Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. We need a Republican so that we can get started. We also need authors of bills. We need Republicans, and we need authors of bills. So for all the staff watching this morning's hearing, go get your Republican, any Republican. We can sub one in.

Go get an author of a Bill or the talking points. My consultant tells me we can't actually sub any in. So just only if you're on the Committee, can you come and join us and help us get started. Bring some talking points. I'll present bills. I have no shyness about that. But. No, for reals.

We got a lot of stuff to do, so go get your Member. I know y'all are watching. Go get. Yeah. Where's the camera? This guy's straight on, isn't it? Okay, I keep on looking at the TVs on the side. Go get your Members. Bring them to. What room number are we?

Bring them to 1100 of the swing space. And if you are Assembly Members, Pappin Jackson, Mark Gonzalez, Salache Elhawary, Alanis Ortega. Or isn't Alanis on the Committee? So we could hit two birds with one stone if Alanis showed up. Because we'd have a Republican and we'd have someone present their Bill or. Irwin, get down here.

We have work to do. Please. Thank you. Breaking news. Assemblymember Ahrens has changed party registration. He's now Republican. Thank you. oh, I'm gonna. I'm gonna go ahead and meet Mute, everybody.

Some people think that. Yeah, we don't need to spread those rumors.

Get out of here. Hey, Dr. Jackson. So we're gonna get started without my Republican colleagues. I'll take the conversation I just had with the Vice Chair's permission to get started without him. I'm told it's a courtesy. It's not actually a rule. It would be a courtesy for them to show up to the Committee hearing.

So, Assemblymember Ortega, if you'd like to present agenda item number eight, AB957. We are ready when you are. Thank you for being here. I apologize. Let me run through these talking points they gave me first.

Today we'll be hearing 11 bills on our agenda with the following three bills on consent, AB 375 by Assemblymember win, AB 1107 by Vice Chair Flora, and AB 1496 by Assembly Member Rubio.

Before we begin with today's agenda, I would like to once again remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public. Within the limits of our time, we. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For each measure being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name position on the Bill and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. With that Assembly Member Ortega, we are ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members for the opportunity to present AB957 today. AB957 is a vital and logical step forward in California's ongoing commitment to combat the devastating impact of tobacco use. As a state, we've made significant progress by removing smoking rooms from restaurants, increasing age requirements, banning flavored tobacco products and more.

But our work is not finished. AB957 takes a targeted evidence based approach by removing tobacco products in licensed pharmacies across California. Pharmacies are not just any other corner store or retailer. They hold a unique and trusted position within our health care system.

Selling tobacco products known to cause cancer, heart disease and other serious illnesses directly contradicts the core mission and the pharmacy's oath to do no harm. Simply put, if we would. If we would find it unacceptable to sell cigarettes in a Doctor's office, it should be equally unacceptable to sell them in pharmacies.

AB957 is again an evidence based measure to ensure our patients focus on healing rather than being distracted by highly addicted substances that endanger their health. Unfortunately, my witness today is stuck in line.

Apparently there's a very long line to get into today's hearings, but with me to answer any technical questions is Timothy Gibbs representing the American Cancer Society.

Mr. Chair I move the bill.

I appreciate that excitement. We need a motion in a second before that. Excuse me. We need a quorum before that happens. But when we get a quorum, we're coming right back to you. Would you like to make any comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair. And good morning. My name is Tim Gibbs with the, with the American Cancer Society- Cancer Action Network. And I just wanted to make a few points and answer any technical questions if you have them.

As one of the co sponsors of the Bill, you know, think that selling tobacco is the leading or tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death disease and is fundamentally incompatible with the pharmacy profession's role to promote health. Pharmacy sales allow the tobacco industry to undermine public health messaging about its deadly products.

The tobacco industry uses pharmacies to promote product use through point of sale marketing tactics such as discounted pricing. Such marketing is associated with increased use, the youth initiation of tobacco use and decreased success in quitting. Pharmacies often sell products at cheaper prices, making them more appealing to price sensitive youth.

There's one California study that found that cigarettes can cost up to $1.19 less in retail pharmacies compared to other retail outlets and pharmacies. They actually have a poor track record. You know, a study from 2012 to 2017 found that they failed 8% of the time in inspections to minors.

In 2019, nationally, the FDA labeled Walgreens the worst offending pharmacy chain, reporting that up to 22% of the stores illegally sold tobacco products to minors. So, you know, Californians, they overwhelmingly support prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies.

There was a 2023 survey that found that 67.8% of California adults agreed that pharmacies and drugstores should not sell tobacco product. And research suggests that a tobacco free pharmacy law would not hurt business. In fact, the number of chain pharmacies in San Francisco grew from 57 to to 2008 when the city passed its law.

Awesome. Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate any additional members of the public who want to add on in support of the bill.

Good morning. Michelle Rivas with the California Pharmacists Association and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody who wants to add on in opposition to the bill, or I guess any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Still seeing none. Is this, is this the witness? Come on up. Would you like to present? No.

I hear there was a monster line. Come on around. Come on. You have two minutes.

Perfect.

Yeah.

How are you guys?

We're great.

Good, good, good.

I'd be better if more of my colleagues were here.

Oh, I agree.

We'll get there.

I get it. Hi, my name is Sonia Frosto. I'm a pharmacist and pharmacy owner of 10 Acres Pharmacy here in Sacramento. So come visit me. I'm in Curtis Park.

So I want to support this bill because as a pharmacist, it's kind of counterintuitive for me to be able to offer smoking products paraphernalia in my pharmacy while I'm also trying to make sure. That all of my patients are healthy puts us at a disadvantage because we are unable to sell them.

I'm an independent pharmacy and I'm unable to sell them, so I'm already at a disadvantage as far as being able to generate revenue from these things.

I know in other states, there are separate facilities that are able to sell not only tobacco products, but also alcohol products, allowing the pharmacist and the pharmacy team to be able to take care of their patients fully. So I.

I think it's important for us as healthcare providers, all healthcare providers, to ensure that when we're sending a patient over a pharmacy, we are ensuring that the patient is getting the full care without the distraction and the harmful effects associated with smoking products.

Agreed. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So that was the two primary witnesses in support. If you'd like to make some very quick comments.

