This is getting at somebody who's engaging with a bot or with an algorithm that very well could be easily misunderstood that they're engaging with a licensed psychotherapist, and they're not.
Speaker 30
If I can, Madam Chair, ask one of the oppositions if they could clarify, see if I understood correctly, on the FDA approved tools, and if I did not understand that correctly.
Speaker 12
Senator Karthik Sharma, again, from CMA. I'm not 100 sure I understood the question, but I think I did make reference to FDA in that our concern was that the bill doesn't create an opportunity for an FDA approved application to be able to be used. It bans all such applications. We feel that we should be able to use research based, safe, and effective FDA approved tools.
Speaker 30
Okay. Maybe that's what how I missed the question. Can I rephrase to can you address that, Senator?
Speaker 23
Madam Chair, Senator, thank you for the clarification. Thanks to my staff and to the opposition witness that we're going to continue working with them to make sure that we're aligning the regulatory framework so that we're not creating an opposing framework that's inconsistent with the federal guidelines.
Speaker 30
Really aligned with what you're doing, Senator. I think as we move as you move forward, I would love to make sure that there's ability for licensed clinicians to be able to use some tools that help streamline the administrative aspect of their work. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with what you're trying to do, I think. You stated that AI can be a tool, a valuable tool in the hands of a licensed professional. I agree with that. And there we always want a human in the loop.
I agree that the chatbots are problematic, at least. My concern about that though is, as an example, Abby, the AI therapist, I thought that was pretty clever, and there's several others there too. If that is a platform that is originating outside of California or even outside the country, there's no way we can enforce that. And I I think that's not a problem with this bill. I'm just pointing that out with the with the ubiquitousness of the Internet.
Speaker 31
This is one thing that always concerns me with regard to regulations of artificial intelligence or anything else on the Internet, if it originates particularly outside the country, there isn't anything we can do about it. And I'm at least I don't know what it is we can do about it that concerns me about regulation in this area generally. But the bill states that it can be used for administrative support and supplementary support, and we talked a little bit with Senator Mengevar about that. It also says that it prohibits it from allowing artificial intelligence to do any of the following. And it says to generate therapeutic recommendations, assessment results, diagnoses, or treatment plans without review and approval by the licensed professional.
Speaker 20
In other words, it can be used for those things if utilized by the licensed professional and that's the human that's in the loop. It's unclear to me if this bill allows a therapist to utilize artificial intelligence to help him or her in their assessment of an issue and therefore to assist them in coming up with a treatment plan. That would be no different than going to the library and researching it. I don't think we're outlining that. So it's not clear to me exactly what your bill does or doesn't allow.
Speaker 23
Madam Chair, Senator, thanks for the great question. I would respond to say that the language in the bill that you just cited and the characterization from the analysis is correct. It is the intent clearly, and perhaps we can continue massaging the language as we work stakeholders to make it even, you know, more effectively clear, is that the scenario described is fine. I mean, fundamentally, to really boil it down to its most rudimentary is, you want to keep a licensed clinician, a licensed professional in the loop, a human being, to oversee. There's we're not taking issue with the fact that there can be some added value or utility here by the deployment of this technology.
We're not saying that. We're saying that it has to be contextually regulated around making sure we're protecting that the patients by making sure that the oversight is by a licensed professional, and that they are in the loop. Now, our language may be imperfect, and to your point, we may need to continue working to perfect it, and we will do so. But the answer the simple answer to your question
Speaker 20
is yes. It's really important that the language is explicit and even, I would say, perfect because if we have regulations specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence And if it's not crystal clear, even with consent, subsequent to treatment, if a patient was dissatisfied, an action could be taken against that therapist based upon a violation of law merely because the law isn't clear enough. So I would just emphasize, I'll support this now, but I don't think it's clear enough at this point.
Speaker 23
Madam Chair, Senator, I hear you loud and clear. And I think to the opposition testimony from CNA, I think I see that coming through in a lot of their testimony as well. And we're sensitive to those concerns, we're going to continue working. Thank
Speaker 18
Thank you. I also have some clear points with this peer language because you are emphasizing that no AI shall be used in therapeutic settings and for the treatment of the patient. That's not the case, But the licensed practitioner cannot use AI data at all in concert before the giving the treatment. It has to be solely in his or her judgment. Is that what the concern is?
Madam Chair, Senator, if I
Speaker 23
might, no, that is not. And let me clarify if I didn't do a good enough job earlier. The bill does not restrict the use of A. I. In any fashion in a therapeutic or clinical setting.
What it seeks to do is be sure that a licensed clinical professional clinician is in the loop of that. If you're talking about assessing a patient, even remotely, if you're talking about some degree of triage of a patient's condition, that always involves an element of some preliminary diagnostic or other assessment skills that can't be replicated by an algorithm absent a human being who is a licensed clinician. And so the goal of the bill is to be sure that we're protecting services and quality and licensure, the quality of licensure, frankly, that we require any professional to go through to be able to practice, that if they're going to use and deploy AI tools, that that be transparent, that there be informed consent about how it's deployed, and that a licensed human clinician is in the loop supervised. So the bill does not prohibit the use of AI in treatment or supportive role of treatment. It just seeks to be sure that it is appropriately supervised by a licensed professional.
Speaker 18
Yeah, even though what I know of very little AI is that the very advanced is not perfect. When I use it interactively, sometimes I find a lot of wrong information and then I provide the correct answer and it apologizes, I'm sorry. So obviously it's not perfect, but it's a developing stage. So we are but at the same time, it is a very efficient and it is based upon huge data that has collected even though it's not perfect. So obviously, at this stage, it's not acting as AI as a humanoid, not pretending I'm the doctor that the AI is a true true trying to treat.
But the summary says that it's prohibiting the individual or corporations or entity from providing advertising or otherwise offering cycle therapy service, including through the use of artificial intelligence to the public unless psychotherapy is conducted by licensed professionals. Obviously, AI is used by professionals. AI itself is not acting by itself. So it is we are directing, we are utilizing it either for advertising or anything else, but treating in the therapeutic setting, I thought that this bill was trying to prohibit that, but now we can allow the professionals to use AI. So that's the point where your bill is unclear to me.
Madam Chair, thank you, Senator.
Speaker 23
Let me try clarifying again. First, I would respectfully disagree in that right now as we sit in committee, the there are plenty of examples of interactions with chat bots and algorithms online being advertised to consumers as access to psychotherapy. And oftentimes, people are very easily misled that they think they're communicating with a licensed human professional, and they are, in fact, not. In many cases, some of the studies have shown some of the feedbacks and communication from the algorithm to the prospective patient is conducting itself in the conversation as if it were practicing psychotherapy. So we draw a distinction here between and you're correct, Senator, that right now it is deployed and used in a supportive role to help clinicians and therapists administratively, efficiencies, record keeping.
The bill does not prohibit that at all. It doesn't put a blanket prohibition on the use or deployment of A. I. In these settings. What it simply said is you have to have clarity, informed consent, and you have to have a licensed professional in the loop.
And that's what we seek to do. But right now, there are people accessing these services who think they're actually in a psychotherapeutic setting, and they're really not, because an AI chatbot cannot legally practice psychotherapy. I don't think most of us would want them to be, at least I
Speaker 18
hope not. Can I follow-up on your question? Has there been any real cases that this has become a problem for using AI independently and the decision was made AI not by interpreting by the licensed practitioners in commanding AI to provide that information. Has there been any actual setting problem? Why?
What prompted this bill? That's the really confusing part.
Speaker 23
Madam Chair, Senator, I would refer you again to my presentation of the bill, and I would refer you we can get to your office, the Stanford study that I cited. But there's a growing data set and body of evidence that shows that that is sometimes unfortunately happening, and it is not leading to healthy outcomes.
Speaker 1
So I just want to be very clear, again, to the public. This is going to be referred out to the senate committee on privacy, digital technology, consumer protection. I also wanna highlight that therapists are able to use AI tools, to potentially help with note taking and speeding up the administrative process. However, very, very well documented that AI has significant limitations on emotional intelligence and interpreting what is said by a human being, especially in a vulnerable state. Our goal here, and I I wanna be very clear, is we all know the significant demand for mental health and behavioral health services that our state faces, and we're all working to close gaps in providing quality care.
Speaker 8
We know that there has to be a balance with all of the various methods that services can be provided with the protection of patients receiving those services. Senator Padilla, I know that you will be continuing to work with stakeholders to support the important role of trained and licensed clinicians, that play in our increasingly digital marketplace. But with any bills, I continue to monitor the discussion, with an eye toward, and I wanna be very, very clear, consumer and public protection that also reflects the significant value of innovation, to these technologies. I also wanna be very clear about this as well. There have been well documented cases across this nation where there have been individuals thinking that they are talking to a legitimate therapist when they are not.
Speaker 1
Some have committed suicide. Again, very well documented. Our goal as policymakers is to not stifle innovation, but genuinely put up safeguards that protect the individual, the human being first. And I think that that is has been our approach when talking about artificial intelligence in this building as well as technology in general. So I've consistently said this, humans first, and we are gonna work on this.
So senator, would you like to close, please?
Speaker 23
Thank you very much, madam chair. Again, I'll just reiterate, we are committed to continue working diligently with all the stakeholders and would respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed to Senate Privacy Digital Digital Technology and Consumer Protection Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye. Choi?
Speaker 17
Choi, aye. Archuleta, Archuleta, aye. Adeguin Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Grayson, aye. Mengevar? Aye. Mengevar, aye. Nilo, Nilo, aye.
Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland, Aye.
