Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Well, you haven't started yet.

Okay, we are going to delay the start by just a couple minutes so that I can go help appropriations get a quorum. I'll be right back.

Okay, we're going to call to order the State Senate business, Professions, Economic Development Committee. Thank you for your patience. Sorry, we trying to hold many committees today and we needed to, Mister Becker and I needed to help appropriations establish their quorum. Speaking of which, let's establish our quorum.

Roll Call

Great. Thank you all very much. We are happy to have you here. We have about 20 bills on the agenda today. No consent items. At the author's request, file item number three, AB 2269 by Assembly Member Flora has been pulled. We have established our quorum. So we will get started with our agenda items.

And Assembly Member Gipson, you are up first. Start with AB 2231 the pawn broker's education Bill, and then move to your second Bill. Would that be okay?

That's fine.

All right, great. When you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My voice is a little raspy from the weekend, so please excuse my voice. Thank you very much for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2231 which seeks to propose a mandated continuous education for pawn brokers in California.

First, I would like to thank the Committee for their hard work in making and strengthening this Bill and making this Bill better. We will be accepting the Committee's amendments.

This Bill would require that before receiving licensures, all pawn brokers would receive at least 8 hours of training for related to customer service, business practices, law and regulations, security, and also ethics.

This Bill would also require that every two years, pawn brokers would go through an additional continuous education to stay up to date on the new regulations, new laws, new procedures. Members, these pawn shops are absolutely essential to my district and across the State of California.

These shops serve as an important safety net to individuals that do not have access to traditional credit system. Our pawn brokers are struggling. We want to see them to succeed. But also over the years, we've seen a steady decline over the past few years. Broker industry during the pandemic had about 1000 pawn brokers.

Now in California, it's close to 600-700. From 1000 to 600-700. So the decline is absolutely real. This means that small businesses owners has been forgotten, fail to get supported, and the attention that is needed to thrive and also grow. At the same time. California is faced with multiple challenges.

In terms of recent memories, the latest projections show that at least 9 million households in the United States are unbanked, and nearly a third of the households have credit scores below 650. And so, in short, that this is a mandate. Continuous education for pawn brokers they're imposing on themselves.

We think this is a right in a step in a step in the right direction. We're 2231 with me to provide supporting testimony. This is a familiar face, Senator Cathleen Galgiani, who was a Member of this body, who's here to support and speak in support of California's Pawn Brokers Association.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, and thank you to our author who has done a wonderful job in bringing us thus far with the Bill. The California Pawn Brokers is the sponsor.

Pawn shops in California are an important financial safety net for individuals who do not have access to traditional credit, like short term loans, credit cards, or even payday loans. Pawn shops do not require credit checks or good credit scores, making them accessible to individuals with poor or no credit history. Everyone seeks a pawn loan.

Who seeks one is approved, because loans are based on the value of tangible items provided as collateral. Mandatory education will ensure that pawn brokers are up to date on the latest laws and regulations at both the state and federal level.

The pawn industry is constantly changing, and pawn brokers need to be aware of new laws and regulations in order to comply with them.

In addition, pawn brokers who are properly educated and trained are better able to assess the value of items that are pawned, detect counterfeit items commonly used as collateral, and therefore protect themselves from making a loan not supported by the collateral. Educated pawn brokers are also better able to provide advice and guidance to consumers.

As the author mentioned, we will be accepting the Committee amendments. I want to thank the staff for such a thoughtful analysis and for the recommended amendments to make the Bill better, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. No other lead witnesses?

No.

Okay. All right, let's see if there's anyone in the room in support who would like to be me too testimony right now. Come on forward. Absent that, is there anyone in the room who is opposed? That would be lead opposition or me too testimony. All right,

Move the Bill.

Thank you. You have a motion? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote

Sorry, I forgot. Go ahead. I know, I'm sorry. I need to turn this way more off.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Gibson, for bringing this forward. I had a question for your witness. Senator Retired Galgiani. Are you the new Bill Duplicia? Yes.

All right. Well, welcome to B and P. Thank you. Myself and Alberto Tirico, who served with me in the Assembly.

Thank you. May you rest in peace.

Thank you.

Okay. Yes.

And we served also in the Assembly together. So I have some sort of different viewpoints here. First of all, what's the problem? Do we have evidence that, because the organization's website says that it provides professional education, but I'm not exactly sure what that is.

But are there issues, currently deficient issues in the profession that cry out for a formal education program, and it can end up with higher fees and all of them, and also potentially certification in order to become a pawn broker, and all of those things tend to be a barrier to entrance to the business.

And given its value, and I agree with you, it is an alternative that a lot of people need. Could be more difficult for qualified individuals to become pawn brokers and therefore have more competition in the industry, whereas this particular proposal may go in the opposite direction. What's your reaction to that?

The pawnbroker Members believe that this will actually be extremely helpful. It is a difficult business to get into, and in many cases, you have individuals who are the sons or daughters of current owners who then take over the business, because it is such a difficult business to get into.

Larger companies, as we know, can afford to have legal counsel on hand. Small pawn broker shops do not. So they, the owners, have to try to keep up with the different state laws, the federal laws. One area in particular is that the pawn brokers have to do daily transactions of the items that have been pawned to them.

And the reports have to be submitted to the Department of Justice. That's just one of the things that they need to comply with. On the other hand, they also have challenges on a business level with just the ever changing industry, because they're taking in collateral and loaning money on that collateral.

They have to be very aware if the gold necklace chain that they're taking in is real or if it's fake, the diamonds, whether there's cubic zirconias or lab grown, there are all of these technologies that are out there that enable them to stay ahead of these fraudulent practices.

For items that are commonly pawned, they need to have access to that information. And if they can, it helps them tremendously to ensure that the money that they are loaning out on the collateral will support the collateral. So those are just a few things and a few reasons.

Collectively, they have a lot of years of knowledge on both the state and federal law and on best business practices. Also, security is a tremendous concern now you've seen the problems with retail theft and the pawn brokers have really been subject to that as well.

So all of these combined will help the owner to be able to stay on top of the best practices, laws, regulations and be able to do that through this continuing education curriculum.

And I get all those points. I'm not sure that it's necessary though, to set up a state function with additional fees. As an example, in my private sector activities, I'm an automobile dealer, and the State Dealer Association provides those services to dealers. And it's quite comprehensive in terms of new laws.

Automobile dealers are subject to a good deal of regulation also, and our Association provides that knowledge and service. Additionally, we have a National Association, but it provides to us just about everything that you mentioned. And again, I'm not opposed to the education. It's valuable and it's important.

I'm just wondering if it's worth setting up a state entity to do that with all of the fees that will come along with that for pawn brokers and even the certification, all of which becomes a barrier to other pawn brokers entering the business on a quality level and providing more competition.

And more competition is always a better thing. So that's the concern that I have.

And if I may just jump in, Senator, and I appreciate your question and appreciate the thoughtful path you're going down.

I think to have an industry to say we want to take this responsibility to make sure that we have, we're a professional association and making sure that we stay on top of all the rules and regulations that's changing every year by this body that we want to make.

We want to professionalize ourselves, and we want to make sure that we're providing the kind of knowledge as well as a service that the clients as well as the small mom and pop pawn brokers deserve to have. And so I think you're seeing this being imposed upon themselves as an industry who they welcome this.

And so I've met with them and they are excited about this, meaning mom and pop pawn brokers associations, all about California at their convention. So they're behind this. It's not someone else imposing it, they're imposing it upon themselves, which provides great leadership, I think.

Okay, that a close?

All right. Motion from Senator Roth. Let's call the roll.

That's a close.

Roll Call

Okay, that has seven votes, and we'll leave it on call for the other Members who are not quite here yet.

Thank you.

Let's move on to your next item. File item two, AB 2862.

Thank you very much. I want to stipulate that my lead witness was unable to make it due to an emergency. So thank you very much for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2862 which currently seeks to prioritize professional licensures for African Americans that are descendants of enslaved people.

Assembly Bill 2862 will serve as a four year pilot program to test the effectiveness of prioritizing professional licensures for individuals that are identified by the California American Freedom Affairs Agency. This Bill is part of accumulations of thousands of hours of research as part of the California Reparation Task Force Report.

This report presents evidence of disenfranchisement of African Americans are facing in the professional sector. This Bill additionally is prioritized and a priority of the California Legislative Black Caucus. The Chairwoman was here, Chairwoman Lori Wilson, but she had to leave to go to another Committee at the present time.

But this measure will help, will help bring parity to our community that has been left behind. By allowing these populations to have prioritization in licensures, we began to close the gap between the earning of African Americans in California and their white counterparts.

African Americans in California are severely underserved in high skilled professions, including technology, businesses, agriculture and engineering. Last week, my office met with the Committee, consultants with this Committee and the Judicial Committee, which is another indication that this is a work in progress and continue to work towards strengthening this Bill.

I want to address some of the concerns today to ensure that the Members of this Committee, that my team and I will be working throughout the summer to getting this Bill in a better place with stakeholders and consultants within these committees as well. I want to specify that this Bill hopes to expedite licensures upon applications.

We will work with stakeholders to clarify qualifications for this expedition. We have already submitted amendments to the Ledge Council and this will reflect in the upcoming days stipulate that we acknowledge that there are boards in California that have extensive numbers of applications and making expediting necessary.

We acknowledge that many of these boards that are not allowed to ask questions of those who have applications around race. Our intent is to have this agency, the California American Freedom Agency, determine the descendants in this Bill. Committee Members, this is a work in progress. This is not a one time fix. All kinds of situation.

We're working on this Bill even throughout the summer, working with both committees in order to strengthen this. As I indicated, we've put some amendments and suggestion amendments that this Committee has given, as well as the Judiciary Committee across the desk, and they will be in print.

And I respectfully ask an aye vote at the appropriate time, but my late witness is not here due to an emergency.

Okay. Is there anybody else here who is in support who would like to do maybe brief comments or me too testimony?

I'll simply do a me, too Margaret Gladstein Capila Voussi here on behalf of Los Angeles County. We're in support of the Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Is there anybody here that would be lead opposition to the Bill? How about not lead opposition, but wants to do me, too opposition? All right. Seeing no one, I'm going to bring it back to the dais.

And before I ask my colleagues for questions, I'd just like to make a couple of comments, because this was a bit of an unusual process. I'm glad to see you feeling better this week.

And normally we do present for each other, but last week there were several Members who wanted it to be you in particular so they could ask you questions. So thank you for allowing us that opportunity.

It did jam up the process a little bit because this Bill was double referred, which means you are on our docket today and on the judiciary docket tomorrow.