Yes. Good morning. Lisa Kroon, Professor at the UCSF School of Pharmacy, licensed pharmacist, and I was very active in San Francisco when we banned the sale of tobacco from our pharmacies in 2008. And we feel pharmacies are health care facilities and have no business selling tobacco. So I speak in favor of this.

Pharmacists are now providing smoking cessation services and helping people. So having tobacco products on our shelves just. Does it make a lot of sense. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition or any witnesses in opposition? No, we already did all that. Bring it back to colleagues. Any questions from colleagues or comments from colleagues? No motions yet, Mr. Aarons. Resist the urge. Yeah. Assembly Member Ortega, would you like to close?

I respectfully asked for an aye vote when the rest of the Members of this Committee arrive, whenever that happens. Thank you for that.

Exactly right. Exactly right. Thank you to the author. We're just trying to get things done. We're just trying to get things done. Thank you to the author. I know you missed my earlier.

I know there are some questions in the analysis around implementation and how the Board of Pharmacy would be expected to enforce the Bill, but I'm happy to support the Bill and allow time for any potential clarification to occur later in the process. Thank you very much. Assembly Member Gonzalez, you are up. Let's roll.

Agenda item number four, AB 447. Reminder to all staff watching today's hearing, please go find your Member, bring them to the Committee hearing. We would like to establish a quorum. Thank you very much. What's that? You're good at what you do.

All right. Let me know when you're ready, sir. Awesome. Well, good morning everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Committee staff for their work on AB447. This bill is very simple yet effective solution to a problem many patients across California face.

Patients frequently visit emergency departments with conditions requiring prescription medications often dispensed in multi dose packaging. Inhalers, topical creams, eardrops, and so forth from hospital pharmacies themselves. While patients begin using these medications in the hospital, current law prohibits them from actually taking the remaining dose home once they're given it in the hospital emergency room itself.

Since these products are not designed or approved to be reused by other patients, they are simply discarded, wasting valuable medication due to some legal oversight. This means inhalers with 150 more puffs are tossed into our landfills and just simply thrown away.

As a result, patients are discharged from the emergency room with the prescription for the exact same medication and the patient has to take more time out of the day just to go pick up a medication which creates unnecessary costs even in the areas with readily available pharmacies.

So when you go to the pharmacy and they give you, you go to the hospital emergency room and they give you the prescription, the remaining of it just stays with the hospital, goes away, doesn't go away with the patient. So today to explain additional pieces to the legislation.

With me to highlight the impact of this bill is Mr. Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Mr. Chair and Members. Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians who are the sponsor of the bill. I think the Assemblymember did an excellent job at outlining the issues that we're facing.

This will go a long ways to reduce medical waste in emergency departments and also help patients walk out the door with the medications that they've already started. I'll be able to answer any questions. And respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you very much. And Assemblymember, just want to confirm that you're accepting the committee amendments?

Yes, I accept the committee amendments.

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

Good morning. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association. We currently have a support if amended position. However, with the amendments outlined in the committee analysis, we plan on moving to a full support position once those amendments are in print and would like to thank the author, sponsors and Committee staff. For working with us on this bill. Thank you.

Amazing. Any additional witnesses and support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anyone wants to add on in opposition. Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. No questions or comments.

I appreciate that. I would like this to happen also. We're going to give you a list of who's on this committee call them and get them to come to the hearing room. You hear that? So we can get. We're getting.

Vice Chair Macedo is here. We've had a leadership change on the Committee. Yes. Assemblymember would you like to close?

Absolutely. Closing at its core, AB 447 is about common sense. But more than that, it's about compassion. It's about recognizing that behind every prescription is a person, a patient, a parent, a grandparent and a child. AB447 reminds us that our health care system should serve people, not stand in their way.

When a patient receives treatment in an emergency room, they shouldn't be sent home empty handed simply because of an outdated policy or legal technicality. At its heart, this bill says our health care system should work for the people it serves, not against them.

No one should have to make an extra trip to the pharmacy when the medication they need is already in their hands, unused, unopened and destined for the trash. This is our chance, members, to do better. We have the tools to heal, but too often we throw them away.

Inhalers with 150 puffs, bottles of eardrops or eye drops barely even touched, medications that cannot and will not even be reused. Thrown away while patients are sent home with new prescriptions and more hoops to jump through. This isn't just wasteful, it's wrong.

AB447 allows us to do better by reducing those unnecessary spending, strained health care system, cutting down on medical waste, but more importantly, ensures that patients, especially those in underserved communities, have timely access to the care that they need.

Especially when they take time out of their day to even make up their mind to go to an emergency room in the first place. But no one should be forced to choose between time, money and their health, especially when the solution is already in their hands. Let's meet this moment with compassion.

Let's lead both with head and heart. Let's prove once again that in California, we choose people first. AB447 is the prescription for a better healthcare system. And it's just what the doctor ordered. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote..

Thank you very much Assemblymember Gonzalez. And I want to thank you for agreeing to accept the Committee amendments regarding the expanded license exemption. We understand that you'll be working with the Board of Pharmacy to resolve any implementation issues with that. I'm happy to support the bill when we have a quorum.

Sure. And just to add to that, going through the process, we've had that open dialogue and communication with those individuals and with the stakeholders. So we're happy to keep that dialogue going. They flagged several other sticking points for them, and I'm committed to working with them to that solution as soon as possible.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. We'd move on to another bill, but I have no other authors. I do. Assembly Member Jackson. We get Committee Members, and we're up to Committee Members.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Agenda item number three, AB427. Yeah. Assemblymember Jackson, we are ready when you are. I can already hear you have a lot of support up here on the Committee. I like to move the bill and, and Mr. Rogers is here.

Mr. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Committee Members, I present you AB427, which would approve the Social Work Licensure Compact in California. California faces significant shortages in social work professionals, particularly in underserved areas. The compact could help attract qualified social workers from other states, thus improving access to services for those in need.

Joining the compact allows social workers licensed in other member states to practice in California without needing to obtain an additional state license, thus reducing barriers to employment and increasing workforce mobility.

With greater mobility, social workers can expand their reach, particularly in rural or underserved communities where access to mental health and social services is crucial, especially in times of crisis.

In times of crisis or disaster, such as wildfires, public health emergencies, the ability to quickly bring in licensed social workers from other states can enhance their response efforts, providing needed support to affected populations.

