Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Senator Newman, you have one Bill today. Senate Bill 552. Proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy New year. First Bill of the Year. This is quite an honor. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 552, which provides technical cleanup to the 2017 revision of the California Swimming Pool Act, a measure which I carried and which was signed in law by then Governor Jerry Brown.

Before I begin, I'd like to thank the chair and Committee staff for working with me and my staff on this Bill, as well as share with the Committee my intention to introduce amendments that will allow for manual pool covers to remain on the list of eligible pool safety devices. Although that aspect of the Bill falls outside this Committee's jurisdiction, I want to make clear my commitment to continue working closely with the opposition to address their concerns in that regard.

According to the California Department of Public Health, drowning remains one of the leading causes of death for children aged 14 and younger, particularly children one through four, with roughly 75% of all fatal childhood drownings occurring at home pools or spas. To help better prevent such tragedies, the California Swimming Pool Safety act of 1996 required residential pools to be installed with at least one antidowning safety device, such as a pool fence, a pool cover, or a backyard door exit alarm.

SB 442 of 2017 expanded and enhanced these protections by increasing the number of required safety features from one to two, as well as requiring home inspectors to document for new homebuyers which, if any, safety devices are installed or needed. Since implementation, however, the language of SB 442 has often been misinterpreted to suggest that home inspectors must conduct comprehensive safety tests that are far beyond their capacity or the intended scope of their work.

Further, as drafted, the language of the original SB 442 inadvertently allowed for safety devices to be installed or combined in ways that do not create the redundancy the measure sought to ensure. SB 552 addresses both of these outstanding issues, first, by clarifying the role of home inspectors, and that is the subject of this Committee hearing and second, by closing the two step safety device loophole, thereby ensuring these life saving features are properly employed to most effectively prevent childhood deaths and injuries.

With me to testify today are Dave Pace, on behalf of the California Real Estate Inspection Association, and Steve Barrel, on behalf of the original sponsors of SB 442, the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. I am respectfully asking for your. I vote today.

Okay, gentlemen, feel free to step up. You can testify from there if you'd like, or you're welcome to join us in the. Well, let's use the table. The door is gates right there. This is a first.

We're returning to the proper use of the table. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Please proceed when ready. Who wants to go first? Should be on.

My name is Steve Barrow. I am the state program Director of the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, and I was part of the team that sponsored the original Pool Safety act back in 1996. We're focused on a whole lot of different kinds of unintentional injury issues involving children in California and teens and youth. And then we were the co sponsors of SB 442 that strengthened that act.

There's always chances, and we're really happy that the Senator has reviewed and his staff and your analysts have reviewed the language, and we've come up with some technical upgrades to the act that are clearly technical, but they will save the lives of children. I have got six kids. I've never lost a child to drowning, but I work with a lot of families that have. I was a paramedic, though, so I held children in my arms while we tried to revive them.

And so it's personal to me about how we work on these things. But this Bill, the definitions in this Bill, correcting that you can't put the same two barriers on one plane is really important. You can't have a door latch and a door alarm on the same door. That's really important. And to make sure that the manual pool covers, which do qualify under ASTM international standards, is left in place. But I'm here mostly to answer technical questions. We have a long history on this, and we've worked really close with Crea to move drowning prevention forward on all kinds of levels.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Pace?

My name is Dave Pace. I'm a recently retired after 30 years as a real estate inspector, and I'm currently the Chairman of the Legislative Committee for the California Real Estate Inspection Association. We are so pleased to be able to work with Senator Newman and Steve and his group. We believe that SB 552 provides some needed clarification for home inspectors who are charged with conducting pool safety feature inspections.

And we believe that with improved clarity, that we will be able to provide a better picture for a potential home buyer as to what is needed to protect children from the tragedy of pool drowning. It's a goal and a result that we all strive for. So we appreciate your consideration and hope that you support this Bill.

Thank you, sir. Thanks for your testimony. Now let's hear from any other individuals who wish to testify in support of Senate Bill 552, sir.

Chair Members John Norwood, on behalf of the California Pool and Spa Association, pleased to have worked with the Senator, as well as the child safety advocates and the home inspectors to come up with the clarifications contained in this Bill. And we urge your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Any other witnesses in support of Senate Bill five? 52 in the hearing room, seeing none. Let's turn to any lead. Opposition witnesses. Do we have any lead? Opposition witnesses. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 552, seeing none. Let's bring the matter back to Members on the dais. Members, questions? Comments? Senator Wahab? Senator Wahab moves the Bill, seeing no other. Hands up. Senator Newman, would you like to. zero, yes, sir. Senator Nielo.

I gather without any comments that the California building officials have removed their opposition based upon your agreement to amend the Bill to allow for manual pool covers. Do I.

That's my understanding. Is that correct? Yes.

One of their issues that will have to be explored down the line is they would like to look at some regulations to further their part of pool drowning and the requirements that they have for inspecting pools. But the main thing they were concerned about is that it originally looked like we were taking out manual pool covers, and that wasn't meant to be. It was a technical error. It got corrected by the staff of the Committee.

So as far as we know, we'll continue to work with them outside of the Legislature if there are regulatory things that we can do with them to further drowning prevention from their inspection point.

And, Senator, this Bill is double referred and will be heard again tomorrow, and I think housing.

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

Respectfully, as your aye vote, there is no more tragic event, especially because it's thoroughly preventable than a childhood drowning. So grateful for the work and support of the sponsors, we will always continue working with the opposition to make sure that we do this properly. Asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you, sir. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Housing. Please call the roll

[Roll Call]

Bill has 10 votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members.

