Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

[Background]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this morning's business and professions Committee hearing. Before I get started, we need Senators and we need one Republican on the Committee to show up. So we can actually get started. But I'm going to go through formalities.

We have eight bills on today's agenda, including just one Bill on consent, SB 1024 by Senator Ochoa Bogue. For each measure being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side.

Any additional witnesses will be limited to name position on the Bill and the organization they represent, if any. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. With that, we will wait. We will not begin today's hearing because we have no one to present a Bill.

We have. Do you have some dad jokes? I don't have any dad jokes. What's that? No. Yeah. I don't have any dad jokes. Do you have any jokes? Open mic night? Karaoke? No wonder. No on karaoke. Stephanie. It's not fair to put that pressure back. That was well played, though. All right. All right. Let's get some, folks.

Sergeants, call everybody. Send search dogs. Send the hounds. The search parties. For what it's worth, the chair of budget is talking smack about the fact that the Vice Chair of BNP chose budget over BNP. So when everyone sees the Vice Chair of BNP, please give him grief, for I'm choosing my words very carefully.

After a certain slip up a couple years ago. Now my Committee consultant is talking smack. Such a rough morning. What? Okay, I take it back. We are no longer waiting for Republicans to get started, but we need Senators.

So we've got 11 minutes to get a Senator here, or else I'm gaveling down the hearing and all the bills on the agenda. Die. Gotcha. 11 minutes. 10 minutes. A Republican beat a Senator, but now we're good. All right. Thank you, Senator Alvarado-Gil. We are ready when you are. Agenda item number three, SB 820. Come on. Come on up. Come on up. Absolutely. Get comfortable. Assembly B&P Committee, we're happy to have you.

All right.

Yeah, it's on now. It's on now. You're good?

It's on now. You're good.

Good? All right. We've got this. All right. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present on Senate Bill 820, cannabis enforcement and seizure of property.

The illegal cannabis ecosystem has caused major economic environmental damage here in California, and many of the state's estimated 50,000 illegal cultivation sites have been found to use banned pesticides that can poison wildlife and water supplies that are believed to account for hundreds of millions of gallons of water stolen from farms and neighboring communities each year.

State and local enforcement efforts have minimal impact on dismantling these commercial grows without addressing the underlying infrastructure that enabled these lucrative illegal operations to quickly bounce back and then resume unlicensed growing and selling of cannabis.

A recent Reza report validated previous reports that two-thirds of all cannabis sales conducted in California are still taking place in the illicit market. This is where the price is untested, untaxed. These products are cheaper by as much as 50 percent.

Senate Bill 820 simply adopts the same civil asset forfeiture processes currently applicable to unlicensed manufacturing of alcohol beverages. This applies to unlicensed commercial cannabis activities under Senate Bill 820. The purpose of this bill is to act as a deterrent to other illicit operators and promote entrance into the legal, regulated cannabis market.

This bill would, upon a judgment in favor of the forfeiture, allow these assets to be sold at public auctions, reinvesting the funds into the community and into the Cannabis Control Fund to carry out provisions of the California Cannabis Equity Act. It's vital to not only shut down bad actors, but to support licensed cannabis businesses that enhance reliable access to regulated, tested cannabis in the legal market.

We've accepted many amendments to address the opposition, including increasing the plant threshold to over 1,000 live plants and restructuring the local distribution to either be reimbursed--either to be reimbursed or receive 15 percent of the proceeds, whichever is less. The remaining and majority of the proceeds will go to the Cannabis Control Fund Social Equity Program. Here to testify in support of the bill is Sarah Dukett from Rural County Representatives of California and Trinity County Supervisor, Jill Cox.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Jill Cox, the Trinity County Supervisor, and here on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California.

Both rural and urban communities, even the ones with the most expansive commercial cannabis programs, have been inundated with unlicensed and unregulated cannabis activity that is undermining the health and safety of residents and our regulated cannabis businesses. Trinity County has seen and continues to see the health and safety concerns associated with illegal cannabis activity firsthand.

The reality, unfortunately, is that many illicit cannabis operations are able to quickly recover following enforcement actions due to complicit landlords, exploitation of workers, and remaining specialty equipment used for the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail sales of cannabis.

We often see this in the North Coast in Emerald Triangle, where illegal operators are back in business just days after enforcement procedures. This proposed bill provides an important tool to shut down unlicensed businesses by removing the operating infrastructure like manufacturing equipment, hoop house infrastructure, irrigation systems, and trimming equipment.

This will help counties prevent and disincentivize illegal cannabis activities by disrupting the operations themselves. In addition, SB 820 would invest 85 percent of the enforcement proceeds in the Cannabis Control Fund to support equity businesses. We intend to work with the Department of Cannabis Control to ensure that environmental cleanup and compliance costs benefiting equity applicants is an eligible and prioritized use of state equity funds.