Speaker 1
Strickland, aye. Hamburg. And committee members I'm sorry. That bill is on call.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I I just wanna remind all the committee members to keep your questions pretty concise. We have a number of bills still before us. We're gonna move on to file item number four, senator Reyes with s b twelve seventy one. And for folks, again, the lead and opposition witnesses in support and opposition, two minutes.
You will be timed. The me too's, if you guys can line up pretty quickly, state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose. No additional commentary, please. So, Senator Reyes, if you would like to begin.
Speaker 27
Thank you, madam chair and members. Thank you for this opportunity to present SB twelve seventy one, which strengthens California's California's midwifery training pipeline by collecting data on the capacity of licensed midwives to service preceptors who can train incoming students. This data would be shared with the Department of Health of Health Care Access and Information to comply to compile a report to the legislature. Midwives are perinatal health professionals who provide community based support services, including maternity, newborn, and postpartum care to ensure a positive birthing experience. Research from the Yale School of Medicine found that first time mothers with a midwife on their care team were seventy four percent less likely to have their labor induced, seventy five percent less likely to receive oxytocin augmentation, and twelve percent less likely to have a cesarean birth.
These outcomes clearly demonstrate how effective midwives are at reducing unnecessary intervention during labor and improving maternal health. California has taken steps to improve visibility on this workforce by collecting demographic data on midwives. However, critical gaps persist in maintaining the clinical training infrastructure that sustains the grow and grows the profession. To become licensed, midwives must undergo a period of supervised clinical training known as preceptorship. Midwife preceptors are experienced maternity providers who play a critical role in training, mentoring, and supervising aspiring midwives, bridging their academic learning with hands on experience.
However, the severe lack of available preceptors and limited methods to find them have left students to navigate a broken system on their own. As a result, many trainees re rely on out of state programs to earn their credentials. This disaggregated pathway continues to undermine efforts to build a diverse community rooted midwifery workforce capable of delivering service to high need regions across the state. SB twelve seventy one addresses this issue by leveraging the state's current data collection on midwives to include questions about the eligibility, availability, capacity, practice setting, and barriers to precepting qualified midwives or to precepting that qualified midwives are facing. This voluntary survey conducted by initial certification or at the time of renewal will ensure we have data informed metrics that help us remove barriers to preceptorship and strengthen the midwifery training pipeline.
Here to testify in support are Yuli Smith, a practicing midwife preceptor on behalf of a round birth collective, and Esperanza Mendez, an active doula from the Coachella Valley who works for Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Yuli Smith, and I am a licensed midwife and currently serve as a preceptor. I am here in support of SB twelve seventy one on behalf of the Round Birth Collective. Licensed midwives, or LMs, are healthcare providers regulated by the Medical Board of California who complete accredited education, extensive supervised clinical training, and national certification. We provide care for low risk individuals and center our work on maintaining clients' low risk health status.
Speaker 31
Midwife led care produces excellent outcomes: lower cesarean rates, fewer NICU admissions, lower costs, and higher breastfeeding rates. Each year, seventy Californians die largely from preventable pregnancy related deaths. LMs are an underutilized tool to address this crisis. Yet, with only 500 licensed midwives statewide, we face a serious workforce bottleneck. Students cannot become LMs without supervised clinical training provided by practicing midwives who serve as preceptors.
Currently, we lack reliable data on how licensed midwives are willing or able to train students where they're located or what barriers prevent them from doing so. This bill addresses that gap simply and responsibly, adding targeted questions to existing license renewal about the preceptor's capacity. Participation is voluntary, non punitive, and without expansion of scope or regulatory burdens. It gives the state information needed to strengthen the training pipelines. As a student midwife, I had to drive three hours in each direction because a qualified preceptor was not available where I lived in rural North County San Diego.
Many students face similar barriers today. Without preceptors, we cannot train new midwives. Without training pathways, we cannot grow or diversify the workforce. Without workforce growth, families will continue to face limited access to safe maternity care. I respectfully urge your support for SB twelve seventy one.
Speaker 32
Good morning, Madam Chair and community members. Thank you, senator Reyes. My name is Esperanza Mendez. I work for Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, which serves San Diego, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. I'm also a full spectrum doula serving rural Coachella Valley, and I'm also an aspiring licensed midwife.
I'm here today to speak in strong support of s B1271. I represent not only myself as an aspiring midwife, but also the birthing families in my rural community who are currently facing a crisis of access. I have been a full spectrum doula serving Riverside County's more rural populations for nearly a decade. I have witnessed the physical and emotional toll that perinatal deserts take on families and birthing people. Many of my clients come from the Eastern Coachella Valley where I was raised and frequently have to drive anywhere from thirty to sixty minutes while in active labor to get the obstetric care that they need.
Since 2012, nearly 60 hospitals and labor and delivery units have, across California have closed. Excuse me. My neighbors to the south in El Centro have seen hospitals and birthing facilities shuttering due to staffing shortages and funding cuts. These closures turn rural areas into birth deserts. California labor and delivery units are closing at a rate three times faster than other parts of the country.
Speaker 28
When hospitals close, community based midwives are the only safety net left, Yet our current training pipeline is too weak to sustain them. Currently, there is one licensed midwife local to my area, and as you can imagine, she's at capacity. This creates an impossible scenario for students like me. We are forced to delay our education, travel hundreds of miles, or abandon the profession entirely. We cannot improve birth outcomes if we don't have the providers to attend births.
Speaker 32
By mapping preceptor capacity and targeting the training pipeline for rural students, SB1271 ensures that every birth desert in California can grow.
Speaker 1
Ms. Really appreciate it. Any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none, Me Toos, both in support and opposition? Seeing none.
Committee members, would you guys like to make a comment? Senator Caballero.
Speaker 33
Very briefly, I move the bill, and this is a budget issue. I think we need to put money into services that women need. And thank you for doing this. We've gotta find alternatives because she's absolutely right. We're closing labor and delivery rooms all over the state.
It's unacceptable. Hear. Hear.
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed to senate health committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi?
Speaker 17
Choi, aye. Archeleta, aye. Archeleta, aye. Adegaine? Cabriero?
Aye. Cabriero, Grayson? Menger, aye. Menger, aye. Nilo, aye.
Nilo, aye. Smallwood Quavis, aye. Smallwood Quavis, Strickland. I. Strickland, Enberg.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. That bill's on call. Again, thank you very much. Senator Reyes, file item number five, s B1327. Whenever you'd like to begin.
Speaker 27
Thank you, madam chair. SB thirteen twenty seven would shift authority on EV charging accuracy from the Department of Food and Agriculture's Division of Measurements Standards to the California Energy Commission. California has established ambitious climate goals, including reaching one hundred percent zero emission vehicle sales by 2035 and having 5,000,000 emission vehicles on the road by 2030. Meeting these targets depends on a charging network that is accessible, accurate, and easy to deploy. Under current law, EV chargers that sell electricity as a transportation fuel are treated as commercial measuring devices similar to gas pumps.
This places them under CDFA's Weights and Measures Division to ensure consumers are charged accurately. However, stakeholders report that this system is unevenly enforced across counties, is costly, and difficult to scale. Over the years, the legislature has attempted to resolve this issue by simply by, simply put, the existing the existing process by which these charges charges are regulated that does not work and slow slowing EV charger deployment at a time when the state needs rapid expansion. As the state's leading agency on EV infrastructure, the California Energy Commission, also known as the CEC, is better positioned to oversee this work. Over the last several years, the legislature has provided the CEC's fuels and transportation division with primary regulatory responsibility for EV chargers, including authority over charger reliability, charger inventory data, payment methods, and networking roaming network roaming.
For example, the CEC's recently adopted charger reliability regulations require inventory reporting on all publicly installed chargers and require chargers that have received public funding to maintain 97% reliability and report charger status in real time. The CEC's Office of Compliance Assistance and Enforcement regulates, sets standards, monitors compliance, and takes enforcement action to ensure chargers meet the required standards. This bill does not eliminate consumer protections. Instead, it consolidates oversight of EV charging accuracy within the agency already regulating chargers in almost every other capacity. The CEC would have until 07/01/2027 to develop regulations, and CDFA's regulations would stay in place until the CEC develops theirs.
Maintaining CDFA's authority during this period ensures there is no gap in oversight and that consumers continue to be protected throughout the handoff. CEC's rulemaking process will incorporate stakeholder input and build on lessons learned from the existing framework to strengthen accountability and safeguard consumers. Here to testify on the bill today are Reid Ellis Reid Addis on behalf of the EV Charging Association, and Zach Acquardi on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Two minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank thank you, chair and members. Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. SB thirteen twenty seven weaves consumer protection, reliability, and climate goals together in a comprehensive manner by charging the CEC with oversight. The CEC has decades of experience in energy and transportation policy, and, more recently, the legislature has tasked the CEC with overseeing EV infrastructure deployment, maintaining statewide charger data, and setting technical standards. This bill simply aligns consumer protection with the agency that already understands how this technology works.
Speaker 29
The reason this is important is at least threefold: One, chargers are coming offline due to minor labeling issues, not metering problems. The current system has stranded employees who rely on workplace chargers and tenants living in apartments from using charging in their complexes. Chargers must often be tested on-site using specialized equipment that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Taken together, these issues create a confusing and fragmented system across 58 counties that increases the cost and reduces charger availability. Furthermore, this bill does not reduce consumer protections, it strengthens them.
Speaker 8
It requires the CEC to adopt enforceable standards, conduct inspections, and respond to complaints with no gap during the transition. This is not about avoiding oversight it's about putting oversight in the right place for modern network technology. California needs to deploy roughly 400 chargers per day to meet its goal of 1,000,000 chargers. We cannot do that under a system that is inconsistent, costly, and unpredictable. SB1327 is a practical fix that maintains strong consumer protections while enabling while enabling the scale we need.
We respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 29
Morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Zach O'Carty. I'm here on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council in support of SB1327. NRDC comes to this bill as an organization that wants to see EV adoption succeed and who understands the conditions necessary for that success. So one of those conditions is that Californians must be able to trust and rely on public charging infrastructure no matter where their travels bring them.
Simply put, that trust can only be cultivated by charging stations that deliver the amount of electricity that consumers purchase. The other is that EV infrastructure must be built at the speed and scale necessary to enable the state zero emissions vehicle transition. The existing unworkable regulatory framework that is an impediment to rapid charging network buildout must be modernized and so that it can be implemented. This bill would move the state closer to meeting those goals by ensuring that the technical standards and regulatory oversight needed are made implementable and then implemented by the institution with the right expertise to do so. Transportation, as many of you know, is California's largest source of climate pollution, and the transition to zero emission vehicles is central to the state's strategy for addressing it.
Speaker 16
Drivers who have negative or confusing experiences at public charges are less likely to rely on public charging networks and that hesitation has real consequences for zero emissions vehicle adoption rates. Imagine paying for a full vehicle charge, for example, and then departing only to find your battery half full. A frustrating and unfair experience that would surely reduce your enthusiasm for clean vehicles. California and the private industry have made substantial investments to support EV charger deployment. Ensuring these chargers are accurate and that consumers have recourse when they're not accurate is a necessary complement to those investments.
Speaker 29
The state cannot ask residents to make that transition to electric vehicles while leaving them with inaccurate infrastructure, and we can't achieve our climate goals without rapidly transitioning to electric vehicles.
Speaker 1
Appreciate it. Seeing opposition witnesses, you have two minutes. Opposition.
Speaker 10
Good morning, miss miss chair and members. Matthew Seiberling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Seaholders Association, respectfully opposed s b thirteen twenty seven. California already has a strong uniform and time tested system to ensure accuracy in all commercial weighing and measuring devices, including EV chargers. County sealers of weights and measures operating under CDFA and DMS conduct inspections, testing and enforcement across all 58 counties in every corner of the state. They ensure that when consumers pay for a product, whether it's gasoline, groceries or electricity, they receive exactly what they paid for while also maintaining competitive fairness in the marketplace.
Speaker 4
SB thirteen twenty seven would carve out EV charging equipment from this well established system and shift oversight to the California Energy Commission, an agency that does not administer or enforce weights and measures laws. In doing so, the bill breaks from a century old regulatory framework that has been proven effective and removes these devices from the program specifically designed to ensure measurement accuracy. This proposal also creates unnecessary duplication. The state already has a well developed process for type evaluation of commercial devices, adoption of acceptable accuracy tolerances, and clear specifications and certification of commercial measuring devices through CDFA. These are not just state standards, they're actually nationally adopted uniform standards.
Speaker 10
Last year, Stealers conducted over 5,000 inspections of EV chargers resulting in 121 confirmed tolerance based violations. These are weights and measures violations that resulted in overcharges to consumers. Counties have also already invested over $3,200,000 thus far in the equipment necessary to regulate these devices. Equally important, it removes the local enforcement presence that consumers and businesses rely on. Over 400 trained, licensed county sealers are out in the field every day in all 58 counties inspecting devices and responding promptly and directly to consumer complaints and ensuring compliance in real time.
In closing, county sealers are the non biased third party presence to ensure fairness in the marketplace.
Speaker 1
you. Next speaker. All right. Seeing none, Me Toos in support or opposition. State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Julie Malinowski, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.
Speaker 9
Jennifer Aguilar, on behalf of San Mateo County, in a position. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good morning, Madam Chair. Beacon Murray with the Weidmann Group on behalf of Electrify America in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have any others? Seeing none, committee members. Senator Caballo.
Speaker 33
So I just wanna make sure that I mean, this makes logical sense, but I'm concerned with the work that's done at the local level. There should be no impact by just moving the state workload over to the CEC. And that's my take on it. Number one is it won't increase costs. And number two, it's not something that's going to create this whole regulatory framework, is it?
Speaker 27
It's not. And let's have let me have my witness answer the question in greater detail. But thank you for the question, Senator. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Senator Yeah. Hi, Senator Reid Addison, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. We're in support of the measure because we think it clearly allows the CEC to undergo a regulatory process that would involve all the stakeholders here today to make sure that we have a statewide set of standards, and that we're enforcing each county in a standardized way. For example, today, Orange County is enforcing Los Angeles County isn't. That's an example of these differences.
So, our hope is that the CDC will go through a robust process to do that.
Speaker 33
Here's my concern, is that people are really sensitive to cost drivers. And I've got to assume that by making this shift, we're not going to be increasing costs unnecessarily at a time where maybe four years down the road or five years down the road, it might be a better time to do it. I'm so
Speaker 8
Sorry. Nancy I maybe misunderstood where you were going with your question, Senator. Yes, our understanding is there would be no extra workload here. We're just simply transferring some of the activities from one agency to another.
Speaker 30
In the stakeholder process you're be gathering, do you envision or or the senator that the sealers are still gonna play a role?
Speaker 8
Absolutely. Though I can't prejudge how the CEC will do that, but they're going to go through a stakeholder process with public input. My guess is, given some of the comments by the Sealers, they will be involved and want to provide their input.
Speaker 30
I understand that you're looking to standardize, which is really great. I'm wondering, if the problem is that the lack of enforcement across different counties, why not establish that standardization within the current process now instead of sending it over to the CEC?
Speaker 27
I'll I'll let the witness, give more details. But I think it's clear that as we're moving toward so much of it is already with the CEC. This is just one more thing that is going to be added to it. And in that stakeholder meeting that's going or the process that's going to be taking place, they are absolutely going to take into consideration the the the weights and measures personnel that has already been doing a lot of this work. There are two types of errors that are found.
One or the administrative errors that are found, but the other has to do with more issues. And we're finding that a lot of the issues are more administrative. Those are easily found by whoever is going to be regulating this. But let me have our witness give you greater detail.
Speaker 8
Yes, happy. The I think the issue is, right now, those we have no issues with county sealers. Want to be very clear. They are operating within the current system, as the system was designed. But as you heard them say, it was a system designed one hundred years ago.
What we're dealing with is a system that looks at a landline and how to regulate that, and we're in the iPhone era. All we're saying is that, today, the system says all the counties should be doing this equally, and they're not. So, the law already states that. We think, by having the CEC, who the legislature's already given regulatory authority to look at EV chargers, is a better place for them to make sure that standardization is occurring, it's being done effectively, and not leaving consumers out?
Speaker 30
So I think it's ambitious to do the regulations in six months, if you're looking for public input. If we're looking to protect the consumers, I don't think six months allows for adequate public engagement in that process. I don't anticipate the regulations to be done in six months. I would ask that the author work on the date to give more time for the regulation. And while, sir, you've mentioned that goal is to work with all the stakeholders, there's nothing in the language that states that it's a requirement to consult or work with the I would also ask to make that clear in the language as well so that there is assurance that they their expertise would be taken into consideration for that.
And, senator, you I've seen your work. You are a defender of consumer consumer rights, But I still worry. In the analysis, it described a description of DMS, and their goal is to protect consumers. And the CEC's goal is to reach, energy goals regardless of consumer impact whatsoever. They've never had a history of doing that.
So I do have concerns that CSC is not prepared to both meet the goals and protect the consumers at the same time. This is a big bill, a huge shift. As you're navigating the process, I would ask that you continue to or add protections to consumers. I will be voting for this, but I still have some outstanding concerns. It'll be hard for me to vote for it again if I don't see any kind of protections added to the bill that do solidify some consumer protections.
Speaker 27
In our discussions with the CDC, that has been something that we have emphasized, and I am certain that that will be, as we move forward with this, it'll be clear. I earlier, I was trying to to to to share about the violations of existing the existing pry process. There are administrative, and then there are inaccurate charging. Those are two separate things that that are being reviewed. Most of what has been found are administrative inaccuracies as opposed to inaccurate charging, which is something that we're most concerned with, and we want to make sure that every county is included.
I'm sorry, senator. The second part of one was consumer protection. The other is to make sure that the county sealers are included in this discussion. Absolutely. And if that is not clear, we'll make sure that that is clear.
Thank you. They are an important part of this. They have been doing Bienaime: the work up to now, and there are lots of lessons to be learned from the work that they have done. Ms. Bienaime: And
Speaker 27
Yes. Very ambitious date. And there have been discussions with the CEC, and that may have to be worked on Okay. To give them more time. I think it is ambitious, but we'd like to begin with a date such as this, hoping that this can all be taken care of and the transition can can happen as smoothly as possible.
If more time is needed, then more time will be provided. Thank you, senator.
Speaker 1
Thank We're gonna, again, remind folks to ensure that comments are brief. Senator Strickland?
Speaker 21
I'm very concerned, with many aspects of this bill. It's not simple just to move from one agency to another. First of all, the sealers operate in all 58 counties. Does the CEC even have the capacity to do this work? That's number one.
Number two, who's going to do the on ground inspection enforcement within the CEC? Because I don't think they have the structure to do that. And if they start taking on this responsibility, going back to my colleague from the San Fernando Valley, it's a huge shift. Many times in my history is when there's a huge shift of, like this, what ends up happening is then the CEC was gonna come back to legislature, ask for more resources because now we shifted the money to their responsibility, and they're gonna ask us for more money. That's where the cost driver comes.
Speaker 25
And then if we do that, are we then gonna take money away from the sealers who do this currently? And because what usually happens is we leave the money with the sealers, and then we give the responsibility to the CEC. CEC asks us more money, and it ends up being a major cost driver. Those are, like, some of my concerns because it's not easy to just move from one agency to the other. So I know there's a lot of questions in there, but, like, really, is the CDC do they have local people in all 58 counties to do these kinds of inspections today?