With the rise of Telehealth, especially after Covid 19, the compact allows social workers to provide remote services to clients across state lines, thus increasing accessibility to critical mental health and social services. I want to thank the chair and Committee staff for working with me. We will be accepting Committee amendments as well.

And today with me, Kimberly Warmsley here from the California chapter of the National Association of Social Workers will be speaking on this bill.

Great. Good morning. You have two minutes.

First and foremost, I want to thank Assembly for pushing this effort. The California Association of Social Workers is the largest chapter of professional social workers in the country. The day has come where we need to have a conversation about mental health. And I wanted to speak about the Los Angeles region.

The NASW California Chapter mobilized over 2,000 social workers across the state to address support, provide mental health, first aid and treatment to those who were impacted by the fires.

However, because the state is not, is not with or has not signed onto the compact, those social workers were not able to provide much needed support for community Members and residents who were traumatized because of that natural disaster.

Furthermore, I just want to name that one in five Americans on any given day, in any given night do suffer from mental illness. Two in five high schoolers suffer and experience mental health symptoms. Now, this is what we think, what we know, because a lot of times community Members and residents don't do not even understand mental illness.

So this does provide a pathway to accessibility and access for those in need. So I am here to support this bill and I hope that you all support it as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses and support, Anyone who wants to add on in support, Take your time.

Good morning Members and Mr. Chair. Angie Minetti, on behalf of the Steinberg Institute and support, thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Got, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services and support, thank you.

Good morning. Kelly May Douglas with Department of Defense in support.

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

Good morning, Chair, members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. I just want to say out the outset that we're not opposed. We have concerns. We're a tweener, but really look forward to having ongoing conversations with the author and he's been very amenable to that. So thank you, sir.

We just have several concerns regarding compacts and its impact on the current workforce. For one, there's a variation in state licensing standards. Different states have varying requirements for licensure, continuing ed and professional development. And as stated in the analysis, out of state social workers may have less rigorous requirements than what's required for California social workers.

And while the compact aims to expand the workforce, it may not immediately address underlying workforce shortages in many regions. Social work shortages are particularly pronounced in rural areas or in regions with high demand for services like Humboldt County, where we have Members. California may still struggle with attracting and retaining qualified social workers.

Thirdly, the impact on local workforce development. The compact may inadvertently displace our current workforce. We're especially concerned that social workers in areas that are already well served may have opportunities taken away from them.

This could lead to a reduction in opportunities for newly graduated social workers or local professionals, especially if out of state social workers are seen as more experienced or specialized. Lastly, social work is a diverse field with practitioners specializing in various areas such as clinical social work, child welfare and school social work.

The compact might not account for all the nuances of each specialization, potentially overlooking unique state level needs or contacts. Lastly, we also believe that the state already has a process in which social workers from out of state already have the ability to qualify for a license in the state without having to be confined by a compact.

But again, we appreciate the author's willingness to sit down with us to hear our concerns and to ensure that local government and state employees employed as social workers aren't negatively impacted by the creation of a social work compact.

Thank you very much anybody else who wants to add on, either as a tweener or in opposition to the bill. Seeing none bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments. We're still a couple Members shy of a quorum and we're losing Members, which is not ideal. Seeing none Dr. Jackson, would you like to close?

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members I want to thank AFSCME for continuing to engage with us to try to make sure we get this right. But one thing is for sure, the hole that we have in the workforce for social workers is devastating.

And people and children in schools and others, even if they wanted to hire a social worker, they couldn't find a licensed clinical social worker to be able to do the work.

I think at the end of the day we have to make sure that I think we can put some safeguards to ensure that it's not meant to displace people, which is what I believe AFSCME's main concern with.

But at the same time I think we need to make sure that we're doing we need to be able to say that we're doing everything that we can to help people, to stabilize people and to put people on a path to thrive.

And I believe there's a path forward to making sure that we can continue to do this. I want to continue to engage Mr. Chair, with your staff on this so we can move have a path forward, but the status quo is just not acceptable. And I find it hard to engage in a lot of what ifs.

And I know we're doing some analysis as well to see if it's really true. Whether we other states have lower expectations than we do. I think we just assume that, but we haven't found it to be true yet. But we're doing our research on it.

But I want to make sure that we're doing fact based decisions and not just fear based decisions. Right.

Because one thing is for sure, current social workers, their caseloads are too high and the only way to ameliorate that is number one, eliminate turnover and then number two, get more social workers so that more people can take on the load. Right.

And so there's a many of those issues that we are facing that I think will actually be helpful to other social workers in state and county workforces as well because the turnover rate is crazy and the compact is one of the solutions to help to actually ameliorate that as well. So look forward to current continued discussions.

Want to thank you for the continued work on this and looking forward to continue to engage and finding a good balance throughout the process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Dr. Jackson and we will take that motion when we have a quorum. Mr. Aarons, I want to thank you Dr. Jackson, and applaud and appreciate your commitment to expanding access to social work services in California as as has been mentioned by me in the past with other compact bills as well.

I do have serious concerns about ceding our authority to a multi state compact to determine appropriate licensure requirements for social workers, among other concerns. But I appreciate that you're continuing to do research and do work to figure out, you know, what the situation is in other states.

As I've said in regard to previous compact bills, we must thoughtfully balance the need for access with the potential for consumer harm and ensure that California social workers are not unfairly disadvantaged. But I do thank you for accepting the Committee amendments and I'm happy to support the bill today and looking forward to future conversations.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Assemble Member Solache with agenda item number five AB667.

We might watch out. Yes. Assemblymember. We are ready for your presentation when you are.

Thank you, Chairman. I was a little distracted by the gentleman with that jacket. So I'm happy. I'm happy he got up from the dias. So again, good morning to everyone.

That would- that would be the jacket with the first- the first place giants. The first. First place.

I can remember.

I'd like to vote- I'd like to vote no.

Good morning again, everyone. First. Thank you. And I'm accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis and thank the Chair and Committee Staff for their help during this process. My office and I really appreciate it.

Today I'm proud to present AB 667 in partnership with the California Immigrant Policy Center, Immigrants Rise- Rising and the Economic Mobility for All Coalition. AB 667 would allow applicants to have certain business licenses administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs. The option to use an interpreter to translate licensing exams that are not offered in the applicant's preferred language.

The goal of this bill is to improve economic access for Californians with limited English proficiency and to help them pursue careers in fields they are already qualified for. This would great- directly benefit all of our communities. The professional license can- can open doors for people to gain more employment, education and professional development.

This bill will help Californians earn living capable of supporting themselves and their loved ones. AB 667 will lead to greater economic equity. I remain committed to working with stakeholders and upholding the integrity of the board and their exams.

With me- With me is Edgar Ortiz, representing the California Immigrant Policy Center as well as Vivian Wu, who brings lived experience in this area.

Great.

Edgar.

You have two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Edgar Ortiz. I'm the Economic Justice Policy Manager for the California Immigrant Policy Center. It's a tremendous honor to be able to be here to speak in support of AB 667 as part of the Economic Mobility for All Coalition.

We've historically advocated for expanded career and education access for all Californians, including the roughly 6.2 million individuals with limited English proficiency in the state.

Immigrants whose first language is not English and their loved ones who translate for them, be it in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Hindi or any other language, know very well how important language access is to all facets of everyday life.

This is especially true with job opportunities where being able to understand training and testing materials can make the difference for one's individual career trajectory. California has the most linguistic and culturally diverse population in the state, yet its workforce doesn't necessarily reflect this fact, especially in critical industries and occupations.

And when this doesn't happen, particularly in rural communities, you have situations where Individuals may have to travel across city or even county lines in order to be able to find critical care and services from somebody who can speak the language that is most natural for them.

By allowing innovate- interpreters to facilitate the transfer of important knowledge from English to their chosen language, AB 667 can help to create more equitable testing and ultimately career outcomes for communities. Our state standards allow us to have the best licensees who can provide quality care and services to their communities through legislation and regulation.

California has already shown that we can offer access to interpreters and direct translation of state and third party administrative examinations in industries like personal care and contracting, which is to the benefit of all our communities. Under AB 667, everyone benefits.

You have a wider array of professional and career opportunities that immigrants are able to access and communities in turn are able to benefit from a larger and more diverse workforce that is able to provide these important services in ways that are linguistic and culturally appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

[Testimony given in Mandarin]

I will translate.

Good morning. Hi everyone. My name is Vivian. I am a resident- resident of San Francisco and I hold a CNA AHA certification. I'm here today with Chinese for Affirmative Action. I pursued this profession because it is one of the only few career paths for limited English proficiency immigrants.

However, my classmates and I encountered many difficulties with the class materials and testing. Despite our extensive patient care experience and our great work ethic. If more. If there were more bilingual CNA HHA classes, more of my friends and colleagues could have gotten the certification like I did and developed their careers.

I hope California will pass AB 667 to provide more op- professional training opportunities for immigrants. Thank you.

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

Good morning. My name is Dr. Iliana Perez. I serve as the Executive Director of Immigrants Rising. We are a proud sponsor and in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Proud co sponsor in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Shayna Englin with the California Community Foundation. Not a co sponsor but in proud support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bringing back the colleagues for any questions or comments. Yes, Assemblymember Pellerin.

Thank you. I appreciate the intent of this bill. I'm a huge advocate to make sure materials are accessible to people. As a former county clerk registrar of voters for 27 plus years we had to translate into multiple languages. I think Los Angeles County is up to 18 different languages, they translate election materials.

So I'm curious why we are not going that approach to have the exam translated into a language to allow that instead of the interpreter.

I'll have Edgar answer that.

Thank you so much for your question, also for your advocacy for greater language access in our election materials.

So, our decision for pursuing this model was informed by conversations that we had over the past year with roughly 10 different licensing boards to understand what their process is for translating materials and also to understand what might be some barriers, as well as opportunities for going further down that route.

And through that, we learned that it's a very important ultimate goal that we support, but it's also one that's going to require a lot of important conversations and work to be able to understand some of the different ways that translated materials can sometimes land.

And so we want to propose this as an interim step that can help us to position ourselves to be able to ultimately have greater access in the form of translated materials.

We always were required to have a certified translator as well, to make sure that it's absolutely perfect in the translation. So these exams have lots of technical verbiage that, if it's not translated properly, I worry that would hinder rather than help the applicant. So are you requiring certified translators?

We're not requiring certified translators for this examination.

Many times, as you know, just as somebody is working to help somebody with understanding what a specific word might mean, not about, for example, there may be instances where test takers themselves may be getting tutoring or support from family Members or other loved ones who may be planning to serve as their interpreters so that they can get on the same page in terms of how to interpret specific terminologies that might come up on an examination, which can help to address some of the misunderstandings that may come up, which you're referring to.

And I'd like to add, Member Pellerin, as you asked that question. That's actually a very quick question, because as we're airing out these details, that's an area we definitely want to explore, that there's a place where folks go and actually hire a certified interpreter that has been vetted, has been gone through the process.

So that's definitely an area that we're looking at doing in this process as well.

And can you tell me, do you know if the exams are timed?

Yes, the exams are timed. Depending on which specific license you're talking about, that can vary.

Because I'm just wondering, you know, I think it takes more time when you're taking a test that needs to be translated. So is there going to be an accommodation to allow for additional time if needed?

That definitely is something that was discussed in this conversation because as we just witness right now, we had someone that spoke the language and then there was an interpreter. So there's. To your point, at a local government level, we always had interpreter with extra time. That's something that we could definitely add to this, to this issue.

Okay, and just one last thing. Is there any data that tells us how many applicants are unable to pass their examination due to the language barrier?

Unfortunately, not in the amounts that we would have loved to be able to bring to this conversation. And this has been after a year of just combing through different sources collecting primary data from the licensing agencies, this just isn't collected.

However, we do believe that one of the most critical elements of the Bill, which is with regards to data collection, can help us to get a better sense of what's happening at the front end. Because we do know that for healing arts licenses, HCAI does collect data from individuals who currently hold licenses, which is very important.

But this data also helps us to get a sense of what's happening at the front end too, because there may be instances where you have individuals who are signing up to take an examination or apply for an application for the first time, but we don't know coming in what their language situation could look like.

So that's why we also wanted to make sure that we're including that important element to the Bill so that our agencies can help us to collect this critical information and be able to report back to the Legislature on what trends they're able to identify, which can in turn help us to see where we might be able to further down the line, look at other potential interventions that can be responsive to where our communities are really most interested in for their professional opportunities.

Thank you.

Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none. Summit Member, would you like to close?

Thank you, Chairman and Committee. I just want to thank the Member for asking that question because as we develop this issue, we definitely want to make sure that more folks have access and if that means translating the actual exams in the future with more resources, that's an excellent idea.

Especially as a Member mentioned, this is something we did to enhance voting and in people's languages. So this is something that we would welcome with open arms. But as we know, it's also a budget situation and, you know, resources.

But as we we move forward this conversation, we definitely would like to have that maybe the Member and I can co host a Bill in the future to do that. On that note, thank you for your support, and we ask respectfully for an aye vote.

Thank you. Let me finish this real quick. Thank you, Assembly Member. I'd like to start by thanking the author for accepting the Committee's amendments. While these amendments narrow the scope of the Bill, I believe there will still be substantial benefit to immigrant professionals and consumers under the legislation.

In the meantime, I strongly share the author's desire to increase linguistic and cultural competence in all our licensed professions. And as chair of this Committee, I'm committed to continuing to work toward that goal. With that said, I'm happy to support the Bill as amended.

Today we actually have a quorum, so we're going to establish a quorum, then we'll take motions in seconds, and then we'll actually vote on some things. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. We have a quorum with that, take motions and seconds. Ahrens has been itching to move a Bill for 45 minutes, so we're gonna give him the motion.

I'm a freshman with something to prove .

Madam Secretary, please call the vote on AB 667.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this bill will go on record Mr. Ahrens making the motion, so--

You betcha. You betcha. So with that, we can take motions on bills that have already been presented. If anybody wants to make a motion-- or, actually, let's start with the consent calendar. Anyone want to make a motion on the consent calendar?

I have a motion and a second for the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On the consent calendar, file item 2, AB 375 Nguyen. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. File item 9, AB 1107 Flora. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. File item 11, AB 1496 Blanca Rubio. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

Consent calendar is out with 10 votes. Let's move on to agenda item number three, AB 427 by Assemblymember Jackson. Looking for a motion and a second. Got a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 427 Jackson. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call]

That bill is out with 11 votes. Let's move on. Assemblymember Alanis, if you'd like to present agenda item number seven, AB 873. Got a motion and a second.

We're good to go. Okay, thank you Mr. Chair. Want to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments. And I want to thank the Committee for their Hard work that they put into this Bill.

AB873 will repeal the urgency the strict timing requirements for unlicensed dental assistance to complete the the eight hour infectious control IC course and replace it with a 90 day deadline. AB 873 will also provided the Dental Board of California with the statutory authority to begin approving virtual IC courses or infectious control courses before January 12025.

Dental assistants were required to complete the eight hour infectious control course within 120 days of being hired. However, during last year's sunset review, the California Dental board revoked the 120 day deadline and instead required dental assistance to complete the course before performing any basic supportive procedures.

This exhibits new hires from beginning full time work until completing the course. This has had a catastrophic impact on the dental industry with delays in hiring dental assistants due to the lack of course accessibility in rural areas like my districts and some of yours.

With me today in support of AB873 is Lawrence Gaydon, represent the California Dental Association.

Good morning Chair Berman and Members of the Committee. My name is Lawrence Gaydon here on behalf of the California Dental Association representing 27,000 dental professionals across the state urging your support for AB 873 to address some unintended workforce challenges caused by recent changes to the infection control training requirements for unlicensed dental assistants.

Under current law, newly hired unlicensed dental assistants must complete an in person 8 hour infection control course before starting work, a major shift from the previous one year completion window. While infection control training is essential, this rigid requirement requires or causes hiring delays, particularly in rural areas where courses are limited.

Some candidates must wait months for available classes, leading them to seek jobs elsewhere, further reducing the dental workforce and limiting patient access to care. AB873 offers a balanced solution by allowing new assistants to begin working under supervision and complete the training within 90 days.

This maintains patient safety as new hires already receive Cal OSHA mandated infection control training and work under the direct supervision of a licensed dentist who is responsible for ensuring compliance with all infection control protocols. Additionally, some dentists prefer in person training, but requiring completion before employment prevents flexibility in scheduling staff for a class.

A 90 day window ensures both in person and virtual course options remain accessible while still upholding infection control standards. At a time when dental offices are struggling to fill positions, AB873 removes unnecessary barriers, strengthens training and improves patient access to care. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on the measure.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses? Primary witnesses in support? Seeing none. Anyone want to add on in support? Come on up.

Good morning. Monea Jennings on behalf of the California Association of Orthodontists in full support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up. Come grab a seat at the table. You have two minutes.

Hey Chair Members Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Reed and Associates on behalf of the California Dental Hygienist Association. We just want to thank the author and sponsors for our talking with us about the Bill and and the California Dental Hygienists Association has some concerns.

So we just want to kind of put those out there for you guys and they're in the process of reviewing the amendments that are in the analysis. For CDHA it's really a worker protection issue.

Dental assistants are unlicensed and they're often young people that are coming out of high school with no education or formal training in oral health care or for dealing with patients at all. And for that reason, the dental assisting on the job training pathway is a really excellent low barrier to entry into the oral health fields.

But also with that we must ensure that the Das are protected and not handling utensils or interacting with blood and saliva until they've had infection control education. CDHA supports a 30 day requirement as I believe the dental assistance the registered dental assistants were asking for as well.

And we also request the Bill be amended to require an employer to ensure the OSHA course has been taken before exposing Das to infectious materials or patient care. Hygienists report that in theory this OSHA course is already supposed to happen, but that's not being done and not being enforced.

And so we look forward to working with the author and the sponsor on this language. And thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none going to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. We got, I think we're good. But I appreciate. I appreciate that any Summit Member. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you to the author, to the board and stakeholders for working with us on this Bill and the amendments. We. We understand that dentistry, like many other areas of healthcare, is experiencing a workforce shortage, particularly in rural and other underserved areas. We also understand that patient safety is paramount.

And I know that the licensed dentists who hire dental assistants understand that as well. The accepted amendments are intended to take an initial step towards balancing both. I understand that there are still concerns about the timing of the course, but I know that the author and sponsor will continue to work through them.

I also know that the author is working with the Dental board on additional technical amendments on this and other sunset review related issues that we simply ran out of time for today. With that, I'm happy to support the Bill today. So Madam Secretary, please call the vote on AB873.

Alanis. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. Berma? Aye Berman, aye. Flora? Aye. Flora, aye. Arhens? Arhens, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, Aye. Bains? Bauer-Kahan? Caloza? Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Elhawary? Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Irwin? Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Krell? Aye. Krell, aye. Lowenthal? Macedo? Aye Macedo, aye. Nguyen? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin. aye.

That Bill is out. Thank you very much. And yeah, Assembly member Nguyen will be presenting AB360 on behalf of Assemblymember Pampin agenda item number one.

All right, Members. Thank you Mr. Chair. And I am pleased to be able to present AB 360 for Assembly Member Papan on menopause. I'd like to say that she is accepting the amendments to AB 360. This bill is about having a 360 degree view of women's health. Assembly Bill 360 will address a critical gap in training and knowledge about menopause. While menopause is a natural stage of life, it is often misunderstood, misdiagnosed and overlooked in the medical field.

Menopause, which marks the end of a woman's menstrual cycle and fertility is a normal part of aging, affecting approximately 1.3 billion women worldwide. While many women experience common symptoms such as hot flashes, which is I'm having right now, night sweats and irregular periods, menopause can also cause a wide range of symptoms, including...

Men, listen up here, just so you know that if you run across any women with these symptoms, you know what they're going through. Low mood, anxiety, fatigue, memory problems, and joint pains. These lesser known symptoms are often not connected to menopause and frequently go untreated, leading to unnecessary suffering.

With women spending a third or more of their lives in menopause, it is crucial that they have access to the right resources, support, and care. AB 360 addresses the need for a comprehensive review of physicians' and surgeons' education and training on menopause, as well as their practice in diagnosing and treating menopause across different regions, specialties, and demographic groups.

The Department of Health Care Access and Information will collaborate with the Medical Board of California and Osteopath Medical Board of California and state higher education entities to assess the current landscape. By January 1, 2027, Department will prepare a report for the Legislature that identifies gaps in menopause related education and medical practice.

The report will also recommend state policies to enhance education and training for health care providers, ultimately improving health outcomes for individuals experiencing menopause. Dr. Bains was here she would say that doctors would be more well informed and also be able to have fewer misdiagnoses and higher quality of life for those through menopause.

It's time for healthcare professionals to be equipped with the knowledge, compassion, and tools to support women through this natural transition. Here to testify in support is Jennifer Snyder with California Life Science and Allison Lewin, the founder of Menopause Coach Menowar.

Great. Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Hi, I'm Allison Lewin. I'm a menopause coach and dedicated to helping women who have been dismissed or misinformed by the healthcare system. I've always prioritized my health and well being, so I was completely blindsided by menopause. My doctors never prepared me for what to expect, and I suffered for years with physical, psychological, and cognitive symptoms before finally receiving effective treatment. These included hot flashes, night sweats, new allergies, skin itching, hair loss, memory lapses, difficulty finding words, insomnia, and debilitating anxiety.

At one point, I feared I was developing early Alzheimer's or going crazy. Before menopause, I was a successful corporate executive. Like over 1 in 10 women, I left my high paying career because of untreated menopause symptoms. Unlike celebrities with concierge care, I struggled to find a knowledgeable provider covered by insurance. Out of 50,800 licensed OBGYNs in the US, only about 3,000 are menopause certified. Women deserve better.

Through extensive research and persistence, I eventually find the right care and relief, and I specifically entered this field to fill the gap left by uneducated providers. But millions of women are still suffering needlessly. That's why I support AB 360, which assesses physician knowledge and helps identify the the best ways to bring providers up to date on menopause care so more women can get the treatment they deserve. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Jennifer Snyder with Capitol Advocacy here today on behalf of the California Life Sciences, which represents over 1,300 organizations that include biotechnology, medical technology, and academic research institutions. The Life Sciences appreciates the opportunity to support AB 360 today, as the bill will assess physicians' training and education related to menopause issues and treatment for women.

As was noted earlier, menopause affects 51% of the population. Estimated 1.3 billion women worldwide currently experiencing symptoms. Despite the wide impact, menopause is often overlooked and misdiagnosed in healthcare settings. Only 5% of women experiencing menopause receive evidence based treatment, largely because many healthcare professionals lack proper training.

By requiring the assessment of physician training and trends in practice, AB 360 will provide the Legislature and the medical community with the needed information to improve treatment options for women during this major life transition. CLS strongly supports AB 360. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Denise Pines. I'm the founder of WisePause Wellness, and I support AB 360.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. I'm Deb Luster. I'm the founder and President, or was a President of Annie's Mac and Cheese and Goodles out of Santa Cruz, and I strongly strongly support AB 360.

Thank you.

I'm Melissa Oliveira, co-founder of Hotpaws Health, and I strongly support AB 360.

Thank you.

Good morning. Angie Manetti here on behalf of Planned Parenthood in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Heather Sposeto. I'm a menopause coach, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Mary Burrell and representing myself and other women who were misdiagnosed and given the wrong prescription. I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Andria Davis. I work with the Menopause Education Center, and I strongly support AB 360. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Teyonna Bowman. I'm a breast cancer survivor and founder of Pausitive Outlook, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Nico Molina on behalf of Bayer in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Dominique Paxton on behalf of California Black Women's Health Project and Sistahs Aging with Grace and Elegance. We proudly support AB 360. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Donna Coxon-McCory with The Wiser Me Midlife Women's community, and we support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Vanessa Thomas, community leader and scientist, and I support AB 360.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody who just wants to add on in opposition to the bill?

Good morning. Angela Hill on behalf of the California Medical Association. Confirming that with the amendments we are removing our opposition. Thank you.

Amazing. Love that.

Ryan Spencer behalf the American College for OBGYNs. Like to thank the author and the Chair for working on these new amendments. With that, ACOG removing their opposition as well, and bring it to the board for a new position. Thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you very much. We had... Do we have a motion and a second? We've got a motion and a second. Any questions or comments from colleagues? Assembly Member Pellerin.

This is a great bill, and it's about time we spend more research, training, and attention to menopause. And I would love to be added as a co-author, if you could pass that on to Assembly Member Papan.

Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you heard earlier, we are 51% of the population, but we gave birth to 100% of the population. It is about time. Yes, it is about time that we have better informed doctors to better serve us. With that, on behalf of Assembly Member Papan, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I agree. Thank you, Assembly Member Nguyen. And thank you for presenting on behalf of Assembly Member Papan. With the Committee amendments, I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 360, Papan, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you very much.

So, we're going to move on to agenda Item Number 6, AB 742, by Assemblymember Elhawary. If you're ready.

You have a motion. We have a second. You're starting off good.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB742, which would require licensing boards to prioritize descendants of slaves, when reviewing applications for professional licenses. Nearly 30% of all jobs in California require a license, certification, or background clearance.

But for generations, descendants of slaves have been systematically locked out of these pathways, due to the lasting impact of racial bias and criminalization. We cannot talk about professional barriers without acknowledging that our laws, this Legislature's laws, have historically excluded descendants of slaves.

Descendants of slaves have been pushed out of these opportunities, not because of lack of talent or drive, but because of systemic policies designed to keep them out. The Legislature helped create many of those barriers. We passed laws that even made it harder for people with a record to apply for a license.

In some cases, people have to wait years after serving their time, just to be considered. And we know who's most impacted. Descendants of slaves have been the ones most harmed by over policing, incarceration, and these licensing rules that keep people stuck. AB 742 is a step toward fixing that.

It tells licensing boards, when you review applications, you need to prioritize people who've been locked out for too long. This Bill is about careers, it's about economic access, and it's about repairing the harm that we helped create. I'm committed to breaking down these barriers and I am asking this Committee to join me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any witnesses—primary witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on, in support?

Good morning. Monea Jennings, with the Greater Sacramento Urban League, in full support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up. You have two minutes. You can come up to the desk.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name—it is a privilege to be with you today. My name is Laura D'Agostino and I'm an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation. Founded in 1973 and headquartered here in Sacramento, PLF is the oldest and most experienced public interest legal foundation of its kind, having achieved 18 US Supreme Court victories.

At its core, AB 742 is unconstitutional. It requires that each board falling under the Department of Consumer Affairs, prioritize applicants seeking licensure who are defendants—who are descendants—of American slaves. This requirement is also contingent on enacting additional legislation establishing the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery.

It requires an applicant to obtain certification from the Bureau confirming their status as a descendant of an American slave.

While the Bill itself does not define descendants, SB 518 defines descendants as being "descendant of an African American chattel enslaved person in the US, or descendant of a free black person living in the U.S. prior to the 19th century."

As a result, this classification is a proxy for race and very similar to the one the Supreme Court analyzed in the case of Rice versus—versus Cayetano. There, the State of Hawaii claimed that it was not using a racial classification when it excluded non-Hawaiians from voting for trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

But the Supreme Court noted in that case that it rejected that argument. And if the Supreme Court, in that case, rejected it, this Committee should also not permit AB 72—AB 742—to proceed, as it is a racial classification. And because a racial classification is involved, strict scrutiny applies.

In essence, the Legislature has to show that it has a compelling interest in using a racial classification to discriminate against its citizens, and it has to be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective.

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

Yes, sir. So, the only compelling interest that the state can have is showing specific instances of discrimination. This is a broad Bill that addresses over 30 boards, and in order for this Bill to be constitutional, it would have to show how each of these boards discriminates against its citizens.

Thank you.

And if I may just conclude with one final comment.

One sentence. One sentence.

Yes. As an immigrant and an attorney, the Constitution is a heritage of all Californians in the state, and I would ask this Committee to vote "No." Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Going to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. We have a motion and a second already. Dr. Jackson.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the Member for carrying a Black Caucus Priority bill. It's interesting that opposition does not understand the compelling interest, in which this Legislature is responsible for creating the very barriers that we're trying to eliminate today.

And it doesn't matter if there is no group except Native Americans who've experienced such things as slavery, here in California. And no matter what, any—there is no group who have been dehumanized more, that has been the subject of specific legislative barriers, than African Americans.

And so, no matter what type of Legalese talk we use, the fact remains, yes, laws were created so that, just because you are a descendant of slave—slaves—just by your birth, you will experience barriers throughout the way, to prevent you from being on a path to thrive.

Not only that, the Constitution does allow for instances where harm is created and harm is done, for remedies to be taken. And so, it would just be nice for us not to use these legal arguments for what is just meant to keep black people marginalized. So, thank you for your Bill.

I ask my colleagues to vote "Yes" on this Bill.

Thank you, Dr. Jackson. Any additional questions or comments on the Bill? Seeing none. Assemblymember, oh, yes, please.

Just very briefly, I want to thank the author for bringing this very important legislation forward. I want on, you know, as a representative of the Black Caucus, I want to thank all of my colleagues in the Black Caucus for mentoring, teaching, and standing strong on what are the basic tenets of justice.

I think—I want to align myself with my colleague from Moreno Valley. On all of his comments, the Legalese is irrelevant to me, personally, as I make my decision in this. And I also want to further emphasize—this isn't solely about justice.

This is about economic growth and opportunity that benefits all of us and can transform—or be a transformative agent—within black communities themselves, which are disproportionately at, you know, far worse socioeconomic levels than any other group in the State of California. So, I just thank you so much for bringing this forward.

You know, we need to continue to have this discussion and dialogue, until we've reached a level of justice. And I hope that the author would consider adding me as a co-author of this Bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Lowenthal. Any additional questions or comments? Assemblymember Elhawary, would you like to close?

Yes. I think it's really important to also note that I am the daughter of immigrants.

I, and my family, wouldn't be impacted or benefit from this Bill, but we recognize the importance of really ensuring that we do everything that we can to repair and redress the harms that we've seen, from the impact of slavery in this country—of chattel slavery in this country.

And I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote to create a more equitable future for descendants of slaves. Judges are already making decisions—hard decisions—every day. Oh, just kidding. That's different. That's my closing.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you to you and the entire Legislative Black Caucus for continuing to do the challenging, but important, work to address the systemic barriers that black Californians still face today, especially those who are descended from slaves. I'm happy to support the Bill today and it will be next heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you very much. We're gonna move on to our last Bill of the—of the agenda. Agenda Item Number 10, AB 1175, by Assemblymember Irwin.

Got a motion. All right. Thank you.

I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments. AB 1175 will modernize the licensing process for CPAs by modifying educational requirements and enhancing interstate mobility practices. The demand for CPAs is greatly outpassing the number of new CPAs entering the profession, placing a strain on current CPAs, their clients and the public interest.

AB 1175 will provide more inclusive, flexible and cost effective pathways into the profession and will ensure that the consumers continue to have access to quality accounting services that they rely on.

This Bill is sponsored by the California Board of Accountancy and with me to speak in support of AB 1175 is passport prep President and current Board Member Joe Rosenbloom, as well as Jason Fox on behalf of the California Society of CPAs. Additionally, Dominic Franzella, the Executive Board of the.

The Executive Officer of the Board of Accountancy will provide technical assistance.

Great. Two minutes each. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Berman and Members of the Committee. My name is Joe Rosenbaum. I'm a CPA. I was licensed in 1987, but I've been practicing public accounting since 1983.

Currently a Member of the Board of Accountancy and the immediate past President, I'd like to express the Board's appreciation to Assemblymember Erwin and her team for authoring this important legislation and to the Committee staff for taking the time to analyze the Bill.

The current education and experience requirements for CPA licensure include the completion of a bachelor's degree or higher, a total unit requirement of 150 semester units and a specified number of units in accounting, business and ethics, and also one year of accounting experience.

The 150 hour education requirement often necessitates a costly fifth year of college, creating obstacles for individuals pursuing CPA licensure. AB 1175 would require a bachelor's degree with an accounting concentration and two years of accounting experience and would eliminate the requirement for the 150 hours the requirement. These requirements are straightforward and easy to understand. They're also not novel.

I myself qualified for the CPA license under these same requirements before the 150 hour rule was introduced. As for cross border practice or mobility, this has been integral part of the accounting profession since the Legislature first enacted these provisions back in 2006. Sorry. And refined them in 2013.

AB 1175 continues to uphold consumer protection, maintain consumer access to critical services and support economic growth by modernizing mobility to a CPA equals CPA model. The proposal eliminates unnecessary burdens enabling businesses and individuals to access qualified CPAs efficiently while maintaining consumer protection guardrails. California is not alone in these changes.

Dozens of states, including the largest of New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida and Oregon, are actively updating their licensure frameworks to address mobility concerns. If you could wrap up, that'd be great Indeed. Thank you. AB 1175 provides real world solutions to addressing pipeline challenges and modernizing mobility while ensuring consumer protection. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Jason Fox of the California Society of CPAs. At its heart, AB 1175 is about ensuring the CPA profession is well positioned to continue to meet the needs of Californians. As you've heard, the demand for CPA services is growing faster than those entering the profession.

If this trend continues, essential services like tax prep, audits, financial consulting could become harder and more expensive to access. That affects businesses, nonprofits, local governments, and everyday consumers who rely on the integrity of financial information. While the CPA profession offers a rewarding career, it's becoming clear that the current path to licensure isn't working for everyone.

The extra year of education beyond the Bachelor's degree adds costs and delays licensure and earnings. For many, especially those from underrepresented or low income backgrounds, it becomes a roadblock. AB 1175, as Mr. Rosenbaum addressed, addresses these issues by enhancing and modernizing the licensure framework to give candidates more flexible, affordable and accessible options to licensure.

This approach keeps the bar high, yet achievable, and reflects the diverse ways people gain the skills and experience needed to succeed in the profession. Lastly, as Mr. Rosebaum mentioned, AB 1175 positions the state as a leader in rethinking CPA. Licensure and its concepts are already inspiring similar efforts in several other states and as a national licensure model.

With AB 1175 we have an opportunity to strengthen the profession, expand access and ensure the public continues to benefit from trusted CPAs in the marketplace. With that, we would urge support for AB 1175 and thank the Board, Assembly Urban and the Committee staff for the work on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses you want to add on in support of the bill? Good morning Pat. Choice on behalf of the national accounting firms and strong support. Thank you. 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. Questions or comments? We already have a motion in a second. No questions, no comments. So, Member Irwin, would you like to close respectfully? As for your vote, thank you Assembly Member. I understand that this has been a years long effort by the board and I'm happy to support the bill today.

Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On AB 1175. Irwin. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. That Bill is out. So colleagues that are on bnp, come on down. We're going to run through the role a few times, but we're going to start from the top with the consent calendar and we'll just go from the top to the bottom. But if you're on bnp, come on down.

[Roll Call]

We'll start with File item number one. AB360Pappin.

[Roll Call]

Moving on to File item number three. AB427 Jackson.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to File item number 4. AB 447. Gonzalez. Need a motion. A second. I'll move the Bill.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. Moving on to File item number five. AB667. And that Bill is on call. .

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Moving to file item Number six. AB742. Elhawary

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Moving on to File item number 7. AB 873. Alanis.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. File item number 8. AB 957. Ortega. Need a motion and a second.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that Bill on call for a little bit. Moving on to File item number 10. AB 1175. Irwin. All right, colleagues, that's all for now. We'll leave the. We'll stay here for a little bit for absent Members to show up.

[Roll Call]

Madam Secretary, we'll go back through for Dr. Bains. Start with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Starting with File item number one. AB 4360.

[Roll Call]

File item three. AB 427. Jackson.

[Roll Call]

AB 447. Gonzalez.

[Roll Call]

File number five. AB 667. Salache.

[Roll Call]

I'm on file item number six. AB 742. Elhawary.

[Roll Call]

File Item number seven. AB 873. Alanis.

[Roll Call]

File number eight. AB 957. Ortega.

[Roll Call]

And file number 10. AB 1175. Irwin.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that one still on call there.

[Roll Call]

Flora no to aye.

[Roll Call]

And that Bill is out. Madam Chair. We'll start with AB447, Gonzalez.

[Roll Call]

Then AB957, Ortega.

[Roll Call]

Madam Secretary, we'll open the roll for 447.

[Roll Call]

Then we'll move to file item, whatever it is. File item eight. AB957.

[Roll Call]

And with that, B&Ps adjourned. It.