It is vital to not only shut down bad actors, but to support licensed cannabis businesses that enhance reliable access to regulated and safe cannabis products in the illegal market. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. This measure is a complete civil process. No criminal conviction is required. We had a number of stakeholders that we discussed different aspects of the bill in the Senate.

We took a number of amendments in Senate Public Safety to start addressing those concerns: to clarify that a warrant is required, create a narrow list of items using unlicensed cannabis operators that may be seized, include the requirement that this section only applies to cultivation above 1,000 plants--so we're looking at large scale grows--provides a prompt administrative process for the return of property incorrectly seized, creates additional mechanisms to protect the personal property of workers, similar innocent parties, and operators actively engaged in the state licensing process from seizure.

It also clarifies real property is not subject to seizure and increases the percent of proceeds from the auction to 85 percent that goes directly to equity businesses. And we are continue to--we are committed to continue to work with the opposition and stakeholders should this bill move to Public Safety. I also have Arthur Wylene, General Counsel for RCRC and former Tehama County Counsel, here to ask to answer any technical questions. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. And we'll get you if we have any technical questions. Appreciate you being here. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You have two minutes.

Hello.

There you go.

Okay. Perfect. Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are in respectful opposition. Civil asset forfeiture grants law enforcement officers the authority to take possession of property simply because they suspect that the property was used to commit a crime.

Property owners don't have to be suspected, charged, or convicted of criminal conduct for law enforcement to take their belongings. Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources, but today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime fighting.

For people whose property has already been seized through the civil asset forfeiture process, legally, regaining such property is notoriously difficult, expensive, and often costs sometimes exceed the value of the property. Civil asset forfeiture subverts constitutional principles like protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the presumption of innocence, and the right to due process.

The government shouldn't be allowed to take people's property unless they've been convicted of a crime and they've been afforded the procedural protections against criminal convictions that our constitution guarantees. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody who wants to add on, let's just do everyone at once. Anyone in support or opposition to the bill who wants to add on is MeToo, name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of Siskiyou and Mendocino, both in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Walid Hajjaj, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no additional witnesses, we do not yet have a quorum, but bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments. Questions? Comments? Questions? Comments? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you for working with us on this bill and the issue of unlicensed cannabis operators. While there are still concerns around the forfeiture provisions, I know the author and sponsor will continue those conversations as the bill moves forward to the Public Safety Committee.

And with that, I'll be happy to support the bill today once we have a quorum. Thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate you. Minority Leader Jones, thank you for being here. You are the lottery winner. You jump from last to second.

Hey, you know what? I appreciate the deference.

Thank you for--I just appreciate your presence, sir.

I just follow Alvarado-Gil and I--

There we go.

There we go. Lesson for life. Ready when you are with agenda item eight, SB 1225.

Is it going? Okay. Good. I could hear me.

SB 1225 allows the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers to remove notices of disciplinary action from their website if certain conditions are met. In order to be eligible for removal, the disciplinary information must be at least 10 years old and determined by the Bureau to no longer be necessary to ensure consumer protection.

Licensee Disciplinary information is a valuable tool in protecting consumers and promoting transparency. However, there is currently no way for the bureau to remove the information when it is no longer relevant, such as when the licensee has been rehabilitated, the penalty has been removed, and many years have passed.

Outdated disciplinary records draw attention away from the current ones that are useful in identifying active threats to consumer protection. SB 1225 will give the bureau the authority it needs to declutter and streamline its database. With me this morning is Mike Belote to testify in support of the Bill.

Great. You have two minutes.

I'll take about 30 seconds, Mister Chair. Mike Belote, on behalf of the Appraisal Institute Government Relations Committee. The bill, everyone says their bill is simple.

This really is a simple bill, which aligns the real estate appraiser law with the real estate law applicable to real estate brokers and salespeople, gives the Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers the same authority that the DRE Commissioner has to take a look at the time that has passed rehabilitation by the licensee, and allows them to remove it from public posting.

They don't cease to own the information, and they still share it with other regulatory agencies. It's just giving them the same authority real estate has. We would ask for a aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And before I lose my Vice Chair, it looks like we have a quorum. Madam Secretary. Please call a roll.

[Roll call]

Great. We are now open for motions and seconds. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Got a motion by we'll say, Lowenthal. Second by Grayson. Seeing no primary witnesses in opposition. Any add-ons? Any me toos who want to add on in support of the bill or opposition to the bill?

There's movement, but I don't think there's add-ons. There is add-ons? There's not add-ons. There's staff, there's people, there's a Assembly Member. Any questions or comments from colleagues? No. Seeing none. Senator, Minority Leader, would you like to close?