So last week, the judiciary team and the BMP team did try to work with your team on, collectively on the Bill, which is somewhat unusual because usually you're dealing with one Committee at a time. It was our recommendation that the Bill do a study because what you are trying to achieve is so important and so consequential.

And we wanted to make sure that we clearly define the things like prioritize what that means to you. Obviously, there are no limits on licensure.

So what that prioritization would look like and how it would line up with other priorities that this board has made, such as getting people in certain areas into particular communities, addressing areas where there is a shortage in one particular licensure, and also wanting to work through some of the constitutional issues, which I know will be in the purview of judiciary, and also to talk about this agency not yet in existence.

And also the definitions in your Bill do not quite line up with Senator Bradford's bills. And I know you have alluded to that, and you did bring forward some potential amendments, but they were brought too late to the staff to cross at that time.

So I know that you've probably put them in yourself, and should this Bill leave this Committee today, you then would have the opportunity to continue working on those. But I wanted to let my colleagues know that we did not just let the week go. We worked with judiciary.

We tried very hard to make some recommendations, and it is still my contention that this should be a study Bill so that we can do good justice to what you are trying to achieve. So I will take questions and comments from my colleagues now. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Assembly Member. If I heard correctly, the goal, and I think I understand the goal, is to close the gaps, ensure that there is an equitable representation in these professional. If I understand correctly, people who are, who attempt to get certified through DCA already went through every single step necessary.

And at that point, we can't increase the numbers at that certain point, because these are just people who already went through the course.

If our goal is to increase this demographic in certain professional licensure, my question would be, why aren't we doing it where there's actually an opportunity to increase the numbers, say, in how many are accepted into the schools, how many are able to get loan repayments so they can go to these schools, get the education?

Because, again, at this point, we can't change the number of people who are getting licensure. So I'm asking, my first question is, can you explain to me how this is going to increase the number of individuals in this demographic under, with this lineage and professional backgrounds?

Well, thank you very much for your question. Hopefully, I can do it justice by giving an adequate response to it with the establishment of this New Affairs Department. One, it would identify those who are legitimately qualified under the Enslave Act. Right, who are descendants of slaves whose applications going through these professional life.

What we found in the 1,100 report of the reparations report, that a number of African Americans have been disenfranchised. And that's the reason why we have this report, to point this situation out. And it's in the professional licensing piece.

And that if disenfranchised from becoming professionals or disenfranchised after they went through every single step, that DCA is not certifying their hours, their education, and not assigning them a number.

I believe that is, that is the situation.

Yes, the latter. I believe that is. And again, I wish that my key witness was here to elaborate on that, because that person is very, very knowledgeable, all the inner workings of it, and so, but I believe it's the latter.

The latter?

Okay, and maybe that's complete news for me. And maybe my other fellow professional that gets a license under DCA could help, because my assumption is everybody who checks off the education, who did at least speak on the mental health component, gets all the hours necessary, simply goes to DCA and says, hey, I got everything.

I submit my application, and all you need to do is certify me. So if everybody regard, regardless of skin, sexual orientation, what have you submit, their application will end up getting certified by the DCA. So am I understanding that correctly, Madam Chair? Yes. So I guess I'm still trying to figure out how we're going to increase this.

I mean, I'm, you know, I'm always looking. I think about, there's not enough bilingual physicians in California. We need more bilingual physicians. But if I thought certifying bilingual Spanish speakers in California through the medical board would be the solution, we jump on it. Instead, we have legislation like bringing some from Mexico.

There's some, your fellow colleague is bringing additional people to go through the process versus streamlining the actual process. So I'm still. So that's where I'm having trouble seeing how this would actually expedite or increase the number of people.

My second thing is I have concerns that were through your proposed author amendments that we're looking to have this fall under a department that doesn't exist yet, that we have, don't know how it's going to run. We have in the Department, and I hope Senator Bradford's Bill does pass. But I think that's the first step.

Let the Department go into existence. Understand, you know, get the staff up and ready to go, and then come back and see what can this Department do, what definition are they going to be utilizing, what calculator they're going to be utilizing to find the lineage and so forth. So it's just a lot of outstanding questions for me.

I'm going to stop because I think I'm rambling now and let you.

Sure. No, you're not rambling, and I appreciate the thoughtful questions under Senator Bradford. Yes. The establishment of this agency that doesn't exist right now will take place.

And within that, the 1,100 report or the reparations report that has been made public clearly indicates that there are, in fact, some issues when it comes down to professional licensing of those who are of African American descent.

And what this Bill seeks to do is try to make sure that those who want to get these professional license have an opportunity to do that. And it's a prioritization of those individuals on any particular list that may exist when you even look at nursing.

Well, we have nursing, nurses, nursing lists that are three to two years long. Right, and there's no denying that. And there could, in fact, be other lists.

So I'm assuming, and I would be sure that because it was brought out and thousands and hours of research that was done in the reparation task force, 1,100 pages, it has brought this glaring situation out that needs to be addressed, and that's what this Bill seeks to do.

Okay. We have Senator Eggmont and then Roth and then Niello.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Like my fellow colleague here, I'm confused also, because I think we all understand what you're trying to do, but I just don't know if this is the cure for the problem. I would say, first you have to see which licensures are most underrepresented. Right, to prioritize in some kind of way. Right.

Is it, is it an LCSW or is it an attorney? Is it here? What is it? Right.

So first of all, I think it would be important to look at, and then, like my colleague, I mean, once you have, from my perspective, one of the areas that needs help is getting people into education, you point out the nursing degree, but that's because a lot of nursing programs are impacted. Right.

We don't have enough nursing programs and we don't have enough clinical placements. It's not really, I mean, once people get everything they need and you can get licensed, you can sit for the, you know, you sit for the, the test sometimes that's also, people need some help on that area.

But just saying we're going to expedite all licenses doesn't make, it doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think it achieves what you're trying to achieve, which I think we're all in support of. So I don't know if you can help me understand that. I don't see myself, this is 1 of July.

We're out of here at the end of August. So continuing to work, I don't know what that means at the end of a two year session. I don't feel comfortable voting for a Bill that we have no idea how it's going to be implemented, what form it's going to be implemented, where, or any of those things.

So if you can help me understand that. Otherwise, I don't see myself being able to support this Bill today. While I support the idea of it, practically, trying to implement this does not make sense to me.

Sure. Thank you very much, Senator. Again, once the establishment of this new agency. Right, and, well, let me go back to the report. As I indicated, this report is 1,100 pages.

And through the research that was done, it has pointed out where there are, in fact, some issues when it comes down to professional licensing and this Bill, of course, to seek, to try to espadate. And was that in the analysis?

I didn't see that the documentation of the, of the problem from the 1,100 page should have been in an analysis. Was it, do we know.

Senator Eggman. It came back to Senator Menjavar's point of, is the problem at point of licensure or getting to the point correct?

Okay. All right. So the data that you have submitted doesn't quite back up, doesn't provide evidence for what you're trying to do, as I understand it, but I understand that it is around the same topic.

Okay.

Senator Roth?

Well, as you know, Assembly Member, I spent a little time sharing this for about three years and specifically focused on nursing because that was something I've been, and other related health issues been focused on for 12 years.

I don't think that there's, and based on my experience, I will say there is not an issue in terms of getting people through the licensure hurdle that is significant. We went through this with military spouses and whether we needed to prioritize military spouses in nursing.

And the Nursing Board is processing license applications that are complete in a fairly effective and efficient way. There may be, may very well be an issue with the nurses that are applying to be licensed in terms of not being representative of the communities that they are going to service.

But that's an issue having to do with, as my colleagues have said, schools and the process by which individuals are trained up to the point where they seek admission to nursing schools and then the nursing application process and how that works.

And it seems to me that those that are calling for a study are probably doing so with some reason, because maybe we do need to take a look at our nursing schools and how they're selecting individuals for admission into the programs.

Take a look at how the classes that graduate represent the communities that we want them to represent. But I'm not sure that's in the licensure piece.

I'll support the Bill today because if you say we're going to prioritize a licensure, then I suppose that means that if you have two applicants, one that meets the definition that you have in your Bill and someone who doesn't within a 30 day licensure period, let's say it takes 30 days to get a licensure, we're going to move one up to the front of the line and the other one will fall in the line somewhere else.

So someone will get licensed on day one, not day 30. And if that's your intent in the Bill, then from my perspective, that's what the Bill does. But I don't think that's your intent. So I'll support your Bill.

But I don't think this Bill is going to get you where you want to be, because where you want to be is a larger issue that has very little, if anything, to do with the way the Board of Registered Nursing, for example, processes license applications, if I'm making sense.

Well, Senator, I appreciate that. I was just using that as an example in terms of nursing, because we do all know that there's long waiting lists in California for those who wants to go into nursing. I just use the list as an example.

In my analogy, in the actual report of the 1,100 page of the reparation report, again, it points out, and I can only surmise and stipulate that through all these hours of research, it has pointed out this is an issue and that gives rise to this particular Bill, trying to get at the issue and realizing that there's a lot of things that needs to take place for this.

Again, this is part of 14 bills of the reparation of the California Legislative Black Caucus report that's moving through the Legislature, realizing for me we will be working with committees in order to strengthen and taking their suggestions and trying to strengthen and make this Bill better, to making sure that the purpose is, in fact, is met in this particular area.

And again, the thousands of hours of research have pointed out that there are some issues when it comes down to prioritization or expediting licensing for individuals of enslaved people. And that's what we're trying to accomplish here in this particular Bill.

We just have a couple more questions from Senators.

Senator Niello and then Senator Nguyen.

Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is one of several bills this year that we have and have done that seeks to give priority to different groups through the Department of Consumer affairs.

And the problem is the more of these that we have, the more priorities we have, and the more you have lots of priorities, then really nothing is a priority, unfortunately. And for that reason, I can't support this particular Bill. But what you're talking about is opportunity, right? You want to provide opportunity, opportunities.

And I want to go back to something, and a few of my colleagues have talked about education, and I want to go back to a point that I have continued to make, and I will continue to make it, and that is that the opportunity of African American youth is horribly compromised because our K-12 system completely fails them.

It is the lowest performing cohort next to English language learners in our K-12 system in the State of California, not because of them, but because our schools do not serve their needs do not provide them the opportunity that they need to then move on and be successful in higher education, et cetera, until we address the failing, which is well documented, in particular of black kids in our k through 12 system, were horribly compromised in providing the very opportunity that you and I both are vitally interested in.

