Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

So, this is just a call out to members of this Committee, if they are available, to come on down, that'd be great. And to Assembly Members who have items in front of us today, now would be the time to make your way down to Room 2100. Almost. Almost there for a quorum. Not quite.

We'll start as a subcommittee of the whole. Assembly Member Haney, are you ready to get started? You are first on our file, sir.

Thank you. All right, all set? Should I start?

Yeah, go right ahead.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1775 is a reintroduction of AB 374, which many of you supported last year and which received strong bipartisan support as it went through the legislative process. This bill will legalize cannabis cafes by allowing cannabis retailers to sell non-cannabis foods and non-alcoholic drinks and will also allow retailers to hold live performances at their venues. This bill does not legalize consumption lounges.

Consumption lounges currently exist throughout the State of California if authorized by the local government, and people are actively consuming cannabis at these lounges. However, what is currently not allowed under existing law, completely prohibited, is the ability for cannabis retailers to diversify their businesses by selling food, drinks, and an experience.

Ironically, we require under state law for cannabis retailers to only sell cannabis and cannabis merchandise. We believe that if we want to allow for people to move away from that model and diversify their business and create an experience, they should be able to do so. Why should we allow it? Because the cannabis industry is struggling.

Issues like an oversaturation, high taxes, and a still thriving black market are hurting cannabis businesses who follow the rules and pay taxes. By authorizing cannabis retailers to diversify their businesses, we are boosting revenue for California small businesses.

Additionally, these venues are especially important in dense urban communities, like those in my districts and district, and this is a way for us to support our states recovery. I want to let the committee know that I amended the bill to address the Governor's concerns on worker protections.

Recent amendments clarify that the food preparation area and the cannabis control consumption area must be separated and that food and cannabis cannot be commingled. We are continuing the conversations with the Administration to see if there are additional language to take on the floor to address those concerns. And here to testify with me in support is Pam Lopez from California NORML and Kristin Heidelbach from UFCW, who represents the workers.

You can come to the table if you'd like, or you can stand there, whichever is easier. Whatever. That's all right. The first one's up are always the guinea pigs. It's okay. Assembly Member Haney, you have two witnesses. They each get two minutes to make their testimony.

Thank you. Pam Lopez on behalf of California NORML. As Assembly Member Haney stated, cannabis lounges are already legal and already exist in California, especially in urban communities like Assembly Member Haney's district, AB 1775 simply improves the consumer experience by allowing cannabis consumers to be served non-alcoholic beverages and or food before they leave the cannabis lounge. We think this is a simple quality of life improvement for cannabis consumers, but also a good safety measure for communities. It allows folks to maybe have a sandwich and a cup of coffee and sober up a little bit before they head out of the lounge.

Cannabis lounges are so incredibly important in urban communities, not only because we want consumers to have an opportunity to consume out of their homes, so that parents, for example, who are consumers who are living in small apartments might have an opportunity to get out of the home and away from their children to consume, and so that those who are renting and are prohibited from consuming in their homes have a safe place to go that's appropriate, as opposed to standing on a street corner or being in a park where they might encounter children.

But consumption lounges are also important for the mental health of cannabis consumers, of which there are millions in California, because adult loneliness is at its highest level. And it's important for consumers to have a good experience where they can get together in a safe place, consume a little bit of cannabis, be with other adults, have a sandwich, and build community, and be around their friends. Thank you all for considering this important measure.

Good morning. Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in proud support of AB 1775. I want to start by thanking Assembly Member Haney for authoring this bill. UFCW represents thousands of cannabis workers in the state. We look at this as a potential lifeline for struggling businesses who now have a very limited scope that they can operate their consumption lounges. This allows them to, right now they're allowed to have prepackaged food, but it doesn't feel like a community setting, a bar where you walk in, sit down, order food.

This would allow them to prepare fresh food on site and create more of a bar experience. I appreciate this bill from obviously the worker perspective, but also from a parent perspective, because it keeps people out of parks and other public settings where they might be enjoying cannabis. They can go into a space... It should be mentioned, obviously, and I think some of the confusion on this bill is that consumption lounges already exist, so they're already allowed. But there are only a number of cities, a small amount of cities that are allowing them.

But each local would be able to really drill down on those regulations or an ordinance to see what works best for their community. Maybe they have a smoking balcony outside. Maybe they have an enclosed space. And also I wanted to highlight that not everybody wants to consume cannabis by smoking. Some folks may want to enjoy a beverage, which are becoming more and more popular, or edible. So there is... We appreciate the amendments. UFCW is committed to working with the author to ensure that we have workers protected.

We believe that having that separation of space is helpful so that people who are doing food prep, you know, can, if they want to work in a consumption area, they can do so without smelling the, having to deal with the fumes from the cannabis. And we're committed to working with the author to get where we need to. So with that, we urge your aye vote.

All right, thanks for your testimony. Before we move forward, I'm going to, we do have a quorum, so I'd like to take the role. Please establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Great, thank you. We have a quorum, so we can proceed as committee now. Are there other people here in the room who would like to support with me too testimony? Your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Emellia Zamani with the California Travel Association. Apologies we missed the letter deadline, but we're very much in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Sara Noceto on behalf of Origins Council in support.

Rich Miller on behalf of Americans Alliance for Medical Cannabis and Americans for Safe Access in strong support.

Alright, is there anyone here in the room in opposition to the bill? If so, if you're lead testimony, you have two minutes to speak. Go right ahead. And, actually, you can come up to the table as well. If there are two of you who are planning on doing lead test one, you can both come up to the table. You'll each get two minutes, just like the proponents, and then we'll do me too testimony. All right, go ahead and get started. Tell us your name and organization, and then you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Kesa Bruce. I'm the Director of Advocacy for the American Lung Association. The American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network, ACS CAN, the American Heart Association oppose Assembly Bill 1775, which would circumvent current smoking smoke free laws by bringing back the smoke filled restaurant If approved by a local jurisdiction.

Secondhand smoke exposure is toxic and dangerous. In 1995, California implemented a statewide smoke free law in restaurants, then extended those workplace protections to workers and bars in 1998. As a result, anyone who works indoors can be assured that they will not be forced to work in an environment that will negatively impact their health due to smoke. In 2016, California passed Proposition 64, legalizing adult use of cannabis, and the same protections and safety guidelines related to the secondhand smoke, related to secondhand smoke were included.

Breathing in secondhand smoke causes lung disease, heart disease, and cancer. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no risk free level of secondhand smoke exposure. The science is clear. There is no ventilation or filtration system that can control or prevent exposure to secondhand smoke.

AB 1775 will erode existing smoke free indoor air laws and put a new class of workers at risk of secondhand smoke exposure. Allowing the cannabis retail industry to expand their business model at the expense of staff and performers' safety is dangerous. Last year, the Governor chose to protect the health of workers by vetoing Assembly Bill 374.