Speaker 27
And, again, I'll defer to my witness, but that's what the stakeholder that's what initial evaluation is going to happen. And the stake the the county sealers are a great part of that. The work that they have done, I go back to the same thing. They the work they've been doing for years and years, it is going to provide the information that is needed by the CEC. As far as the future request for funding, that future request for funding can also come from the Department of Food and Agriculture for the work that the sealers the county sealers do.
But I think that as of now, there isn't going to be a shift in the request for the funding. It is just changing from the Department of Food and Agriculture to CEC. But if I may
Speaker 21
No, no. Yeah, but if I may, just on that note, aren't we already funding the sealers based on them doing this kind of work right now?
Speaker 8
Yes, Chair and members Reed Addis, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. We're not the sponsors of the measure. We're working with the various agencies in the center, so we don't know exactly how the CEC would roll out their process. However, right now, all 58 counties do have county sealers, and there is no standardized local enforcement. I think all we're trying to get at is to make sure the CDC, as it has its process, identifies how to make that standardized, and maybe this county sealers will actually be part of that.
I just don't know. So, we would actually argue this modernizes the enforcement. Uh-huh. It actually would allow a customer who has an issue to directly call a phone number, for example, for the state and have an issue
Speaker 21
are folks on the ground right now in the CEC? And does the CEC want this?
Speaker 8
I need to be careful on how exactly the CEC feels. I don't know, senator. But we've had conversations with the CEC, and we believe they're, an appropriate entity, and I think they have the expertise to handle this.
Speaker 21
But do they have people on the ground, and and are they requesting something like this and added to their responsibility, what they already have on their plate?
Speaker 8
Having, had conversations with the CEC on technical assistance to try to address the questions in the bill, we think that this absolutely builds upon the authority you've already given them over the last number of years to improve reliability in the electric vehicle charging space. So we think this is appropriate, and it works for them. I think I have to leave it at that on executive
Speaker 21
So can we say that this would be net neutral then, if we give more money to the responsibility, that it will be net neutral, then we'll just define what the sealers are doing and getting paid for right now.
Speaker 1
So before you answer that, I just want to be very clear. This is strictly about policy, I understand that some of it touches budget, but it will go through probes as well, and so I want those conversations to kind of be directed in probes. I will also highlight that typically the departments, unless they are fully, fully behind the bill, they will provide technical support and not necessarily weigh in on certain legislative, you know, requests.
Speaker 21
But Madam Chair, there's a lot of times we talk about policy. And yes, we just don't leave it always in this committee or in any other committee that we ignore the financial aspects. And
Speaker 21
colleagues just talked about the concern of cost on this bill. So that's why I was getting at that.
Speaker 1
And I understand we had two conversations. Let it kind of be at the surface level, but anything deeper in regards to cost and how much we're going to move and things like that needs to go through appropriations with a fiscal analysis tied to it. We actually have numbers and not estimates necessarily. But with that, if you have any other questions.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Madam Chair. On a policy perspective, my concern is that we are trying to fix an imperfect approach with an approach that I think will prove to be unworkable. And I say that because CEC currently, I strongly suspect, does not have the capacity to do this. Cost would be a discussion eventually, but capacity is truly a policy issue. And there's a conflict of missions.
Senator Renjavar mentioned that. I think that's an important distinction.
Speaker 20
is the CEC here? They are not. They are not. They're not here. Well, these are really important things with regard to their role in this, and they're not here to answer questions.
The simple question, do you have capacity? Now, again, I strongly suspect they do not. I have to assume that perhaps until they can address capacity maybe they would continue to have the existing entity perform the function. I don't know if that's the case, but I don't know how else it's going to be done. And if that's the answer to how do you provide capacity, it's well, the sealers are going to continue to do it.
What have we accomplished? It just again it seems to me we are moving from what is an imperfect approach to one that I think I fear will prove to be unworkable. And without the CEC here, we cannot assess that.
Speaker 1
So I I wanna be also clear that this bill, leaving this committee, will go through the energy committee. And five of us on this committee sit on that committee, so we will be able to ask a little bit more in-depth specifically. I do wanna highlight that we are trying to, again, talk about meeting our goals throughout the state. And if there's any other member that would like to comment, Senator Choi.
Speaker 18
Yeah. I also share, three, senators previously concerned. This bill, is trying to protect the consumers from inaccurate EV charges. I didn't really know that was the ongoing problem. Our support that notion, however, rather than this bill is not focusing on how to improve for accurate charges, but it's fundamentally changing the authority who's going run the program and from the existing CDFA to CEC, I think that is the all three, including myself, four senators' question is foiling to this problem.
Once we change the authority to auto agency, they have to start all over again. And how can you tell they will have accurate measurement methodology or implementation if we do not focus on that accuracy, accurate charge issue alone from the existing program. So that is my concern and I don't think today I can support it.
Speaker 27
I sincerely appreciate all of the comments both for and against And I appreciate the comments both from the witnesses in favor of and those who are opposed. I think that what we're trying to do is we're trying to is if the CC is already handling the broader EV infrastructure, They oversee other issues like EV charging reliability, an issue that I've worked on over the years, reporting data to the and also the reporting. So it makes sense to consolidate all oversight of EV chargers at the CEC. This robust regulatory program that we've talked about, where perhaps six months is not going to be sufficient, but during that time, we hope that they put together the regulations that are necessary, and it's not going to be starting all over again. It's looking at what has worked and what has not worked, which counties are being missed, which counties are being served, so that every single county in the state of California is served under this program.
And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed to Senate Energy Utilities and Communications Committee. Wahhab?
Speaker 17
Archuleta aye. Adegine? Cabrera? Aye. Cabrera aye.
Grayson? Aye. Grayson aye. Menjivar? Aye.
Menjivar aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Small with Quavis?
No. Small with Quavis, I. Strickland?
Speaker 1
Alright. That bill's on call. Thank you, senator. We're gonna move on to file item number eight, s b 1165 by senator Caballero. And since we have members here, can we just lift the call just real quick?
File item number one, SB nine zero three, call to absent members, please.
Speaker 12
File item number one, s b nine zero three. Motion is due to pass the senate privacy, digital technology, and consumer protections committee. Current vote is nine to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adeguin? Umberg?
Speaker 17
Item number two, s P936. Motion is due passed to senate appropriations committee. Current vote, seven to zero with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Adeguin? Grayson?
Aye. Grayson, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, I.
Hamburg? Aye. Hamburg, I.
Speaker 17
Motion is due to pass the Senate Health Committee. Current votes eight to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adeguin? Grayson? Aye.
Grayson, aye. Umberg? Aye. Umberg,
Speaker 17
Motion is due pass the Senate Energy Utilities and Communications Committee. Current vote six to three, with chair voting aye. Joy Adeguin? Aye. No.
Okay.
Speaker 1
Alright. That bill's on call. Moving on to file item number six. Richardson?
Speaker 17
Motion is due to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote six to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adeguin? Grayson? Aye.
Grayson, aye. Nilo? Smallwood Quavis? Smallwood Quavis, aye. Hamburg?
Aye. Hamburg, aye.
Speaker 17
Motion is due to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current votes nine to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adegaine? Hamburg? Aye.
Speaker 33
Let me start by accepting the committee's amendments, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB eleven sixty five, which improves tax compliance and promotes fairness for law abiding contractors by improving coordination between state agencies. So current law allows the Contractor State License Board, CSLB, to suspend a contractor's license when they have outstanding unpaid taxes. However, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, CDTFA, lacks the statutory authority to share necessary information with CSLB to facilitate the collection and enforcement. As a result, CDTFA is enabled to easily utilize the CSLB licensing as a compliance and collection tool. Currently, outstanding balance is $42,500,000 in debt owed to the state, which has serious consequences, as you know, as we look at our state budget.
SB eleven sixty five improves coordination between the state agencies. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses? No. Thank you. Do you have opposition witnesses?
Speaker 37
Todd Blumstein on behalf of the Southern California Contractors Association, the Southern California Association of Scaffold Contractors, and for Pilgrim Mullen on behalf of the Barricade Contractors Association. Thank you.
Speaker 1
up yeah, I'm trying to, like, speed it up. I've said that a little earlier, right?
Speaker 20
James Thirbacchio, on behalf of the California State Council of Labor is also in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to thank you. Senator Strickland would like to move the bill. Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed as amended to Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi? Aye. Archuleta aye. Adeguin?
Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Grayson? Aye.
Grayson, aye. Mengevar? Aye. Mengevar, aye. Nilo,
Speaker 1
Alright. That bill's on call. We're gonna move on to file item number nine, s p eleven seventy nine by senator Menjevoire.
Speaker 30
Thank you, madam chair. Colleagues, for close to two two years, I've been working on an issue that is looking to close the gap of the lack of bilingual physicians in California. Now we can talk about the lack of physicians overall in the state of California, and that could be for another bill. But this, in particular, is looking to address the gap in bilingual Spanish speaking physicians. As of right now, we have approximately 29% in California that only, that turn to Spanish as their number one language, and they're having barriers to access to health care.
So about a year and a half ago, I flew to El Salvador, and I talked to physicians at universities there to implement or replicate the program that already exists now with Mexico, where physicians from Mexico have been brought to California to address this gap. It started as a pilot. It was focused in Central Valley to address the needs of farmers, and it expanded. The infrastructure took about twenty years to establish, but it's now it's no longer a pilot program, and it moves forward as a regular program. I'm looking to expand on the success of that program to now bring in El Salvador.
