Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the June 25th Business and Professions Hearing. The last song I heard on the radio was 'Good Day' by Brett Eldredge. It calmed me down. I want to encourage everyone to internalize that for as long as they can today. I give us half an hour.

We have 16 bills on today's agenda, including the following three bills on consent: SB 1233 by Senator Wilk, SB 1526 by the Committee on Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development, which is do pass as amended, and SB 1478 by Senator Nguyen.

If anyone is here today for SB 1453 by by Senator Ashby, please note that bill was removed from today's agenda and will be heard in a hearing next Tuesday. That's the sunset bill for the California Dental Board. For each measure being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room today 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, and with that, we'll begin today's hearing. I know a lot of folks are running around. I have permission from the Republicans to start without them since they are not here.

Senator Limon, would you like to start with SB 639? It is a good day to start with Senator Limon and then follow it with General Roth. We're doing well.

Great to see you, chair and members. I first want to thank the committee staff for working with our office and will be accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis.

This bill adds Alzheimer's and dementia training as an option to the existing continuing education requirement for physicians who have a patient population of which over 25% are 65 years or older, and applies the same requirement to physician assistants and nurse practitioners. SB 639 will ensure that healthcare professionals are equipped for dementia detection and diagnosis statewide.

With me today in support of the bill, I have Jezabel Galvan and Eric Dowdy on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association.

Great. And you have two minutes each.

Thank you. I'm Eric Dowdy. I'm vice president of public policy for the Alzheimer's Association. As a sponsors of SB 639, I want to thank Senator Limon for her great work, as well as her staff and also the chair and the committee staff who've been extremely helpful in getting this to today's hearing.

Early detection of Alzheimer's and dementia is critical. Now more than ever, for the first time, we have disease altering therapies that can slow the progression of the disease. However, currently these therapies are only effective for those who are in the early stages.

SB 639 will help to ensure faster and more accurate diagnosis by sharing the latest developments to providers working on the front lines. As the population of our state ages, it's extremely important that our healthcare providers are equipped to meet the needs of older Californians.

I'd like to use the remainder of my time and turn it over to our advocate here, Jezabel, to talk about her experience. Great. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your time this morning. My name is Jezabel Galvan from Sacramento. I am the daughter of Gerardo Galvan. Gerardo is currently 61 years old, living with early onset Alzheimer's disease.

When my father turned 55, he began to do odd things like put the milk in the closet and the cereal in the fridge. Since he was a truck driver, we dismissed it with him being very tired. One day, I received a call from his dispatcher, who expressed how concerned he was about my father.

He shared how my father was making careless but detrimental mistakes. First, he left the bottom door of the semi unlocked and was spilling tomato juice through the whole highway. But today he went against traffic on the freeway. He expressed. When he told me this, I became speechless. I didn't have words.

I made an appointment for my dad with his primary care Doctor and told him he had to go. After explaining my dad's symptoms, the Doctor told us he was just overworking himself and that this was normal for his age. Since I was still not happy with that response, the Doctor referred my father to a neurologist.

This made me feel a little more at peace until I realized the appointment was in 10 months. In the meantime, my father's symptoms had become worse. He began to hallucinate and became afraid of going outside. I got so frustrated that I called his primary cares Doctor off his back. We couldn't wait 10 months. We needed help.

They gave us an appointment with a psychiatrist who diagnosed my father with schizophrenia. This simply did not sound right to me. We decided to trust the medical professionals and began to give my father the medication prescribed to him by the psychiatrist. My dad only got worse by this point.

It was July, and my father's appointment was not until October. So, out of desperate need, we decided to take my father to Mexico, where we did not need a referral to see a specialist. After two days in Mexico, we received a diagnosis. They informed us my father had dementia.

This still did not clear my father for diagnosis to be accepted. Here in California. It was only until my father's disease progressed four years since the onset symptoms began that a local neurologist confirmed that my father had early onset Alzheimer's. The journey to get to today has been very difficult, to say the least.

I beat myself up every day thinking if I had listened to my gut or have pushed harder, if the providers we first approached had received additional training to recognize the signs of Alzheimer's, maybe my father would have received a correct diagnosis from day one, saving my family precious time and stress.

Today, I urge your aye vote on SB 639 so that California providers can receive dementia training to better prepare them for or when they encounter families like Mike. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thank you for sharing your personal story with us today. Would anybody else like to add on in support of the bill? Any add ons in support of SB 639?

Mr. Chair and Assemblymember Carrillo, Monica Miller, representing Alzheimer's San Diego, Alzheimer's Orange County and Alzheimer's Los Angeles in support. And we apologize. Our letter was a little bit late, so thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Good morning. Christy Weiss with Capital Advocacy here in support on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners.

Thank you.

Selena Coppi Hornback with the California Assisted Living Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? We don't have any on file. I don't see any in the room. Anybody who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Still seeing none. Any questions from my colleague? No questions from my colleague. We are still operating as a.

What do we call it again? Subcommittee? Subcommittee, sure. So we're not taking motions in seconds, but would you like to close, Senator Limon.

Just want to thank again, the committee, the chair, and when it's appropriate, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you for bringing this bill forward and working with us. Definitely appreciate the need to increase awareness around Alzheimer's and emerging research and therapies. And again, want to thank your witness for sharing her testimony with us today. Her dad is lucky.

Your dad is lucky to have you as an advocate, and that's clearly made a big difference in his life and in your life. So thank you for trying to chart a path for others to not necessarily have to go through what you've gone through and get the diagnosis that they should sooner here in California.

With that and with the accepted amendments, I'll be happy to support the Bill when the time comes. Thank you very much. Thank you. General Roth, SB 1042. Ready when you are, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to thank my colleague for presenting that last bill and for that compelling testimony. Excuse me. It certainly illustrates the dramatic impact of the health care shortage in the State of California and our nation and the impact that it has on families and the individuals involved.

This bill is a shortage related bill as well, and requires all nursing programs in the State of California to report their clinical placement needs to the Board of Registered Nursing. The bill also requires licensed health care facilities and clinics to report on clinical placement slots for nursing students to the Department of Health Care Access and Information, or HCAI.

The bill would also permit, but not require, the Board of Registered Nursing in its option, and upon request by a nursing school or program, to assist schools in identifying clinical placement slots to meet the clinical placement needs of the school program.

Frankly, one of the major bottlenecks to growing capacity in our nursing programs--and we do have a nursing shortage in the State of California and we've had one for decades--one of the major problems is the challenge of locating and securing additional clinical placement slots necessary to provide clinical training required to obtain a nursing degree. It impacts the students that are seeking to be enrolled in nursing school, and it also impacts the schools that are seeking to expand their programs to produce more nurses.

In 2020, our State Auditor specifically recommended that the Board of Registered Nursing require nursing programs to annually update information about the clinical facilities they use for student placements, and that compiling this information and comparing it with other available information about existing clinical placements would allow the Board to identify clinical facilities where programs do not currently exist for placements, which could, of course, help nursing programs find additional clinical placement slots.

So this bill does just that by collecting data on nursing programs' clinical placement needs and collecting data from health facilities and clinics. Under clinical placement slots, the Board and HCAI will get the data necessary to put the--make the lines cross, bring the lines together, and identify additional clinical placement slots for schools.

After working with stakeholders, we've taken various amendments that address the concerns raised by children's hospitals, health care districts, and private schools, and it's my understanding that these amendments finally have removed all opposition. I want to thank all of those: the hospitals, the private schools, committee staff, other stakeholders for working together with us along this rather arduous process to try to make this bill the best bill that it could possibly be. So with that, at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your patience.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your long-time work on this issue. Any primary witnesses in support of the bill? See lots of groups in support. No one--no primary witnesses? Any primary--oh. Come on up. Take your time.

Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else who wants to add on in support of the bill?

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Do the good work of the author. Any add-ons or tweeners or--

Matt Back, representing the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools. We've been working with Senator Roth and his staff. With the most recent amendments, we are now neutral. Thank you.