I ask you that you uphold the Governor's veto by maintaining a safe and healthy smoke free work environment and ensuring that California does not bring back the toxic smoke filled restaurant. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I respectfully request your no vote on Assembly Bill 1775. Thank you.

Okay, next witness.

Hello, my name... Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Suzaynn Schick, and I'm an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. For the past seven years, I have been going out to public places, including cannabis dispensaries, and measuring the concentrations of very fine particles in the air.

We use the term PM 2.5 to refer to very fine particles that are suspended in the air that are small enough to go all the way down to the bottom of your lungs and lead to rapid and both rapid and long lasting changes in your health. Pretty much any part of your body that is affected by the circulation of your blood has the potential to be affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, and smoke is very chemically similar. The only significant difference between secondhand cannabis smoke and secondhand tobacco smoke is that one contains THC and the other contains nicotine.

Now, I'd like everybody here to visualize an air quality wildfire outdoor index, a day where it's red. The air is described officially as unhealthy. You might notice some loss of the ability to see in the distance. Landmarks start to fade out. If you live in Los Angeles, it's a day where you can't see the hills.

You might, as it gets higher in concentration, start noticing that the quality of the air, the color is sort of like getting orangey brownish. So at that point, you're at somewhere between, say, 150 and 250 micrograms per cubic meter in the air. When you get to purple, you're over 150. And sometimes the sun starts to look reddish, kind of like a maraschino cherry. Now, I did a lot...

I need you to wrap up so you have a...

Long term study in the dispensary in downtown San Francisco. Over 9 hours of measurements across the weeks, across months, average concentration was over 700. That's off the air quality index charts in the United States. No, people don't curl up and die the moment they walk in, but there is very definitely an increased risk of heart attacks and health risks.

Thank you. Thank you for your expertise and for coming today. Thank you to all of the witnesses. Are there folks in the room who are me too testimony officers? And you don't have to leave. You can stay there till the end of the hearing. You're fine. Go ahead.

Hello. Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the American Heart Association. Just echoing the comments of Ms. Bruce, how this would undo existing smoke free protections. Thank you.

All right. Anyone else in the audience here, me too testimony and opposition? Okay. We will bring it back to the dais for questions. Senator Roth?

You know, I'm very concerned about tobacco smoke. I go to restaurants to eat, and so I was very... Not smoke. And so I was very pleased when that ban was put in place and I no longer had to breathe someone else's tobacco smoke as I was sitting trying to enjoy my meal. I'm concerned about what we ultimately may find with respect to the smoke that comes from cannabis products. But I'm not sure that we totally know yet.

But the more important thing, as I understand it, is this Prop 64 authorized local jurisdictions to establish locations designed specifically for the smoking and other activity associated with cannabis, not restaurants for eating. And so, you know, it seems to me that when people choose to go to these locations, they go there for the purpose of smoking.

And those who don't want to partake of cannabis by smoking or eating it or whatever don't go. And so why would you go if you're not smoking cannabis? Well, probably that's up to the Chair. But the point is, that's how I see it, ma'am. Don't go if you're not smoking or participating in cannabis. And so the fact that food is provided as an incidental, and by the way, it's in the proposition. So it seems to me the voters are going to have to speak if we want to change the rules of the road at this point.

So I share your concern about the impacts both of tobacco smoke and the smoke of cannabis. And I look forward to further studies, because as those studies come out, it may be that either the voters or the Legislature figures out a way to change the rules of the road. But until then, I, you know, I'm going to have to support the measure today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, just to be clear to everyone in the room, we don't speak unless a Member asks you directly, and then, and then we'll allow for the answers. Go ahead, Senator Archuleta, and then Senator Niello.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. You had mentioned that you had, I guess, created some amendments that have now made it more business friendly, I think. And certainly to everyone that's concerned, there were some issues that the Governor had. I would imagine that some of the things that are now in play is music. And so now you have a bar setting where, yes, there's food, there's consumption, and is it just the dj's, bands? Is it expanding into a nightclub situation? Where are we with that?

So we didn't take any amendments that changed the option to do ticketed events or some live entertainment. That was in the previous version of the bill. So that's the same as it was. And, you know, this is not about creating a nightclub or anything. These cannabis loungers can have music now.

What this might allow them to do is have a jazz performer or a comedian or some sort of event type thing. This is all also totally at the discretion of a local government. And so if they were doing anything else that required approval, they would still need to go through their city.

Their city could still say they can do this or can't do this, and all of that regulation is still there, and they'd have to go through all those processes. This wouldn't automatically allow them to do anything. It would simply take away the prohibition, which now, currently at a cannabis lounge, you can't make a sandwich and sell it.

And you also can't have someone there playing a violin that you charge a ticket for. So certainly there's a lot of, I know in my city, a lot of steps you have to take if you wanted to do anything that was loud or that sort of thing. But it allows the local government to...

So the very important point, local government, and they still have jurisdiction. They have say. And I agree with my colleague that if you don't want to be there, don't go. And if you're concerned about other things, don't go. But I think the people have spoken, and they will continue to speak. So I'm going to also move forward with it as well.

Great. Appreciate the comments. Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I've said many times, I am torn on these issues because I was opposed to Proposition 64 to begin with. It was a flawed, terribly flawed proposition, and that's why we struggle with it so much. The proponents of the proposition wanted it to pass so bad that they allowed for the approval of the execution of the enablement of opposition to so much, such a large variance of level of governments that its execution has been terribly confused, number one. And number two, because of that weakness, the illegal market continues to exist.

There's nothing done about that. We don't have, this proposition doesn't provide the resources for that enforcement. And I'm going to ask a question of the opponents, and this is not rhetorical. It's a genuine question of curiosity, because I don't recall, did you folks work against the passage of Proposition 64? Somebody else has an idea I think.

I can speak personally. I was in favor of it mostly because of the negative effects that cannabis, or the positive effects on unjust incarceration. Also, when it passed, I wasn't in the business of studying the health effects of exposure to air pollution. That was a ways back. That's, I think where Kesa's is struggling is that was a long time ago, and we don't have your advantages of having been in the game that long.

My recollection is that the fact of the matter is that the opponents to this bill were largely not involved in the campaign on that proposition, which disappointed me. This issue of secondhand smoke has really not risen to the forefront with cannabis like it is with tobacco. We have a different level of analysis, I'll say, without prejudicing my comment, of tobacco smoking versus cannabis smoking, markedly different.

Cannabis smoking, okay. Tobacco smoking, not okay. That always frustrates me. Now, having said that, Proposition 64 was passed. We have a struggling legal market and a thriving illegal market. And I just have to ask myself, okay, I'm opposed to it, but which one would I rather see enabled? And I would rather see the legal market enabled.