I would suggest you change this Bill to a study Bill to come to find out exactly why it is that we so miserably fail the needs and wants and desires and dreams of black kids in our K-12 system.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few questions. I guess what I'm trying to understand is, is our current system broken in the sense of, do we have a list of how many? Do we have a breakdown of the different groups of individuals that are applying for these fill?

Senator Nguyen.

And if so, are certain groups being denied or not? Because what I see is that what if there's a field that there isn't anybody from the African American community who even apply for it, so do we force them to apply for it so then we can have equity in that field?

It's just not an interest like in our community. In one of my part of my district, Little Saigon, 80% of those who works in the nail industry are Vietnamese refugees. It's one of the field that was shown to them when, after the Vietnam War, they all came here and needed a job.

And some folks came to them, say, hey, here's a job that you can learn certain number of hours. And so it just became more of those individuals and still continuously do so. It's like 80% California, 60% nationwide. So my question more is, like, first, do we know each of these fields?

How many people have applied, how many have been denied, and how long does it take for these applications to move forward?

And like my colleague earlier stated, you know, really, I think it comes down to education and what people want to, to pursue and apply for, because I also with the understanding that these, once you have your education, you have what's required, you apply, you wait for them to verify all that information, and then your application gets processed.

I don't think it's a pick and choose who gets the application or not, because we want more of everything. We don't want less of any of these professions. I just think is that we might not have those in the pipeline, and that education part is needed from K-12

And so I think, before moving forward, some of this is, I think, letting us understand what the breakdown in each of these fields and each of these licenses and like I said, when they apply, how long does it take? Are they all fully qualified?

And if so, if they would deny, why is it based on the different types of different groups of individuals? What is it? So I think that would be much more helpful for us as we, if you want to continue to pursue this, because I'm a little at loss. I didn't know there was that much problem.

I thought that most people who applied gets it.

Sure. Let me say, I don't have a list for you, but my team is watching. They're taking notes right now. And I'll be more than happy to get you that information before the close of business today. Again, this is something that is still evolving. This is a work in progress. And so we know this.

This is not something, I mean, we talk about. I keep harping on 1,100 pages and thousands of hours that went into this report. And in this report, it shows disparity, disparities for those who are African American, those who are descendants of enslaved people.

And what we're trying to do is close the gap even in the areas of professional licensing. We're trying to close the gap that exists that this report has brought out. And so this is a small piece to try to make sure that that happens.

But you asked a specific question I don't have the answer for, but I'll be more than happy to get you the answer before the close of business today.

But again, this is a work in progress, and I assure that the Committee and each Senator here that we're putting the time in and the work in necessary to address these questions moving forward.

When we look at what we're trying, what we're attempting to do as a caucus and as an agency that has not yet been established, there's money in the budget for it. There is a strong entity in terms of trying to put and lay the framework in terms of the functions of this particular agency.

And these bills that we are offering will be going through in some shape, form or fashion through that agency. That agency will provide the manpower, the skill set necessary to provide the answers to a lot of questions. But most of all, in this particular Bill is closing the gap that exists that this report has brought out.

And that's what we're trying to do.

Thank you.

You're very welcome.

Okay. That's it for questions. I would just, I think I'm just going to finish out by saying I appreciate the Bill. Really want to be helpful with the Bill. Great comments from colleagues. One more?

If I could just ask. You've said repeatedly you're going to work with the committees. It sounds like both the committees have asked you to make this a study Bill, but you're the you don't feel like.

I've only heard just one Committee, and we're taking that under advisement now.

Okay. But at this point, for this Committee, you're not willing. It's not going to be a study Bill.

Well, I'm not, you know, at the point at liberty to say yes or no to it, because, again, this is part of the Legislative Black Caucus Coalition of Bills.

And so I would like to at least be able to have the opportunity to go back to the Legislative Black caucus and offer what has been offered to me by way of a study Bill.

Thank you.

But I will still. I'm sorry. I would still love for your aye vote. If we can't do that, I'll be more than happy to come back and share that with the Committee Chair and Members as well.

Sure. Good. Okay. So I did speak with the Chair of Judiciary myself, as did our B&P staff. In fact, as you all know, because you were here last week, we had to actually coordinate with judiciary staff to make the exception to move it forward.

And so I know that it is the contention of the Chair of Judiciary and the Chair of this Committee to ask you to do a study Bill, but you have every right to come and do it just as you have done today.

What I would say is if the Bill gets out of here today, I think you'll face similar comments tomorrow and some discussions around the constitutionality. I am on that Committee as well. And if for some reason doesn't get out, I would love for you to.

To work on it, still come back, and then maybe we can look at it again in August, if you're willing to do that later. But let's see what happens here today.

We would need a motion, and if we don't have a motion, we can put it on call, come back at the end and see if one of the Members who isn't here wants to make a motion later.

I would appreciate that, because I know there's some Members that are not here.

Yeah, there are some Members not here. Absolutely. We'll hold on to it. Thank you, Mister.

Thank you very much.

Okay. All right, next up we have Mister Flora. Assembly Member Flora, are you ready? Hello. Welcome.

Thank you. Hello, Madam Chair and Members, I am pleased to present AB 2578 enables California nursing students enrolled in out of state distance learning programs to obtain the required clinical experiences at California health facilities. Working with Assembly Committee staff, we put together very clear language in the bill that we cannot displace any California students.

Further, the school will provide a list of all placements for the upcoming semester to prove that they are not placing online California students in impacted areas. AB 2578 allows California residents to complete their online nursing education while simultaneously participating their hands on training in their local communities. We have limited the bill.

We have limited the bill to non-hospital placements. So the only placement these students will get are in remote areas in the Central Valley, Imperial County and possibly the north coast.

And if they cannot find placement, they will do what they've been doing now and move to another state to find placements, to live and find a facility there. My bill gives students a shot at staying in California to complete their education, but they cannot take a spot from a student from a California school.

And with me, I have Chris Kahn to testify and ask any technical questions. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. All right. Thank you. Assemblymember Mr. Khan. Go ahead. You have two minutes, or two of you can have two minutes on your lead.

Can I just say, I'm Chris Khan representing Nightingale Education Group. With me is Blake Halliday with Nightingale Yale College. We're here in support and as the sponsors and answer questions, but we would like our two witnesses to.

Sure, absolutely. That sounds great. Okay, go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you so much for taking the time to hear us today. My name is Julie Heath. I am a BSN student at a school outside of California. I chose distance learning because of schools in the area are very impacted. I'm a mother of five.

I have a husband who. Sorry, who.

You're doing great. Take your time. It's okay.

Who has medical issues. He's a cancer survivor. And I need to be close to my family to be able to support them. I'm so sorry.

It's okay. It's all right. You're doing great.

Thank you.

I needed the flexibility to be able to be available for my family and to also pursue my education at the same time. The schools in this area I couldn't get into because there's two years plus to get into it, or I get into a lottery system, and I don't have time to wait. I'm not a spring chicken, and I want to get my education now. So that's why I chose to do distance learning. The downside of that is that I have to travel outside of California to get my clinical experience, and that comes at a great cost.

And it's huge hardship on my family and thousands of others like me who also have to travel outside of the state to get the same clinical experiences. We are asking that you allow us to have the opportunity to learn here, close to home, to be able to be close to family. I'm so sorry... I know that we need nurses in our state greatly, and I'm one of those that want to be able to bridge that gap, and it would allow me to make connections and hopefully future opportunities for work.

And like I said, there are thousands of people like me that are going through the same types of programs that want the same opportunities. Right now, we are being recruited out of state, and so we want the opportunity to stay within the State of California and become California nurses. And so for those reasons, I would ask that you give an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony today, and thanks for coming up to Sacramento. All right...

I'm so sorry. I live in Cameron Park.

Okay, great. Thanks for being here. I mean, down. All right.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to hear us today. My name is Ashley Jones. I'm the Outreach Engagement Manager for Generations Healthcare. We are a skilled nursing, behavioral health, sub-acute, rehabilitation, assisting living, and special treatment program healthcare provider.

We have 30 locations here in California. We were established in 1998 and have over 5200 employees currently. As the clinical coordinator for the company, I can attest that we do have space to be able to house people like Julie living here. Out of the 36,000 people in California choosing to do this program, we are currently, our skilled nursing facilities are at half capacity for clinical rotations, and we are eager and ready to host new clinical agreements with opportunities to develop our California nursing talent.

I want to say that we do have the available space, and we continue to see the involvement for our future to shape how these learners are being able to touch the lives in bedside manner and beyond. We respectfully request that you make this change and support the aye vote this morning.

All right. Thank you also for your testimony today. And so are there others in the room here in support? Me too testimony, come on forward now. Name, organization, and position on the bill. Hold on. Let's say it again one more time. We just turn the mic on. Jordan, go ahead.

Jordan Gershman on behalf of DaVita in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Kristi Foy on behalf of Fresenius Medical Care and also California Kidney Care Alliance in strong support. Thank you.

Regina Karson in support, representing self.

Duane Jones of Concord, and I support this bill.

All right.

Hi, everyone. My name is Xavier Rodriguez. I'm a nursing student from Elk Grove, and I support this bill.

Thank you. Anybody else me too testimony? Okay. You don't have to run. We'll wait. It's okay.

Rosalyn Gardner, I'm coming all the way from Stockton. I am in the Nightingale program, and I support.

Thank you. From coming from Stockton. Senator Eggman appreciates you. You could have carpooled. You could have carpooled today. All right, anybody else in support in the room who'd like to me too testimony? All right, is there lead opposition on this bill? Anybody who'd like to make some comments? Come on up. Probably need to ask you too, if you would go ahead to the front row. Thank you so much. Just make room here. Thank you. All right. Hello. Welcome. You have two minutes as well.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair and Members. Marissa Clark on behalf of the Board of Registered Nursing. We do want to thank the author and sponsor for attempting to address some of the issues that were previously raised through recent amendments.

Our full Board has not had a chance to take a formal position on the most recent language, but I did discuss it with our Board Chair and some of the structural concerns that our members raised on the previous version around lack of an enforcement mechanism and that impact on clinical displacement did still remain.

Unfortunately, by exempting out of state programs from the approval process, it removes our main tool for ensuring that the provisions in the bill and other California state nursing laws are complied with. We do want to acknowledge the bill shift to non-acute settings. However, due to the scarcity of clinical placements, most California approved nursing programs are also utilizing non-acute care settings, either in addition to or in place of acute care settings.

It's not uncommon for our approved programs to report losing their clinical rotations from one year to the next for a variety of different reasons, and unless they're able to find alternative placements, their students are not able to progress and graduate. We do also very much appreciate the additional reporting requirements that were added, but it is unclear what can be done by the Board if the information shows that students are being placed in areas in large numbers that are already highly impacted.

We wanted to note that the Board has provided program approval to out of state distance education programs before, and that did allow their students to do their clinicals in California. We would welcome the opportunity to work with more out of state programs rather than exempting them from the protection processes that our in state programs are held to. Thank you.

Okay, great. Next up, you also have two minutes. Go right ahead when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Ashby, Committee Members. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to testify today. I'm Carmen Comsti, State Lead Regulatory Policy Specialist with the California Nurses Association, representing over 100,000 registered nurses across the state. While we appreciate the author's efforts to address our concerns, we still respectfully oppose the bill.

Our concerns remain that the bill undermines the ability of California approved nursing programs to place their students in already limited clinical slots. The recent amendment to provide clinical education in non-acute care settings does not address this problem.

As it currently stands, based on BRN data from 2022, 92 out of 152 programs in California reported being denied access to clinical placements for their nursing students. Nursing schools have reported the inability to secure clinical placements is one of the top two reasons for not enrolling more students. This bill would only further exacerbate the problem of limited clinical placements for nursing students across the state, especially for our already struggling community colleges and state university programs.

Additionally, while the most recent amendments attempt to establish transparency and accountability on what the out of state distance programs are teaching, the problem remains that there is no enforcement mechanism when those programs fail to comply. The bill also...

We do need your final thought.

And just finally, the bill would potentially place patients in danger because Nevada state distance programs could get away with not meeting California's curriculum standards. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Is there me too testimony in the room in opposition of the bill? Seeing... Okay, you can come up to the mic. And if you are opposed, you can come up to the mic and say your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. My name is Tammy Vanthul. I am the Dean of Nursing at Riverside City College. I'm also the President of California Organization of Associate Degree Nursing, and we oppose the bill.

Dr. Shara Lu Crary, I am from Evergreen Valley College, and I am in opposition of this bill.

Dr. Elizabeth Riley, I'm the Dean of Health Occupations from Cerritos College in Los Angeles County, and I am in opposition to this bill.

Ryan Brown, Director of Government Affairs, San José-Evergreen Community College District in San Jose, and our district opposes the bill.

Okay. Anybody else in opposition? Then we will come back to the dais for colleagues. Do you have questions, colleagues? Senator Eggman and Menjivar. The bill has been moved. We have three sets of questions here. Becker. So we'll start with Eggman and then Menjivar and then Becker.

Thank you very much. It's interesting to me that... Are the placements being held in dialysis centers? I guess, to the sponsors. Is that why you have a lot of dialysis support? Is this a dialysis focused nursing placement bill?

It's not, but it's one of many options. And again, you know, we're trying to be very clear that we're not competing with California in-state students in placements. But these are the type we... Assemblyman... I'm sorry. I shouldn't have jumped in. But if it's okay, Madam Chair.

You're okay.

Thank you. So we limited the bill down to non-hospital placements to even fine tune that we aren't competing with those slots at all. We're looking, you know, for these students, they're desperate. They are. They're looking at weekend hours. They're looking at holiday hours.

They're looking at driving long distances because at least they don't have to uproot from their families, like our witness testified to, and go to another state. So dialysis centers are one of the options, but it's also, you know, many others in the non-hospital setting.

Okay. And I hear what the opposition is saying. Just because I've served on this committee for a long time, and we know that placements are a huge problem, and they're like gold when you get one, which... So I understand that your students would like one as well. Is there any notice from the school, I guess, upon application that it does not come with a placement in California?

Go ahead. Okay. Blake, would you like to...

Sorry. I apologize that I'm not entirely sure what the question...

So when someone signs up for Nightingale Education Group to go to a nursing school outside of the state, are they advised at that time that their ability to get a placement may be compromised because of the attendance at an out of state online school?

Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

They are advised?

In fact, now they're being told that you don't have this option. Coming to Nightingale as a California resident, you don't have this option. You have to go to another state. The advisement now will be, you have an opportunity, no guarantees. You still may have to do what they're doing now and go to another state and find a facility there to do the placement.

Madam Chair, if I can ask a question to the opposition. I mean, yes, to the opposition.

Yes. Go right ahead. Sorry. Trying to help Appropriations with their votes too. Go ahead.

I didn't get your name. I think you were the first one who spoke, but you mentioned something I want to hear if I understood correctly. That there is something that you're helping, you're willing to address the issue. Could you elaborate on that?

Sorry. Marissa Clark, Board of Registered Nursing. So typically, any schools that... Currently, the law states in order to have your students provide nursing services in a hospital, you have to be under a California approved program.

So you've kind of gone through our process, checked all the compliance issues, and then part of that is also when you're looking to make placements, you're coming before the board and you're saying, I've worked with other schools in my area. I'm not going to be displacing other students.

And so there is the option for out of state programs to also go through that approval process and have their students do their clinicals. This bill would exempt them from that process, but then add some provisions that are now located in the bill.

So currently, right now, out of state programs who have California residents can appeal to the BRN and say, hey, I have these students. We are requesting for them to be placed in California for their clinicals.

They would, they can ask to go through the approval process, which is what any nursing program in our state does. So they can just apply. We've had, again, out of state distance education programs, which are the kind of main in this bill, apply to the Board of Registered Nursing.

Say, we have these students in California, we want them to be able to do their placements, and they go through our three step process, which is normally starts with a feasibility study. So basically they just show we have the resources and infrastructure so that anyone we enroll we can graduate safely.

And then it also looks at we are in compliance with California's laws, which means that anyone we enroll will be eligible for licensure in California. And anytime they make substantive changes to that program, they come before the board again. And so they are eligible, they can apply to do that as well, making them a California approved program, and then their students would be eligible to do their clinicals.

Okay. Assembly Member, you shook your head that you don't believe that's the current case?

No. I mean, right now we're wanting those students that are based in California that do online classes based outside of the state, we want to give them the ability to go to do their clinical time within the state. Right now, state law prohibits that, and I would love if the supporters can address that further.

So it's... So the process, the BRN, who is in charge of this, described doesn't exist?

That process absolutely exists for an out of state school to become basically licensed as an in-state school. But that is largely done for private postsecondary institutions from other states that have physical presence here in California. What we learned when we started on this endeavor two years ago is California law didn't envision online nursing education.

We don't have a physical presence. There's no door to knock on. There's no facility to inspect. And that's why we're able to serve remote areas of the state from Imperial County to the farthest reaches north. So what we're trying to do is have California law recognize the online option that can work in tandem with the current process, that would allow... But still offer the protections of oversight from the board.

We do feel there's enforcement in the bill. And again, it can work together for those students that can't get into a nursing school, that can't wait three to four years on a waiting list, that have family obligations that force or jobs that they need to work full time and do this online. And California law really didn't envision, nor does it address the online experience.

My last question, because I can understand that. The rural areas, remote areas, I know there's, you know, we just had a previous conversation. It's a long waiting list. It's hard to get into the community colleges because they're... Everyone wants... Everyone wants to be in those courses. Right.

And not have to pay so much money for the private schools. I get that. I understand we're looking to address or increase the number of healthcare employees in California. How do we then, if you talk more about the enforcement part, these schools aren't accredited, aren't regulated by California. How do we then have consumer protection?

I understand that even when they go through that school, they still have to make sure that their education is in par with California's requirements. I get that part. But how do we then enforce this piece that we're not stripping away slots for current in-state students, and if they're violating any portion of this bill, there's a way to enforce a non-existent brick and mortar.

Yeah. Thank you for the question. So we feel, again, that there's many mechanisms. We are accredited. If we violate California law, our accreditation is in jeopardy. That means we can't operate anywhere in the country if our accreditation is pulled because we're violating California law.

Who would pull it If we don't accredit you?

The national accreditation body would look to see if we are in violation of California law. And there's many ways that that could be brought forward to them. The Attorney General has the ability to issue cease and desist if we're in violation of California law, and they can sue.

The Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education certifies us as a private post secondary educational entity in California. If we are in violation of California law, we will lose that. And so we can't operate any students in California.

And further, the BRN is being provided information on every aspect of this bill, from placements that we made in the past, placements we're looking to make in the future, to making sure that we're in... And let me just add, too, that the BRN does license our graduates.

Our graduates are licensed at a 90% approval rate by the BRN. The BRN thinks enough of our program and enough of our students to license them, but they don't allow, or California law doesn't allow them to finish their education in California.

And the BRN getting all of this information could issue their own cease and desist or provide that information to the accreditation body, to the AG, to the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education. So we think there's many mechanisms to ensure that no school is violating California law.

Thank you. No further questions.

Okay, Senator Becker and then Archuleta.

Thank you. I just want to just make a quick comment. I just appreciate the work on this bill and appreciate the comments on both sides. I do appreciate the Assembly Member's efforts to focus the bill and limit it to non-hospital placements. And we're talking about focus on areas like the Central Valley, Imperial Valley, possibly North Coast.

I think there has been, again, a lot of work that you've done here, and we certainly do have a shortage that we need to address. So I hear the concerns of the opposition. I know you're going to keep working on this bill, but I do plan to support it today.

Thank you so much, Senator. Appreciate it.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the opposition, if we're all aware that we need nurses, we need these professionals, and they're trying to, obviously, participate in filling the gaps. So what can we do? What can you do to open those doors for them if there is such opposition? What do we need to do in California to increase our numbers all over the state? Because whether it be inner city or in the farm areas, wherever, we need more nurses. What can we do to open those doors?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. I agree. We are in a place where we're not quite at that equilibrium. However, given that our in-state nursing programs have been growing very, very rapidly, to their credit, they're working very hard. We are on schedule to close the shortage in California by 2027, which is when a lot of our current students in BSN will be graduating. So we are on the right track for that. That being said, we, again, would be happy to have these students do their clinicals.

We just ask they go through that approval process. Because what the board... The board's not looking to do like a cease and desist or like a legal stopping, but they just want to make sure that other schools are taken into consideration when this occurs on the front end. So we have a lot of consortiums that exist throughout the state, and they have that shared goal, all the programs do, of wanting to produce as many safe, competent nurses as possible. They care deeply, as the school does as well, about their students.

And so with that approval process, they come before the board, before the placements take place, and they say, you know, we've worked with these programs already in the area, or maybe we haven't. And so that gives the board the ability to say either, you know, we don't think there's space.

We ask you to reduce, or in some instances, we just ask you to work with the folks there, and then you can make sure that there's equitable access. So we're nothing looking to kind of put the hammer down. We just want to have that conversation on the front end, rather than wait until the students potentially could have been displaced on the back end, if that helps.

Thank you. But we all have to agree, time is of the essence. You mentioned 2027. We need them now. And if we have that entity that's ready to participate and open those doors, I don't see how we can stop it and say, no. I'm going to support the bill.

Appreciate that, Senator Archuleta. Okay. I do have one question from Senator Roth that he asked me to ask in his place because he had to step out and present another bill in another committee. I know we're all running all over today. Sorry. Thanks for being patient with us. I think, Chris, this question is probably for you.

Senator Roth is concerned that the $100 paid on the board fee is not enough, and would like to know if you all would consider, if this bill is to move out of this committee, moving forward, increasing that amount to make sure that there's a sufficient resource to the board. Either one of you, go ahead.

Yes, and I think we do acknowledge that these additional amendments that we put into the bill, reporting requirements to the BRN that they'll have to take under advisement, may add some additional costs. It was our assumption that if we were to get to the Appropriations Committee, that is where we would deal with is that fee sufficient to pay for the bill.

I believe it's his contention that the board should set a fee for you, so just bear that in mind. Those are Senator Roth's comments. So seeing no other comments, I will just say I appreciate the hard work of the Assembly Member. This bill was on for several weeks ago, but he realized he needed to do some more work on it, and he did so. Met with a lot of the opposition, took a lot of amendments, and I see some have been well received and some are still a work in progress.

But I appreciate that you worked so hard on this bill, and we just need a motion. Senator Archuleta, is that a motion from you? Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. It was like 100 years ago, but Senator Niello made a motion. So we already have the motion, but consider yourself seconded by Senator Archuleta. All right, do you want to close?

I just want to say thank you to the Senator, Madam Chair. This has been a couple year process, and it's been a lot of work, but I just want to say thank you to the opposition, everybody. Because it is. I mean, representing the rural community, nursing placement has been something we've looked into for a number of years now. So I'm just excited. And hopefully we can move this bill forward, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right.

motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Alright, it has nine votes, which actually gets it out, but we will leave it on call either way for the Members who are not here right now.

Thank you so much.

Okay. So, you know, we normally go and file order, but if somebody waits for a really, really long time, I made a commitment that I would take them first. So, Assembly Member Villapudua, do you want to make it quick so that Senator Carrillo can jump in right after. Okay? All right. Thank you. Thank you all for your patience.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members, I'm proud to present AB 2453 which clarifies the routine maintenance tasks that does not impact the EVSE being correct does not require additional testing. The current system unnecessarily disintegrates routine maintenance and repair tasks of more EV chargers in the state.

Importantly, none of these charges restricts a county ability to enforce device accuracy requirements. With me today to testify is Suzy Goldsberg with ChargingPoint and Megan Mekelburg for the Electric Vehicle Charge Association.

All right, great. You each have two minutes. If you need the full amount, let us know.

Great. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Suzy Goldberg here, Senior Policy Director with Chargepoint. First, we want to thank Assemblymember Villapudua for introducing this very important measure. As the author explained, AB 2453 is a bill that will help streamline the process to conduct maintenance on EV charging stations.

Currently, any repair or maintenance that is conducted on an EV charging station requires the station remain offline until a registered service agent can come out, inspect the charging station test to ensure that its meter is accurate and operating correctly, and then place that station back into service.

This testing requirement also applies to routine maintenance activity that do not impact the metrological function or meter accuracy of the station. This includes, but is not limited to, changing a connector clip, removing graffiti or stickers from a screen, or doing maintenance on cord management components. This adds unnecessary expenses and keeps stations offline longer than necessary.

And this is due to a lack of registered service agents that have testing equipment that can cost anywhere between $45 to $55,000. And also these tests impose significant costs on the station owners themselves, about four to $500 per port, and many charging sites have multiple ports.

AB 2453 will exempt maintenance that does not impact the station's metrology from these tests. This measure will help bring stations back online quicker after maintenance is completed and will avoid additional costs and help to incentivize owners to keep stations maintained.

California has been a leader in the rollout of EV's and EV charging, and it's imperative that we remove barriers that will impede people from maintaining their charging stations and ensuring that they are in good order. We respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2453. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Hi there. Megan Mekelburg. Good to see you, chair. I'm Megan here on behalf of the EV Charging Association, we want to thank the author for authoring this bill, and I'll make it quick and just say we have some really big goals to meeting our EV charging goals in order to serve the cars that we're going to have on the road.

It equates at approximately 359 chargers necessary per day to be installed between now and 2030. Just to give you a sense of the magnitude that we're working with here, we really do think that AB 2453 will help streamline and just reduce unnecessary barriers to getting this charging out there. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the room who are Me Too testimony, meaning in support, would like to share your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of Tesla in support. Thank you.

All right. Okay. Are there lead witnesses in opposition to this Bill or anybody who'd like to just not be the lead but say they oppose the Bill? All right, then we're going to bring it back to the dais for some questions.

Nicole Hutchinson, on behalf of CalSTR, in support.

Any questions on the Bill is moved by Senator Archuleta. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, we have a motion, and close.

Roll Call

All right, that has 10 votes. Assembly Member, we'll leave it on call because we still have a couple people, but it is out.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah. Or it will be. All right. Thank you. Thanks for everybody who came to testify. All right, we're going to go with Assembly Member Carrillo here next in our file order, and then I know we have another Assembly Member who's been here a long time. We'll try to get through quick to you.

Thank you for your patience. Assemblywoman, whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, I am proud to present AB 2327, a bill that would enable charitable organizations to continue to offer. I never know how to say this word, optometric services free of charge for underprivileged populations across the state.

This bill is sponsored by Vision to Learn. AB 2327 extends a 2019 law that allows for the operation of mobile optometry offices by nonprofit charitable entities such as Vision to Learn, as long as these entities provided services to patients, regardless of the patient's inability to pay.

The law also directed the board of optometry to issue regulations for licensure of these mobile offices, but for a variety of reasons, including a worldwide pandemic, the board was unable to issue regulations at the time specified. The bill extends the underlying authority to operate mobile optometry offices and gives the board time to finalize those regulations.

Vision to Learn, who sponsored the original legislation, is an organization I have worked with for well over a decade. Their mission is simple, provide free vision care to underprivileged children where they know they can find them, a majority of which are in title one schools.

So far, Vision to Learn has delivered 227,000 free pairs of glasses to California students, primarily using funds raised from private donors. I want to thank the Committee Chair and staff for working with my office and the sponsors. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments to harmonize the extension of this law with the broader sunset review process.

However, as this moves to appropriations and on the floor, I hope that we can continue to discuss ways to give the board more flexibility so that we do not disrupt the vital services before the sunset review. Here to testify in support is Damian Carroll, the National Director and Chief of Staff to Vision to Learn.

Great. Welcome. You have two minutes. Go right ahead.

Thank you, Chair Ashby and committee members. My name is Damian Carroll. I'm the National Director of Vision to Learn. Since our founding here in California in 2012, we've helped over 1 million California students attending title one schools in 13 counties receive vision services.

The law that this bill extends, AB 896, was passed during COVID and, in the years following, Vision to Learn has found an alarming increase in the number of students in need of our services. Prior to Covid, about 28% of students needed glasses after their vision screening. Post pandemic, that number has risen to over 33%.

And recently, the Advocacy Organization Children Now reported that in 2021, in 2022, less than one in five school age children received an eye exam. The glasses gap is even greater in high poverty, title one schools and Vision to Learn is ready to serve that population using our California licensed optometrists and the funding we raise from generous donors.

And only about 5% of our funding comes from Medi-Cal. We were hoping to raise the existing cap on the number of vehicles in this bill, but we're pleased to be informed that discussions over the cap will be part of the sunset review.

However, the near-term impact of the 12-clinic cap may mean fewer students will receive our services. Our organization currently has funding available to operate 16 mobile clinics in the coming school year in Southern California and the Bay Area Sacramento region.

The current hard cap of 12 mobile offices will limit our ability to serve as many kids in need of as we have funding for.

We are hoping to continue our work with the board of Optometry and this committee over the next few weeks to find a way for us to operate to our capacity if we can show irreparable harm to at risk populations.

We thank the committee and the staff for their work on this bill and for their consideration of our unique mission.

All right, thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify in support, your name, organization and position.

Chair and members: Greg Pruden, Executive Officer, California State Board of Optometry testifying in support. And just wanted to echo the comments by the sponsor, Vision to Learn. We've enjoyed productive conversations with the organization.

Look forward to engaging further in those conversations as we enter sunset review and continue talking about items like the cap and other issues around the mobile optometric office program. Again, the Board of Optometry is in support of the current bill. Thank you.

Nice to see you, Mister Pruden. All right, is there anybody else who'd like to testify in support? Me-too here? No? Okay. Is there lead opposition in the room? Anybody in opposition to the bill? How about anybody who'd like to just state their opposition on the record? Seeing none, we'll come back to the dais. All right.

Senator Alvarado-Gill.

I'll make this quick. I just wanted to thank the Assemblymember for bringing this forward. A quick trivia question for the committee. What's the earliest that a child can get a optometry exam? Anybody? Anybody? Anybody?

I don't know. It's actually six weeks, is what I learned. I was flabbergasted. I raised three kids, all of them with assisted eyewear. And it wasn't until my daughter, she's going to kill me, fell off the monkey bars because she couldn't see them. She was jumping and broke her nose. So that's how I learned she needed glasses.

So, to all the parents and caregivers out there, I just want to make a plug. Six weeks and thank you so much. I'll move the bill when ready.

We all learned so much in this committee. Great. Okay. Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just can't resist making the comment that I see here. One of the cleverest acronyms I've ever seen. Mobile Optometric Offices: MOO. That's great.

Okay. All right. We have a - okay, yes. I've lost the ball. All right. Senator. Oh, boy. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. I guess I just wanted to ask. People are already licensed for so many clinics. If they need more, are we going to be able to allow more mobile clinics in, or does it prevent it? With the number that we have now?

We will do that in the sunset review. They've agreed graciously to let the sunset review determine that next year. Right now, there is a cap. Did you want to...Damian?

Yes. We've been in discussions with the Board of Optometry about doing exactly that, addressing this during the sunset review. And we're reviewing our options to be able to serve as many kids in need as possible during this difficult time in the interim.

But our conversations with the board have been very fruitful, and we're very hopeful that we'll be able to address that issue.

I would just align my comments with the Senator from the whole eastern side of California just to say if it works, we want it to keep working. We don't want to limit the amount of kids that are able to see.

All right, we have a motion from Senator Alvarado-Gil representing all of California, and we'll call the roll.

May I close?

You want to close? Go ahead, please.

Thank you. I want to just, again, thank the Committee Chair and the committee.

I think ultimately, we spend so much money on education, but if I should say, we invest so much money in education, but ultimately, if a child can't read a book and they can't see the board, then what are we doing? And I just want to share some quick numbers, if I can.

Senator Archuleta, in your district, since inception, 20,000 kids have been served. 5,400 have been given free glasses. Senator Menjivar, 40,000 students in your district, 9,653 have been given free glasses. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas has 150,000 kids served 36,865 have been given glasses. Senator Roth, since inception in the newest county, in Riverside County - Senator Roth not here yet...his region, 20,000 kids served, 6500, I'm sorry, 5,135 have been given free glasses.

The more mobile clinics we have, the more access we have to students, the more students we are able to serve, and the more students are able to learn and graduate and be productive Californians. With that, I respectfully request an I vote.

All right. With that, we will call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, you have nine votes, which is enough to get out. But we will leave it open and on the roll for our colleagues who aren't quite here yet. Okay?

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. And thank you to your witnesses. Thank you.

All right, we're going to take Assemblymember Chen because he gets our patients award for the day, for being here for a long time. Thank you for being patient.

Madam Chair, thank you so much for the opportunity, the privilege. Also want to thank my colleague Assemblymember Carrillo for allowing me to present ahead of him. Again, thank you so much for allowing me to present AB 3167. I first wanted to thank the Committee and Madam Chair, your incredible staff and the sponsors.

We really appreciate the Committee for improving the bill and making it better through analysis, and we'll be accepting all the Committee amendments. Under current law, many nonprofit universities fall into the same regulatory category as vocational schools.

This important law established to protect students from predatory institutions now has an outsized effect on institutions that merge with California schools, such as Northeastern University and Mills College.

While this important law protects against fraud that could lead to loss of students' tuition and fees, it no longer serves students attending, certainly highly qualified institutions that remain committed to educating California students. As more nonprofit colleges and universities merge, students attending those institutions are unfairly burdened with fees and requirements that other students do not have to pay.

Currently, students attending nonprofit universities regulated by private post-secondary bureau must declare a course of study a major before beginning courses. Students must also pay a fee to Student Tuition Recovery Fund. Students attending private universities are exempt from bureau regulation, are not required to clear a major, or pay the Student Tuition Recovery Fund.

As more colleges and universities merge, highly qualified nonprofit institutions with approval to operate in California should not be required to subject students to a burdensome restriction based on bureau rules that were established for more risky institutions.

AB 3167 offers highly qualified institutions an alternative to approval pathway while maintaining bureau oversight and safeguard for students. Here to testify, we have Renée Jadushlever of Northeastern University, and Alex Graves of AICCU. We also have Mike Ferrari of Northeastern University for any technical questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Each of your witnesses has two minutes.

Members, my name is Renée Jadushlever. I'm Vice President for campus Administration and strategic initiatives at Northeast University Oakland. Prior to joining Northeastern for 31 years, I served in a variety of leadership roles at Mills College, a private, historic liberal arts college, and leader on issues of equity, social justice and women's leadership.

Founded in 1898, Northeastern University is a comprehensive, nonprofit global research University and a recognized leader in experiential learning. In July of 2022, Mills merged with Northeastern, joining Northeastern's network of 13 campuses across the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, including a campus offering graduate degree programs in San Jose, which opened in 2015.

Under current law, high quality nonprofit institutions that may maintain a physical presence in California but which are headquartered outside the state, such as Northeastern, fall into the same regulatory category as private for profit institutions and vocational schools offering short term training programs.

The intent of AB 3167 is simple, to streamline the process for oversight from the Bureau of Private Post-secondary Education for high quality nonprofits like Northeastern, but only when those institutions meet rigorous quality standards, protect students, and maintain consumer safeguards. Importantly, the bill would eliminate requirements under current law that impede student academic progress for California students.

For example, at comprehensive nonprofit research universities, academic exploration and discovery are the hallmark of an undergraduate education, particularly during the first year. This bill would correct the practice of requiring students at such institutions to enroll in degree programs before they have agreed on a major or career pathway.

Additionally, the bill would ease administrative burdens and reduce the delays for new program approvals so that highly qualified nonprofits can respond quickly to market demands and meet the needs of California employers for skilled talent.

Finally, I want to thank the Committee's chief consultant, Sarah Mason, for her review of the bill and for her efforts to strengthen and clarify certain provisions. We accept the proposed Committee amendments. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully request your aye vote.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Next step. Go right ahead.

Okay, now it's on. Okay, great. Good morning, I think still. Chair and Members Alex Graves, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities representing 89 private, nonprofit, accredited colleges and universities throughout the state here in support of this bill.

While our members are exempt from BPPE, we do appreciate and value the role they play in providing consumer protections and safeguards for students.

With a changing higher education landscape, we think that this legislation proposes some modest but important changes that address the issues that have been outlined as they relate to Northeastern, while also continuing to ensure we do have strong consumer protections in place through the BPPE's functions. So with that, I would just thank you and ask for your support.

All right, thank you very much. Did you want to introduce yourself? I know you're just sure.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, Mike Ferrari, associate Vice President for external affairs at Northeastern University. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you. All right, is there anybody else in the room in support of the bill that would like to testify as Me Too testimony? Nope. Okay. Is there lead opposition on this bill? Come on forward. We have one more chair up here if you'd like. You have two minutes. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning. Sabrina Means, on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success, better known as TICAS. While we appreciate certain aspects of AB 3167, we must respectfully oppose the bill unless it's significantly amended to ensure there are effective protections for students and the fiscal sustainability of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education.

As written, this bill can potentially open the door for other out of state nonprofit or public institutions to implement similar mechanisms for accessing federal and state financial aid, which is already very limited in availability for California residents attending the state's public institutions.

The registration fee amount for the BPPE set by AB 3167 is insufficient to cover the costs of agency staff providing oversight of consumer protections. We recommend an annual fee instead of a once per decade fee.

We are further recommending a technical clarification that non accredited institutions must register with the bureau so there is at least a marginal level of oversight as opposed to none. Moreover, to prevent the rise of shell nonprofits, a provision should be added to limit the percentage of tuition paid by California residents to third parties.

We recommend that no more than 25% of tuition be paid to a third party, ensuring financial transparency and accountability. Finally, there needs to be at least some level of reporting metrics from the bureau to the Legislature to ensure the oversight of student consumer protections is operating well enough. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody in the room who would like to speak in opposition as well? All right, seeing no one, we'll come back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions from the dais? Seeing none. Would you like a chance to close?

Madam Chair, we appreciate the opportunity. Also, I really appreciate the opposition's testimony. I'll be working closely with the opposition. Our goal is to really create parity with other institutions, and we hope that if indeed, there has to be additional financial stipends that we will be discussing with opposition and what that number will be.

But you have my support in terms of making sure that we'll be working with opposition on looking at additional ways to alleviate some of their concerns. With that, I respectfully ask for you aye vote.

Do you have a motion? I do not. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So moved. We'll take. So moved. Okay, we will take a roll. Go ahead.

Motion is do pass the Senate Education Committee. [Roll Call]

It has eight votes, which is enough. But we're going to leave it on call and see what happens with our colleagues when they come back. Okay?

Pleasure, madam Chairman. All right, thank you.

Thank you to all your witnesses, too. Everyone ,thanks for being here. All right, Assemblymember Carrillo, you ready? Thanks for your patience, and thanks for letting him sneak in. He's been here for a really long time.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you. For allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2622. I want to begin by accepting the Committee amendments. Many of us have come across construction projects that require skills beyond our capability.

Despite the abundance of do it yourself hardware stores and information at our fingertips, we must often call on these professionals for guidance, and I am not unfamiliar with this kind of work. When I immigrated to this country, I work in construction jobs and still enjoy working on projects in my free time.

Many professionals who perform this work are immigrants with unique, valuable skills and traits. They may obtain a contractual license or conditionally operate without a contractor's license.

The minor work exemption allows handyman to remain exempt from a contractor's license so long as the projects they take are less than $500, inclusive of labor and materials, and so long as they are casual, minor, or inconsequential. This $500 cap has not been updated since 1998 and several issues have arisen because of this outdated figure.

First are the rocketing costs of labor and materials. Many simple projects, such as spending a fence, may easily surpass $500, meaning that unlicensed professionals are taking on these small jobs illegally. Licensed professionals under those same market pressures may turn down these smaller jobs.

By increasing the minor work exemption to $1,000, AB 2622 ensures that these folks are able to be hired legally and pursue work knowing they will be able to charge a reasonable amount. When they are able to have these small jobs on the record, they can build a portfolio which may afford them a pathway into licensure.

Importantly, the Bill provides several conditions these professionals must meet in order to work at their higher amount. They are prohibited from hiring employees. They are also prohibited from performing any projects for which a building permit is required.

This Bill is an important step in ensuring handyman can make a living while also protecting consumers and hopefully increasing the number of potential licensees. Lastly, I'd like to expand my thanks to the building trace for working with us to find a path forward on this important measure. Thank you. And I do not have any primary witnesses.

Okay, no primary witnesses. All right. Support sir? Go ahead. Would you like to make some comments?

I would. Good morning, Chair Ashby and Members of the Committee, Mike West. On behalf of the state building trades, I also want to thank the author for the engagement of his staff and also your Committee staff for the great work that you did on this Bill to move us to support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Is there anyone else in support in the room today who would like to testify? How about anyone in opposition? All right, come on forward. You will have two minutes.

Well, good afternoon. Richard Markuson, on behalf of the plumbing heating cooling contractors, California, not in opposition to the changes in the Bill, but what's missing from the Bill, Senator Archuleta had a Bill a couple of years ago, SB 304, that made two additional changes.

What this Bill does is it creates a dichotomy because a licensed contractor is subject to licensure by the contractor state license board.

They submit fingerprints to verify that any criminal activity is weeded out if it affects their ability to perform, go into people's homes, and they're also required to have written contracts and a right to rescind the contract and stop the work from proceeding if it exceeds $500 and is less than $750.

So what this Bill does is it creates a dichotomy where, arguably, you are deregulating construction work that's under $1,000, but you are creating, or you are extending the same obligations for licensed contractors for any work above $500, and home improvement contracts that are up to $750.

So what we have requested since the Bill was introduced is language similar to what was in Senator Archuleta's Bill to modernize and to advance those two provisions in 751910 and 14, to bring those up to the same levels that unlicensed construction workers will now be able to comply with.

Okay, great. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else in the room in opposition who would like to testify? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions? Senator Archuleta?

Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing the Bill. Have you heard? I presented mine two years ago, and of course, the cost of material, the cost of everything, has gone much, much higher. And this threshold of $1,000, I don't see it's out of line. And I support the Bill.

Move the Bill, and I congratulate you for bringing it forward.

Assembly Member do you want to close? Oh, wait, hold on. Sorry. One more question.

Can you talk a little bit about the board coming on in opposition?

I was under the impression that. Yeah, they did tell us what their concerns were. We are willing to continue those conversations. Happy to meet with them. I believe that it's just a technical, minor issue in my perspective. We can increase it to the thousand if that's something that the opposition would like us to do.

I'm committed to continue those conversations.

Okay. I just think for a Bill being overlooked by this department or board, they should be in support. So I'll glad to support it today and then look forward to the floor. Thank you.

Okay. You want to do your close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta. We'll call the roll.

Roll Call

That's eight. We will keep it on call, though. Thank you, Assembly Member. All right, let's see. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Thank you for your patience. Come on forward when you're ready. Go ahead and present AB 2579.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, first, I want to begin by thanking the Committee consultant for working with our office. And we accept the Committee's proposed amendments. AB 2579 grants building owners with three or more multifamily dwelling units. A one year extension for exterior elevated element inspections, in other words, balcony inspections.

Inspections were to be completed by January 1, 2025 and subsequently every six years after. However, California issued a State of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic, public health concerns hindered the ability for inspections that needed to take a place.

Planning and scheduling inspections, especially with the lack of specialized inspector workforce, can take up to four months to arrange. Once scheduled, these inspections, which can be intrusive to the building and the apartment can take up to three weeks to complete. Making sure that balconies are not only inspected, but also are safe is crucial.

With me today to provide testimony and answer any questions the Committee has is Mr. Chris Kahn, advisor on behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California.

All right, thank you, Mr. Kahn, go ahead.

Thank you. Chris Kahn, representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California. We appreciate the author for bringing this bill forward and the Chair and the Committee for hearing it today. My members are very committed to the inspection and repair program set up by Senator Hill's bill a few years ago.

We appreciate the extension and acknowledgement that there were delays and we want to make sure we get it right. So again, we appreciate and urge your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Is there anyone else here who'd like to testify in support. How about anybody in opposition of the bill? All right. Seeing no one will come back to the dais, any comments from my colleagues? All right. Moved by Senator Alvarado.-Gil. Sorry, Senator Wilk. I heard her first. Okay, we'll call the roll.

Do you want to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

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

All right, that's 10 votes, Assemblywoman, so it'll be just fine, but we're gonna leave it on call, make sure we get the votes of our colleagues.

Thank you.

Have a great rest of the week. Moving on, oh, yep. Assembly Member Grayson is here. We can take up file item 11. AB 2774.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members. AB 2774 establishes the child care for working families task force and requires that the task force submit a report that recommends future comprehensive strategies aimed at addressing challenges faced by working families and accessing flexible, affordable, and quality childcare options. Affordable childcare is, unfortunately out of reach for many Californians.

Too many families continue to fall through what we call care gaps, which just with just 14% of the state's eligible infants and toddlers having access to subsidized childcare that are. There are significant portions of families that fall victim to the care cliff.

The lack of affordable childcare disproportionately burdens working mothers, who often take on caregiving responsibilities when families cannot find or afford care. In addition to that, I believe that there is a great need to change the narrative that childcare is not only a social or woman's issue, but it's an economic imperative for the growth of the state.

Child care is a policy issue that cuts across many areas of public interest, including workforce participation, economic mobility, public health, health, and even energy and infrastructure. That is why we must explore the need for renewed investments in child care and solutions aimed at tackling the child care crisis head on.

I do want to acknowledge that our state has undertaken significant and crucial efforts, particularly through the Blue Ribbon Commission and the governor's master plan on early child care and education.

However, the landscape has changed dramatically since Covid-19 pandemic, and there has not yet been a comprehensive review of the economic impact on working families or the examination of childcare in the context of economic development.

So given the budgetary changes and the potential for more next year, we need a post-Covid review and stakeholder convening that revisits current and potential policies under the new reality of our state deficit and the changing economics for California's families.

Addressing childcare affordability helps build a competitive economy, and new ways of approaching the care crisis is both beneficial for families, vital for businesses, and critical to the recovery of California economy as the state goes through its multi year budget deficit.

I do want to acknowledge that I'm currently working to strengthen the language in AB 2774 to clarify the intent of the Bill and to ensure that the Bill is complimentary to existing work and not duplicative.

I do want to state that the Committee staff and leadership has been incredible in providing helping provide some direction in that area and putting us on a path to improving the Bill even more so. With me today we have Denyne Colburn, Chief Executive Officer of Thriving Families California, through the Chair.

Hi, go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you for being here, Senator Ashby and Members of the Committee. My name is Denyne Colburn, representing Thriving Families California. For over 20 years, I have been involved in the implementation evaluation, strengthening erosion and the rebuilding of the California child care delivery system.

As your analysis notes, there's quite a bit of research regarding the value of access to quality childcare and outcomes. This Bill is not about the value of quality child care. Rather, this Bill is about connecting the needs of real working families that require access to childcare after school hours, after 06:00 p.m. and on the weekends.

This Bill is about considering the needs of employers who must have static workforce in order to keep their doors open. AB 2774 is about capturing the economic multiplier that for every $1 invested in childcare, there is between $7 to $13 that goes back into the economy.

My membership of community based county offices of education and nonprofits understand the economics of accessible and attainable childcare required in a 24 hours economy. That is why most of these agencies also participate in their local Chamber of Commerce.

Finally, last week, the US Chamber of Commerce kicked off a groundbreaking childcare innovation summit focused on connecting childcare to a thriving economy. Further, the White House and Small Business Administration have committed funding to businesses that support and offer childcare.

AB 2774 is the right Bill at the right time to be taken on under the umbrella of Governor Newsom's Office of Business and Economic Development. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room in support of the Bill who would like to testify.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators, Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members. Blake Johnson, on behalf of Child Action and strong support.

Thank you for being here. All right, is there any lead opposition to this bill? How about folks who would just like to issue concerns? All right. Seeing none, we'll come back to the dais. Colleagues, do you have questions on this bill?

Move the bill. Did you hear me that time?

I could hear you that time moved. Okay. I have a couple of comments on the bill. I am prepared to vote for the bill today to keep you moving forward. I am a former recipient of Child Action and a huge advocate for child care. I'm not sure, though, that this is additive.

I worry about too many departments and agencies in the mix. We already have the Early Childhood Policy Council that does all of the childcare reviews and analysis out of the Department of Social Services, which I think is appropriately placed.

And then, of course, there are all the efforts for childcare and early learning and workforce development out of the Superintendent of Public Instructions office. And I'm not sure if Gobiz would be additive to that in this way.

And so my ask of the author is to keep a mindset on that, that we're not duplicating use of dollars for the same purpose and that it does continue to be an additive resource. Gobiz is a preciously overburdened agency, like all of our agencies here.

And while child care is absolutely a critical part of business, especially small business, I don't know that having them involved in discussions around child care is as paramount as having them potentially do policies to work with businesses to be additive about child care.

So my ask of you today is just that you keep a keen eye on that as it moves forward so we don't duplicate for the same outcomes. All right, you have a motion. Would you like to close?

I share those sentiments as well. Thank you, Madam Chair, for those comments, and they are well taken. And with that, I respectfully ask for them.

All right. Thank you very much. You have a motion by Senator Wilk. Let me reiterate, Senator Wilk, because we need to make sure we do that. Thank you for that. Okay, we'll go ahead and call the roll.

Motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Has eight votes, which is enough. But we'll leave it on call. Hear from our other colleagues at the end.

Thank you, madam.

Thank you, Assemblymember. All right, we are looking for Assemblymember Garcia and Assemblymember Berman and colleagues. While we have a break in the auction here, I would like to note for the record that Assemblymember Gibson has reached out and asked, at the author's request, to pull file item two, AB 2862.

Again, that is the author's request to pull item two, Assemblymember Gibson, AB 2862. So that will come off of our file as of now. Welcome, Assemblymember Garcia. Just in time. We're ready to hear from you. File item 10. Assemblymember Garcia.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. This bill that is before you is one of the top recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on Lithium extraction, the State of California. As you all know, the Salton Sea region has one of the largest lithium deposits on the continent.

This bill would help streamline and accelerate economic development in a region that has suffered from a long, long decade of high unemployment for the State of California.

Not only will it uplift the economic opportunities, but also begin to generate the resources to be able to invest in many of the environmental and ecological challenges along with the public health circumstances that people face.

Out there with me today are two individuals from the community, Christian Torres, representing Comite Civico del Valle, and Silvia Paz from Alianza at Coachella Valley, who participated in the Lithium Valley Commission and developed a strategy for these efforts. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes. Go ahead and share your thoughts with us.

Thank you. Silvia Paz grew up in the Coachella Valley. I am also the founder and Executive Director of Alianza Coachella Valley that is working to improve quality of life and economic opportunities for residents who call the Salton Sea region home.

I chaired the Lithium Valley Commission due to the significant impact that a new industry can have in an area that faces a depressed economy, as well as poor environmental and health outcomes the Lithium Valley Commission made.

For about two years, we engaged with residents, tribes, industry, government representatives, and other experts to better understand the opportunities and challenges of a lithium industry. In the majority of our conversations, we heard of a desire for a lithium industry that benefited both economically and environmentally our Salton Sea communities.

We also discussed the challenges that a region faces, and the types of investments needed to create conditions for this industry to be more than an extractive industry. Due to the misassignment of the Coachella Valley, the Palo Verde Valley and Imperial Valley into economic regions that are economically, geographically, and environmentally distinct.

We are at a competitive disadvantage to attain the types of investments that we need. So for these reasons, the Commission did make a recommendation for us to be designated as our own economic region, and AB 2757 accomplishes this. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Ashby. Committee Members Christian A. Torres, on behalf of Comite, co-sponsors of AB 2757 a measure that would designate the Southeast California economic region for aligning state and federal programs to benefit communities impacted by lithium. And there's another mineral extraction and clean energy development.

The measure also allows for regional collaboration to create a strategic plan for economic development for the benefit of the Salton Sea region, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Lithium Extraction in California.

The purpose of AB 2757 is to cultivate, stimulate, and aggregate targeted investments by the public and private sectors in California's southeastern desert region, which has historically been overlooked and left behind by the state's existing economic planning and funding activities.

AB 2757 is intended to enhance the county's economic development toolbox by authorizing the Salton Sea region to more authentically align communities of interest and attract public and private capital more effectively. As co-sponsors representing the underserved communities residing in Imperial County, Lithium Valley, and the Salton Sea region, Comite Civico respectfully asks for your support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Are there others in the room in support of AB 2757 today? Come on forward and give us your name and organization.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff Neil, representing the County of imperial, happy to support the bill.

All right. Thanks for being here.

Madam Chair Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Coachella as well as the Salton Sea Authority, in strong support of the bill.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis on behalf of Comite, Los Amigos de la Comunidad, and as a proxy for La Cooperativa Campesina de California, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you all for being here. Is there anyone in opposition to the bill in the room, lead or otherwise seeing? No one will come back to the dais. Colleagues with questions, Senator Wilk, but you do have a motion from Senator Archuleta.

Yeah. I don't know how many more times we'll have an opportunity to do this, but I really want to thank you for your leadership on this whole project. This is so exciting. It's going to just.

They often say that geography is destiny, and it's held this region back, but with this discovery and with investments being made in the policies that you're laying out, it's going to just energize this whole region, and it's going to create prosperity for a lot of people.

So support the bill today, and thank you for all the work you've done on this.

All right, you have a motion. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much for the analysis, and I'm sure there was no pun intended there with the energizing region. I want to just thank you for your support. The witnesses really got into the details of why this is important. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, very good. You have a motion from Senator Archuleta. We will call the roll.

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

All right, that has seven votes for now, which is enough, but we will leave it on call for our other colleagues when they get back. Thank you, Assemblymember Garcia. All right, Assemblymember Berman, you want to sit down up front?

Okay, you can if you want to sit at the table, you're welcome to. I'm not allowed to make fun of him because I did the same thing to his Committee. We're going to start with your colleague's bill, if that's okay.

Yeah.

That sounds great.

Present. This is going to be file item number seven, which is for Assemblymember Petrie Norris.

So we will hear from you on that first, and then we'll move into all the Committee bills there.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, I'm here to present AB 2559 on behalf of Assembly Member Petrie-Norris to help streamline the EV charger permitting process. Given the fact that we are projected to need 2.1 million EV chargers by 2035 to meet increasing demand, it is vital that we ensure permitting for these chargers is smooth.

Unfortunately, EV service providers continue to face delays in their permitting requests for a variety of reasons. AB 2559 seeks to streamline this process by requiring Gobiz to develop a reporting platform where EV service providers can log any issues they have with a local jurisdiction.

The Bill also codifies a permit stream leading specialist at Gobiz to expedite permitting and identify permit streamlining barriers. This will give Gobiz the information they need to identify obstacles and challenges to implementing these charging stations and get down to the root cause of delays.

I hope no one has any questions, and I would now like to introduce Nicole Hutchinson on behalf of CalStart.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Members. Nicole Hutchinson on behalf of CalStart, a global nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting clean transportation, we're grateful to assemble Member Petrie Norris for her commitment to expediting infrastructure build out and for authoring AB 2515.

As Assemblymember Berman described, the Bill is intended to help expedite permitting for zev infrastructure and shed light on the challenges and barriers associated with permitting. We believe this Bill will help identify causes for permitting delays and help us toward our electrification goals. Thanks for the opportunity to speak, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you for being here. Are there others in support? Come on forward.

Megan Meckleberg here in support on behalf of the EV Charging Association.

Thank you.

Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.

Thank you, Aaron Kunz with California advisors on behalf of the Center for Sustainable Energy and Support. Thank you.

Great.

Richard Markuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association in support.

All right, thank you. Is there anyone in the room in opposition to the Bill on any level? Okay. Seeing no one bring it back to the dice really hard questions only, Senator Archuleta.

Yes. As the chair of the Subcommitee on hydrogen, and we have our issues as well. And I think this is great. Can you elaborate a little bit on some of the, I guess, walls you've run into that caused the Bill to come forward? As I said, the hydrogen sectors also have these issues as well.

And we're going to continue working with that. But give us some idea of what your obstacles have been.

Sure. And so this Bill is technology agnostic. So hydrogen is also covered. So it's Zev infrastructure broadly. So both hydrogen as well as battery electric charging.

So I think the big motivation for this Bill is that to date we know there are permitting challenges and all of it is anecdotal, whether it's a, there's a lot of finger pointing that goes on. zero, it's the Ahjs. zero, it's the EVsps. zero, it's zoning. zero, we don't have capacity.

And so there's a lot of anecdotal evidence of an issue, but not a lot of hard data to help us take the next step, whether it's enforcement, giving the ability to enforce prior legislation. So AB 970, AB 1236, before that.

So this Bill is sort of a fact finding Bill to identify the scope and the specific issues that folks are running into what is its specifically.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Is there a motion? You made a motion. All right. Archuleta makes the motion. You want to close Assembly Member.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this very good Bill. I wish I authored myself.

Roll Call

Okay, that has eight votes, so it's enough. But we will put it on call for the remainder of our colleagues. Okay, before we start here, I just want to say to folks who are in the building, other Senators, we are starting with our last author, which is Assembly Member Berman, who has eight bills which are Committee bills.

So if you are in the building and you are a Senator on business, professions and economic development, now would be a great time to make your way down to the Committee hearing, room 2100, to join us. All right, Mister Berman, let's go.

Thank you, Chair Ashby. And. Chair Ashby and Senators. This will be my longest presentation of the day.

Today I'm proud to present AB 2164 which will clarify the authority of the Medical Board of California to require applicants and physicians to self disclose conditions that do not impair their ability to practice medicine safely, including disorders for which they are receiving treatment.

When our healthcare providers struggle with substance use disorder and other conditions, we want them to seek out help. During the medical board's most recent sunset review was brought to my attention that doctors and medical students sometimes feel that they cannot participate in counseling or recovery programs for fear of jeopardizing their license.

Even if they are confident that they can still practice medicine safely, AB 2164 will make it clear that applicants only need to disclose disorders or conditions that pose a risk to their patients and that they will not be punished for getting the assistance they need.

With me today are the co-sponsors of the bill, Matt Lege with SEIU, California State Council, and Doctor Dayna Isaacs, MD, on behalf of the California Medical Association.

Welcome. You each have two minutes when you are ready.

My name is Doctor Dayna Isaacs. I am a hematology oncology fellow physician serving the Sacramento community at UC Davis. I'm here today representing the California Medical Association, who is co-sponsoring AB 2164. Bill would be one big step in reducing the stigma around physicians seeking mental health services.

This issue is near and dear to my heart as a doctor treating patients with cancer. Currently, the medical board of California's licensing application requires us to disclose our mental health conditions. This mandatory disclosure will not achieve its intended goal of identifying physicians who may pose a risk to patient safety.

Mental health is a complex and nuanced issue, and a blanket disclosure requirement fails to account for individual circumstances and needs. Instead, it creates a culture of stigma and discrimination, further discouraging us from seeking help in perpetuating mental health disparities within the medical profession. Physicians may experience mental health challenges and require confidential treatment and support.

However, the fear of mandatory disclosure could deter them from seeking help, leading to increased burnout, stress, and impaired patient care. My medical training programs have incorporated mental health support because they recognize the pervasive trauma that we experience. Throughout my training, I have often sought these resources.

One distressing memory was losing 10 patients in a single week in the intensive care unit. Watching my patients die, despite my best efforts, has left a lasting impact on me. We care deeply for you and your families on the front lines of so I urge you to please do your part in taking care of us as well.

By promoting a culture of understanding and support to better address mental health challenges within the medical community, this bill will ensure the wellbeing of both physicians and patients, help us reduce the stigma of mental health care for doctors by voting yes on AB 2164. Thank you.

Thank you for being here, and thanks for sharing your story, and more importantly, thanks for your work in our communities. All right, go ahead.

Good afternoon. Matt Leger on behalf of SEIU California, thank you for hearing the bill today. This is an issue we appreciate the work of the Committee has done in the past and the author for moving this bill forward and his staff.

It's one where really see this as a step forward in trying to improve the culture of medicine, where for too long there was too much of a stigma of, hey, don't jeopardize your future. Don't go seek the treatment that you're entitled to or that you would need.

And so causing the stigma in medicine in particular has caused the rates of suicide for male physicians and female physicians to be twice that of the general population. Suicide is a leading cause of death for male physicians, and for women physicians, it is the second leading cause of death. So it's something really serious.

We've unfortunately had too many incidents like that to happen in the medical field now. And so we see this bill is that step forward to continue to destigmatize being able to access care, particularly during the COVID pandemic when we are all in such a crisis point, being able to access that mental health support is critical.

And so I appreciate the author of the bill bringing this one forward. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you both for your testimony. Are there others in the room in support of the bill? Go ahead.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Jen Chase on behalf of the University of California, in support.

Aaron Bone with the Medical Board of California in support.

Paul Simmons with California Peer Watch in support.

Anybody else in the room in support? Okay. Anybody in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one. We'll come back to the dais. Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments on this bill? All right. Moved by Senator Eggman. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

All right, great. We have a motion from Senator Eggman, and we'll call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, that's 10. That's enough. We'll still keep it on call though because we have a couple more Members out. All right. Assembly Member Berman, next up, AB 2688.

All right. Speaking of doctors, AB 2688 is a technical cleanup measure that clarifies that any member of the Medical Board of California may be removed only by the authority that appointed that member for continued neglect of duties required by law or for incompetence or unprofessional or dishonorable conduct.

Patients and consumers in California rely on independent and thoughtful memberships on each of the regulatory boards established to protect the public. But the Medical Practice Act is not clear that an appointing authority may only remove its own appointed members to the Medical Board.

Clarifying this will ensure that there is no uncertainty about the rights and autonomy of the separate co-equal branches of government with power to make appointments to this important board. The bill has no opposition. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. No lead witnesses?

No lead witnesses on this one.

All right. Anybody in the room who wants to speak in support or opposition? Bring it back to the dais. Colleagues? Moved by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Wanna close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, great. We'll call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, also has 10, but we'll leave it on call.

Leave it on call. Next up, 3054. AB 3054.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 3054 would extend existing prohibitions against state cannabis officials having financial interests or relationships within the cannabis industry to additional appointed officials within the Department of Cannabis Control.

Californians rely on state cannabis officials to fairly and unbiasedly administer and enforce our cannabis laws and AB 3054 will provide added confidence that the industry is being regulated fairly and impartially. This Bill has no opposition, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. No lead witnesses on this one either?

No, not this one.