Thank you, sir. File item number two. Senator Portantino. One Bill, Senate Bill 607. Proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members. It's good to see everybody. Happy new year. SB 607 simply has prescribers of controlled substances containing an opioid to discuss risks and dangers of opioid and opioid. I don't know why I'm all tongue tied today. Addictions to all patients. Existing law requires a prescriber to discuss specified information with their patients, but only requires them to do so when counseling a minor. Basically, this Bill would extend that conversation to all those who are prescribed opioids.

Obviously, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention says that more than 1 million people have died since 1999 from drug overdoses. Currently, about 75% of all overdose deaths involve an opioid. So certainly this conversation would go a long way to make patients more aware of what they're being prescribed and create more safe implementation of prescribed drugs. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Any individuals in the hearing room today who wish to testify in support of Senate Bill 607

Mr. Chair, Randy Pollack, on behalf of Haleon, which is the makers of Advil, we appreciate this Bill. We think the opioid epidemic is still around, and it's very important to try to address. We look forward to working with the Senator and the physician groups as this Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Any other individuals who wish to testify in support of Senate Bill 607. Now let's hear from any individuals who wish to testify in opposition to this measure, please step forward.

Good afternoon. George Soares with the California Medical Association. We do not have official position. We are not opposed to it. But the language imprint we do have some concerns with, and we had a commitment from the author to continue to work with him. And we appreciate the striking of Section four in the Bill. So thank you for the time.

Thank you for your testimony. Any other opposition witnesses?

Jessica Moran with the Dental Association. Also not in opposition. Just want to echo the comments made by colleagues of the Medical Association. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else?

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, echoing the comments from the previous speakers. Thank you.

Thank you all. Any other witnesses, in opposition or otherwise, to Senate Bill 607. Okay, let's bring the discussion back to my colleagues on the dias. Senator Niello, followed by Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. Two questions. In your testimony and also in the Committee analysis, it indicates requirement currently to discuss the situation with minors. There's no mention of parents. Does existing law require that parents are counseled along with a minor? Under existing law, Okay. It would have been good if the analysis indicated that specifically for those of us that have, and we could look at clarifying that, too, as the Bill goes through.

Second question is the analysis indicates that you intend to take amendments, but in the Assembly, can you tell us what those are?

I'm going to be working with the groups to figure out our path forward, so we haven't landed on where that's going to be yet, as you heard from the not opposition.

So it's your indication of a commitment to work with them and any agreement you come to will be handled as amendments over in that other house?

Correct, and again, we have not committed to come to a complete and total ... agreement, not just that we're working together, but it'll be in the other house.

I'm always a bit uncomfortable taking a position on a Bill when I don't know what it's going to end up looking like. And so that's the concern that I have with that. I appreciate you being forthright about that and the comments of those that expressed their concerns. So I was going to be flip, I would just say. So the point of the Bill is to make you uncomfortable.

Thank you. Roger and I go way back.

Well, let me just make clear, when it comes back, if it contains items that are within the jurisdiction of this Committee and it's different than what we voted on here, I can pretty well assure you that we'll see it again.

Right.

If that raises anybody's comfort level, yeah.

This is the prerogative of the chair. When the Bill comes back, the chair will decide whether they want to hear it or not.

Senator Achuletta.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's a great Bill. I'm going to move the Bill. The point is anything we can save lives. I think it's a door opener to start saving lives. Is the Bill before us prior to yours? My only question is, who would be required to sit with the patients? Would that be the Doctor only? Nurses supervisor nurses. The LCSWs, perhaps. Who would be able to take that ball of responsibility to say, I've given you the information, the prescriber.

Okay, so it would be the Doctor himself, the prescriber. That's. That's the intent of the Bill at this point, to have that conversation be between the prescriber and the patient. Thank you, colleagues.

Any other questions or comments? Senator Nguyen.

Just a comment, Mr. Chair. Senator, I just want to say thank you. We've done so many town halls when we're off session in my district, and this is the number one issue. And to allow patients to know the information, at least we armed them with the information because a lot of the deaths are occurring with adults. Minors are getting it as well, but the adults right now aren't informed. And so having given them the more education, more information, hopefully we can save lives. And so I appreciate your continuous work on this issue. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Yeah, I just want to. Thanks. Yeah, just along those lines. I had a friend in the hospital over the break, and he was on the East Coast, but they're giving him fentanyl, which is, like, given everything that's going on, it's hard to comprehend. But, yeah, it's still used. But the question is, are you getting the proper counseling and the proper advice to how to make sure these people don't get addicted? And again, I very much support the concept and hope you continue to work it out. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any others? Last call. Seeing no other questions. Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the thoughtful conversation. This is an important subject, and we all have districts where we know people, friends, neighbors, newspaper accounts of people who have lost this battle for various reasons. And so having a conversation up front, arming the patient with information should have a benefit. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. The Bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do passed to Senate appropriations. Please call the rule.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 11 votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Let's open up the roll on file item number one. It's Senate Bill 552. Current vote is 100. Chair voting aye. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Vote now is 110. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Let's open the. Open the roll on file item number one. Senate Bill 552. Current vote is 11 to zero. Chair voting aye. Please call a roll.

[Roll Call]

Final vote. 120. The matter is out. File item number two. Senate Bill 607. Current vote, 11 to zero. Chair voting aye. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Final vote, 120. That matter is out. And this concludes the Senate business, professions and economic development hearing for Monday, January 8.