It pains me to say that, but I voted in favor of these enablements for the legal market all along, even though I do it with a bit of a troubled notion, because the illegal market is winning the game, and the legal market is at least a better alternative of something that I think is harmful. Not just because of secondhand smoke, but because of the effects of marijuana. I won't go all into that argument, but I personally have those concerns, and it is at least partially by personal observation. So you were clamoring to answer the question of choose to go. So I'm going to ask you directly if you would address that.

Thank you for the opportunity. My research shows that your body's response to breathing secondhand smoke, especially its risks for your, for heart attacks and strokes, happens instantaneously, within a minute or two, easily visible within 30 minutes. I spend time in dispensaries. Plenty of people come in with their friends. Oftentimes a woman with her husband or her boyfriend.

They're not consuming, but they're keeping them company. There's also people who aren't there for the cannabis at all, who are just working. People are delivering parcels, people are repairing the HVAC. People are doing what needs to be done in businesses.

They aren't there by choice, and they aren't there for long, but they are experiencing a transitory significant increase by anywhere between five and 30% in their risk of a heart attack in the moment. If you would visualize someone who's near retirement age working on the ventilation system...

I get all of the reasons about the secondhand smoke. I was just asking your perspective on the comment. If people don't want to go, they don't have to go. You did address that a little bit, but it was mostly about secondhand, the effect of secondhand smoke. I get that. So...

Can you refine? What do you really...

We need to move on from that point. Senator Niello.

So one other question. There is a long history of people using marijuana. What medical evidence do we have of those people suffering from the effects of the smoke?

Quality of evidence historically is very low because a lot of people, when it's illegal, don't want to admit to doing it. And the way people have asked, researchers have asked questions was like, have you ever used it, rather than do you use it regularly. But better, more recent data on current regular users shows increased risks of heart disease.

I apologize for the length of my questioning and comments, but I felt compelled to express my terrible frustration with this. And while not wholly happy with it, I will support the bill.

Okay, I don't see any other comments. I do have a comment on this item. You know, sometimes chairs of committees will issue a recommendation to the body. In this one, I did not. I did a non-reco, which means everybody gets to make up their own mind without interference from me. However, I think Assembly Member Haney knows this. I am deeply troubled by this bill, so I personally will be voting no but have left the committee open to do as they please. That being said, I would need a motion.

I'll move.

Move by Senator Roth. We will call the roll. Senator Haney, would you like... I mean, I'm sorry, Assembly Member Haney, I promoted you already. Would you like to close?

I appreciate that and appreciate all of the comments. You know, there's existing cannabis lounges. That was put into law by the voters. We're making it very hard for those businesses to survive, to thrive. They're losing to the illegal market. This is about giving local control and supporting our legal small businesses and their ability to adapt and be flexible with their businesses and provide for an experience and a product that people want. It will create jobs and revenue. And I hope that, however you feel about cannabis, that we can get behind supporting these businesses and their ability to actually survive. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much, Assembly Member. All right, Members, we're going to call the roll.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

Alright, that's five yeses, two noes. We'll leave it on call. Got a lot more Members to come down, Assembly Member. Thank you to the witnesses for your expert testimony. Appreciate you. We're going to move on to the next item. We have Assembly Member Patterson here. Mr. Patterson, are you ready to come forward?

And you can have your witnesses take the table too, if you have them with you already.

Members, I appreciate the opportunity of presenting AB 2471. Let me first just note that the bill has some significant organizational and institutional support. The Board of Registered Nursing supports the bill. The County Health Executives Association of California supports. The Health Officers Association of California support as well.

And what the bill attempts to do is in some way approach the need to lower some barriers for retired nurses to come back into nursing. And let me go into the details. Public health nurses play a crucial role in our communities. They promote better health, ensuring that most vulnerable in our communities have access to healthcare.

The important thing here is, though, that their scope of practice does not extend beyond that of registered nurse. And that is one of the significant differences here, why we are doing what we are doing.

Currently, registered nurses are required to pay a non-refundable fee for the evaluation of their qualifications to use the title of Public Health Nurse. This is in addition to their regular RN license renewal that they are already complete every two years. Here's what the bill does and I want to say why.

AB 2471 would simplify the certification process and it would eliminate the unnecessary extra renewal fee as process that they have been paying and completing every two years. Since they do not have an expanded scope of practice beyond that of RN, they do not have the need for the renewal fee.

What we're trying to do here is, I think, critically important to try to put some barriers down so that we get more nurses into the field, and particularly those retired nurses who've done it for a good long time.

They're good at it and by supporting the bill, what we do here is we remove that additional requirement and the associated fee that helps to reduce the overall financial burden of these nurses. That helps the community to recruit, but it also reduces impediments for retired nurses who want to return to the workforce.

And here to testify in support of AB 2471 is Marissa Clark with the Board of Registered Nursing.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. Marissa Clark with the Board of Registered Nursing here in support of AB 2471. As the Member said, currently a public health nurse must apply and pay a fee to renew their RN license, as well as apply and pay a fee to renew their public health certificate every two years.

This process does mirror the process for advanced practice registered nurses. The main difference, however, is that advanced practice registered nurses do have an expanded scope of practice, and that expanded scope of practice can incur additional investigation and enforcement costs. The Board is able to recoup those costs through that biennial renewal certificate fee.

So, while a public health nurse complete specialized coursework and clinical experience to obtain their certificate, they do not have that expanded scope of practice beyond that of an RN, which means they do not have the same need for a biennial certificate renewal fee.

Since public health nurses would still be required to renew their RN license every two years, we do not believe that removing this certificate renewal would be an additional public safety risk. We urge your support, as the Bill would help to ease the financial burden of maintaining a public health nurse certificate and assist in critical community recruitment efforts.

All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there others here in support who'd like to come forward with their me too testimony? Your name, your organization, or position on the bill?

Thank you. Dylan Elliott. On behalf of the counties of Humboldt and Tulare, both in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Joe Signs on behalf of the County Health Executives Association, representing local health departments in support.

Great. All right. Is there anyone in the room in opposition of AB 2471? Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions from colleagues? Moved by Senator Roth? Would you like to close Assembly Member?

Yeah. I appreciate the support as listed before you. And also just a reiteration that this does remove an unnecessary barrier, and by removing it, it is an encouragement, particularly for retired nurses, to think about coming back into the field, and we need them particularly.

And one of the reasons I authored it and hope you will pass it, is that Central California really does have nurse shortage issues.

And we think that this is going to be an incentive and encouragement for nurses to come back out of retirement, bring their skills to those that need it, and I think better health will be a result. So, on behalf of those who support who are here, and on behalf of myself as the author, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. We have a motion from Senator Roth. We're going to take the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

All right, that's nine yeses, but we'll leave it open, too. And thank you for being here. Thanks for your expert testimony. We are going to.

Members, appreciate the support. And thank you to the Chair.

You bet. Thank you. We're going to hang out for a second and wait for an Assembly Member.