Everyone loves to hear it. That's good news. Any add-ons in opposition to the bill? I don't think I called them yet. Nope. Does my colleague have any questions or comments or concerns? None. Senator, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote, Mr. Chair, and thank you and your staff and your committee members for your patience and help with the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for working with us and all the stakeholders on this bill. Clinical placement availability, as you know, continues to be a significant problem for our schools, and I am happy to see that through your hard work, you specifically addressed every concern that we've heard so far, and as a result, the bill has no opposition.

And I am happy to support it when we get approximately eight more colleagues here today. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Senator Bradford, perfect timing. Ready when you are for SB 1059. We've had more Senators in the hearing room than we have had Assembly Members.

For all Assembly Members watching or your staffs, we would enjoy your presence. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Which will assist legal cannabis industry by alleviating some of the tremendous tax burden that is placed on this industry. This bill would eliminate a local government's ability to collect the tax on tax. In some jurisdictions, like Los Angeles, these local cannabis taxes or fees are calculated after the state excise tax is applied.

The calculation method is unfair to consumers and disadvantages licensed retailers that continue to struggle against a thriving illicit market. 1059 addresses the issue and ensurers taxes are based on actual goods being sold. Today, testifying in support is Jerred Kiloh with the United Cannabis Business Association. At the appropriate time, I would ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Two minutes, please.

Appreciate it, Chair. Jerred Kiloh, President, United Cannabis Business Association. Over a billion dollars a year is collected from the cannabis industry, and we still don't use the proper enforcement tools to reduce the growth of the illicit industry. The fact that the DCC has issued 37% more retail licenses since 2022 and that has brought in 11% less revenue shows that access is not the only driving factor in declining revenues. If we had a healthy, legal cannabis industry, would we have $754 million in unpaid cannabis taxes?

But the more concerning stat is that debt number was $250 million in December of 2023. $500 million in new debt in five months to the State of California, and 70% of that debt is from businesses that have already closed. When we view the CDTFA's tax revenue reports on cannabis, we see a flat number of revenue over the last few quarters. But that's not taking into account that 30% of these taxpayers are in payment programs and 15% of these taxpayers are in default, so the lost or delayed revenue is not represented in CDTFA's quarterly revenue reports.

So these reports don't show the dire straits cannabis is in right now, as businesses are failing or falling into deep debt. We can see that the ever growing illicit cannabis industry, where prices are lower and estimated at over $8 billion in valuation, that, coupled with the emerging cannabis sale sold under the guise of hemp, with its exponential growth over the last two years, shows that the demand for cannabis products at a lower cost are what consumers are demanding.

We have a 50% or higher price in the legal cannabis space, so consumers are making their choice to purchase the lower priced, untaxed, unregulated, and untested products, as shown in the meteoric rise of competing industries who don't apply taxes to the price of goods.

If we keep tinkering around thinking the war on illegal drugs is going to win with badges, we've learned nothing in the past half century of drug policy. This bill is asking for enforcement to come in the way of more competitive pricing by reducing the consumer tax and eliminating the conflicting compounding taxes that AB 195 created, and only push more consumers to illegal prices.

And if you could wrap up, that'd be great.

SB 1059 is a cleanup bill to clarify who pays taxes and where the tax on taxes come from. Hopefully we can clean this up for many municipalities that are running into this conflict. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Please.

Good morning. Pam Lopez on behalf of California NORML. We have all discussed extensively the rise in the illicit cannabis market. We know what a challenge it is. We know that taxes and consumer price burdens are a major driver of the thriving illicit market. I just want to talk briefly on behalf of cannabis consumers, whom California NORML represents.

What a big deal it is to see taxes on top of taxes. We are hearing at California NORML that this is one piece of the taxes that consumers pay, but it is the most sort of intellectually infuriating. Cannabis consumers who go to a legal dispensary and who have gone that extra mile to purchase in the licensed legal economy, who can then see enumerated on their receipt a tax on top of a tax. It makes their head want to explode.

And it's often the straw on the camel's back that pushes them into going back into the illicit, illegal economy. So Senator Bradford's bill is an important measure in terms of reducing the tax burden on consumers, but it's an especially important measure in terms of reducing the intellectual strain of the tax burden on consumers. And we're so glad that he's carrying it, and glad to support.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill? Any add ons in support?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Amy Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, CannaCraft, March and Ash, and Sparc in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Sam Rodriguez on behalf of Good Farmers and Great Neighbors. We want to compliment Senator Bradford. And it's actually his efforts has been a deterrent for cities not going in the wrong direction. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, George Miller on behalf of Weed Maps in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? I don't see any on file. Don't see any in the room. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bringing it back to more colleagues now for questions or comments. Still 40% of what we need for a quorum. We're getting there. Twice as much as we had five minutes ago. Questions? Comments? No questions. No comments. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you heard by our witnesses, this is a straightforward measure that with sole intention on making sure our cannabis industry is fair and equitable to all that participate, especially those folks who choose to use the legal market.

And we see now, with the illicit, well, I shouldn't say the illicit tax, with this tax on tax, it's almost a 47% increase on what they're paying at the illicit market. So this is a common sense measure to generate not only more revenue for the State of California, but also make it far more affordable for Californians to do the right thing. And I respectfully ask for the aye vote.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for bringing this bill forward, and I hope the additional clarity around gross receipts will benefit licensees and consumers alike. And when the time comes, I'll be happy to support the bill. Thank you very much. I think Senator Nguyen is the huge winner of today.

Jumping from this is like the lottery, jumping from 14th to 4th. That's just in time. You win by 3 seconds. Sorry, Senator Newman. Senator Nguyen presenting SB 1459. When you're ready. That's right.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members. I would first like to thank the Committee staff for their work on the analysis and also the suggested amendments that they have provided us. I also accept the author's amendments with the two amendments referenced in the Committee analysis, as well. As amended.

Beginning on January 1, 2026 SB 1459 will allow all public animal shelters and all private animal shelters with local contracts for animal care to monthly update their public websites with the following items of information that are indicative of how the shelter is managed and operates.

Number one, the number of animals taken in during the prior month, with separate categories for dog, cats and other animals. Number two, the source of intake, such as a relocation from another shelter or from the field.

Number three, outcomes for animals over the prior month, including adoptions, returns to owners, transfers to rescue organization, euthanized animals, died in care or dead upon arrival. SB 1459 is intended to facilitate easy comparisons among shelters in an effort to stimulate competition and generate public pressure for improvement by subbar shelters.

I have with me Karen Lange with Cal Animals here to testify and answer any questions.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Karen Lange, behaviour of the California Animal Welfare Association. The Association represents a little over 200 public and private shelters in the State of California. Thank you to your staff for doing such a phenomenal job trying to thread the needle here. For those that aren't aware, California's public animal shelters do not receive any state general fund dollars.

Everything that we do in California's public animal shelters is generally part of the city or county's budget, and then some portion of their operations comes from adoption fees. But certainly that's a delicate balance, too, because we want folks coming in the door.

I've been before your Committee a few times with some pretty rough policy in front of you. The shelters understand that you want more transparency.

We understand that everybody, you know, certainly our pets are probably some of the most important, pure relationships we have in our lives, and we understand that folks are very concerned here and elsewhere about what's happening in our shelters, and we're definitely full. There's just more animals coming in than folks showing up to adopt them.

We understand the desire for transparency. We were trying to be very careful about how far we went with the points of data so that we didn't sync ourselves in appropriations, which is not your problem. But we do want to make sure we can get through the Appropriations Committee.

The data that the Senator is including in her bill is something that shelters already track.

And given the additional year to come online, if shelters need a little bit more time to get into compliance, we think every public shelter in the State of California should be able to comply with the bill with existing resources, since they already track that based on the great work you did with the Vet Med Board sunset a few years ago.

We definitely keep track of all of those things, and we want to be transparent. We just don't want to sink the bill with costs that we have no way of paying for the resources that they do have. They want to invest in saving as many animals as they can.

So I'm happy to answer any questions and want to thank the Senator and again, your Committee and ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any people who want to add? Well, any additional primary witnesses in support? We have room for one more. I'm guessing not, since no one rushed up. Anybody wants to add on in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You have two minutes each.

Okay this is working. Okay, great. It is. Good morning. I'm Julie Verga, President of Fix Our Shelters, an animal shelter watchdog organization, and I'm also on the board for the Pet Assistance foundation, which has filed opposition as well. Our coalition includes rescue and advocacy partners from across our state.

Yesterday, we were all in town to call attention to the epic crisis facing animals both inside and outside shelter walls. We have nothing but gratitude and praise for Senator Nguyen and the co authors for, for recognizing the necessity for oversight and accountability from public animal shelters.

As Senator Nguyen said in many videos and Orange County reporting regarding her particular shelter, she was shocked to learn of the deplorable conditions animals were kept in at her brand new Orange County shelter in her district. Sick and injured animals left untreated, no public access or volunteer or rescue engagement to save lives on and on.

Many, many bad stories there. As Senator Nguyen asked, what are they hiding? What should the public know about shelter operations? For starters, we should all know conditions and operations of this particular shelter were not uncommon. To the contrary, California now leads the nation in the number of animals euthanized in shelters across our state.

Unaltered and unvaccinated animals are routinely turned away at shelter doors and through 311 systems because of reduced intake programs. The reduced intake of animals at shelters is the centerpiece of programs advanced by UCD Corp, the Shelter Medicine program, and Cal Animals.

Their so called innovative solutions of reduced or managed intake of animals presumes the less animals entering shelters, the less will be killed. Unfortunately, these programs have backfired spectacularly. Intake of animals is still below pre Covid levels, but the euthanasia and overpopulation of unwanted animals has skyrocketed.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

In closing, unless the data collection required of this bill includes the number of cats and dogs turned away, it will have the unintended consequences of continuing to advance a false, misleading, and inaccurate picture of shelter operations.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes. That was a quick two minutes. Perfect.

All right, great. That's my two minutes. Elayne Booster, I'm the founder and President of Tales of Joy Rescue. 23 years and counting. We're platinum rated everywhere. We're a financial rescue, and we do what you guys should be doing. We support all the tiny mom and pop independent rescuers across the country. We're nationwide, including Mexico and Canada.

And, you know, the main thing is, I'm stunned that we had to have a bill in 2024 that makes shelters tell us the animals they have. You would think this would have been. I mean, that's their job, to let the public know who's there and who can be adopted and how it turns out.

So I would have thought this would have been, you know, 100 years ago.

But the main thing is, I don't know if you guys look at next door, I wake up, I look at the next door app, I'm seeing something I never saw in all the years before, which is neighborhoods and people screaming on next door, oh, my God, I found this dog. Oh, my God, I found this cat.

It is rampant. They're just being turned into the streets because the nation is demanding no kill, which we know there's no way to have 100% no kill. There are old animals, there are sick animals. We understand that.

But in order for their numbers to look like, you know, they're coming down with no kill, they're literally not taking in animals. We have a video in Fresno of an animal care truck picking up a dog driving a block, dumping them out. And Fox News put it on TV when we sent it to them.

Not the bad Fox News, the good Fox News. They aired it, and people were stunned that he just dumped the dog out. And you know what? The owners saw the video and it took them three weeks to track down their dog and get him back.

If he had been taken to the shelter that day, so much trauma would have been avoided. So here's the thing.

If you don't start passing really good bills to really care about animals, our next 10 years is going to be spent getting dogs the vote and you are going to be in so much trouble because first of all, we know that they have never to a bad human being, they know instantly.

So only good guys are going to be in office. We're going to get them the vote and we're going to start naming our bills things like don't kill the puppy bill. So when you vote against it, we're going to be able to say he voted against the don't kill the puppy bill. Like the Patriot Act.

You know, we've learned if you could.

Wrap up, that'd be great. Thank you.

We need to do better. You have to do better. This bill, you want to pass it, great. It doesn't do anything to make lives better for animals, to save them, to keep them healthier. Please do better.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any additional folks who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Just your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill. Thank you.

Elise Mize, I'm with Fix Front Street and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much. Do colleagues any questions or comments for colleagues? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 we're getting closer. We have good dem representation and we're waiting for a couple Republicans. I'm right here. You are right here. If you want to come over here. By all means. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I just want to make some comments to address some of the concerns that were mentioned. First of all, the Orange County shelter is not in my district. It's actually in another district.

But my cities, though, do, some of my cities do contract with the county and I did not go, go into detail on how and why we got to where we are with this bill. The opponent did mention that. Yes.

If you want to go back a little bit, it is all the volunteers of the shelters and all the information we've received.

There were pictures of a husky who was hit by a car and ended up being in the shelter for three days and just bleed to death without any record of whether that Husky received any medication or any assistance or anything. And no one ever, there was nothing on his record.

Then there's a picture of a cat with half a limb with blood gusting out and there was no rescue to that cat. And a cat rescue facility nonprofit came in and assisted the shelter and helped aid the cat. But again, the records aren't there.

And so, you know, I just, I respectfully disagree that this bill doesn't do anything. This bill does do something. Even my opponents stated that we can't believe we even have to have a bill to do this, because currently, today, there isn't this information. Shelters varies all across the State of California.

Some report monthly, some do quarterly, some do annually. Some gives us intake information. Some gives us outtake information. Some gives us euthanization rates, some gives us don't give us that. So some gives us information on dogs, some gives us on cats, some gives us about other animals.

Let's get a standard in the State of California, because these animals don't have a voice. We are their voice. So to say that this bill doesn't have any teeth is, quite frankly, outrageous and very offensive, because this bill has gone through the Senate, bipartisan, and we've worked with a lot of organizations across the state to get to where we are today.

And so to me, to say that this doesn't have any teeth is not right, because this is where we need to start. If it hasn't been there, let's start somewhere.

And by doing this is, we're moving forward to helping to making sure that we have the data, the monthly data to know if the Orange County shelter that I represent in Orange County or the LA County shelter that I also represent, because I also have three cities in LA County.

If we look on the website and we know how many dogs were intake that last month, we also know how many left the shelter were adopted, how many were euthanized. We know the separation between cats and dogs. We know what other animals are there. This is where it starts.

But this should not be the end of where it can lead to. And so I respectfully ask for your support today.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you for bringing this bill and this issue forward. Greater public transparency in our animal shelters is a very important issue to me. And with the amendments, this bill will be a tool for all of us to have better insight into the shelter operations we are funding with public money.

So when the time comes, I'll be happy to support the bill today. Thank you very much, everyone. And I think your second bill is on consent, so you're good to go there. Senator Newman. Agenda item number six, SB 1449.

Ready? Mr. Chair? Good to go? Very good. All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1449, which will provide Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles with temporary regulatory relief as it undergoes the process of accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, commonly referred to as WASC.

In 2010, in response to a series of scandals involving for-profit schools, the U.S. Department of Education issued new rules requiring all institutions of higher education to maintain a process for receiving and processing consumer complaints. SB 81, passed in 2015, authorized the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education to contract with WASC accredited colleges and universities for this purpose.

That authorization did not, however, extend the same privilege to nonprofit law schools accredited by the American Bar Association, which, like WASC, is recognized under federal law as an institutional accreditor and whose standards require ABA accredited law schools to meet rigorous academic accounting and performance thresholds.

As a consequence of this omission, the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education recently notified Southwestern Law School, an ABA accredited school, that in the absence of WASC accreditation, it would need to become bureau-licensed in order to stay in compliance with federal law.

The Bureau's licensing requirements, while generally well intended and in the service of the eminently admirable goal of protecting students' interests, are actually, in many cases, unfortunately, in direct conflict with the more tailored and nuanced requirements of the ABA.

Take, for example, the Bureau's treatment of Southwestern's various law degree pathways, which deliberately allow students to switch between full or part time study or between in-person and fully remote attendance. While these are all deemed by the ABA to be interchangeable pathways within a single JD degree program, the Bureau instead treats each as their own individual degree program.

Consequently, if the Southwestern Law School at any point switches between full and part time, the Bureau treats them as having dropped out of the full time program and then enrolled as a new student in the part time program.

This seemingly innocuous change, which could be the result of any number of factors in a student's life and for which Southwestern deserves credit, actually has the problematic effect of inaccurately skewing Southwestern's graduation rates downward, and such a false metric, absent context, can deter prospective students as well as adversely affect the reputations of current and graduated Southwestern students.

Another example is the Bureau's requirement for student transcripts to include information not otherwise required by the ABA. This includes mandatory disclosure of courses that a student may have dropped. This is something other law schools do not require, and the inclusion of those dropped courses can actually carry a punitive effect as Southwestern graduates pursue postgraduate employment, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to graduates of other ABA law schools for whom no such information would be either available or required.

Southwestern Law School has a well-earned reputation, having provided Californians from all walks of life with affordable and high-quality legal instruction for more than a century. Passage of SB 1449 will provide Southwestern Law School with a temporary exemption as it completes the process of WASC accreditation over the next few years. With me to testify today is George Miller, on behalf of Southwestern Law School. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Two minutes, sir.

Soon. It was on.

Usually I don't need a mic with my voice, but in any event, George Miller, representing Southwestern Law. I think the Senator pretty much laid it out. In fact, in 2015, after the law was passed, it allowed for contracting with the Bureau.

The same day, Southwestern got--received an email from the Bureau saying, 'we're going to send you a contract. You can contract with us for complaint handling purposes, send it back with 1,600 dollars.' Within three days, they got a hard copy of the letter and the contract and returned it and subsequently renewed that three times.

It wasn't until last year that the Bureau realized, oh, you're not WASC accredited, which they never had a reason to be because they're a freestanding law school and they've been in existence for over 100 years. You need to go through this process. And so this is really just a band-aid to get them through the WASC accreditation process and maintain their accreditation and information provided to prospective students and what have you, consistent with that of the other law schools in the state.

Thank you. Any additional primary witnesses in support? Seeing none, any witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill? Seeing none, any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, anybody who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. We have seven now. We are growing. We are still short of a quorum. Senator, would you like to close?

I appreciate the consideration today. As Mr. Miller points out, this is a very narrow bill and it deals with a very specific situation, which is allowing Southwestern the time to get fully WASC accredited. As they deal with the aftermath of this submission, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Fun fact: one of my roommates when I was living in LA, going to a different law school, was going to Southwestern Law School. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I'm happy to support the bill today to allow Southwestern Law School to continue contracting with the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education as it has done since 2015, and when the time comes, we will--I will have an aye recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you, Members.

Appreciate it. Senator Laird, good to see you, my friend. You've got agenda item number 4, SB 1064.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Senate Bill 1064 aims to modernize the state's cannabis licensing system by clarifying the roles of state and local government. Recent amendments in the Senate address drafting errors and delay the bill's implementation to 2028 to save cost. I think the best way to talk about this is to look at the report in 2023 of the Department of Cannabis Control on the following licensing times that take right now. It takes 220 days to get a cultivation license. It takes 851 days to get a testing laboratory license. 180 days to get a manufacturing license.

287 days to get a distribution license. 183 days to get a retailer's license. 244 days to get a micro-business license. 153 days for an event organizer's license. And so, under the current law, state and local government's role in licensing and oversight of cannabis businesses are not well-defined and distinguished. As a result, the licensing reviews conducted at the state often duplicate the reviews by local government. This really consolidates it in individual permits or licenses at each level, and it's a common sense approach. We're available for questions.

I have witnesses. There's no registered opposition, there have been no no votes, and we've been talking to various stakeholders to ensure that this bill doesn't create unintended consequences. Joining me to testify and support is Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I would request an aye vote.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. As the Senator stated, under current law, the state and local government roles in licensing and oversight of cannabis businesses are not well defined, and when they were created, they were a dual process.

So with that, you have a lot of overlap, especially on the initial vetting of the application and the applicant. SB 1064 will clarify those rules pertaining to licensing and really focus the state-level review on the operator and the cannabis-specific activities performed and returning the land use review to local governments. This leverages the local government's expertise, which is setting statewide market standards and determining time and place and manner to the locals.

The bill will also separate the entity level review into an initial first step, which is the operator license, then the local site-specific review, followed by the site review, which is ministerial by the state for the actual activities occurring. This allows the state to comprehensively review the business entity once, rather than multiple times before a new activity or location is licensed and support more efficient oversight and enforcement. In addition, the operator license can be issued before the business has security site location.

This means that the businesses are going to come fully vetted to the local governments, and a lot of the initial things that we have, like background checks and other types of reviews, we can then remove, and we don't have to worry about that. So hopefully at the local level, we'll also see a streamlined process. Under SB 1064, it does not include cultivation or testing.

Testing is very much a state activity in terms of oversight, and cultivation is a little bit of a different beast because there's an intensive environmental review and it incorporates different state agencies. But cultivators will still benefit from this because of the streamlined nature.

If they received a local license, they'll be able to be an operator licensee if they decide to pursue another license like a retail or an event organizer. So we do think that this will help, in some situations, streamline the process for cultivators. And for those reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Mister Chairman and Members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, a proud co-sponsor with RCRC. I want to thank the author for his ongoing commitment to streamlining our licensing process. This has been a multi-year effort on the part of the Senator, as well as for CCIA.

We've been really committed to trying to refine California's cannabis laws and regulations, as you well know, and this is another step we feel is in a good direction. The bill addresses several inefficiencies, that I will also cover, experienced by cannabis applicants and licensees. One significant issue is the redundancy in the licensing process.

Currently, businesses must undergo multiple reviews, as previously stated, for the same criteria, and it happens all the time. This not only increases administrative costs, but also complicates the process for businesses, often requiring them to submit the same information repeatedly. To tackle these challenges, this bill proposes clear delineations in responsibilities.

It assigns core cannabis activities to the state, while reserving land use and permitting to local governments. SB 1064 also aims to expand legal retail opportunities. By streamlining the licensing process, we think, we hope, that more local jurisdictions will authorize commercial cannabis activity, increasing access for consumers to safe, regulated products and generating additional tax revenue.

Last, this bill addresses financial barriers for equity business owners by reducing the upfront capital required before licensure. Currently, businesses need to secure a site location before initiating the state licensing process, incurring substantial costs without generating revenue. In conclusion, SB 1064 represents a significant advancement in dismantling unnecessary barriers to legal cannabis operators. For these reasons, we ask for your support today. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. On Behalf of Good Farmers Great Neighbors, based in Santa Barbara County, we view this piece of legislation mission critical.

Thank you very much.

Sam Rodriguez.

Mister Chair and Members. Jolena Voorhis on behalf of League of California Cities in support.

Thank you very much.

Jerred Kiloh on behalf of the United Cannabis Business Association, representing retailers throughout the state in strong support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Oh, we have a question. Assemblymember Zbur?

It's not so much a question, it's actually a comment. I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I've got a lot of cannabis operators, retailers in my district, and one of the things we hear about a lot is the fact that the combination of the state and local regulatory processes need streamlining.

And the reason why that's important is this is an emerging industry, and we want the legal industry to move forward, and we want to survive. It's better for our public, it's safer. The regulated industry is where we want people. We don't want people to sort of be in the underground industry because the regulatory structure is so difficult for them to comply with. So I just want to thank you for this. I think it's a really terrific bill and I'm in strong support.

Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. I thought we had eight. I think we got up to eight at one point. We are back down to seven, all Democrats. We get three Republicans, we'll get a quorum. Senator, would you like to close?

I'm going to take Assemblymembers Zbur's comments as my close. I'm grateful for them, and I respect an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you for taking on this bill and working to simplify the licensing process for cannabis businesses. I appreciate your efforts, and when the time comes, I'll be happy to support the bill today. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Chair Ashby, what brings you to the hearing room today? Oh, half the agenda. Start with whichever bill you prefer. Dealer's choice.

I have 1451, Professions and Vocations.

Great. Let's start there. Sounds great. Thank you so much, colleagues, for having us here today. SB 1451, as you know, is a sunset omnibus cleanup bill. It's the annual Business and Professions Code omnibus bill that makes various changes to the practice acts of a number of programs, programs which have recently been subject to this committee's sunset review oversight process, for which I thank all of you for participating and asking great questions. All of that leads to this bill.