You're running a great committee. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. I think it's a great bill. Happy to thank the author and sponsors for putting this sensible measure forward. The bill enjoys a do pass. Happy to support it today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1225, Jones. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it, Members. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Senator Portantino, good to see you, sir. Thank you for coming to present agenda item number two, SB 607.

Mr. Chair, for the record, you are the best referee in the Legislature.

You are the best referee on the pitch. We're going to miss you.

I should say best goalie. I meant to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. SB 607 simply has prescribers of controlled substances containing an opioid to discuss risks and dangers of opioids and opioid addiction with their patients. Kind of makes sense. Talk about the risks. Let patients be informed. Make a decision.

Existing law requires a prescriber to discuss specific information with their patients, but only requires them to do so when consulting a minor. Prescribers may discuss details about prescription opioids with the minor, the minor's parents or guardian, or another adult authorized for medical treatment.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 million people have died since 1999 from drug overdoses. Currently, 75% of all overdose deaths involve an opioid. And in recent years, opioid related overdose deaths have continued to increase for both prescription and non-prescription opioids. However, opioid overdoses are not exclusive to minors.

By having prescribers discuss specific information about opioids with all patients, more people will have the opportunity to opt out of an opioid prescription and instead seek other treatment options. With me today, I have Randy Pollack, who is in support of SB 607. And, when appropriate, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Randy Pollack on behalf of Haleon, a consumer product company that manufactures Theraflu, Sensodyne, Tums, Centrum, Emergen-C, and Advil. I am here in support of SB 607 and the important role that it will play in informing patients of potential dangers of being prescribed opioids.

Opioids are an effective and appropriate treatment option for certain types of pain, such as advanced cancers, certain types of surgeries, and other injuries or conditions characterized with severe pain. However, even short term use of opioids can increase risk for side effects, drug interactions, and, as Senator Portantino highlighted, the potential for addiction and even death.

However, for many types of common pain, there are effective alternatives to opioids that are recommended by experts for use of the frontline treatment options. Treatment of pain includes both non-pharmacological and pharmacological options. Other states have gone further to combat the opioid epidemic.

Many states have passed laws that help inform the patient's right to be counseled on non-opioid alternatives. However, we believe requiring the counseling of all patients at a potential risk of addiction with opioids, not just for minors, which is the current law, is a small but very critical step forward. We know it will save lives. For those reasons, we support an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You have two minutes each.

Good morning. Good morning, Chairs and Members. George Soares with the California Medical Association. We are in a respectful opposed unless amended position relating to SB 607. This bill will mandate physicians and other prescribers to discuss addiction and overdose risk from opioids before prescribing to a patient of any age.

We agree with the sentiment behind this type of notification, and we can assure you that an overwhelming majority of physicians already provide this information in clinical practice, but this type of notification should not be put into state law. The issue with this well intended bill is that it puts federal guidelines in the state statute, setting a bad precedent while also putting prescribers at risk of giving inaccurate information when new federal guidelines are inevitably recommended to prescribers. Federal guidelines are typically integrated into clinical practice.

Physicians adhere to these guidelines as part of their commitment to delivering high quality care. Putting these guidelines into state law is not particularly relevant to specific treatment plans. Patients already receive an extensive amount of information during medical visits, including details about their diagnosis, treatment options, potential side effects, and follow up care instructions.

Mandating that physicians add federal guidelines on prescriptions to this list can overwhelm patients, leading to a confusion and difficulty in retaining critical information about their immediate care needs. Patients rely on their physicians to provide personalized advice that is customized to their unique health situations. One size does not fit all in this mandating this notification could make patients feel that their care is being driven by statutory compliance rather than personalized medical judgment. This can erode the trust that the patient and physician relationship.

Due to these concerns, CMA requested amendments that would limit liabilities for prescribers who unintentionally failed to notify their patients of volatile notification requirements. It is our understanding that those amendments were not accepted. The practice of medicine is always evolving, and so are clinical and federal guidelines. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that you vote no on this measure today. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, also in a respectful opposed unless amended position. Orthopedic surgeons prescribe opioids post-surgery much less than they used to, but still do opioids for pain post surgery sometime, not only to relieve the suffering of the patient, but also to promote the healing, and would therefore request an exemption for post-surgical prescriptions to the bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anybody who wants to add on either in support or opposition to the bill, let's just take everyone at once. But I don't see people rushing to the front. So we're going to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Dr. Bains?

Yes. Thank you. Good morning. I'll just start off with this. How many people in this room prescribe opioids? So it's only legally.

Legally.

Legally. Okay. So it's only me. So I understand the intent. I understand the seriousness of what's happening with the opioid crisis. This is something that I have been fighting for very many years as a physician who actively prescribes opioids. It is part of my training. It is part of what I do to make sure that I counsel my patient on the risks and benefits of any medication that I give. I understand your heart is in the right place.

However, it is a little bit insulting to a physician to be told you're not doing your job enough to be providing risks and benefits of medications. This is part of every physician's training, and this is something that we have been doing. I realize there is an opioid crisis. It's very serious.

What are we going to do to provide accurate legislation that gets to the root of the problem of this opioid crisis? As the only person sitting in here in this room right now that actively prescribes opioids, I will not be supporting this bill today because there are physicians out there that already do this.

And with this bill moving forward, it creates more bureaucratic red tape for physicians to do what they've been doing all along. My biggest plea to everyone in legislation is empower your physician to make the right decisions. When it comes to prior-auths, when it comes to everything, my answer will always be, empower your physician. Because they are doing the right thing, and we need to make sure to empower what they are doing already. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Bains. Assembly Member Lowenthal.

First of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this very important legislation forward. And I want to convey my regrets to my friends at CMA and to the very important words of my colleague from Bakersfield. Perfect is the enemy of good, and we're in the midst of a crisis right now.

And I applaud the author for bringing something forward that is going to give us potentially better data. And that's what we should be doing, is studying the data on the outcomes of legislation like this and see if it is making an impact. So we need to try, we need to be courageous in order to try these types of things. And I think that there is no ill intent, as far as I can read, towards the medical community on this whatsoever. It is simply underscoring something that should be done.

There's certainly, as far as I can see, no intent on doing anything disrespectful otherwise to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to, you know, keeping us healthy. And I just applaud the author for thinking outside the box on this. I will be supporting this bill today.

Thank you Mr. Lowenthal. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Assembly Member Grayson?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question, because I am not one that prescribes opioids legally in any form or fashion. I do have a question. This bill, by the implementation of this bill, what addition does it, and I mean this in the most respectful way that I asked the question. Being what's brought up, been brought up in committee, what exactly is required that would be in addition to a doctor who is already doing, as described, already giving the information out and providing the right counsel and advisement?

Well, if the doctor is already doing it, then there would be no net effect. This just requires it to happen. So if you're already doing it, you're not increasing your burden.

I would like to also hear from CMA or from opposition.

Yeah, thank you for that question. So the concern is, is that some variation of this is already done in clinical practice. But as I mentioned, that it can be unique for every individual patient, different settings, different types of injuries or conditions. So we don't want to just put one size fits all.

So that's one component of the next would be that federal guidelines do change frequently, and doctors always want to stay up to date with the, you know, the best in new things in medicine and prescribing recommendations. We would not want to put something into state statute that does not follow that as we move forward. So that is our concern with it, but it is integrated in some capacity in existing clinical practice.

Thank you. And then also I know that the opposition expressed other issues as well. And so with that, today I'll be supporting it. But I know that the author has plenty of time to be able to work with opposition as they move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Grayson. Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, bring it back. Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the comments of the good doctor. And, you know, we all struggle with this issue. We all, you know, have had friends, neighbors, constituents. We all know physicians. We all know folks who are on all sides of this issue, but fundamentally, we're doing it for children. I don't believe giving information out hurts a physician's ability to be a physician. I appreciate the concerns of legislating protocols for a profession, but I do think we are at a crisis.

And I do think if a conversation causes a family to choose an alternative pain medication to an opioid, they'll make that decision based on the information they're going to get from their physician for the best interest of that family and that family member. And so I think the net benefit will provide more information for folks to make intelligent decisions for their own healthcare and empowering the patient in consultation with their physician. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Portantino, for bringing this bill forward today. Also for your leadership on this important issue. Very important issue. I agree we must continue to address the opioid crisis through every available approach, including patient education.

And I know, and we've heard today, that the bill has some opposition and concerns, legitimate concerns that were raised by Members of the Committee. And I know that you'll continue to work through those issues with, with all stakeholders. But in the meantime, I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary... We need a motion and a second. From Lowenthal. From Assembly Member Nguyen, a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 607, Portantino, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has eight votes. We'll leave the motion on call. Thank you very much. I see Senator Newman ready to present agenda item number one, SB 552. Ready when you are, sir.

Yeah, now you are.

Am I on?

Now I'm on. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 552, which provides technical cleanup to the 2017 revision of the California Swimming Pool Act, a measure which I carried and which was signed into law by then Governor Brown.

Over the last few months, my office has been working with the opposition to develop amendments that address their concerns and move them to neutral. But unfortunately, due to timing, we were unable to make those amendments in this committee.

The language for those amendments, however, which include a new written disclosure on the efficacy of pool fences, has been agreed to by all parties and has been shared with your staff and the Assembly Committee on Housing Community Development. This bill is referred to that committee, and those amendments will be taken prior to that hearing.

According to the California Department of Public Health, drowning remains one of the leading causes for death of death for children aged 14 and younger in California. Roughly 75% of those fatal childhood drownings occur at home pools or spas.

To help better prevent such tragedies, the California Swimming Pool Safety Act of 1996 required residential pools to be installed with at least one anti-drowning safety device, such as a pool fence, a pool cover, or a backyard door exit alarm.

SB 442 of 2017, which I authored, expanded and enhanced those protections by increasing the number of required safety features from one to two, as well as requiring home inspectors to document for new homebuyers, which, if any, safety devices are either installed or needed.

Since its implementation, however, the language of SB 442 has frequently been misinterpreted as a requirement for home inspectors to conduct comprehensive safety tests that are actually far behind their capacity or the intended scope of the bill.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, the language of SB 442, as drafted, inadvertently allowed for required safety devices to be installed or combined in ways that did not create the overlapping fail-safe provisions the measures sought to ensure.

Specifically, because of language, you could have both a latch and alarm on the same door, which obviously defeats the purpose of the intended redundancy. SB 552 addresses both of these outstanding issues, first, by clarifying the role of home inspectors, and second, by closing the two-step safety device loophole, thereby ensuring that these lifesaving features are properly employed to most effectively prevent childhood deaths and injuries.

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

Thank you, Senator. You each have two minutes.

Hi, my name is Steve Barrow. I'm the State Program Director for the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. We've been around for about 35 years, doing most of the traffic safety, pool drowning, all kinds of safety issues for children.

I learned about drowning firsthand when I was an EMT to paramedic, being on a lot of drowning incidents and dealing with it at that end. I was also on the team that helped in 1996 to write and pass the Pool Safety Act.

And then we worked with Senator Newman, who worked hard to clean up and strengthen the Pool Safety Act through SB 442 in 2017. So, we've had a lot of background in this arena, both on policy and also in practical terms. It is worth repeating this is the leading cause of death for one to four-year-olds.

It's the second leading cause of death for children five to 14, and the third leading cause of death for teenagers and youth 15 to 24. Most of the drownings for young children are in pools, residential pools, primarily, but public pools also. 7.5 times higher.

Black children have 7.5 times higher rate of drowning than their peers, and that primarily is in the pool setting. Everything we do about drowning in California is an important step forward. This might seem like a bill that's, like, on the edges of cleaning up something, but every step like this is important.

We have hundreds of steps we have to do to get to zero drowning in California. And we applaud Senator Newman for continuing to move forward to finding the steps we need to take forward. We're here to support the bill. I'm here to answer technical questions with the background I have on this issue.

Thank you very much.

Chair and Members, Gerry Desmond with the California Real Estate Inspection Association, CREIA, in support of the measure. Appreciating the leadership of Senator Newman and Mister Barrow and his organization to address pool safety and to play our part as the home inspectors.

And we specifically, as the Senator mentioned, appreciate the clarity that's being provided on what a home inspector shall look for in terms of the two pool safety features that must be present to make sure that that's clear for all parties involved, and we support the bill.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to add on as a me too to the bill? Support or opposition, come on up.

Mister Chairman, Members, John Norwood, on behalf of the California Pool and Spa Association, in support of the Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Do we have a motion or a second from colleagues? I got a motion from Assembly Member Pellerin, second from Lowenthal, third from Bains, I think. Oh, and we have a comment. So, I take it back. She might not like your bill.

Doctor Baines, please.

That would be wild.

Oh my gosh.

I'm ready.

I said might not, might not.

It's a little judgmental. I was going to say, thank you so much for this bill, and I'd like to be added on as a co-author. This bill is so important. Childhood drownings are devastating for families. And we're going into summer, and I'm worried about this summer and the impact on children.

As a physician, we have been seeing alarmingly numbers increasing in childhood drownings. We need to do all we can to make sure children learn how to swim properly at younger ages. And I thoroughly support this bill and I would love to be added on its co-author. Thank you.

She doesn't like it. She loves it, is what I meant to say earlier. Thank you, Doctor Baines. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. I'm happy to add Doctor Baines and any other Members who would like to be a co-author. California has been a leader, as in so many things nationally, on childhood driving prevention. So, SB 442 of 2017 actually raised, I think, standards and has served as a model across the country.

And I'm very proud of that work. And I'm grateful especially to Mister Barrow for his work. This is a cleanup bill, but to Mister Barrow's point, really important. Every life saved is a tragedy prevented. Every traumatic injury prevented in a pool is literally millions of dollars of money saved for Californians. Appreciate the support.

The next step, of course, is water safety and making sure that more Californians, especially young people, learn how to swim. But that's for another bill. So, asking for your aye vote today and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Senator. And I understand you plan to amend the bill in Assembly Housing Committee and that those amendments address outstanding concerns, which you referenced in your intro. Happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 552, Newman. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Housing and Community Development. [Roll call]

Thank you, Members.

That bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open. Senator Cortese, thank you for being here ready to present agenda item number four, SB 1015.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members, I appreciate you allowing me to present SB 1015 to you today. SB 1015 will help California build an adequate nursing workforce. It reflects the diversity of our state. It will increase transparency in the management of clinical education placements for nursing students.

To become a registered nurse, a nursing student needs 500 hours of hands on clinical education. In 2022, a staggering 92 of California's 152 nursing programs were denied access to clinical place. Excuse me, clinical placements for their students. Community colleges and state universities are acutely affected.

The clinical impaction threatens our state's ability to keep the nursing profession accessible and affordable to diverse communities across California. Currently, it's unknown how nursing programs manage and coordinate clinical placements for their students at clinical sites.

This Bill gives the Board of Registered Nursing authority to collect and report information on how nursing programs manage their clinical placements, including how they coordinate with other nursing programs and clinical facilities. It also requires the board to study, develop and recommend standards for clinical placements to all nursing programs.

SB 1015 takes the first steps to address the growing issue of inequitable access to clinical placements for nursing students. As the state faces a nursing shortage, one that we're all aware of, we must ensure equitable access to clinical education for both public and private nursing institutions.

With us today to testify, we have Mari Lopez from the California Nurses Association and Eric Bakke from California State University. At the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your. I vote. Thank you, Senator. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair, and good morning, Members. I'm Mari Lopez. I'm a legislative advocate for the California Nurses Association, representing over 100,000 registered nurses across the state and a proud sponsor of SB 1015. Clinical education is a vital part of every nurse's education.

Through clinical education, nurses receive the direct, hands on patient care experience required for licensure as an RN. However, clinical placement opportunities are becoming increasingly difficult, secure for nursing programs and frustrating students goals of becoming nurses.

In the latest nursing school survey by the Board of Registered Nursing schools reported that the inability to secure placements was the number two reason for not enrolling more students. And California needs a comprehensive understanding of clinical placement, a function that the BRN is best situated to conduct.

SB 1015 is a common sense reform that would provide transparency and help ensure equity in clinical placement opportunities for all of California's nursing students. This Bill takes important steps, important first steps in addressing the challenges of clinical education placements that more severely impact our community colleges and CSU nursing programs.

This Bill achieves this by codifying requirements that the BRN collect, analyze and report clinical placement information. This is consistent with the audit the State Auditor's recommendations that the BRN collect this information to assess clinical placement capacity.

This Bill would also have the BRN's nursing and workforce Education Advisory Committee analyze clinical placement issues and recommend standards to the BRN to ensure equitable access to clinical placements. Public nursing schools are vital in keeping the nursing profession affordable and accessible to all Californians. For these reasons, CNA respectfully asks the Committee to vote yes on SB 1015. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Eric Bakke with the California State University Chancellor's office. Just first of all, thank the author for bringing forward this important Bill, an echo much of what has already been said.

I just would like to underscore that the data collected through this Bill would provide valuable information that will ultimately increase the number of nurses the State of California could produce. The CSU currently has over 9000 students at the BSN masters and doctoral level, and we graduate 3000 nursing degrees each year. There's more that can still be done. This Bill will help achieve that. For that, we support and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? I don't think so. Anybody wants to add on in support or opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues. Yes. Doctor Baines.

Another great Bill. I would love to be added on as a co author. Thank you so much for your guys work on this. As a past chair for the Song Brown California Workforce Policy Commission, this is something that we've been working on. That Commission was sunsetted.

However, I would encourage you guys to look back to the work that we were doing in our final months before we ended the Commission because this is exactly what we were discussing. Increasing educational opportunities for nurses in addition to creating more training spots, is something at the heart of song round.

I am really concerned with the budget right now and the cuts to nursing education and rotations, and that's why this piece, the legislation, is even more critical. So thank you so much to the author for bringing this up, and I'd love to be added on as a co author. Thank you.

Thank you. Doctor Baines, can I take that as a motion?

Yes.

So move. Got a second from Lowenthal. I got a third from over here. Any other additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Sander, would you like to close?

Thank you assemblymember for your comments and encouragement. And of course, we'll be happy to add you as a co author, and we'll get get right on that. And to the chair and the Committee, thank you for your help with this Bill as we worked it through. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you for bringing this important Bill forward. I was actually just talking with folks about this last night at a backyard barbecue. You can tell how exciting my conversations are that we were talking about nurse placements and community colleges versus other stakeholders.