Okay, Assembly Member Garcia, you ready to get started here? If so, we'll have you come to the podium and any lead witness you have can come to the table.

All right. Any preference or which one goes first? We will start with AB 2860 and thank you so much, Madam Chair. 2860 removes the pilot status of this program.

The program is the Doctors and Dentists from Mexico Program that was established about 20 years ago to really address the shortage of doctors, physicians in medically underserved areas of the State of California.

A Member of the Latino Caucus who's no longer with us, Marco Antonio Firebaugh, 20 years ago had the vision to ensure that communities across California could develop a program in partnership with our medical programs, universities in Mexico to be able to fill in these gaps.

And today more than ever, we see the need up and down rural and urban parts of the state for more doctors, more dentists to serve a population that requires doctors that are culturally competent, that speak the language, and that can help address this major shortage. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Our witnesses have been told to keep it short and sweet, to the point. And so we'll defer now to them.

Thank you very much. We have two minutes for each of you. Go ahead and make your comments. Thank you.

Yes, my name is Arnoldo Torres, one of the co-sponsors of the bill. An article that came out last week, "Foreign Physicians Can Help Solve America's Doctor Shortage" in the Wall Street Journal. These articles are quite common nowadays in the United States.

We want to make sure that the panel understands that we're not doing this because we're on this inclusive diversity agenda. This is simply the practical reality of access to health care. You don't have enough doctors. There are more health professional shortage areas in the State of California.

We actually beat Texas, which is an absolute shock to some of us who study this stuff all the time. By over 250 more HPSAs in the State of California. On this panel, eight of you will have doctors under this program, under the expansion that Mister Garcia is carrying for us

The pilot program has proven to be very effective. We're very happy to have worked with your committee staff in strengthening the bill and with the Medical Board.

We feel very comfortable that the expansion of this program will create phenomenal access to a significant portion of California's population who does not have access to culturally and linguistically competent doctors. And that's the reality. California cannot produce them anywhere close to in time to provide that access.

And we hope that this Committee will recognize the importance of what it means to provide comprehensive preventive primary care to all Californians who live and work in this state. With me is Dennis Romero, Cuevas Romero from the California Primary Care Association, co-sponsor of the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Dennis Cuevas Romero with the California Primary Care Association Advocates and cosponsors the bill. Really proud to be co-sponsors of this bill. There will be at least nearly 15 additional health centers up and down the state participating in the program expansion.

For health centers, it's critically important to provide culturally and linguistically competent care. Last thing I'll mention for health centers, when they lose a physician, it takes at least 28 weeks to try to get a replacement physician in their clinic. So, programs like these are critically important. So, ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Others in the room in support of the bill with me, too testimony. Name, organization, position on the bill.

Good morning. Rebecca Alcantar on behalf of AltaMed Health Services in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Aaron Bone with the medical board of California. We are support if amended, but working very productively with the author and sponsor on the remaining issues. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Anyone in the room in opposition of the bill? I see no lead witnesses. Anybody who just wants to me too opposition of the bill. All right, then we're going to come back to the dais for questions. Questions from colleagues? Two at the end down there, Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil and then Menjivar. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. Assembly Member Garcia, I just wanted to note and thank you for your intent in this bill to help serve the need in rural communities and to bring Spanish as a primary language into California, which is so much in need in the healthcare area and public health. So, thank you for that. And I also want to confirm my request to co-author this bill as well. So, thank you.

You're welcome.

Great. Senator Menjivar and then Senator Roth.

Thank you, Assembly Member, you're going to get some praises over here. I want to echo my colleague as well. This is a really exciting bill for me.

You and I and the sponsors have had conversation on ensuring, as we move forward, that we add other countries that we can further expand to meet the need here in California.

Go ahead, Senator Roth.

Just a comment. This is a critical bill. It's a shame it took so long to get the program up and running. I'm glad it's up and running. It does need to be expanded. I'm glad that it's going to have a life that continues.

It is unfortunate that the dental program hasn't, it's my understanding, hasn't moved forward as well. But we need to make sure that that takes off because there's a shortage of dentists in these underserved areas as well.

And we need to do everything that we can to maybe even find some funding to get that off the ground and get that in place as well. But I am delighted to see this effort, and I will move the bill at the appropriate point in time.

Great, thank you. Senators Archuleta and then Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assembly Member, thank you for bringing this forward. I've had the occasion to meet with AltaMed and give a speech there at their clinics. We have several in my district. And speaking with the patients, this was very important to me. Speaking with the patients.

They were so happy to be able to communicate with their doctor, to communicate with them in such a way that they didn't feel that they needed an interpreter. They were able to actually talk to the doctor.

And from the number of people that I talked to, even the doctors themselves, they were so glad that not just AltaMed, but other clinics in the communities that I serve and some of my colleagues serve, same thing. We've got to have more doctors. There's no doubt.

And I hope this is a wakeup call to our medical schools, that we've got to do everything we can to recruit our young men and women that are in colleges and high schools that they're needed, and especially those that are bilingual. So, I hope to be a co-author as well.

So put me down for that, and I wish you much success with your Bill. Thank you, Madam President. Madam Chair.

Great. Thank you, Senator Niello.

Senator Archuleta just promoted you.

Yeah.

Madam Chair. I have a question that relates to what Senator Archuleta just said. This program is needed, and it obviously is for cultural and communication purposes, but also because we have a general shortage of medical professionals in this state.

And the fact that this program is successful as it is, doctors coming from Mexico, that might imply, by implication, that Mexico does not have a shortage of healthcare workers or doctors specifically. And if that's the case, why not there and why here?

Well, excellent question, and I will ask our witness to also chime in, but the fact is that, and it's important to state, this isn't the solution to our doctor shortages in California.

I just want to preface my response with that for the universities, medical schools that are watching, that are listening, this is not the end-all, be-all solution to our problem. Senator Archuleta hit the nail on the head.

We have a lot of work to do at our medical schools, to accelerate and to build medical programs that are tailored around the populations of California and its needs. And we have not done so to the point that we're bringing, that we're borrowing doctors from other countries, case in point, from Mexico.

Mexico does not want these doctors to stay here and practice forever. They are educating them. They are paying for them to be educated to serve Mexicanos in Mexico. But they believe that it is important, given the relationship to California, not just the economic relationship.

We are the largest trade partner to Mexico, California being that partner, and also recognize that the largest population of Mexican immigrants happen to be here in California.

So, there is a vested interest that people of Mexican descent here in California are healthy and are also involved in the economic activities, because in Mexico, the largest economic funding source is coming back. I'm getting to your question, Senator. The problem is here in California, in our medical schools.

And if we want to see more doctors coming from our communities, then we need to evaluate the medical school programs and how they are functioning to be able to prepare students populations that look like the California population, in order to ensure that we don't have these shortages, not just in rural California, but in urban California.