Now I recognize that we often, and even I, do not like piecemealing bills. However, I focused on this country because I I one, my family heritage is from that country. I flew to that specific country. I spoke to four different universities. I selected two universities that would have the capacity to do that.
Now so if there's questioning on why just that entity or that country is because that's the energy that I put forward, and I don't have any other universities I can turn to for other countries. So it's going to replicate the Mexican program, bring in up to 60 physicians that are going to be paid for by FQHCs or other participating hospitals that choose to participate in bringing these physicians, and it would copy exactly what the Mexican program exists. No funding out of state taxpayers would pay for the visas. No housing would be provided by taxpayers. They will be paid for by the entity they work at, and they themselves will have to look up their housing on their own.
It is a three year program. They can only come serve here for three years. There's eligibility requirements. They have to be able to speak English. They have to meet the board's requirements and licensees to come to California and serve in the gaps that exist now.
Now, madam chair, I'd like to turn to my witnesses to speak on this.
Speaker 1
Okay. Lead witness? And just before we begin, you accept all committee amendments?
Speaker 1
You amended the bill prior what we've discussed. I I just wanna make sure.
Speaker 30
There are no proper committee amendments were given to me. There was a suggestion that I could look at, for in in approves, but no formal committee amendments were provided to
Speaker 1
This bill will be a due pass bill. But to the lead witness, again, two minutes in support. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members. My name is Carlos Vaquerano. I am the president and CEO of Clinica Monsieur Oscar Romero, a community health center serving thousands of patients across Los Angeles. We are proud to sponsor SB eleven seventy nine alongside our cosponsor, CPSA Advocates, and thanks, Senator Mengevar, for authoring this bill and for commitment in support of our underserved communities.
Clinical Romero was founded forty three years ago by refugees who fled El Salvador civil war and came to California seeking safety, dignity, and opportunity. Today, we carry that legacy forward by serving working families, immigrants, and medical patients, many of whom rely on us as their only source of care. But the reality is that California does not have enough doctors that speak the language or understand the culture of our communities. This bill's impact extends beyond the Salvadoran community. These doctors will serve a broad, diverse population, expanding access to care for anyone who needs culturally and linguistically competent care.
Speaker 2
Under SB eleven seventy nine, these doctors will be here temporarily and work under supervision within California's health care system, making our system even stronger. In 2019, after visiting Clinica Romero, governor Newsom took a his first trip international trip to El Salvador to develop a relationship with the country and California. At Clinica Romero, we have long cultivated this relationship with El Salvador to lay the foundation of this bill alongside Senator Menjivar, working with the medical schools and other institutions because the largest concentration of Salvadorians in The U. S. Resides in California, as senator Tomajeva mentioned.
Speaker 35
SB eleven seventy nine is about access to bilingual, culturally sensitive health care because health care is a human right.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. My name is Doctor. Julio Mesa, and I'm a family and addiction medicine physician at Clinica Romero and UCLA. And graduate of Universidad and Angelica of El Salvador, one of the universities partnering with Clinica in SB 1179. At UCLA, had the opportunity to meet a Spanish speaking patient from Mexico who needed a liver transplant due to alcohol usage.
I assessed him with the information that had a recommended liver transplant due to complications from his liver failure. He was also on dialysis and needed a kidney transplant due to that. Because of all these complications, he became depressed and continued struggling with addiction and depression. As my patient, I walked him through his diagnosis and had a difficult conversation about how our cultures, his mental health, and the stigma around addiction and depression. A conversation that could only happen because I spoke his language and we share similar backgrounds.
Speaker 15
After meeting with me, he agreed to start treatment for his depression. Today, the patient is sober, had a double transplant for kidney and liver, and both of them are completely functional. His life was transformed because he could speak about his addiction, health, and family in a language that was welcoming to him. But between El Salvador and California, there were seven years when I was a doctor that couldn't see any patients, seven years when people in my community went without a conversation like this one, not because I lacked of training. On M7 Helica put me through eight years of study and residency, with emphasis on physical examination and using scarce resources mindfully.
Speaker 19
Today, I work with doctors of the schools I always admire. And my training at the University of Angelica prepared me to stand beside them. Despite our different backgrounds, we are united by one goal earning our patients' trust and improving their care. SB eleven seventy nine brings trusted, culturally competent doctors to the patients who need us now. So I urge you, A, vote.
Speaker 41
Members of the committee, I'm not here to oppose. I wanted to raise some issues. I wrote the initial bill for Doctors from Mexico pilot. I wrote the extension, which this committee has passed, AB 2,860. We want to complement the sponsors, for amending the bill to, have it be in line as much as possible with the Doctors from Mexico bill.
There are some changes that we would strongly recommend. We'd like to work with the author's office to bring those things about. We believe that a program with El Salvador is very, very appropriate. But we are we do have some concerns with the numbers in this pilot. Our pilot had a total of 30.
It wasn't that we developed the infrastructure. It was that the UC medical schools did not want to help in the implementation of this program. So, there are several very technical points that we think would improve the bill, make it much more in line with how we've done it. And, don't forget, we have a three year evaluation of this program. Your committee analysis was excellent in pointing out all of the things in the history and the journey that our bill of bringing doctors from Mexico have had to go through.
Speaker 20
So I think it's very, very important that we stay as much in line together. But we would very much like and look forward to working with the author's office to have it be as close to similar, because we're not talking about significant differences here. The big difference is the cultural issues. The language, we would want to make changes it's almost two minutes we would like to make some changes on the scores, on 85, on the TOEFL. Just very technical languages, language changes, which we think will simply make the program even better than how it's written now.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses? All right. Moving on to Me Toos, both in support and opposition. State your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose, and we're going to make this fast.
Speaker 9
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee members. My name is Martha Zaragoza Diaz, and I am representing the National Hispanic Health Foundation, and we are in strong support of the bill.
Speaker 28
Dennis Cuevas Romero with the California Primary Care Association Advocates, cosponsors, in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 35
-Joni Pineda with the Latino Coalition for Healthy California, and Azazaccian de Migrantes, Guatemala Ticos Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 39
-Tiffany Whiting with SEIU California, in support. Thank you. Afternoon. Bella Gonzalez with Ultimate Health Services in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Kevin Guzmano with the California Medical Association. Just wanted to share that we're still reviewing the amendments, and appreciate the work from the author, the committee, and everyone involved, and we'll get back to you guys as soon as we can. But appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Committee members. Thank you. Senator Strickland moves the bill. I want to also highlight that for the folks that were speaking, this is obviously a work in progress.
The senator has committed to making and kind of mirroring the, Mexico program. Our goal here is largely to allow people to be able to serve the community in their original profession and make that as easy as possible for as many people as possible. We have obviously clear vacancies and gaps in our health care services and people to fulfill those services, especially culturally competent, individuals that can work in their communities and serve their communities better. So, you know, I've already had a conversation with the author. I personally do not like just picking one country at a time.
I would like to kind of make a uniform process across just pure education standards versus, you know, one or two communities at a time. But this, again, is an effort to move in the right direction. So with senator, if you would like to close.
Speaker 30
Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to clarify, I took all the amendments already. They're already in the bill.
So I would say this is close to as cooked as possible. The evaluation piece that was mentioned in the, opposition that has not been registered at all, is already in the in the bill as well. And this is the first time that he's brought up these issues to my office this morning. So this bill has been in print for a very long time, so I'm just pointing that there's been no opportunity to have those discussions whatsoever. But I have committed, and as you saw in the amendments, to replicate and copy this exactly as the current program with that, asking for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And with that, we have a motion by Senator Strickland, if we can get a roll call.
Speaker 17
Motion is due passed to senate appropriations committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab I Choi?
Speaker 17
Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta I. Adegain? Aye.
Adegain I. Cabriero? Aye. Carriero I. Grayson?
Speaker 1
Alright. That bill is out. What's the bill vote? Zero. To zero.
We're gonna move on to file item number 10, s b twelve zero three by senator Smallwood Quavis.
Speaker 39
Good morning, colleagues, and thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to present SB1203, the Stand for Security Act, which seeks to modernize training standards, strengthen accountability, and establish a clear, professional pathway for private security officers across California. At the outset, it is important to understand the scale and evolution of this workforce. There are approximately 1,200,000 security guards in the country, making the private security industry reportedly the third largest industry in The United States. California alone is home to over 330,000 licensed security guards, compared to approximately 90,000 police officers.
And the role of this workforce has changed dramatically, particularly after September eleventh attacks, where security officers became the guards of properties beyond and into first responders in the moment of crisis. They evacuated buildings. They managed fear and confusion. They stood between danger and the public. But all the while that the job evolved, the standards did not.
And today, we are asking that these workers that these workers who are now facing a different kind of emergency that we do all that we can to make sure that they are trained and safe on the job. And we know, with the mental health crisis in our community, security guards are routinely faced and I've witnessed this myself firsthand with behavioral health distress, with substance abuse crises, and escalating conflict in the public and in commercial spaces. They are expected to de escalate, to assess risk, to protect the public, often before law enforcement ever arrives, if they arrive. Because given the ratios, know police officers can't respond to all of the crises that we are experiencing now in the private security sector. And so, we have to ask this question about, you know, what are we preparing these workers for?
Are we what are we asking them to do? Are we asking them to learn this in real time and sort of, you know, make this up as they go, under pressure and at risk to themselves and others? Or are we going to do something about making sure that we all share these consequences by providing a standardized training model? And I'll give an example that I heard from one of the officers, a worker who was ordered by a supervisor to intervene in a retail theft incident. And despite this security officer and I want to say I use the term officer because we statutorily, it says guard, which really minimizes their role.
I use the term officer because they're not just guarding anymore, they are having to intervene. And this is an example where this security officer intervened into what was a retail theft incident. Despite raising concerns about training and not being prepared, he ended up being stabbed in the line of duty and then was terminated because he took that action. So, is not just a training gap. This is a failure of the system.
And I also want us to make sure that we understand the impacts and who this impacts. The workforce is disproportionately black and brown young men. And these young men are placed in a position of authority, but they're not given the tools of the profession. Profession. From a policy perspective, we have underinvested in this workforce, and we know that that limits their advancement and their opportunity.
And at the same time, it reinforces occupational segregation. Instead of building pathways into front line law enforcement opportunities, we aren't providing that certifiable, universal skill that can help us build real pathways from a security officer into a police officer, for example. So, this bill, SB twelve oh three, it just requires that the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services create standards by increasing training requirements for both armed and unarmed officers, by strengthening the de escalation training through in person instruction, by reviewing wages and working conditions to ensure stability. Again, this is one of the largest industries in the world revenues of about $34,000,000,000 yet the average salary of a security officer is about 44,000 a year, which is, you know, well below our poverty line. And so, for, you know, for our purposes today, we want to ensure that we do all that we can to reinforce that we believe in these workers, that we know the importance of the job that they do every day, and that we're willing to build a standardized training that matches this multibillion dollar industry in this indispensable workforce.
Right now, there is a clear gap between the expectations and preparation. This bill asks us to stand up with these officers to strengthen and improve these working conditions and to ensure that, across California, that we are not only improving safety, but we're also helping to build a safety pathway for workers in this sector. With me to testify today is Nadira Nandehira Mahabi I'm sorry, Mahabuhi, my apologies, and Samuel Keneha Keneha, from SEIU USWW, and David Fujimoto from SEIU, who is here as a technical witness to answer any questions you might have. All right. Thank you.
And my apologies for butchering those names. I'm absolutely sorry about that.
Speaker 14
I I already timed myself in my in my memory. Thank you, senator. Thank you, Oshiye, and council member and the and the members. My name is Samuel Kaneende. I have the honor to serve as the vice president large of SCRU USWW, representing janitor, security officer, airport service workers, and other service across the country across the California.
With more than 330,000 security officer in California and more than 1,200,000 nationwide, this is the critical workforce. But high turnover driven by the low wage and inadequate standard mean we are losing experienced security officer at the time we need them most. Today, security officer are doing more than ever before. I was a security officer before. Businesses are increasingly reply rely on them to respond to incident and help maintain public service.
Speaker 21
They also face growing number of violent incidents, regularly encountering assault, threats, and dangerous confrontation as part of their daily work. Turnover in the private security industry remaining alarming high, exceeding 50% annually. This kind of turnover meant fewer experienced officers are on the job, which also reduces safety for the businesses and community that rely on them. SB twelve oh three addresses these challenges head on. It will raise this training standard with focus on de escalation.
Speaker 14
SB 12 o three examine wages in the face of low cost, you know, cost of living crisis. It strengthen employer accountability and create a safeguard to prevent racial profiling and biases. This bill does not replace police officer or turn security officer to become a police. We have met with two major security employer in California. We have listened to their concern, and we continue to do so as this this bill move forward.
Advancing s b 12 o three sent a clear message that dignity, safety, and respect for workers and the safety of the businesses and community that protect them are not optional. They are essential. We ask to vote yes on this. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon, madam Wahab and members of the committee. My name is Nadira Mambuki. I am the Northern California industrial industry vice president of SEIU USWW, and I have been a security officer in the Bay Area for almost over twenty five years. I've seen a lot on this job, and I can say it is past time to raise standards for security officers, especially when it comes to training. In 2019, I was working at a site with an outdoor artificial turf area that needed to stay clear of four employees.
Speaker 42
We were often asked to move people who were sleeping there. One afternoon, I was doing just that. I was just about 10 feet away from an unhoused man. I already felt uneasy because a coworker had warned me about dangerous individuals in the area. I told him to leave and said I would call the police.
Suddenly, he got behind me, pulled me down to the ground, and attacked me. I defended myself, but the but he punched me in the eye and ran off. There were many people around, but no one helped. Police eventually came and arrested him, but I was left injured physically, mentally, and emotionally. I was 67 years old at the time with a black eye, and I still had to return to work the next day.
I support the Stand for Security Act s b 12 o three because no officer should go through what I did. We need better training so security officers can protect ourselves and the public. I was put in a situation I was not prepared for, and I was hurt. It could have been worse. I respectfully urge all of you to please vote yes on s b twelve o three.
Thank you.
Speaker 38
Madam Chair and members, Kelly Jensen representing CalSAGA. California is the gold standard of training for security. We have long led the nation in background checks and training. The legislature and this committee have a process to review standards of security guards, the sunset review process. The advisory board is comprised of employers and the sponsors of this bill.
At no time have the sponsors opposed or proposed new requirements in the legislature. When the sunset review process is not timely, the legislature has taken action to change requirements, most notably regarding appropriate use of force and incident reporting. This bill prohibits an employer from training their own employees in de escalation skills. The concept of trying to recruit a prospective employee in a highly transient profession and having them leave the employer training for another location with no requirements on accessibility, training, cost is, in the words of the committee analysis, untenable and should be strongly reconsidered. No one can question the author's authenticity to fight for worker rights.
Speaker 23
But this bill will have a devastating consequence for workers and public safety at a critical time leading into the World Cup, LA twenty eight, and the Super Bowl, where we believe we're going to have to add 30,000 new guards. This training requirement combined with the wages will drive this industry underground. Security guards will be replaced by event staff, ushers and technology. No one benefits from that. The security guard industry is proud of its standards and training To double the hours and eliminate the ability of companies to train workers will drive prospective employers to other jobs.
Speaker 34
Chair Senator Steengerfield with Capital Advocacy. On behalf of our client, Allied Universal, I stand in strong opposition of SB twelve oh three. Allied is an industry leader in private security. California has led the nation in training requirements, and we applaud that. However, this bill goes much further than is necessary or reasonable, and we simply cannot ignore the staggering financial burden this bill will impose on our industry and, by extension, California.
Speaker 22
We project the costs for the bill will range between 1,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 annually. The mandate to double the required use of force training and mandatory annual refresher training will cost between $350,000,000 to $534,000,000 every year. Initial training costs for the state's 360,000 guards would reach approximately $2.00 $7,000,000 while annual refresher training, calculated over calculated overtime rates, would add nearly $200,000,000 Prohibiting licensed security companies from conducting their own training and mandating third party instructors, we will be forced to shoulder an additional $108,000,000 in outsourced training costs. But the financial impact does not stop at training. The bill reconstitutes the IWC to issue a new age order for the industry.
Speaker 34
A mere $1 per hour increase would hit private security employers with an additional $715,000,000 in annual costs. The bulk of these costs will inevitably be passed on to customers such as struggling restaurants and retail as well as state and local governments. With these sharply escalating expenses, customers may decide to eliminate security jobs, replacing them with automated nonhuman resources like cameras and AI. Other might turn to cheap, unregulated and untrained event staff or ushers to avoid costs completely. The unregulated, untrained underground will jeopardize public safety just as the state prepares to host major global events like the World Cup and the Olympics.
SB twelve oh three is a job killer for the private security industry and if passed, we'll make our and if passed, we'll make our services affordable for the businesses that need the most.
Speaker 1
Thank Appreciate it. Any me too's in support and opposition? And I'd like for this to go pretty quickly. So line up, name, org, and whether you support or oppose.
Speaker 30
LC Meyer. I'm with SEIU as well as I'm a security officer. I'm in support of this bill.
Speaker 21
Alex Phillips, internal organizer at SEIU Local one Chicago. I'm in support.
Speaker 18
Jason Price, security officer. I am I'm in support of this bill and a member of thirty two b j in SEIU. Luis Maybrook, SEIU, in support.
Speaker 39
My name is Akiba Carter, and I am support this bill highly. I am a security officer, and I'm also a member of SEIU USWW.
Speaker 7
My name is Mary Harden. I'm a security officer. I'm in support with this bill.
Speaker 42
My name is Rico Dyson. I'm a security officer, Local one Chicago SEIU, and I do support this bill.
Speaker 2
Jamil Hunt, security officer and shop steward with SEIU USWW in support.
Speaker 38
Cristina Ameres, SAU USWW, in support. Thank you. Kelly Jensen, once again covering the California Chamber of Commerce that's opposed to the bill.
Speaker 1
Appreciate that. Seeing no other comments, I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Senator Urschuleta.
Speaker 13
Thank you, madam chair. And senator, thank you for bringing this forward. To everyone who is in the audience, thank you for coming up and getting us all hopefully to realize that when we use the term first responders, sometimes it is these individuals and individuals like them that are first responders. And as a former law enforcement officer that I have, gone on scene and sure enough, there was a security officer there and, the term, I've got this. I got your back.
And they were able to go back to doing what they do. But the issue here, I think, too is their standards have gotta be raised. Your education's gotta be raised. Your training has gotta be raised.
Speaker 1
Your participation We don't clap or applause or boo anybody. So I just wanna make sure that you guys keep it quiet. Let us finish business and then be done with it. Okay. Senator Umburg always likes a silent, you know, clap, I guess.
Alright. Please continue.
Speaker 13
Good. So it's it's about standards training and accessibility to furthering the professionalism that we expect that, I think is required by the Chamber of Commerce members and and businesses across the state. It is important that we understand that it is all of you in that entity, in this business that we rely on. And I think if we're trying to save money and cost because of theft and what have you, then it is you who's protecting these merchants. So I think anything that we can do to move this bill bill forward and to start establishing throughout California standards that raises this level that I I think is so important.
And with that, I would love to be a cosponsor, a senator. So if so, please put me down, and I will do whatever I can to make sure that the standards are raised and everyone appreciates the work that's being done. And with that, I do, urge an I vote, and I will move the bill
Speaker 30
Thank you, madam chair. Senator, we've we've talked a little bit about this either to you or the, sponsors who can answer my question. First and, ma'am, I'm sure I do have a lot of questions on this bill, so I appreciate some patience here. The first one is, senator Richardson passed a bill last year, which is now four months in its infancy, to strengthen the training, for, security guards. This bill completely undoes that, and I'm and I'm wondering, given that we just passed with four months, why we're looking to undo something that we don't know if it's been successful or not.
Speaker 39
Well, I'll invite my technical witness to step forward, but I want to say this bill does not completely undo that bill. I think that's inaccurate. I think that bill the primary purpose of that bill was to create a hybrid opportunity for training, both in person and with the worker themselves doing their self guided training. We talked to committee about this. I did author amendments to lift up the fact that we're building on that by ensuring that the hybrid training opportunity is still in place.
And then, we're focusing on creating a very specialized training in person because right now, a lot of the security officers are doing the training while on post. That's like us doing a training in the middle of this hearing. I come from UCLA. I worked with SEIU in organizing these security officers, and I have seen their work firsthand. We have to create some specialization in this training and also give it the dignity respect that it deserves.
Training on the job means, yes, you should be paid while you're training, but you shouldn't be doing the functions of your work and training at the same time. So what this bill does is build on Senator Richardson's six five two. We're we're very glad that she started that process. But we also know that much more specialized training training is needed. And I will invite my mister Fujimoto to to give more
Speaker 30
You address. Yes. Because analysis says it reverses it reverses options given by Senator Richards' bill. Specific options now get reversed if this bill
Speaker 40
You're talking about the security skills and a single provider. Yes. Yeah, the bill would add for the specialized de escalation training, it would add and does add different organizations that focus on trauma informed de escalation training and skills that involve and include role play. One of the things that we've heard from security officers is that they never practice this stuff, and they there's hold about why it's important to do de escalation. There's descriptive training about de escalation, but they never actually act act it out and do it.
So, in terms of that, we we did try to carve out a piece that not yes, single course provider, but it does you're right. It does add different organizations to provide the specialized de escalation training.
Speaker 30
It does undo, reverses two points from a bill that is only four months in infancy. And I do want to preface that. I was a I was a security guard
Speaker 30
For for five years, I did this at a at a mall. I did this at a special event, so I can speak from experience of of the training that I received. I received training in a variety of different things, de escalation. It was in person, never online. It was with role playing.
It was as a I I was a bicycle unit, so I did that. Golf training. I did an immense amount of training in in this in this space. And so I do recognize, though, that the pay is not the greatest. I do recognize there are incidents that happen that put security guards in in in places that may have to make decisions that I think law officers are better trained to make those decisions.
But I do have concerns on the those that I mentioned, but also on on and and not I like I mentioned, the wages part is not not my problem, but the analysis goes into an array of issues that could pose a problem where we're looking to have regulations put in place. Even though emergency regulations are gonna be put in place, it's only emergency regulations for two certain things, not the third one. So I have concern that we won't have regulations in place. Licenses will be in a situation where they won't be able to turn to a provider to provide the training, and the analysis also points that we're creating something that maybe doesn't even exist, that there's no record of an evidence based training that could exist that the bureau can point to, where right now there are certain, retired police officers that are turned to by, security companies to provide that training, and they're no longer gonna be given that option. If you could speak on that, and then I can move on to the next part, where we're not allowing employers to provide the training if they don't go to a CBA, and then asking bureau the bureau to create a third party, trainer that is evidence based, that could not even exist that potentially doesn't exist now.
Speaker 40
So we've heard from security officers that when they've had positive training experiences, it has been this kind of de escalation in person training. Organizations such as Crisis Prevention Institute, Elevated Collective, Forced Science, appear to be organizations, as examples, that would be able to provide this kind of specialized training. These companies advertise as providing solutions to companies already to provide this sort of training to persons that manage front desk.
Speaker 40
There are training methods they advertise as being evidence based and trauma informed, and that was important that was an important thing for us with this bill. And so those are some examples of some companies that could, provide this sort of training. And in terms of the companies, I think one of your questions had to do with the companies. I think our concern was wanting to make sure that this training that there's investment in this training, that corners are not cut in this training being provided. Too often, there is the profit motive for really any companies, and we think that also sometimes, at least sometimes, includes security companies, who will, in the interest of cutting costs, not provide the level of training that we think the security officers deserve and that the security officers themselves are demanding and think they deserve.
Speaker 30
Senator, if you're one of the biggest issues you keep repeating is that no one should do a training where while working. I agree with you. But at least in the analysis, I didn't see the exact provision that would prevent that. If that's the biggest issue, then the bill should read no one should be trained while at their post. There should be a separate training if that's the big issue.
But Well, that's I didn't see that in the bill.
Speaker 39
That's what it says where it says duty Uh-huh. On duty, that's what we're referring to there.
Speaker 40
It's in the amendment to Okay. Seventy five eighty three point six that the training cannot be done on their phone and while on duty on post.
Speaker 30
That's On post. Thank you. Yep. Yes. Why there's a lot of back and forth question is because the committee, I felt, did not and I'm not gonna speak from the chair, but have adequate time because of the back and forth amendment where I felt as a committee member, I had the adequate information in front of me to make an educated decision or vote on this bill.
We did not have that. I do recognize our other bill other committees that are gonna see this bill, but this is the only time I get to see this bill before I get to the floor. So other outstanding questions are on the two hour requirement in person training that right now can only that right now is met by posting on the wall. Why in person now? And is this the only working sector that's gonna now require an in person know your workers' rights, constitutional rights, any other working sector?
Speaker 40
John think for this specific training, it's the only industry if this bill were to pass, I think it's the only industry that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any other bills happening right now. That notice posting, as I think many of us here know, went into effect, I believe, January 1. I'm not aware of any other bills moving right now that would add this sort of requirement. And then I think you had
Speaker 30
So my question is, like, why this specific sector? Like, what is the issue? If that just went into effect also, why now, four months in, elevate that to an in person?
Speaker 40
So there's a couple aspects of the training. So that the training from the labor code that's now in the notice includes a component on constitutional rights and training on constitutional rights. And that is a particularly important aspect for security officers, particularly security officers who control access to property, say a commercial building, and they check you know, they let people in or don't let them in. And so the constitutional rights training portion that is in the Labor Code Notice is especially germane to the duties of security officers because if law enforcement officers of any agency try to come into private areas of a building or a business without a judicial warrant, and they try to come in with administrative warrants or without any sort of presumptive warrant, it's especially important for security officers who control access to that property to be able to know what the limits of law enforcement who are coming in to try to come in with or without consent. Because as I think we all know here, law enforcement can get can get into private areas of property if they have consent.
And so there's that piece that's especially But important to their and then a second piece, more on the other rights, think is that where you're probably Is we know that, employees sometimes reporting when there are violations of California employment laws, wage and hour laws, is an important way, that the legislature has has recognized is the way that companies are that there is enforcement with respect to wage and hour laws. And really, this ensures that security officers are trained on their basic rights. And that is important also for companies because there are companies who, by and large, play by the rules and do their best to follow age and hour laws, and there are companies that do not. So this is also a way to make sure that, the companies that are playing by the rules are not undercut by low road companies that are gonna cut corners by skipping out on overtime or minimum wage, meal and rest, and all these workers' comp and all these other things. So it's it's another piece that we think is important for the industry as a whole.
Speaker 30
I mean, to quote the analysis, it's, you know, it's an undue burden on employers who have not been proven to be out of compliance with this law. You just mentioned it's mostly they're following the law here, so I I do have concerns with them. My last question is around the sunset review. The sponsors of this bill did not bring up any of these issues in the most recent sunset review. And to the laws that just passed on this, the two from the Richardson and then the in person training, those were also not brought into those bills.
So I'm wondering if the sponsors could speak on why in the sunset review these issues. They had ample opportunity. This bill went through two different policy committees on the sunset review. None of this was brought up during the sunset review.
Speaker 39
And I just want to say, I mean, this is we're talking about the merits of this bill. We can't speak to the legislature and, you know, the the folks, the sponsors of this bill. I think a lot of things often change between sunset reviews. A lot of conditions of workers being injured and those concerns that have been raised. And this is one of the things why we are moving this bill is because it's rooted in the responses and the experiences of the workers, industry, and trying to figure out how do we bring the two together.
So I I don't know if we can speak to why the Sunset Review, it was not brought up, but we're raising it now because now we have this crisis that these workers are facing. We have very necessary specialized training that they need, and this is the form that we're bringing it to this committee to to explore today. And and I wanna say that our commitment is to work with the industry because, like the opposition said, we're gonna be hiring 30,000 security officers. We don't want anyone injured or killed in Los Angeles while these games are happening and to find out that we did not have the opportunity to make and do the training that was necessary, and we passed on our responsibility to do that because of a sunset hearing that existed, you know, years ago. So, I want to say I appreciate the questions.
I understand the questions. I think we are committed to continuing to work through these items because you're right, they are life and death. And we are hearing very clearly that this is an opportunity for us to try to get it right as we are about to scale up in the time of unprecedented global strife. That is putting so many of our folks at risk. You know, whether it be high rise commercial buildings with you know, from 09:11, we had those workers had to deal with green alerts and orange alerts and temporary morgues.
Here we are in another unprecedented time. As we're welcoming the globe here to our cities and to California, we want to make sure that we do this training policy the right way and that we bring folks to the table to address the issues that are before us now, which are different than the sunset review process.
Speaker 30
And I'll clarify. The sensor review did bring up the topic of training. It was included in there. It just what I meant is that there was no input given back on what how that should be updated. So that's what I meant.
It was included in terms of let's focus on this, and stakeholders did not come to the table to provide input on that. So it wasn't it it was elevated as an issue that we should work on. No one brought in issues on on that. So I'll the last I'll and no no question here. I'll end on this is I also have concerns that you have to have a CBA to get approval for an employer to provide the training, knowing that a lot of don't have CBAs.
Majority of them don't have CBAs. That puts a burden on someone that does not have a CBA to be excluded for something that they have no fault to. Anyone has the ability to organize, and they should organize. But that's on their job to organize, and that should be done there. I don't think you should put a policy consideration up contingent on CBA.
So because this is gonna go through other policies that are gonna have the time to provide amendments, I'd like to see those amendments first before providing, an eye vote on this bill. Senator Greyson.
Speaker 43
Thank you, Madam Chair. I share my sentiments with my colleagues as far as questions and statements. I will try not to go long here. I did have a question before I talk about an opening statement that was made, but a question on who teaches the constitutionality portion of the training, the two hours, that is required in the bill. Who teaches that session?
Speaker 40
It would be the employers, unless a labor organization that goes through. And we did just present some, amendments to where the labor organization would have to, request make a request with BSIS, would have to identify who their qualified persons are and certify that they are qualified to provide that kind of training. But, by and large, it would be the employers.
Speaker 40
In that particular section of the bill, or of the code, if the bill were adopted, it says who can provide trainings, and that includes licensees. And then it says, and I think it's subparagraph four or five, that labor organizations can provide the two hour training specified. But, yeah, licensees would be able to provide that training. Again, unless there's a union that represents those particular employees of that employer and who have gone to BSIS, filed their application, and been approved.
Speaker 43
Okay. I appreciate that. Arthur, thank you for bringing this bill forward because I believe that your intents in this bill are as pure as pure can be. You have your your concern is for the safety of and now I'm going to address what was said about the difference between guard and officer. And I don't want to get into the semantics between the two, although I don't think it's a semantic.
Speaker 7
But I think there's a huge difference between a guard and an officer. So if we want to differentiate it by saying security officer versus police officer or whether it's a security guard versus police officer, that's the point that I'm trying to make is are we trying to set an expectation that those that are serving in the security side of it is is getting to the point where they're almost trying to perform the duties that a police officer would would perform. And I don't think that's where you're trying to go with this bill. But I think when we start planting those seeds in the minds of folks by using different titles and terms, then we start to do that. I I think what encourages me about the bill is the safety aspect of it and the de escalation training, which I am 100% behind in support.
Speaker 43
I think that is absolutely important for, those working in the security profession to be able to have that kind of training. So I I absolutely support that. I did have a question. If a small business or a nonprofit, you know, something like maybe a a church wanted to hire security for their for their facility, whether it's a small business or nonprofit, and that security agency wants to train its own security guards, does that security company have to enter into a collective bargaining agreement in order for that to happen?
Speaker 39
As the bill is written, that is the them being required to enter into a community benefits agreement is not in this bill. And I think we have probably and and I mentioned this to you, we wanna think about some of these smaller venues and what and how this bill relates to those. But I'll
Speaker 40
Yeah. And then just one thing to add to that, and I've heard it a couple other places, but what this bill is talking about is so currently, existing law, eight hours to get your guard card, we would be upping that to sixteen by adding the specialized de escalation training to get the guard card. And then, instead of this what's currently subsequent thirty two hours of training, it would become thirty four hours of training because of the two hour, rights type training. None of this prevents any employer from going beyond that and saying, Hey, look, we know you got your required training, but here's some special stuff because of us as a company and our expertise as a company. We can go and perhaps it's a specific industry, right, that isn't really touched on by the training in this bill.
They can do whatever training they want to, to go beyond what's required here.
Speaker 43
Okay, thank you. And I noticed in the bill that it does call for fines to be increased up to 300%. So, do have the latter part of it. What does it mean in bill language to require the commission to issue a wage order specific to employees employed in the property services industry? What does that mean?
Speaker 40
Okay, thank you for that. Because I saw in the analysis, I think there might have been a misunderstanding, perhaps. So, in the latter part of this bill, I want to say it's Section 14 or 15, it talks about it refers to the commission to come up with evaluating and convening we're talking about the Industrial Welfare Commission under the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and I'm forgetting the name of the agency right now but not under Department of Consumer Affairs. So what so, the Industrial Welfare Commission, as I understand it, has not been operating in many years. And so what this bill would do which is sort of, I think, for usually a separate committee, but it would require that the commission convene for the purposes of evaluating the security industry and doing what they, did up until about 2003 and look at the security industry, evaluate their investigate wages and conditions of employment, and then our bill also requires, I believe, a wage order by a certain deadline and also any other changes in a security wage order.
So I don't think that's the topic of purview of this commission, but is there another question on this?
Speaker 1
No, but I'd like to wrap it up. We are losing members, I just want to make sure that the senator has all his questions answered.
Speaker 43
No. Okay. But I'm willing to concede and simply state that I have a really huge concern with the efforts that we're making here. And if we don't get this right, that's what's important, I want the training, especially when it comes to safety. I'm thrilled to hear the conversation about de escalation.
All that, we've got to get it right because if we don't, what we do is we price ourselves right out of the ability to be able to have security for very important business, for very important situate or events, and cause folks to actually say, well, you know what? We'll just have to take the chance on not having an emergency or the need for security and just forego having security altogether. So instead of trying to provide a better environment, we actually wipe out an entire profession. Not an entire, but wipe it out significantly. I'm concerned with the affordability side of it, and I want to make sure that we have security and certainty for our folks that are in the security profession.
And with that, I'll I'll let my time go, and I'll work with the author and as this process as this bill moves through the process of other committees. And I do believe your intent is right as far as wanting to provide the safety. If it turns out that the bill can't go that direction, then I can always, choose to go a different direction on on another time on a vote. But for right now, I'll support.
Speaker 1
And and I wanna be clear, I appreciate all the commentary here. We do have one more speaker. Senator Caballero wants to speak. But prior to that, I'd just like to say that, as as author, I I think you hear the the concerns of your colleagues. And as the sponsors and and folks, I just wanna highlight personally, the comments about the special games and, you know, you represent a territory that has some of the regional games there.
I represent a territory serving as the vice chair of the special games in this house. The reality though is that these individuals, it's first and foremost gonna go to actual police officers. That has been the commitment of, FIFA, and then additionally to any additional people that can help. These games are bigger than, you know, a small event over the weekend or by a small organization. These are massive international games that are gonna require significant public safety.
This bill, particularly, and I will highlight, on the education and the training, I believe that people that are responsible for security and the safety of others should have additional safety. So with that, there is a lot of work to do on this bill. It will be going to public safety. Our committee will relay to the public safety committee, you know, in far more detail regarding the fines and some of the concerns around safety. We have heard also the concerns about the language around collective bargaining, and I don't think that anybody here is interested in stifling smaller businesses and organizations from hiring security officers to just providing that public safety and that property, safety, if you will.
So I do just wanna make sure that our author is fully aware of that, I think she is, and she's gonna be working on this. Again, this is a work in progress. This is the first committee that it's going through. With that, I will turn to Senator Caballero to ask her question.
Speaker 33
Thank you, madam chair. Given the late hour, I won't won't go through the concerns that I have, but but I I second some of them that have been raised. And also, just in terms of the technical issues, the implementation date has got some issues, including the misuse of license fees in the collective fund that has been created. But I want this to work. And so and I sit in public safety, so I'll be seeing it again.
Yeah. I think it does need subordinate, and I appreciate your recitation. So I'll vote for it today and then hopefully continue working on it.
Speaker 1
Definitely. And I I will say I am sure that the author will commit to working with each of the members Absolutely. Because before it hits the floor, you know, we need more members in alignment. So with that, senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 39
Yes. Thank you. And I appreciate, madam chair, your comments and all of the robust conversation colleagues. And as I said, we will be working with the opposition to make sure that we do the best that we can to put security officers on higher ground when it comes to training and their job quality. I also want to say this bill is critically important because, right now, training is being leveraged as a tool to up your contract or lower your contract, which means folks will offer training as a part of their package, and those workers will receive the training and then others will not.
This is about creating a level playing field and making sure that all of our security officers are well trained and prepared for whatever they're going to face in their workplace and in our communities. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote and look forward to working with all of the stakeholders in getting this over the finish line.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Archuleta? Let's call a roll call.
Speaker 17
Yeah. Questions do pass to Public Safety Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, I.
Troy Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, I. Adegine? Aye.
Adegine, I. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, I. Grayson?
Aye. Grayson, I. Menjivar? Nilo Smolokuyevos. Aye.
Smolokuyevos I Strickland Hamburg.
Speaker 1
That bill is out. Can we lift the call and call only the absent members?
Speaker 17
Item number one, s B nine zero three, current votes 10 to zero. Aye. Aye. 11 to zero.
Speaker 17
Item number two, s b nine thirty six. Current votes 10 to zero. Otigene?
Speaker 17
Otigene aye. 11 to zero. That bill is out. Item number four, s b twelve seventy one. Current votes 10 to zero.
Otigene?
Speaker 17
Item number seven, s B1340. Current vote's 10 to zero. Out of gain? Aye. Out of gain, aye.
11 to zero. That's out.
Speaker 17
Item number eight, current vote SB eleven sixty five, current votes 10 to zero. Adegain? Aye. Adegain, aye. That's 11 to zero.
Speaker 1
That's Eleven Eleven to zero, that bills out as well. The business professions and economic development committee is officially adjourned. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.