That Bill is out.

The lack of clinical placements is a significant issue, and I hope the study proposed under this Bill produces recommendations we can use to improve the situation. With that, I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1015. Cortese The motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much. I believe, Dr. Jackson, you are here first as a very appreciated and well respected Member of the Committee, obviously, but also to present a bill, agenda item six, SB 1067, by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Happy to present this bill for Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, SB 1067, which would create an expedited licensure process, a specified healing arts board for practitioners who plan to work in medically underserved communities. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas will be accepting the Committee's amendments as well.

Despite serving our most vulnerable communities, providers, and clinics throughout the state have reported high vacancy rates and prolonged periods to fill staff vacancies for key positions like physicians, dentists, and nurse practitioners only further deepening our health care workforce shortage. Expediting licenses for practitioners who plan to serve our most vulnerable populations is a valuable incentive to work in the communities that need them the most.

Recently, the Medical Board of California established their own process to expedite license applications for practitioners serving in medically underserved areas. SB 1067 is modeled after this process to directly benefit California's communities with the highest need for accessing quality healthcare.

With us today are Tyler Jackson from CPCA Advocates and Nanette Star, policy director at California Consortium for Urban Indian Health, to provide testimony and answer any questions that the Committee may have.

Thank you, Dr. Jackson. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Assembly Member, Mr. Chairman, and Members. Taylor Jackson with the California Primary Care Association, proud sponsors of SB 1067. We represent almost 1,300 community health centers around California. This includes FQHCs, Community Clinics, rural health centers, and free clinics. As the assemblymember said, there is a healthcare workforce shortage in our state.

Historically, this has disproportionately affected underserved populations who access safety net services. Our data shows the average community health center needs more than six months to fill a physician vacancy and more than four months to fill a dentist or nurse practitioner vacancy. Health centers in more underserved areas can sometimes go years with vacancies.

Part of this is because the healing arts boards who license providers have lengthy backlogs for processing applications for licensure, which prevents providers from joining the workforce in a timely manner. This has left us in an untenable position when it comes to recruiting.

Delays in processing force us to choose between hiring clinicians before their application is processed and covering their salaries while we wait months for them to become licensed, when we can bill for their services. Or we wait to hire Clinicians until their license is approved, which often means losing those candidates to employers who can afford to pay salaries without billing. Neither option is financially sustainable.

More importantly, the situation creates substantial barriers in addressing urgent health needs in our communities because we have clinicians who could see patients and respond to needs and reduce suffering, but instead, patients must wait. This bill will help to quickly get healthcare providers to the areas they are needed most. Respectfully request your aye vote on 1067.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Nanette Star. I'm the director of policy at the California Consortium for Urban Indian Health, representing urban Indian health organizations across California. In the post-pandemic era, where we have continued to see an increase in mental health concerns and psychiatric crisis, we still experience the access crunch.

To try to combat this, we have worked to add additional psychiatry support at our health centers, but it has taken upwards of six months to get our psychiatrist credentialing. So when we're tasked with providing follow up within 30 days of a psych related ER visit or hospital discharge, the individuals who are most equipped to address the most severe psychiatric conditions are unable to meet our patients' needs because of red tape.

Hiring providers to work in federally qualified health centers FQHCs is hard, and making them wait for licensing makes hiring incredibly difficult. As safety net providers, we serve the most vulnerable populations. Delivering essential healthcare services.

Expedited licensure in high needs areas reduces patient wait time, alleviates provider strain, and also helps improve health outcomes. Preventative care is more cost effective than emergency treatment. The average cost for an ER visit is about $3,000 for non-life threatening conditions, it can easily exceed $20,000 for more severe cases.

So many of these visits are avoidable with timely primary care. Health plans require us to establish care with patients within 90 to 120 days. Yet licensing delays for out of state or newly eligible providers make this goal unattainable, creating a misalignment that hinders patient care.

To ensure equitable access to health care for all, we must prioritize recruiting healthcare professionals to FQHCs and other underserved areas. Thank you for your time and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to add on, in support or in opposition to the bill, please come on up. Provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Mr. Chair and Members. Adam Keigwin, on behalf of Ultimate Health Services in support.

Roseanne Helms, representing the Board of Behavioral Sciences. The Board has a support if amended position on the bill and is requesting some amendments to further clarify who would qualify for the expedite.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jared Moss on behalf of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Allred on behalf of San Ysidro Health in support.

Thank you.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Thank you.

Squanakoy Virginia Hedrick, executive director for the California Consortium for Urban Indian Health in support.

Thank you. Bring it back to colleagues. Questions? Comments? Motion? Seconds? Dr. Bains.