And I'm going to ask one of the witnesses who might be able to get further in the weeds, get into that.

Well, before we do that, let's just. Senator, do you have the answer to your question, or do you want to refine it?

No, I don't. I get the cultural issue and the diversity of doctors that are either graduated or not graduated. We clearly have a shortage of doctors in California, not just those to serve disadvantaged areas, just to serve the Latino population, to serve other immigration, immigrant populations that have moved here recently, like from Ukraine and otherwise.

But we have a shortage of doctors, and evidently Mexico does not. So what are they doing differently in Mexico that we're not doing here?

Under this, under the previous administration in Mexico, he claimed that there was a shortage and there is no shortage. He went to Cuba and brought doctors and offended a substantial portion of doctors in Mexico. Mexico does the following.

Mexico assesses what its population needs, how many doctors it actually needs to have in medical school to be able to serve the population that is in the country of Mexico. And that's how they do it. We don't do it that way in the United States of America. Mexico's educational system is built. Medical schools are built around that.

The difference is that the level of excellence within the medical schools in Mexico does vary significantly. We're very careful to select those that are going to meet the standards that we have here in California. But Mexico again, fundamentally assesses what its population requires. It lives by the almost the U.S. standards.

One primary care physician for every 3,000 in an urban center or in an urban center, it's 3,500 per primary care. In the rural areas, one for 3000. So, they recruit, admit enough students to medical school in order to be able to meet whatever those needs are.

We don't do it that way, and we've never done it that way, which is why we're so far behind. And until we do it that way, which will take at least 30 to 40 to 50 years, we have to depend, in essence, for our population on Mexico.

These doctors come here for only three years and then they return.

Okay. Senator Niello, Senator Roth would like to contribute to answering your question, if that would be okay.

Yes, and I'm sorry for again, belaboring the discussion beyond what maybe it should be.

But the last point I'd make is that is an interesting concept, that is that our workforce development educators are actually looking to the needs of the economy in order to provide the appropriate study opportunities for students and trying to guide them in that direction so that our college graduates actually meet the requirement of the jobs available.

And you're right, we do not do that. Not just in health, but other areas also.

Senator Roth.

Just to respond to Senator Niello's question, one of the, obviously, medical schools are expensive and it's difficult to start them and maintain them. One of the larger issues here I don't know about Mexico is that in California, in the United States, as a graduate MD, you cannot practice unless you complete a residency program.

You cannot get a contract to provide healthcare services with a provider with a health plan unless you complete a residency program of varying lengths, from usually three years to four to five to six, depending on what field you're in.

And residency programs are expensive because they entail paying for the salary of the resident and the benefits of the resident and also finding clinical facilities that have slots to place them.

The Federal Government largely provides funding for residency programs and the Federal Government, and they do it through the Medicare program and primarily, and the Federal Government has not increased residency slots, with some exceptions, in the United States since the 1990s. The state attempts to provide some funding through Song Brown and other programs here in California.

But of course, our ability to do so is limited to our General Fund, as we've seen in this budget withered with cuts. And that's really the limiting factor beyond simply medical school ability and capacity. It's the residency program plots and the availability of clinical training, which, of course, is true for a lot of other healthcare fields as well.

But thankfully, this program exists and will continue to exist to help us, and we probably ought to take a few lessons from Mexico.

All right. No other comments from my colleagues. I do believe you have a motion from Senator Archuleta. Would you like to close?

Great questions.

I'm sorry. Senator Roth made the motion.

Thank you, Senator Roth. Great questions, great conversation. I think it sheds light to the much work that is in front of us. But for now, you know, this bill is kind of a short-term solution to a major problem that we have here as it relates to access to health care.

And when we hear, you know, who Mexico sends to us, it's their best. It's their doctors, it's, you know, their dentists, hopefully, that will be taking care of not just people who speak Spanish, but anyone who needs a doctor throughout the entire State of California respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Motion from Senator Roth. We're going to call the roll.

Motion is due. Pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Okay, that has 10 ayes and no nos, but we will leave it on call. Thank you to your witnesses. I'm not sure if these are your same witnesses for the next item or not, but let's go ahead and proceed Assemblymember Garcia.

AB 2864 is a complimentary Bill. This deals just with the simple permitting and licensing of these doctors, the one time extension, so that we can continue with the program. Respectfully ask for your I vote.

Great. Comments?

Yes. Very briefly, the pilot program started in 2021. When the first two doctors came, it was during the pandemic. There were a lot of difficulties in credentialing and a couple of other things. Not with Medi Cal, but in the private health plans. The doctors really were never able to be maximized in terms of their access creation capabilities.

We do see that now in the last year and a half. So we felt that it was very, very fair to extend these doctors an additional three years. But after these three years, they will return. We don't plan on keeping anybody here permanently.

Okay.

Dennis Cuevas Romero with the CPCA advocates. Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, and then we'll take me to testimony from the audience.

Hi. Good morning. Rebecca Alcantar. On behalf of Altamed, we are also a participating clinic in the program and the Bill would allow for us to continue to provide those critical services. So ask for your support. Thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Again, Aaron Bone with the Medical Board of California. We are support if amended. Just working out some remaining technical details. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the room opposed to the Bill? Great. Then we'll bring it back to the dice. Any comments here? Senator Alvarado-Gil, thank you again.

Thank you again, Assemblymember Garcia. One thing I just wanted to note in the discussion here is that we have a significant number of dual citizenship professionals that belong to both the US and Mexico and other central American countries. And your Bill allows for those professionals to serve in their countries of origin and their country of nationality.

So I want to make sure that we acknowledge that something that already exists. And, you know, I think personally, I have seen that work in various professions and, you know, to keep our professional workforce up to date, I think having that opportunity to study abroad, live abroad and come back to the US to practice is a phenomenal opportunity. So thank you and please add me as a co-author to this Bill as well.

All right. Any other comments from my colleagues? Seeing none of it. Is that a motion? Motion. Senator Alvarado-Gil moves the Bill. You have lots of people willing to move your Bill. We will take the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Becker? Becker, aye. Dodd? Dodd, aye. Eggman? Eggman, aye. Glazer? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Niello? Aye. Niello, aye. Roth? Roth, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

Again, 10 yeses, no nos. But we'll leave it on call in case other Members show up. Thank you very much, Mister Garcia. We are taking these in file item order. So assemblymember Papin, you are up next. Thanks for hanging in there with us, Assemblymember McKinner. We appreciate you. All right.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Okay. AB 2037 will give county sealers the authority to test and verify municipally owned EV chargers. County sealers are tasked with testing and verifying commercial measurement devices such as grocery scales, pumps. When you go to the gas, this is a continuation of that.

Their job is to make sure you get what you pay for. Very simple concept. Generally, their jurisdiction covers privately owned equipment. As such, there is currently no entity in charge of publicly owned EV chargers and publicly owned includes municipally owned ones. Those are owned by cities and counties, mostly cities, and then also publicly owned utilities.