The bill specifically contains provisions that empower female dominant health professions to to safely and successfully increase access to care for California patients, particularly in rural areas. I've worked with the California Dental Association and the California Dental Hygienist Association on amendments to ensure that providers will be able to connect and collaborate and that hygienists will assist their patients in gaining further access to critical dental care and services provided by a dentist by providing them contact information for area dentists.

The bill was also recently amended to ensure various licensed professionals have additional clarity in the law surrounding the title 'Doctor' when implying that one is a physician and surgeon. We will continue working with the Osteopathic Medical Board and the osteopathic physicians and surgeons on their newly expressed concerns about this portion of the bill.

SB 1451 amends to reflect stakeholder input as we continue to work together to ensure nurse practitioners can practice as the Legislature clearly intended through the passage of legislation in 2020. We've accepted amendments provided by the California Medical Association--numerous--and I continue to work with them as well.

The bill also makes an important clarifying change to ensure that pet owners receive information about animal medication therapies, even if they fill prescriptions somewhere other than their veterinary office, amongst other things. I respectfully request an aye vote from your committee. Appreciate your time today.

Thank you, Chair. Do you have any primary witnesses in support?

I believe that we do, yes.

You have two minutes each.

Hi. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Berman. My name is Elena Francisco, and I live in Escalon, and have spent the bulk of my 48 years in dental hygiene practice in Central California. I'm also the Director of the Registered Dental Hygienist and Alternative Practice RDHAP Program at the University of the Pacific, Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry.

I am also an RDHAP. There's a great need for RDHAPs to provide patient care in the many dental deserts of California. An RDHAP is a dental hygienist who is educated and licensed to provide dental hygiene care in areas where there is a lack of access of dental care.

We can treat patients with physical and/or cognitive disabilities in their homes, schools, residential and other living facilities, dental offices, and in freestanding dental hygiene offices that are set up in dental professional shortage areas, HPSAs. RDHAPs are a vital link between these patients and their dental home, connecting patients to a dentist who is willing to treat them.

RDHAPs see patients regardless of the insurance coverage and within the scope of our practice. HPSAs are in rural, urban, and suburban areas where there is a lack of dental professionals in relation to the population. We need all types of dental providers in the many dental deserts in California.

We support amending the statute to grandfather in the RDHAPs with brick and mortar practices in HPSA areas, if the HPSA area designation is removed. This fix will allow RDHAPs to continue to see their patients in their practices and removes a barrier to RDHAPs investing in these areas. We request your support for Senate Bill 1451. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. We're gonna take a brief pause to establish a quorum that will last five seconds, but once we have it, we have it. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

We have a quorum. Great. Please continue. Two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Berman, the Committee, Senator Ashby, I'm delighted to be here today. My name is Surani Hayre-Kwan. I'm a nurse practitioner. I've been practicing in a very rural community of Northern California at the Russian River Health Clinic for the past 23 years.

It is, as I tell people, my soul job, even though I have several other jobs to pay my bills. I'd like to, first of all, thank the staff for the analysis of Senate Bill 1451. Amazing job. Very, very well done. I'd like to just share that with anybody who has questions about this bill.

I think it's very important to fix the issues that Senator Ashby has indicated in this bill because we are running into major barriers in the State of California with many of our physician colleagues essentially refusing to attest for nurse practitioners to become 103 licensed because they're confused and frankly, worried about the future of their practice, thinking that they'll be brought in for a court case if something happens to this particular nurse practitioner.

So just one example of some of the many that I have been helping nurse practitioners deal with for the past four and a half years since this bill has been approved in the State of California. The BRN has been working on implementation. I worry about some of the language that has come out of the work that the NP Advisory Committee has created and I feel that this bill will clarify many of these confusing statements that have come out of that committee work.

NPs across the state want to take care of patients in California and many of them are prevented from doing that very thing because of the barriers that we are trying to clarify with this particular bill. So my goal is to be here for questions, if there are any, and ask for your support in passing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses you want to add on in support of the bill? Any add-ons in support?

Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Read and Associates, on behalf of the California Dental Hygienists Association. Fully support the work of the committee and thank you.

Thank you very much.

Stephanie Gordillo. I'm an RDHAP and owner of Smyle Essentials, brick and mortar dental hygiene practice in Hayward, and ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Matt Lege with SEIU, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Salomon Stupp. I represent the Lizzie Initiative for Pet Protection, and I not only strongly, but very strongly support this bill. Thank you, Senator Ashby, and thank you to all the hardworking members of the committee and the staff, and everybody is wonderful. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We're just going to end the hearing with that and good night.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts and LeadingAge California, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Mary McCune with the California Dental Association. Wanted to really thank Chair Ashby and committee staff with the amendments and balancing the perceived needs of the hygienist and the importance of connecting the comprehensive dental care. CDA is now in a neutral position. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up. You have two minutes each for the first two of you through the gate. There it is. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is George Soares with the California Medical Association. We're respectfully opposed to SB 1451 by Senator Ashby unless amended. First, we'd like to thank the Senator and her staff for the collaboration on this bill thus far.

We understand the various provisions in this bill make it complex, but we look forward to resolving our concerns in the coming weeks. CMA has two primary concerns remaining with this bill. This bill eliminates the requirement that a nurse practitioner must complete a variation of a three-year training requirement in one of six different medical specialty categories.

We believe this requirement is essential to guarantee clinical proficiency for an independently practicing nurse practitioner. Second, we have concerns related to independently practicing nurse practitioners from other states being approved for independent practice in California. We respectfully request the removal of this from the bill language.

We appreciate your consideration of our concerns and request our amendments are accepted to ensure the highest level of patient safety. I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Yeah. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Monica Miller, representing the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and we are respectfully in opposition to this bill unless amended, and first and foremost we want to thank the author for all of her and her staff's work on correcting the legacy issue on behalf of the nurse practitioners.

We think that that's so critical and we really wish it had happened with the initial legislation, AB 890, but here we are today continuing to correct that. Some of the concerns we have--and we continue to review the amendments that she's put forward as of June 19th.

However, some of our remaining concerns are around the issues related to when a nurse practitioner identifies themselves as a family practice, board certified. In identifying themselves with that title, it's considered a misdemeanor, and a lot of the nurse practitioners have reached out to the American Association of NPs with concerns about practicing in California.

A lot of our nurse practitioners that hope to go on to practice independently with the 103 and 104 permit as it is hope to make sure that this is clarified. They are concerned about the misdemeanor portion of that. Really, we want to keep providers in California. We think it's so important. There's such a critical provider shortage.

And so we hope to continue to work with the Senator on this and some other issues as again, we review the amendments that she's put forward and really want to thank the Senator for her time and appreciate the committee's attention today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses want to add on in opposition to the bill? Just provide your name, organization you're with, any praise for the staff, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Yes. Praise to the staff and everybody on this committee. Terri Thorfinnson with the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, in strong opposition. I'd like to thank Senator Ashby for her willingness to work with us on our concerns related to title protection. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Don Schinske, on behalf of the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery. We're in an opposed unless amended position.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tyler Rinde, on behalf of the California Psychological Association. With the most recent amendments, we've removed our opposition. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Matt Back, representing the Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California. We look forward to working with you on that issue of osteopath. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition or tweener neutrality? Seeing none, any questions from colleagues? Assembly Member Zbur.

So I want to congratulate the author on taking on such a huge bill. I've got to admit that I called our Chair last week because I was so, because there was so much in it and because there were issues for different professions that were cutting in different directions for me. And I thought that it's a difficult task to sort of do these kind of omnibus bills where you have to focus on different things, where, you know, I may agree with one profession in one set of areas with and others on others.

I'm going to support the bill today because I'm actually surprised at how much progress you've made in the last week, which is a very impressive thing, but I'm hopeful we don't have these kinds of bills that are so broad because it's just really difficult to sort of have to make a choice where you've got it, you know, 90 percent of it right, but you've got one profession where you agreed with that other profession.

So that's really sort of the question of sort of that dilemma that it puts us in, I think, but I think, you know, you're moving in the right direction in a heroic way with some of the areas that I had strong concerns about, and just with that comment, I'm happy to support the bill today and encourage you to continue working with some of the opponents. And given what you've done in the last week, I actually have a lot of optimism that you may actually end up getting to a place without opposition. So thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member.

Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close? Chair, would you like to close?

Yeah. I just, I really appreciate your comments, Assembly Member, because I think you guys know, this is, if anybody's watching, welcome to our world of serving on BPED. This is, you could not pay me enough to do this woman's job right here. All credit is to her.

And I think most of you know me well enough to know that these are all groups that I care deeply about where I'm trying very hard to get each of them as close as I can, but sometimes their issues are at odds with each other. So it is definitely a balancing act.

I appreciate you walking through the journey with us. You know me. You know this committee staff. We'll keep working on it. As long as there are days left on the calendar and breath left in my lungs, we will continue to work on it. I urge an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Ashby. I have no doubt this hornet's nest was exactly what you were looking forward to authoring when you became Chair of Senate BPED. I want to first recognize that while there are many different parts of this bill, all of it is the result of hard work by your committee staff to address many outstanding policy issues that have come before our committees for quite a while.

And as we've heard today, groups who love one provision of the bill may oppose another and vice versa, and I know you'll continue to work with all the stakeholders to find as much consensus as you can and as you think is appropriate. And with that, I'll be supporting the bill today, and I thank you and your team again for your work on this measure. Madam, we need a motion and a second. Any motions? Got a motion. Got a second. It turns out it doesn't really matter who does the motion and second. I just learned that the other day. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1451: Ashby, the motion is: do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open for absent members. Would you like to just go in numerical order?

Sure.

Next is 1452, architecture and landscape architecture.

Sure. I do want to thank all those witnesses for being here. Appreciate them coming and.

Absolutely.

And testifying. All right, let's move on to 1452. This is architecture. Landscape architecture.

And we have a motion already. We'll get a second later.

All right, let's do it. This is, again, a sunset review report, and the bill specifically makes technical changes, including extending the architect's board administrative authority over the Practice Act to 2029 requiring an applicant for examination or licensure as a landscape architect who has a valid email address to report to the board.

That email address at the time of the application helps with communication, requiring an existing landscape architect licensee who has a valid email address to report to the board their email address upon renewal as well and prohibiting the applicant and licensee email addresses from disclosure. This sunset bill enjoys bipartisan support, has received no, no votes.

Here supporting is Laura Zuniga, the Executive officer of the Board. She, I'm not sure if she wants to make comments or just be available for questions. Up to you all, if you want.

You have two minutes.

Good morning. Laura Zuniga with the California Architects Board. I just want to thank the author, her staff and this Committee staff for their work on our sunset review. We really appreciate it. And here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you very much. Additional witnesses in support of the bill.

Thank you, Mister chair. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the California Council of the American Society of Landscape Architects, CCASLA. As the name implies, CCASLA represents landscape architects in California. Just wanted to briefly thank Senator Ashby, yourself, and obviously the chair of the staff of both committees for the work on this sunset extension.

It also extends the sunset for the Landscape Architects Technical Committee and importantly, proposes a path forward to kind of look at the composition of CAB and LATC going forward. And just briefly on that, we're appreciative of the effort to get more data and information. Regulation of the profession is incredibly important.

Unfortunately, there are examples of, for instance, poor playground design that has led to paralysis of people using it and including children. Improper placement of plants that are toxic could be dangerous. And more broadly, this profession, in many cases, the consumer, is actually the community at large. Our projects are community scale.

We manage storm water flows to prevent damage to property. We manage wildfire resilience, coastal sea level rise, all of it. So, at any rate, we appreciate the continued effort to make sure that there's a significant professional competency ready to regulate the profession. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any add ons in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any add ons in opposition to the bill? Bring it back to colleagues. Questions or comments? Got the second. Just want to confirm you're accepting the amendments. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Chair Ashby, would you like to close? I love that close. Thank you, Senator Ashby. Chair Ashby, this is the first of many census bills that we will be hearing today, and I'm happy to support it.

Continued oversight and regulation of architects is vitally important, given the potential for harm, like we heard about, to the public's health and safety. I'd like to thank you and your staff for your collaboration, and I look forward to continuing to work together. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1452 Ashby. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Great. That bill's out. We'll leave it open for absent colleagues. Would you like to move on to the next bill?

Sure. How about 1454? This is the.

Is any good? All right. Bureau of Security Investigation Services Chairman, this Bill is also a sunset extension Bill. It addresses issues discussed during the program's sunset review hearing, which you all participated in. Specifically, the Bill would extend the bureau's administrative authority over the six practice acts under its purview by four years to 2029.

These include the acts regulating locksmiths, Collateral Recovery act, the Private Investigators Act, Proprietary Security Services Act, Private Security Services act, and the Alarm Company act.

Here with me is Len Jensen, the bureau Chief for the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, for technical questions, if you have them, and Charles Wright, a consultant for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, as a primary witness in support.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Hi, my name is Lynn Jensen. I'm the Chief of the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, and I am here to answer any technical questions you may have on the bill. Thank you.

Chairman of Members Charles Wright. On behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, SB 1454 would clarify California tribe's ability to obtain private security related registrations and licenses for off reservation activities, the same as any other non tribal entity. The Bureau of Security Investigative Services regulates security personnel through Proprietary Services act and the Private Security act.

Currently, neither act contemplates nor considers tribal entities the application process for proprietary private security employers, private patrol operators, and baton and firearms training facilities are structured to accommodate natural persons and business entities only.

Eligible applicants include individuals, firms, companies, partnerships, corporations, organizations and associations, but not tribes, and the exemptions for government agencies such as cities and counties do not include tribal governments either. Because of this omission, BSIS is unable to appropriately issue a registration or license to tribal entities for security related activity off reservation or trust lands.

This omission has created issues. Many tribes are forced to conduct some operations off tribal land because there's not enough room on their reservation and trust land. At the same time, they cannot obtain appropriate security licensing from the state because there is literally no box for them to check on the relevant applications.

Tribes are sovereign governments and have rights of self governance that the current applicant categories do not have. The current applicant categories do not capture the governmental nature of tribes or their right of self governance. Simply put, tribes do not fit into any of the current application boxes.

This Bill would clarify that tribes may obtain licensing appropriate for their off reservation activity. Like other non tribal entities, we strongly support SB 1454. Thank you, Mister chair and Members.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill?

Members of the Committee Chairman, Vice Chair, Paula Treat, on behalf of the Calusa, Tejon and Pechanga Reservations in support.

Thank you.

Morning. Trent Smith. On behalf of the California Alarm Association in support.

Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. We got a motion. We got a couple seconds. Any primary witnesses? Any primary witness in opposition or add on? In opposition? Primary witness in opposition. Come on up. Come on up to the dais. You have two minutes. Two minutes each, wherever you want. Yeah. This room, please.

There you go. Hi. I feel like a little kid at the Thanksgiving table here. My name is Francie Kohler. I'm a past President of the California Association of Licensed investigators and the current Legislative Chair, or the Government Affairs Chair. I just want to say that CALI does support provisions that enhance the private Investigator act.

But we're here today to oppose the insertion of section. It is 7524, I believe, and as being overly broad and in some cases, unenforceable, long term client relationships, specifically civil and criminal attorneys, insurance companies and business relationships, are problematic for us because we have ongoing cases with them.

Some criminal cases are appointed by the court or appointed by a court appointed panel, and that is, there's no contracts allowed with that, with those kind of cases. Cases involving attorneys and insurance companies are also prohibited from providing reports for the bureau to review in case there's a complaint. So that would be unenforceable. It's work product.

So I ask for your vote to oppose the insertion of Section 7524. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your time. My name is Frank Huntington. I'm proud to be the current President of CALI, the California Association of Licensed Investigators. We are the largest private investigative Association in the world.

We have a fantastic relationship with the bureau, with Chief Andress, which we are very appreciative of, and we overall support SB 1454. Thank you, Senator Ashby. However, this one, Section 7524, was just inserted about two weeks ago. I had one board Member, when he heard about it, said, it's like taking a sledgehammer to a grain of rice.

We absolutely. Matter of fact, I can say that CALI and our profession are more upset at illegitimate investigators and people that take advantage of the consumer than perhaps even the bureau. CALI provides training twice a year to newly licensed investigators, and a good part of that training that actually miss Kaler puts on is ethics.

We want to work with the bureau to straighten this out. We want to have consumer protections. We just think that 7524 that one particular section is way overly broad, and we look forward to working with the Senator and her staff to clean that up to everybody's satisfaction, hopefully. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Yes, sir, Assembly Member Low.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. And I think just as a statement, the Committee would typically give great deference to the respective chairs of the Senate and Assembly and working through many of these different issues with respect to sunset and a number of substantive issues.

But perhaps those, I don't know if they're appropriate staff persons or maybe the author presenting before us might be able to address the issue at hand in opposition, but also perhaps a willingness to further work on this should the Sunset Bill move forward as well.

Sure. A couple things. First of all, you know, these BMP bills are a work in progress all the way across the finish line. And as you heard, both of the lead witnesses in opposition here are probably pretty happy with most of the bill and have a couple concerns with some pieces.

The piece that they're referring to, which we can certainly have the Bureau Chief address, more specifically, if you want some detail, is really about how you navigate a relationship that went.

And so the recommendation is on the front end to have some form of a scope of work, a contract to then lean back on, not unusual for all of our various business and professions, for us to help prevent having to mitigate things on the back end by making them clear on the front end.

That said, is there anything you'd like to add?

Yes, thank you, Chair. We have discussed this issue with the PIs numerous times over the years. We have suggested that they run their own bill on this, and when they several years went past and they did not do it, we stepped forward. And we are happy to work with the author and give technical assistance wherever possible.

May I just as a follow up then, too, as I heard about the willingness and acknowledging that the sunset is substantive and moving through the process, but of course, the willingness to acknowledge the potential concern, understanding the historical context from the bureau itself and asking licensed investigators to run their own bill.

But given that the substance of this is in the formation of the sunset bill, the author willing to continually work.

With, yes, of course we'll continue working. But I think her point was not that we asked them to do their own bill.

Now, I think her point was for many years they had suggested that they do their own bill, and in the absence of them doing their own bill, it has been added to the Sunset bill because it was such a rose to the top for the bureau as a particular issue that needed to be addressed.

But working on the details of how that unfolds is something we'll absolutely continue working with these individuals on.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, assemblymember. Any additional questions or comments? Chair, would you like to close?

Urge an Aye vote. Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it. I'm still debating internally whether or not a grain of rice could handle a pound from a sledgehammer. I think it depends on how dry that grain of rice is. It is important that we continue supporting the work of the bureau and ensure that the security and investigation professions are well regulated.

While I know there are a few outstanding items to tweak before this reaches the governor's desk that was discussed, I am confident that our Joint Committee staffs will continue to work with affected stakeholders to tweak language as and if necessary, and I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please, do we have a motion a second?

We do. We do. That's fantastic. Can I please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent colleagues. Let's keep it rolling.

All right. 1455, this is the Contractor State License Board.

Got a motion and a second.

Also a sunset extension bill. This bill makes multiple changes to existing law, including extending the operations of the License Board and its authority to appoint a Registrar of Contractors by four years, again, to 2029. Changing the exam fee schedule to allow license applicants to pay the exam provider directly, establishing a route for federally recognized tribes in California to become licensed contractors.

I should, by the way, just do a quick shout out here that there is an amazing Senate staffer named Fauna who worked very hard to deal with all of these tribal issues and has spent many, many hours making sure that we added these components to these sunset provisions. She's a superstar. She has solely handled that issue. This bill also authorizes the Contract License Board to recoup enforcement expenses when it must use an industry expert to review and assess consumer complaints.

It clarifies that an awarding authority for a public contract must abide by the current classification under the Contractor State License Law, provides an additional two year delay for the requirement that all contractors, regardless of employee status, obtain Workers Compensation coverage and create criteria which allows licensees with no employees to be exempt from the Workers Compensation requirement.

That's a big issue here. The changes in this bill aim to improve the overall operations of the Contractors License Board and ensure a healthy and efficient contractor workforce in California. With us today is the Registrar of Contractor State's License Board's David Fogt. Did I say it right? Get it wrong?

Real close. David Fogt.

Okay. Sorry. I'm so sorry. And I not sure. And we also have Wes Scribner with the Yurok Tribe to answer technical questions, both of them.

Great. You have two minutes each if you want them. If you don't, you don't need to take them.

Again, David Fogt, Registrar for the Contractors Board, just in strong support of this bill, testifying today on behalf of our 13 board members who are real excited about the consumer protection enhancement this bill would provide. Just a real shout out or thanks to Senator Ashby and the committee staff for putting it together. I'd be happy to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Wes Scribner. I operate the wholly owned corporation for the Yurok Tribe. I'm here to address these contracting issues that we've been working with for the last three years or so, and actually with the State License Board office as well.

We're in strong support of the SB 1455 and we appreciate Senator Ashby's work and the rest of the staff on this. It's an important bill that allow federally recognized tribes to obtain a contractor license without unnecessary barriers. So current regulations exclude the tribes from state work contracts, including private work, and work with other partners like nonprofits within the State of California. And it really hinders our ability to work on the infrastructure and development in California.

By exempting the tribes from the requirement to be registered with a California State Secretary License or just for license purposes, SB 1455 removes the barrier acknowledging the unique legal status of tribes and supports their economic self sufficiency and growth.

So SB 1455 enables the Yurok Tribe and other tribes across California to engage more effectively in public works projects and private projects within California. And this bill is a significant step towards recognizing and integrating the contributions of these California tribes into the state's economy. So with that, the Yurok Tribe strongly supports this bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill?

Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, Paula Treat on behalf of Pechanga, Tejon, and the Calusa tribes, thanking both Senator Ashby, the staff on this committee, Fauna, and the amazing staff and Senate B&P. Please support.

Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chair and Members. Kristin Olsen-Cate representing CalTrout in support as well as the Yurok Tribe in support.

Thank you.

Chairman, Members of the Committee, Rob Carrion with the Operating Engineers Local 3. We are in full support of this bill, and we thank you, Senator Ashby and David Fogt, for your guys work on this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Richard Markuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association and the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of California in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers in strong support as well. Thanks.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments. We already have a motion and a second. Seeing none. Chair Ashby, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank my witnesses for being here today.

Thank you, Chair Ashby. Thank you to your witnesses. Thank you to your fantastic staff who led this effort. I'm happy to support the bill today to ensure continued oversight over the construction industry. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1455, Ashby, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent colleagues. We are making great progress.

All right, how about 1456?

Beautiful bill.

Let's do it. Athletic Commission sunset bill. Like to thank you and your staff for your continued partnership on this one, Chairman. It's a great bill and a great organization to get to work with. You guys are going to meet Andy in a minute. He's really fun.

1456 is imperative to ensure that the Commission can continue to work to protect the health safety and welfare of California's boxers and mixed martial arts athletes. This bill extends the Commission for four years. It authorizes the Commission to establish a process for approving competitors who test positive for hepatitis C.

It requires an on site ambulance to transport a competitor to the hospital if the ringside physician orders it to be so, and it increases the boxing pension plan ticket assessment, among other things. With me is our friend Andy Foster, the Commission's Executive officer.

You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. The Commission obviously supports this bill. I want to thank you for putting the ambulance provision in because of the things on our list. That was probably the most important one that we asked for. I want to thank the staff. Certainly talked with Vincent many times on the fluctuating revenues.

The things continue to talk about, but it's good to continue that conversation. Certainly appreciate all the work of the Senate staff, the author, and we appreciate your support.

Thank you very much. I couldn't help but notice that Assemblymember Chen walked in when we started talking about boxing and MMA. So it's coincidence, coincidence, coincidence. Any. Do we have a motion in a second yet? No. Any motions or seconds? Great. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Seeing none.

Anyone who wants to add on in support of the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Seeing none. Chair Ashby, would you like to close?

Appreciate you all. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thanks to the Commission for working with us on this and on this issue. And I know we, on the right one. I guess there are still some outstanding items open for discussion, but appreciate the conversation, the changes so far. Is that right? I'm reading the right talking points. Sure.

Very grateful for the work that has been done so far. Happy to support the bill. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1456, Ashby. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for apps and colleagues. Thank you very much. Last up for Ashby. And then we have Ochoa Bogh, also.

Yes. All right, last of my crew. This is SB 1498, which provides necessary enforcement tools to address the illegal marketing of cannabis and hemp products, both from licensed and illicit businesses that are attractive to children.

Through my work with stakeholders, I recently amended this Bill to expand the enforcement on advertising to industrial hemp and illicit businesses as well. Current law specifies rules that licensees must adhere to for the advertising of cannabis and industrial hemp, including prohibiting advertising that is attractive to children.

While illegal, some cannabis and hemp operators willfully violate these prohibitions by continuing to advertise content that is attractive to children. This leaves the promise of Prop 64 unmet, which is to protect youth from exposure to cannabis advertising.

SB 1498 allows enforcement from the Attorney General, a District Attorney, a county council, or a city attorney when a cannabis or hemp licensee or an illicit business is in violation of current advertising laws designed to protect our kiddos.

SB 1498 is a Bill that seeks to keep our children safe and ensure that the promises of Prop 64 are implemented as intended. And do have a witness with me here. I'm not sure if you're answering technical questions or speaking, but your call.

You have two minutes.

Hi, everyone, I'm Pamela Trangenstein. I'm an epidemiologist with the Public Health Institute and I'm here to answer any technical questions. But I'd also just like to briefly add a note of thanks to Senator Ashby for bringing this Bill forward and also state that the public health Institute is in support of of this Bill.

Wonderful. Thank you very much. Any additional primary witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any additional witnesses you want to add on as tweeners or opposition?

No opposition, actually, no position, but I do want to commend the author for the amendments. She addressed the stakeholders we had asked that she add unlicensed and intoxicating hemp. It's been a pleasure working with your staff and want to thank you for doing that, which is where we think the problem lies. So thanks again.

Thank you. Any additional folks of any.

Kristin Heidelbach, UFCW Western States Council also have not taken an official position, but. Really appreciate the work of the author. And her amazing staff on including illicit and also hemp. Really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Jared Kylo with United Cannabis Business Association. Want to commend you on including what I think is the larger problem, which is the illicit industry. We are currently in a neutral position, but appreciate where we are. Thank you. Thank you.

Bring it back to colleagues. Questions or comments? We have a motion, I believe, from the Vice Chair. We have a second from any seconds? Second from Irwin. Questions? Comments? Doctor Bains?

Yes, I love this Bill. Great, great topic. Super important to protect our children right now, especially because we've got a lot of products that are hitting, especially edibles that are not specifically marked, and if they get into the wrong hands, they can really cause some damage, health wise. So thank you so much, and I would love to be added on as a co author for this. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Fantastic. Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none. Chair Ashby, would you like to close?

Appreciate all of your time today, colleagues. Truly urge an aye vote.

Thank you. We thank you for your leadership on all of these bills, the sunset bills, and obviously, the omnibus Bill, and for your commitment to ensuring cannabis products, both legal and illicit, are not marketed towards children.

So I want to thank you for working with stakeholders and crafting this language, and I'm more than happy to vote for the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call a vote. I didn't mean to emphasize today on that. More than happy to vote for later, too.

On SB 1498. Ashby. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

We did it. You made it through all of them. Thanks, you guys, so much.

Well done. Well done. Take the rest of the week off. Nothing else going on. Nothing else going on. So we're just waiting for one more author. But in the meantime, we can run through lots of other bills.

So some of them were going to be motions in seconds because we did not have a full Committee, but, Madam Secretary, can we please start from the top? Yeah, let's start with consent. That's always a good one. Can I get a motion in second on consent? Got a motion and a second.

Madam Secretary, please call a vote on the consent calendar.

File item five, SB 1233. Wilk. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. File item 13, SB 1526, Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations file item 15, SB 1478 Nguyen. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations

[Roll Call] consent calendars out.

Can I get a motion in a second for SB 639, Lemon? Got a motion and a second. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call a vote.

On SB 639 Limon. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Dixon, would you like to vote on? Perfect.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Do not believe that Assemblymember Sanchez, that bills out. Can I get a motion in a second on agenda item number two, SB 1042, Roth. Got a motion in a second. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

On SB 1042 Roth. A motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Can I get a motion and a second on agenda item number 3, 1059? Thank you, Madam Secretary. Take your time. When you're ready, please call the vote.

On SB 1059. Bradford, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Can I get a motion in second on SB 1064? Laird. I love the enthusiasm, Madam Secretary. Please call the vote when you get a chance.

On SB 1064. Laird. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

On 1449.

Yeah. Can I get a motion? Second on SB 1449. Newman, got a motion. A second. Thank you very much. I love it. Tag team over there. It's perfect. Madam Secretary, please call the vote

On SB 1449 Newman. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out, and I think maybe 14. Oh, okay. Okay. Why don't we just go down the order.

On SB 1451. Ashby. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Moving on to file item number eight, SB 1452.

On SB 1452, Ashby [Roll Call]

Bill is out. Moving on to file item number nine, SB 1454 Ashby.

On SB 1454, Ashby. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Moving on to file number 10, SB 1455 Ashby

SB 1455 Ashby [Roll Call]

Bill is out, moving on to file number 11, SB 1456.

On SB 1456, Ashby [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Moving on to file at number 12, SB 1498.

Ashby on SB 1498, Ashby [Roll Call]

Bill is out. Moving on to file item number 14, SB 1459. Nguyen, make a motion.

On SB 1459. When the motion is due, pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call] on SB 1459. Nguyen number 15, agenda item 14.

Excuse me [Roll Call]

That bills out. In a second. Where is she? So we're going to start from the top again for folks who just joined. We're just gonna. We're just gonna run down. Yeah.

Things get complicated on the consent calendar. [Roll Call] On SB 639. Limon [Roll Call] On SB 1042 Roth [Roll Call] On SB 1059. Bradford [Roll Call]

Skip that one.

Senator Ochoa Bogh. It is an honor and a privilege. If you'd like to present SB 1468. Have a motion in a second.

All right. So, good morning, Mister Chair, Members. Let me start by thanking Committee staff for working with my office to improve the Bill. I accept the Committee amendments as amended.

Senate Bill 1468 will educate and encourage providers to make use of the 2023 drug enforcement agency rule that allows practitioners to dispense a three day supply of narcotic medication to start detoxification or maintenance treatment for people who use opioids.

Those boards, overseen by the Department of Consumer Affairs, will notify their licensed practitioners about the DEA's three day rule and provide helpful information on how to prescribe this medication. Opioid withdrawal symptoms can be intensely uncomfortable, and in certain situations, there can be life threatening complications.

Assuring that our licensed practitioners are aware of this change will help patients struggling with opioid use disorder, giving them a better chance of success. Joining me to test on behalf of Smart Justice California is Natasha Minsker.

Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Smart Justice California. Natasha Minsker in strong support. California is struggling with a crisis of overdose deaths. The good news is that medication-assisted treatment actually works to address opioid substance use, including fentanyl. SB 1468 is a smart solution that will save lives. We strongly encourage an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill? Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bringing back the colleagues for questions or comments? We already have a motion and a second. Seeing no questions, seeing no comments. Senator, would you like to close?

Certainly, sir. SB 1468 has no registered opposition and received bipartisan support in the Senate. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogue with the amendment. I am happy to support this Bill today in hopes that more patients will receive life changing treatment for opioid use disorder and. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On SB 1468, Ochoa Bogh. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent colleagues. Thank you very much. So we are done with Bill presentations. We have a couple of colleagues who need to add on to votes. I know one is on their way. If you missed any votes, you've got five minutes. We're going to keep the hearing open until 11:30.

You have until 11:30 to come and vote on bills and add on, and we'll run it from the top. For those who maybe missed earlier, give us 1 minute just to get a little organized. We're gonna run it back.

Oh, yeah. On 1042, just in case. On SB 1042, Roth, Jackson aye. on SB 1459 Nguyen, Soria aye. On SB 1468, Ochoa Bogh Soria aye.

Yeah, please do, Madam Secretary. Please take it from the top.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

This hearing's adjourned. I gotta go present a Bill. Lowenthal is going to beat me.