Another great bill. Would love to join on as a co-author for this. And on a side note, it reminded me that I need to do my re-credentialing for my clinic in Delano right now. I just sent out the email, so thank you so much for this bill. Super important to expedite our rural healthcare workforce. So thank you. Love to be added on as a co-author and motion to move as well.

Thank you, Dr. Bains. Do I have a second? I'm going to give it to Pellerin. Assemblymember Pellerin on the second. Any additional questions or comments? You too tied. I gave it to you last time. Don't be mad at me. Any additional questions? Comments? Motion? We have a motion and a second. Dr. Jackson, would you like to close?

Oh, happy to present this bill. And since I am presenting the bill, I would like to add myself as a co-author.

Good call. Thank you, Dr. Jackson, for presenting this bill on Senator Smallwood-Cuevas's behalf and for confirming that she's accepting the Committee's amendments. I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1067, Smallwood-Cuevas, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Would love to have Senator Bradford come on over to Senate B&P, but in the meantime, I'd love a motion and a second on Senator Alvarado-Gill's bill, SB 820. Got a motion from Assembly Member Pellerin; a second from Assembly Member Nguyen. This is Agenda Item Three, was presented earlier when we did not have a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 820: Alvarado-Gil, the motion is: do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll Call].

That bill is out, and do we have a motion and a second on the consent calendar? Got a motion by Vice Chair Flora. Got a couple of seconds by Assembly Member Nguyen. You haven't had a chance yet today, I don't think. I'm trying to be equitable. I did not know that. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On the consent calendar, File Item Five: SB 1024: Ochoa Bogh, the motion is: do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill is out. I have stalled for Senator Bradford for as long as I can. I guess I could have gone slower. He's wrapping up in Judish, it sounds like. Okay. We'll be here, ready and waiting. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you want to run through for folks who were absent earlier?

SB 552: Newman. On SB 552: Newman, [Roll Call].

That Bill is out. Assuming Member McKinnor will present for Senator Bradford, agenda item number seven, SB 1109. We have a bipartisan motion and second. Apparently, we don't write down who does it, so I'm not going to say it anymore. Yeah. Thank you, Assembly Member McKinnor.

I am presenting SB 1109 on behalf of Senator Bradford. It's a straightforward measure that requires the Department of Cannabis Control to collect and report demographic information of cannabis licensees. This information will be voluntarily provided by cannabis licensees.

In recent years, the Legislature has focused on ensuring that California's cannabis market is inclusive and supportive of individuals impacted by the war on drugs, as intended when the voters passed Prop 64. Many of these individuals have experienced difficulty entering the market and contend that the market continues to lack in diversity.

California has a responsibility to make sure that our cannabis industry is equitable and fair for all. SB 1109 will help provide necessary transparency about California cannabis industry. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Do we have any primary witnesses in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to add on in support or opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments? Seeing none.

Assembly Member, would you like to close for the Senator?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

My favorite close. Thank you very much. Thank you, Assembly Member McKinnor, for presenting Senator Bradford's bill, which I know is just one more piece of the Senator's long history of leadership, of promoting equity in the cannabis industry. Happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On SB 1109, Bradford. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call]

That Bill is out.

Thank you very much. Give us one minute for bookkeeping and then we'll be back to running through the agenda for folks.

On SB 607, Portantino. The motion was do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

That bill is out.

SB 820, Alvarado-Gil. The motion was do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll call] On SB 1015, Cortese. [Roll call] On SB 1067, Smallwood-Cuevas. [Roll call] On SB 1225, Jones. [Roll call]

I was like wait a minute.

No or lay off.

Doesn't matter.

Whatever you want.

You have to say one of them.

Oh. I'll pick one when the time comes.

Vote change on SB 607, Portantino. [Roll call]

On the consent. On the consent calendar. [Roll call] On the consent calendar. [Roll call]

Of course, I know there's a lot going on right now. Madam Secretary, please run through the agenda.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call] On SB 552, Newman. [Roll call] On SB 607, Portantino. [Roll call] On SB 820, Alvarado-Gil. [Roll call] On SB 1015, Cortese. [Roll call] On SB 1067, Smallwood-Cuevas. [Roll call] On SB 1109, Bradford. [Roll call] On SB 1225, Jones. [Roll call]

On the consent calendar. [Roll call] On SB 552, Newman. [Roll call] On SB 607, Portantino. [Roll call] On SB 820, Alvarado-Gil [Roll call] On SB 1015, Cortese. [Roll call] On SB 1067, Smallwood-Cuevas. [Roll call] On SB 1109, Bradford. [Roll call] On SB 1225, Jones I already have you.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member Soria. The hearing is adjourned.