We worked closely with the League of Cities on the latest amendments which remove the sealer's authority to condemn and seize incorrect charges, and so they have since removed their opposition. We're also in active discussions with the publicly owned utilities, and we are still reviewing the language that was sent over this past Thursday.

You have my commitment that I will continue to work with the publicly owned utilities and moving them forward on this bill to ensure confidence in partiality and consumer protection. It's imperative that county sealers have clear authority to test and verify publicly owned EV chargers. You need a third party to do it.

The cost is about $26 per year per EV charger, so we're not talking about huge expenses to do this. With inflation and growing income disparity, people are experiencing hard times when every dollar counts. It's critical that you get what you pay for, and that's what this bill ensures.

Here to testify for me with us today is Matt Cyberling on behalf of the County Sealers.

Great, thanks. You have two minutes,

Madam Chair, members: Matthew Cyberling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association. Again, AB 2037 is all about uniformity, consistency, fairness and consumer protection.

If an item for sale is represented by a pound, a gallon, or a meter, the consumer must be able to trust that the device used to establish that measurement and that price is accurate and trustworthy. This currently includes all scales, meters, pumps, and currently, yes, commercially used EV chargers that are out in the field in California.

Currently, county sealers provide an unbiased, third-party independent verification of the accuracy of commercial weighing and measuring devices. Our program consists of a local registration of the device prior to being used and then an annual inspection once per year to ensure ongoing accuracy. And again, it's $1.26, in this case, per device per year.

County sealers already have the current authority and active program to test the accuracy of meters on private sector EV charges. As mentioned, these meters are subject to strict standards and must adhere to rigid tolerances in order to be used commercially for consumers.

AB 2037 will ensure that all EV chargers available to the public will meet the same accuracy standards and provide a level playing field for businesses in the industry. To ensure that all EV chargers' users will benefit from the consumer protection provided by our program and to ensure uniformity in the EV marketplace, we urge support for this bill.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Are there others in support in the room? Me-too testimony, your name, organization, position on the bell.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Elizabeth Espinosa here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the County of Santa Clara in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott on behalf of Placer County in support, thank you.

Thanks for being here. Okay. Is there anyone in the room in opposition to the bill AB 2037? Are you a lead witness? Come on forward. You can come up to the table. If there are two of you, you can each have two minutes to speak.

You can stay at the table in case folks have questions for you. Go ahead and have a seat.

Madam Chair and members, Greg Cook, representing the Northern California Power Agency, a joint powers authority consisting of 16 publicly owned electric utilities. The state constitution gives the opportunity to local governments to be responsible for the provision of electricity to their consumers.

All of our 16 members and 40 local governments throughout California have accepted that responsibility and they are responsible for the safe, reliable, and affordable electricity service. We are fully integrated. We provide the electricity through our own generation or through contractual basis. We distribute that electricity through our own locally owned utility lines.

We provide that to our customers on a 24-hours-a-day basis for safe service, and we provide the most affordable rates. This bill, we believe, is unnecessary as it relates to publicly-owned electric utilities. We take our responsibility very seriously. Our city councils and governing boards take it equally responsible, equally seriously.

As a result, unfortunately, we are in opposition to the bill in its present form. We have suggested to the author an amendment that would, I believe, enhance consumer protection because it would provide that each of the public-owned electric utilities would provide, on a conspicuous basis, on the electric charger itself, the name of the community which is providing the service and consumer information.

How you can contact that utility if you have a concern. But our utilities are monitoring every service they provide, whether it's to your home, your business, or in today's environment, to your vehicle. If we offer you that service, we guarantee reliable, safe, and cost-effective electricity. Thank you. I urge a no vote.

Thank you very much. Okay, next witness.

Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Dr. Natalie Seitzman with the Southern California Public Power Authority. I'm going to use one of our 12 POU members for bank water and power, as an example of the breadth and expansiveness and efficacy of in-house inspections performed by POUs who own or operate EV chargers. Burbank operates 55 public chargers and has been running a robust inspection program for them since 2016.

They send out trained electricians to inspect them on a monthly basis. This monthly inspection is extensive and is inclusive of the single test that EB 2037 proposes should be performed by county sealers who have no special expertise in the operation or repair of EV chargers.

In addition to monthly inspections, there are multiple pathways for customers to report issues with chargers, which will notify the electrical supervisor to dispatch electricians as needed. When it comes to protecting consumers and ensuring that EV chargers are in good condition, as well as turnaround repairs quickly to bring chargers back online.

As evidenced by Burbank Water and Power's charges, which enjoy a 99.01% uptime, we believe that the POU is better positioned to inspect more frequently and more extensively. We thank the author for committing to continue to work with POS to address our concerns but remain opposed unless amended at this time.

Great. Are there people here in the room who are me-toopposition, as well. Go ahead.

Good morning, Kyra Ross. On behalf of Burbank Water and Power, we remain in opposition to the bill, but are thankful to work with the author.

Thank you. Anyone else opposing the bill in the room today? Okay, before I give it to my colleagues, I just want to say I did not issue a recommendation on this bill, which means I didn't try to influence my colleagues. They are free to vote however they would like.

However, the reason I did not is because SMUD, while they have not taken a position on this bill, they are a part of the organization that has concerns. I intend to vote yes today in order to give the author an opportunity to continue working with the publicly-owned utilities, particularly SMUD. And I'll be waiting to hear that feedback when and if this item comes to the floor. So, colleagues. All right, Senator Roth and then Senator Menjivar.

I'm just curious, are there any statistics to note the accuracy or out-of-service rate for EV chargers and municipalities with public power agencies?

The accuracy of the?

Well, I'm trying to, are there some statistics to show the out-of-service rate or accuracy, which is what the sealers are talking about with respect to EV chargers owned by municipalities with public power agencies?

I'll turn it over to my witness, if that's okay, Senator Roth.

The entire purpose of the bill, just on its most base level, is to provide the sealer's authority to actually go in and begin testing.

I'm just trying to figure out why the bill. I understand why you want to do it. Just trying to find out the why here.

All right, I'll answer that part. Well, clearly, we're not going to have any data because there is no current testing. So that kind of leaves us at a bit of a disadvantage. But really, the bill is about getting an independent third party out there, not having the fox with the chickens, if you will, like we do for everything else that is measured, whether it's buying fruit at the store or buying gasoline, so that the public has a belief that what they're getting and they're getting what they pay for, an independent third party will allow that peace of mind, if you will.

And I don't want to confuse, and I very much appreciate the efforts that the publicly-owned utilities do with respect to their own chargers and having people go out to maintain EV chargers. Absolutely important. But this is about the accuracy. You know, we could go and pump gas any day of the week.

We don't know whether it's accurate or not accurate when we're pumping the gas, but we do now because we have a system in place where those pumps are tested periodically so that they know that the public is getting, when you spend now $5 a gallon or whatever it might be, you're actually getting that gallon.

So, there's where I want to conflate the difference between maintaining and accuracy to the public. So, this bill, you ask, what's the purpose of this bill? Is to make sure that the public has the good faith that they're getting what they pay for and there is accuracy to what they're paying.

So did the sealers test the county owned EV chargers today?

No, sir. No, we only test the privately-owned private-sector EV Chargers. So, it's the charge point, the Tesla chargers, that are available to anybody that's driving around, basically. Again, purpose of the bill, if you're driving down the street and there's publicly-owned, city-operated chargers on the left, privately-owned chargers on the right, these are being inspected by county sealers. These are not. And the bill is basically to perform uniform inspections overall to make sure that everybody that uses any device that's available to them can be assured that it actually works.

Cities and counties?

Correct. Cities, counties, and state.

And my other question is why, if accuracy is an issue, why do it this way? Why not mandate for publicly-owned power agencies that own and operate EV chargers? Why not mandate an inspection schedule, accuracy testing schedule, the very things that the county sealers are proposing to do here, instead of charging the municipality and the municipally-owned power agency to do the work. Is that a fair question?

Frankly, we just don't allow for any self-attestation in any other part of the marketplace. Basically, we don't allow people to test their own devices and then let us know whether or not they're accurate. It's a third-party independent test provided by the sealer, again, in any imaginable area of the marketplace.

Well, that's not third party if you're inspecting your own county. Right? So, what would stop the city and the municipal-owned power agency from hiring a series of sealers to inspect their own EV chargers?

Well, because county sealers are licensed and trained and managed by the division of measurement standards at the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and this is essentially their role and their sole purpose within the State of California is to provide weights and measures testing.

Well, I'll probably lay off the measure today, ma'am. I know you're an exceptional author, and I respect your work, and I'm confident that you will work through this so that the next time I have an opportunity to vote on it, I'll be supportive of it.

Thank you, Senator Roth. Thank you for your question.

Okay, Senator Menjivar and then Alvarado and then Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assemblymember, we briefly talked about this. One of the oppositions is the POU in my very district, and you heard from the opposition that it was chosen as an example of success rates and how well they maintain. But I know you've made a point that this is not just about maintaining, it's about accuracy. So to that, I'd like to ask the question to the opposition, the work that is being done on the accuracy of the EV chargers as well.

Well, thank you, Senator. A testing kit to measure the accuracy, to test that the amount of electricity being discharged is as expected, is included in those monthly inspections. So we do a broad level of inspection for all of the aspects of the charger, including the accuracy.

Okay. So is it your assumption right now that the consumer is getting the electricity charge for what they're paying for?

That would be part of the test, yeah.

And if this went through, this legislation went through, would you cease all that kind of maintenance and inspection and would have to use the county sealers to do the work then?

I can't speak on behalf of each individual POU as to what their operations decisions might be. But the county sealer's annual inspection would not replace the level of customer protection that a monthly inspection would provide.

So it would be on top. And the Assembly member mentioned approximately $26 a year. Where would we see that be reflected? Would that go down to consumers?

It's a publicly-owned utility, is nonprofit. So there would be nowhere else for those charges to come from than the consumers in some way.

Okay. Thank you. Sir, I apologize, I didn't get your name there. Madam Chair, can I ask another question? I had very similar questions to Senator Roth regarding, and I believe this is one of the amendments asking, and Assemblymember maybe you can answer this as well, asking the POUs to do at that same level of accuracy if yours is only once a year and some POUS are doing once a month. For me, the math, it seems like this is a better approach than annually. So what. What's the word I'm looking for? What added value is the ones annually versus monthly bring?

Yeah. Madam Chair? Thank you. So I think that the best way to explain this is to just apply the methodology that we're attempting to apply to this industry and look at virtually any other situation you'd be much more familiar with, like gas stations, for example.

We would encourage, and most gas stations do probably likely monthly testing to make sure that their gas pumps are actually pumping out the amount that their meter is claiming that it's pumping out. And essentially for their consumer protection and for the logo that they have forward facing to the public to be trustworthy.

We would hope that they do that. We encourage them to continue doing that. Essentially, our program is looked at as a verification that when we show up unannounced and we test that device, whether it be a jewelry scale or a scale at the grocery store or a gas pump or an EV charger, our inspector can look at that meter, be charged an amount that reflects what that meter says the price should be, and we're on our way.

So it's more or less a spot check verification. Then we affix literally a seal onto the device that says, we were here on this date in this county, and we move on and basically are responsive from that point on to complaints or to request from the device operator to come back and retest if they'd like. But otherwise, it's a good seal, good housekeeping seal, essentially.

Exactly. It is the independent party, if you will. I use the analogy of the fox with the chickens, and that is something that the operators can never give you. It is admirable work, and I appreciate that they're doing it on their own. I will say a lot of gas stations test on their own also for their own benefit, because they don't want to be selling more or giving away, if you will, more gasoline than what you're actually paying for. So it can work both ways, but it is the independence that the sealers will provide.

My last comment on this will be, and I think Senator Roth pointed to the fact that as a county sealer, you're still doing your own EV chargers. So that kind of like negates the independency of it or the third party. Assemblymember, I shared that I will go up on this bill. I'm not going to change my word. I do ask that, and you will. You committed to me that you will be working to find some compromise with the POUs. So that's very important for me. And I am reserving my right to change my vote on the Senate Floor.

All right. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Hi. Thank you, Assemblymember Papan. I'm in a quandary here that often the Tahoe basin is aligned on bills that come to us, and on your bill, they are not. So I have the Truckee Donner area, as well as the Kings Beach Tahoe City area in conflict on this bill.

So I'm going to lay off today until I can dive a little bit deeper into that. But, you know, I really do look to the Tahoe basin, the Mono basin, to be able to lead on some of our energy decisions and some of our EV policy. So I'm going to hold back, but we'll come back with some more data for you. Thank you.

Great. Senator Niello.

I want her district.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I promise this is going to be a quick question.

Okay.

Whether it's a quick answer or not, I can't. This authorizes induction mandate, but nonetheless, do counties have the resources to take on this additional work, which for some counties might be fundamentally different than what they do otherwise? Do they have the resources?

Currently, it varies. I know it's not a great answer. We are doing everything we can in our power to get up to speed on this rapidly evolving and exploding technology that's out in the field. But I think first and foremost, which is the purpose of the bill, we needed to secure that authority in order to make sure that the testing is uniform and we're not picking and choosing between private and public sector to actually administer our program. But over time, we would hope that the counties in the state would invest in the program to the level appropriate to allow for that testing to take place on an annual basis.

You'd say the county and the state, if a county agrees, wants to do this, it's going to come out of county resources?

Currently, yes. Yeah, that was wishful thinking.

Although I will say that some of the fees do go towards providing the service of testing the equipment. And I actually carried a bill last year that did increase some of the fees so that they hadn't been increased since. Was it? Yeah, about 2008. So we're hoping that it is more self sufficient as well.

Seeing no additional questions from the dais. Would you like an opportunity to close?

I would. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the discourse here, and we will continue to work with the opposition. You have my representation. As such, we're really just trying to balance protecting the public without being overly burdensome. And so I appreciate the opportunity to bring the bill today and respectfully request an aye vote.

Need a motion. Moved by Senator Eggman. We will take the roll.

[Roll Call]

Eight yeses, no nos. We'll leave the item on call and for other members when they get here. Thank you for presenting. Appreciate you. Thank you. Assemblymember McKinnor, thank you so much for your patience. From this point on, I'm going to change my own rule. We're no longer going to take things in file order.

We're going to take it based on the Member who's here because you waited entirely too long to be heard. So I appreciate you and just know you're the reason for me changing that role now for BMP. Okay. Thank you. I apologize for this. Thank you. Go ahead and take us forward.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present AB 3063, which would clarify the addition of flavoring agent to enhance the taste of a prescription, does not constitute compounding. This Bill was unanimously supported last year in this Committee, but was unfortunately vetoed by the Governor.

As a result, on November 1st, 2023 the number of pharmacies providing flavoring dropped from 3100 to roughly 30 total. A whopping 99.5% reduction in access to service literally overnight. We are currently in discussion with the Board of Pharmacy on amendments that could potentially resolve the concern of both the board and the governor's veto message.

We are hopeful that we will reach a compromise soon as we can bring the practice of flavoring back to the independent and retail pharmacies, thereby making it easier for parents, children, and those with developmental disabilities to have access to medicine that will actually taste good.

In the meantime, due to the urgency of this issue, the Bill is in the form you will all approve today, last year. I hope that you will approve this measure as is to move it along as we work out a solution. Joining me today is Lindsay Gullahorn, representing the California Community Pharmacy Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Lindsay Gullahorn with Capital Advocacy here today, on behalf of the California Retailers Association's Community Pharmacy Coalition. I'm pleased to support AB 3063, which, as you heard, will clarify that adding flavoring agents to medications in pharmacies is not considered compounding.

It's very important for pharmacists to be able to add flavoring to children's medications when prescribing, because when prescribing, many common liquid medications to children prescribers often don't take into account the flavor of the medicine. This is where pharmacies come into play. They are able to add flavoring to liquids and suspensions, which improves taste and increases medication adherence.

Over the past decade, millions of children's medications have been flavored in California pharmacies with no negative health outcomes. Due to recent regulatory action by the Board of Pharmacy, most pharmacies, as you've heard in California, have stopped offering flavoring, which is putting children at risk who may refuse to take their medications or forcing parents to invent their own possibly dangerous approaches to persuade their children to take their medication.

So, without this Bill, most pharmacies will continue to not be able to add flavoring to medications because of the new requirements that they would have to adhere to, to do so. Understand that there are concerns with this Bill by the Board of pharmacy. There was a veto last year.

However, we are encouraged to hear that conversations with the Board are ongoing and that the Board is willing to consider amendments that may address their concerns. So, would respectfully ask for your support today to ensure that those conversations continue and that pharmacies can resume offering flavoring, which will again increase medication adherence, especially among children. Thanks.

All right. Thank you very much. I see some, me too testimony lined up. Come on forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Erin Norwood, representing Flavor RX. We partner with the retail pharmacies to offer flavoring. Thank you very much to the author for bringing this forward and urge your support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Kelly Mac Millan with political solutions on behalf of Children's Specialty Care Coalition, in support.

Thank you. All right. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 3063? Seeing no-one, we will bring it back to the dice. Colleagues, any comments? All right, you have motion.

Well, now, wait a minute. Senator Eggman has to sing her rendition of that Mary Poppins song.

Thank you, sir. But I did point out I sang twice last year, and it was vetoed, so I think I'm gonna abstain.

That is her contribution to helping you Assemblymember McKinnor, would you like to close, or would you rather Senator Eggman sing spoonful of sugar? Up to you?

Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down the medicine go down the medicine go down. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

In the most delightful way. Thank you so very much. We do. We have a. We had a motion. Yes. We have a motion from Senator Roth. We will take the roll. We will see if we can get a different answer from our Governor.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Becker? Becker, aye. Dodd? Dodd, aye. Eggman? Eggman, aye. Glazer? Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Niello? Aye. Niello, aye. Roth? Roth, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk? Wilk, aye.

All right, 11 yeses, no noes. See what we can do. Thank you very much. And thank you again for your patience with us. Colleagues. At the request of the author, file item number three, AB 226 by Assembly Member Flora has been pulled from our agenda today. So, that makes up our full agenda.

If you've been here the whole time, means you have already voted on everything. Thank you very much for doing so. We are going to run through the order again here. For those of you who weren't here, let's start with file item one. Assemblymember Haney's 1775 cannabis bill. It has two noes and five ayes.

Ashby or, excuse me, Chair and Vice Chair voting no. [Roll call]

That's seven to two. We will leave it on call. Next item. File item two. This is Papan's weights and measures bill, AB 2037. It has eight ayes and no noes. Please call the full roll, every Member.

Yeah. Motion has do pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Current vote is, eight to zero. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call] Nine.

Okay, nine to nothing that we will leave on call as well. Next item. We pulled item three. So, we're taking file item four, Assembly Member Patterson's AB 2471. This is his public nurse bill. He sits at nine ayes, no noes.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Alright, that item gets out, 12 to nothing. Moving on to file item five, Assemblymember Garcia. This is the Licensed Physicians and Dentists from Mexico Program. He currently sits at 10 ayes, no noes.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, 12 to nothing. That one gets out as well. The next Garcia bill, file item six, AB 2864. Also about the licensed physicians and dentist. This one's an extension of the licenses. Sitting at 10 ayes, no noes.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, again, 12 ayes, no noes. That item moves on. Last, file item seven. This is Assemblymember McKinnor, AB 3063. Her compounding pharmacies bill. It currently sits with 11 ayes and no noes.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, that's 12 ayes, no noes. That item also gets out. We're going to go back to item one, one more time here. Assembly Member Haney, 1775. His cannabis retail preparation food consumption bill. It sits with two noes and seven ayes.

Chair and Vice Chair voting no. [Roll call]

All right, that's nine ayes and two noes. That bill also gets out. File item two. This is Assembly Member Papan, 2037. Her weights and measures on electric vehicles charges. She currently sits at nine ayes and no noes.

Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Okay. All right. Nine ayes, no noes. That item gets out. That is the end of our agenda today because we fold item three. Thank you to my colleagues and to the Assembly Members for presenting their bills today. That's it for Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee.