OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE
MEETING TO ORDER. GOOD MORNING
EVERYONE. HAPPY MONDAY. MISS
MASON, MY DAUGHTER IS WEARING A
GARFIELD I HATE MONDAYS SHIRT TO
SCHOOL, BUT I SPARED YOU GUYS
AND DIDN'T WEAR THE MATCHING
ONE, MAYBE. MAYBE NEXT WEEK, THE
COMMITTEE HAS 11 BILLS ON FILE
TODAY. I SEE THAT WE HAVE TWO
TWO AUTHORS HERE. WE DO NOT HAVE
ANY MEASURES PROPOSED FOR
CONSENT. AND OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T
QUITE HAVE A QUORUM YET. SO
WE'LL START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE
AND SEE IF WE CAN'T HEAR AT
LEAST 1 OR 2 OF THESE AUTHORS.
SO, MR. PORTANTINO, SENATOR
PORTANTINO, YOU ARE FIRST UP IN
THE ORDER. WELCOME. HAPPY MONDAY
. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. HOW ARE YOU? DOING
PRETTY GOOD. HOW ABOUT YOU? YOU
KNOW LIFE IS GOOD. LIFE IS GOOD.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROCEED?
YES PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, SB 1041 WILL ESTABLISH
THE ARMENIAN MEDICAL GRADUATE
PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT TRAINING
PROGRAM, IT WILL REQUIRE THE
BOARD TO ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE
WHICH WILL DEVELOP AND RECOMMEND
CURRICULUM FOR A TRAINING
PROGRAM, THE BILL WILL MAKE
ARMENIAN MEDICAL SCHOOL
GRADUATES, WHO ARE EITHER
CITIZENS OR PERMANENT RESIDENTS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHO
HAVE SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED
THE TRAINING PROGRAM, ELIGIBLE
FOR LICENSURE AS A PHYSICIAN'S
ASSISTANT. IF THE PERSON ALSO
HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A
WRITTEN EXAMINATION. ACCORDING
TO THE AMA, BY 2030, CALIFORNIA
IS PROJECTED TO HAVE A SHORTAGE.
GET THIS OF 32,669 PHYSICIANS.
THAT'S STAGGERING, FURTHERMORE,
THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN
THE ACCESS TO CULTURALLY AND
LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE
HEALTH CARE SERVICES AS THE
DEMOGRAPHIC MAKEUP OF PRIMARY
HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND PRIMARY
CARE PHYSICIANS DOES NOT
ADEQUATELY REFLECT THE REFLECT
THE DIVERSITY OF THE CALIFORNIA
POPULATION. I CAN TELL YOU FROM
MY OWN EXPERIENCE IN TALKING TO
A NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS, I WAS
WITH A GROUP OF ONCOLOGISTS,
RECENTLY, AND THEY WERE TALKING
ABOUT HOW THEY NEED, ARMENIAN
SPEAKING PHYSICIANS ASSISTANTS
JUST TO BE ABLE TO DO THEIR
PRACTICE. AND SO WE HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT NEED. WE ALSO HAVE A
POPULATION THAT IS HIGHLY
EDUCATED AND MANY OF WHOM HAVE
COMPLETED THEIR, DEGREE TO BE
DOCTORS IN ARMENIA, WHO HAVE
DONE MORE CLINICAL WORK THAN IS
NECESSARY TO BE A PHYSICIAN'S
ASSISTANT. AND SO THINKING ABOUT
HOW WE'VE DONE WITH POLICY IN
THE PAST, WITH THE MILITARY, WE
SAID, IF YOU SERVED IN THE
MILITARY AND THEN YOU COME OUT
OF THE MILITARY, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO MAKE YOU GO BACK TO SCHOOL
BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY LEARNED
AND TRAINED EVEN FAR SUPERIOR
THAN WHAT THAT ACADEMIC CLASS
MIGHT HAVE GIVEN YOU IF YOU DID
IT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. AND SO
WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT SAME
MODEL. I KNOW YOUR STAFF HAS
BEEN VERY, VERY HELPFUL IN
CRAFTING THIS. I WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU TO THE BNP STAFF AND
MY STAFF. I BELIEVE WE'RE
ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS AND WE'RE
MOVING, HOPEFULLY MOVING IT
FORWARD, SO THE NEEDS THERE, WE
THINK THIS IS A PRUDENT STEP TO
GET US, TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
AND WITH ME, I HAVE TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES, ARNOLDO TORRES FROM
NOAH'S CHILDREN'S CHARITY, AND
KAREKIN KARAZIN, WHO IS ALSO
HERE TO TESTIFY. DID THEY COME
UP HERE? DO YOU WANT THEM AT
THE. SURE THEY CAN COME UP HERE
JUST FINE SO YOU BOTH CAN COME
UP HERE AND SIT AT THE TABLE.
WELCOME THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. YES MY NAME IS
ARNOLD TORRES. I'M REPRESENTING
NOAH'S CHILDREN'S CHARITY, ONE
OF THE SPONSORS OF THE
LEGISLATION, AND I THINK YOUR
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT IN THE
ANALYSIS POINTED OUT IN A VERY
IMPORTANT POINT THAT THERE IS A
ACT ALREADY, THE FRAMEWORK FOR
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL GRADUATES
TO BECOME PA'S THROUGH
ADDITIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM. IT
JUST SIMPLY APPEARS THAT THE LAW
HAS NEVER BEEN IMPLEMENTED. SO I
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR BEING
ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT AS A
WEAKNESS IN THE OVERALL EFFORT
TO ADDRESS, WHICH IS A VERY,
VERY MAJOR PROBLEM WITH
CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA'S
DIVERSITY IS PHENOMENAL, THE PA
ACADEMY INDICATES WHY SHOULD ONE
GROUP BE SELECTED OVER ANOTHER?
I THINK THE FRAMEWORK THAT THE
LEGISLATION IS LAYING OUT WILL
ACCOMMODATE ANYBODY THAT
ACTUALLY MEETS AND HAS SPECIFIC
NEEDS, BUT I THINK THIS
LEGISLATION IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF
WHAT IS LACKING IN CALIFORNIA,
AND THAT IS THE ABILITY OF THE
MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS WHO TRAIN
AND PROVIDE AND PRODUCE DOCTORS
TO HAVE CULTURAL LINGUISTIC
REQUIREMENTS, CALIFORNIA NO
LONGER IS JUST SIMPLY AN ENGLISH
SPEAKING. SOME THINK THAT'S A
BENEFIT, OTHERS THINK IT'S A
REAL BIG CHALLENGE, REGARDLESS
OF WHAT IT IS, IT'S NOT BEING
ADDRESSED BY THE CURRENT SYSTEM
AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE
PROBLEM SIMPLY GETS WORSE. I
THINK THIS IS AN EXTREMELY,
REASONABLE APPROACH, IT IS A
WORK IN PROGRESS. THANK TO THE
COMMITTEE, MAKING IT A MUCH MORE
IMPLEMENTABLE APPROACH, WE WOULD
ASK FOR YOUR. AYE, VOTE. WE
WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT
ARMENIANS HAVE TWO MAJOR AREAS
THAT THEY COME TO IN CALIFORNIA.
THEY HAVE A HUGE DIASPORA THERE
IN FRESNO, AND THEY'RE IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THERE ARE
HEALTH CENTERS THAT SERVE THAT
POPULATION IN BOTH AREAS. THOSE
HEALTH CENTERS WOULD BE MAJOR
TARGETS FOR PLACEMENT OF THESE
DOCTORS. THE LAST THING IS
YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY IS A
UNIVERSITY WHERE MOST OF THESE
DOCTORS HAVE RECEIVED THEIR
MEDICAL TRAINING. IT IS THE ONLY
UNIVERSITY IN ARMENIA THAT IS
RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
DIRECTORY OF MEDICAL SCHOOLS. SO
IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
MEDICAL BOARD AS HAVING AN
EXTREMELY GOOD, PROGRAM TO BEGIN
WITH. AND THIS IS WHERE THE
CANDIDATES FOR THIS PROGRAM
WOULD BE COMING FROM. SO WE
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO AHEAD,
MADAM CHAIR, DEAR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, BEFORE STARTING JUST A
QUICK INFORMATION. I'M A FOREIGN
MEDICAL GRADUATE, ARMENIAN
DESCENDANT. I GRADUATED FROM
SYRIA, CAME TO THE UNITED
STATES. THERE WAS LINGUISTIC
PROBLEMS AND I STARTED WORKING
AS THE CHART BOY IN AN OFFICE.
JUST TO BE IN THE MEDICAL FIELD.
JUST TAKE CHART. BRING CHART,
CONTINUED MY EDUCATION IN THE
UNITED STATES. I FINISHED THE
MASTER'S AND PHD IN HEALTHCARE
ADMINISTRATION. I BECAME MEDICAL
AUDITOR, COMPLIANCE OFFICER. I
NEVER STOPPED, BUT BUT IT HURT
WHEN I SEE OTHER ARMENIAN
MEDICAL GRADUATES WHO STILL
CANNOT GET THAT OVER THAT
BARRIER OF THE LANGUAGE, OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, WHICH IS THE
THIRD OR FOURTH LANGUAGE FOR
THEM SOMETIMES, AND THEY ARE
DRIVING UBER. THIS BILL THAT WE
ARE DISCUSSING TODAY ADDRESSES
THREE MAJOR ISSUES RELATED TO
THE WELL-BEING OF A LARGE NUMBER
OF OUR CITIZENS AND CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS WHO ARE ARMENIAN, OF
ARMENIAN ORIGINS. IT IS A FACT
THAT CALIFORNIA HAS THE LARGEST
ARMENIAN IMMIGRANT POPULATION
ALL OVER THE WORLD, OUTSIDE OF
THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
COUNTRIES. THE MAJORITY OF THESE
IMMIGRANTS ARE FIRST GENERATION
IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVE HUGE ISSUES
RELATED TO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
HOWEVER, IN THE LAST 30 YEARS,
THIS COMMUNITY WAS SERVED
MAJORLY BY ARMENIAN FOREIGN
MEDICAL GRADUATES WHO KNEW THE
ETHNIC LANGUAGE AND HAD THE
OPTION OF PROPER COMMUNICATION
WITH THEIR PATIENTS, SO THEY
WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE NEEDED
MEDICAL SERVICE AND SECURE THE
NEEDED PATIENT ENGAGEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE WITH THE TREATMENT
PLANS, AND FORMING THE PROPER
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING
PROCESSES. WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE
YEARS, WE WILL SEE A HUGE
DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF
ARMENIAN MEDICAL GRADUATES WHO
WILL STILL BE SERVING OUR
COMMUNITY DUE TO THE RETIREMENT
OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE
PROVIDERS, MOST OF WHOM ARE
ALREADY STRETCHED TO THEIR
MAXIMUM LIMITS. THE NEW
GENERATION OF ARMENIAN US
MEDICAL GRADUATES ARE CHOOSING
TO BECOME SPECIALISTS INSTEAD OF
SERVING AS PRIMARY CARE
PHYSICIANS, AS GATEKEEPERS AND
FIRST POINT OF CONTACT FOR THOSE
WHO SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION AND
CARE. ARMENIAN MEDICAL GRADUATES
WHO ARE LIVING IN OUR STATE AND
COMMUNITIES HAVE HAD TREMENDOUS
DIFFICULTIES IN PASSING THEIR
USMLE EXAMS. THE MAJORITY OF
THESE FOREIGN MEDICAL GRADUATES
ARE SPECIALISTS AND
PRACTITIONERS WHO GRADUATED 10
TO 15 YEARS AGO AND IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES, AND SPEND
THEIR TIME AS VERY RESPECTED
PHYSICIANS. HOWEVER WHEN THEY
COME TO THE UNITED STATES AS
LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, THEY WERE
FORCED TO TAKE EXAMS DESIGNED
FOR FIRST OR SECOND YEAR
STUDENTS OF US MEDICAL SCHOOLS.
NOT COUNTING THE LINGUISTIC
DIFFICULTIES. THIS FORCED THEM
TO EITHER RESTART THE JOURNEY OF
BECOMING A PHYSICIAN OR TAKE THE
PATH THAT SUPPORT TO SUPPORT
THEIR FAMILIES BECOME UBER AND
DELIVERY DRIVERS. AND SUDDENLY,
CAN YOU CAN YOU GIVE US A
SUMMARY STATEMENT THERE? OKAY,
LET'S RESTORE THEIR DIGNITY AND
LET'S PROVIDE A WAY TO OVERCOME
THE PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE, THE
HEALTH CARE PROVIDER SHORTAGE IN
CALIFORNIA AND ESPECIALLY FOR
THE ARMENIAN POPULATION WHO
CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH, THEY
CANNOT COMMUNICATE. WE NEED
ARMENIAN MEDICAL GRADUATES NOT
FROM ARMENIAN ONLY ALL OVER THE
WORLD WHO ARE IN CALIFORNIA
LEGALLY. OKAY. ARE THERE OTHER
PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, WITNESSES
WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1041? IF SO,
PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE.
NOW WOULD BE THE TIME FOR ME TO
TESTIMONY. SO YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION SEEING NO ONE, ARE
THERE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO
SB 1041?
THANK YOU. TO HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, ED HOWARD OF HOWARD
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PAS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING
ME TO ADDRESS YOU THIS MORNING,
BRIEFLY, FOR ALMOST ALL OF THE
REASONS THAT YOU HAVE HEARD
TODAY ABOUT CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIA'S DIVERSE COMMUNITIES
DESPERATELY IN NEED OF A BROADER
ARRAY OF CULTURALLY COMPETENT
CARE. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE REASON
WE REGRETFULLY STILL STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS MEASURE. WE WOULD
WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT A BILL
THAT, ON THE BASIS OF ANALYSIS
AND STUDY, COMMENDED TO THE
RESOURCE LIMITED PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANCE BOARD, THE QUESTION
OF WHO AMONG OUR VERY DIVERSE
COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE
PRIORITIZED IN THE PROVISION OF
CULTURALLY COMPETENT CARE
THROUGH OUR OUR PPAS, IT'S ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MEDICAL
ISSUES CONFRONTING THE STATE.
AND WE THINK THAT THE PAB
SHOULD, IN FACT, BE COMMENDED
WITH IDENTIFYING WAYS TO EASE
THE PATHWAY FOR CULTURALLY
COMPETENT CARE, BUT NOT
EXCLUSIVELY FOR ONE ETHNIC
GROUP, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE
ARE SUCH A DIVERSE STATE AND OUR
NEEDS FOR CULTURALLY COMPETENT
CARE ARE SO BROAD, EMBRACING ALL
OF OUR COMMUNITIES, THE SOURCE
OF OUR OPPOSITION IS SOLELY THE
FACT THAT THE PAB AGAIN,
LIMITED. I THINK IT HAS ABOUT
NINE FULL TIME EMPLOYEES, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, IS RESTRAINED ONLY
TO PROVIDE SUCH CULTURALLY
COMPETENT PATHWAYS FOR ONE
ETHNIC GROUP IN OUR BROADLY
DIVERSE STATE AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
THE BILL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY TODAY. ARE THERE
OTHERS IN THE ROOM IN OPPOSITION
OF SB 1041? IF SO, COME TO THE
MIC NOW. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
ONE, I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK
TO THE DAIS TO MY COLLEAGUES.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS? SENATOR
MARIA GIL PORTANTINO, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. I THINK IT REALLY
UNDERSCORES THE NEED TO RECRUIT
MORE CULTURALLY DIVERSE HEALTH
CARE PROFESSIONALS IN OUR FIELD.
I KNOW YOU'RE LOVING YOUR
PASSION FOR THE ARMENIAN
COMMUNITY, AND SO I CAN'T THINK
OF A BETTER PERSON TO BRING THIS
BILL FORWARD. I DO, HOWEVER,
HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BALANCE OF OPPOSITION WITH
SUPPORT, I NOTICED THERE WAS NOT
SUPPORT LETTERS THAT WERE
SUBMITTED FOR US TO REVIEW, BUT
CERTAINLY YOUR YOUR WITNESSES
ARE COMPELLING. CAN YOU HELP
JUST TO UNDERLINE ON WHY WHY
IT'S IMPORTANT TO CREATE
PATHWAYS SPECIFICALLY BEHIND
ARMENIAN STUDENTS AS OPPOSED TO
OTHER NATIONALITIES IN AN
ALREADY EXISTING INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES PROGRAM? THAT'S A GREAT
QUESTION. ORIGINALLY I WAS
THINKING OF THIS AS A PILOT
PROGRAM, BUT RECOGNIZING AND
WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF
THAT THERE WAS A FRAMEWORK THAT
ALREADY EXISTED, WE WERE TRYING
TO USE MAKE IT MORE
IMPLEMENTABLE. I MEAN, I DON'T
WANT TO DO THIS JUST TO TALK
ABOUT IT. I MEAN, WE REALLY, AT
THE END OF THE DAY, WANT TO HAVE
MORE PHYSICIANS ASSISTANTS. WE
WANT TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN
HEALTH CARE. AND SO THAT'S WHY
IT SORT OF CHANGED. I AGREE, BIG
PICTURE. WE SHOULD BE DOING
THIS, YOU KNOW, STATEWIDE AS,
AS, BROADLY AS WE CAN, BUT I
ALSO KNOW, GIVEN OUR BUDGET
SITUATION, GIVEN THE CHALLENGES
WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, IT'S PROBABLY
BETTER TO START OUT SMALL TO
SHOW THAT IT WORKS IN THIS
PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. AS THE
WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED, WE DO
HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF HIGHLY
EDUCATED, WELL-TRAINED
PHYSICIANS WHO COME TO THIS
COUNTRY, WHO CANNOT PRACTICE,
WHO HAVE EDUCATION, FAR SUPERIOR
OF WHAT SUPERIOR IS EQUAL OR
BETTER TO OR MORE LENGTHY THAN
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO FOR OTHER
PHYSICIAN RELATED PROFESSIONS.
AND SO TO ME, IT MAKES NO SENSE
WHEN WE HAVE SUCH A ACUTE NEED
TO NOT TRY TO FIND A WAY TO
BRING THOSE PROFESSIONALS INTO
HEALTH CARE, AND SO LET'S MAKE
THIS SUCCESSFUL, OBVIOUSLY, I'M
TERMING OUT THIS YEAR AND
HOPEFULLY SOMEBODY WILL, YOU
KNOW, ONCE THIS BECOMES LAW AND
SEES IT WORKS, BROADEN IT TO, TO
OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. I
MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE THE LARGEST
ARMENIAN POPULATION OUTSIDE OF,
THE SOVIET, FORMER SOVIET
COUNTRIES, WHICH IS HIGHLY
EDUCATED AND READY. BELIEVE ME,
I THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE
STOPPED ME, WHO HAVE A RELATIVE
OR THEY THEMSELVES AS KAREKIN
MENTIONED, ARE DRIVING UBER
INSTEAD OF HELPING PEOPLE, THE
NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS WHO HAVE
COME UP TO ME WHEN THEY'VE HEARD
ABOUT THIS AND SAID, WE
DESPERATELY NEED MORE BILINGUAL
PHYSICIANS ASSISTANTS IN IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. SO THE
NEEDS THERE, THE QUALITY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL IS THERE. WE JUST
HAVE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AND THEN
WE CAN BROADEN IT. SENATOR
ARCHULETA YES, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. AS YOU KNOW, MY
DISTRICT OF MONTEBELLO, WHERE
THE ARMENIAN MONUMENT IS AND THE
CHURCH AND THE COMMUNITY IS
QUITE LARGE. SO WE FACE THE SAME
, OBSTACLES AND CONCERNS THAT
MAYBE GLENDALE, PASADENA,
BURBANK AND SOME OF THE OTHER,
AREAS THAT YOU SERVE. AND I FIND
THE SAME THING. AND WORKING WHEN
I SAW THE BILL WORKING WITH THE
COMMUNITY, THEY FELT THAT IT WAS
A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN UP
THE DOORS TO SERVE EVERYONE. AND
IT MAY BE, WITH SOME OBSTACLES,
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT MAY
OPEN THE DOORS TO OTHERS TO
PARTICIPATE. AND I THINK IT'S A
GREAT OPPORTUNITY. AND IT SAYS A
LOT ABOUT AMERICA. IT SAYS A LOT
ABOUT US. SO I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL AND MOVE IT
WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE. THANK
YOU. WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM.
OBVIOUSLY BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO
PUT A CLOSE ON THE RECORD? I
WOULD THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND AGAIN, THANK YOU TO YOUR
STAFF AND MY STAFF AND FOR OUR
WITNESSES TO PUT SUCH A PERSONAL
POINT TO THIS, I I'M STAGGERED
BY THAT 32,000 PHYSICIAN
SHORTAGE STATISTIC, BECAUSE WHEN
I GOT ELECTED IN 2006, I
REMEMBER SOMEBODY TALKING ABOUT
NEED FOR 17,000 DOCTORS. SO HERE
WE ARE IN 2024, AND WE WENT FROM
NEEDING A PIPELINE TO CREATE
17,000 MORE PHYSICIANS TO
NEEDING 32,000. AND SO CLEARLY,
WE HAVE TO DO MORE TO BRING
PEOPLE INTO HEALTH CARE ACROSS
THE BOARD. AND THIS BILL WOULD
WOULD TAKE A STEP IN THAT
DIRECTION AND SUCCESSFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE WHEN
APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
PORTANTINO. WE'LL COME BACK TO
IT AS SOON AS WE HAVE A QUORUM.
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. CONTINUING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF OURSELVES,
SENATOR NEWMAN, THANKS FOR
HANGING OUT WITH US THIS MORNING
. IT'S LIKE GETTING IN OFF THE
WAITLIST TO A TAYLOR SWIFT
CONCERT. THIS IS AWESOME. PRETTY
COOL, PRETTY COOL.
GOOD MORNING. I'M READY. SIR
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB.
EXCUSE ME, 1449, WHICH WOULD
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, MORE GENERALLY
REFERRED TO AS WOSC. BEFORE I
BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL AND
CLEARLY ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS TO MORE NARROWLY
TAILOR THE EXEMPTION TO
SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL WHILE
MAINTAINING ITS ABILITY TO
EXECUTE CONTRACTS PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL LAW. IN 2010, THE US
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ISSUED
NEW RULES THAT REQUIRED
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
TO MAINTAIN A PROCESS FOR
RECEIVING AND PROCESSING
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS. IN 2015, SB
81 AUTHORIZED WOSC ACCREDITED
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO
CONTRACT WITH THE BUREAU FOR
PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATION. FOR THESE PURPOSES,
THAT AUTHORIZATION DID NOT,
HOWEVER, EXTEND THE SAME
PRIVILEGE TO NONPROFIT LAW
SCHOOLS ACCREDITED BY THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WHICH,
LIKE WOSC, 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
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
RECENTLY NOTIFIED SOUTHWESTERN
LAW SCHOOL AND ABA ACCREDITED
SCHOOL THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF
WOSC ACCREDITATION, IT WOULD
NEED TO BECOME BUREAU LICENSED
IN ORDER TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH FEDERAL LAW. THE BUREAU'S
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, WHILE
ADMIRABLE, ADMIRABLY INTENDED IN
THE SERVICE OF PROTECTING
STUDENTS INTERESTS, ARE IN MANY
CASES IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
THE MORE TAILORED AND NUANCED
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ABA. THESE
CONFLICTS CAN CREATE DUPLICATIVE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT
DRAIN SCHOOL RESOURCES AND IN A
WORST CASE SCENARIO, THESE
CONFLICTS COULD HAVE THE
UNINTENDED EFFECT OF
MISREPRESENTING THE SCHOOL'S
OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND CAUSING
HARM TO THE VERY SAME STUDENTS
IT INTENDS TO PROTECT. TAKE, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE BUREAU'S TREATMENT
OF SOUTHWESTERN'S VARIOUS LAW
DEGREE PATHWAYS, WHICH
DELIBERATELY ALLOWS STUDENTS TO
SWITCH BETWEEN FULL OR PART TIME
STUDY OR BETWEEN IN-PERSON OR
FULLY REMOTE ATTENDANCE WHILE
THESE ARE ALL DEEMED BY THE ABA
TO BE INTERCHANGEABLE, PATHWAYS
WITHIN A SINGLE JD PROGRAM, THE
BUREAU INSTEAD TREATS EACH AS
THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL DEGREE
PROGRAM. SO CONSEQUENTLY, IF A
SOUTHWESTERN LAW STUDENT
SWITCHES BETWEEN FULL OR PART
TIME, THEY ARE CONSIDERED AS
HAVING DROPPED OUT OF THE FULL
TIME PROGRAM AND THEN ENROLLED
AS A NEW STUDENT IN THE PART
TIME PROGRAM. THIS IS A
SEEMINGLY SEEMINGLY INNOCUOUS
CHANGE, BUT IT ACTUALLY HAS THE
PROBLEMATIC EFFECT OF
INACCURATELY SKEWING
SOUTHWESTERN'S GRADUATION RATES
DOWNWARD, AND THAT FALSE METRIC,
ABSENT CONTEXT, CAN DETER
PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AS WELL AS
ADVERSELY AFFECT THE REPUTATIONS
OF CURRENT AND GRADUATED
SOUTHWESTERN LAW 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
A STUDENT'S DROPPED COURSES,
SOMETHING THAT OTHER LAW SCHOOLS
DO NOT REQUIRE, WHICH CAN
THEREFORE HAVE A PUNITIVE
EFFECT. AS A SOUTHWESTERN
GRADUATE PURSUES POST-GRADUATE
EMPLOYMENT, PUTTING THAT
GRADUATE AT A COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE TO A GRADUATE OF
SOME OTHER ABA LAW SCHOOL FOR
WHOM NO SUCH INFORMATION WOULD
BE AVAILABLE. ON THEIR
TRANSCRIPT. SOUTHWESTERN LAW
SCHOOL HAS A WELL-EARNED
REPUTATION, HAVING PROVIDED
CALIFORNIANS FROM ALL WALKS OF
LIFE WITH AFFORDABLE AND HIGH
QUALITY LEGAL INSTRUCTION. ITS
ROSTER OF DISTINGUISHED ALUMNI
INCLUDE NUMEROUS MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE, STATEWIDE
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, JUSTICE
OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND EVEN
CALIFORNIA'S FIRST AFRICAN
AMERICAN AND LATINA JUDGES. SB
1449 WOULD PROVIDE SOUTHWESTERN
LAW SCHOOL WITH A TEMPORARY
EXEMPTION AS IT COMPLETES THE
PROCESS OF WOSC ACCREDITATION
OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. WITH ME
TO TESTIFY TODAY IS DARBY
DICKERSON, PRESIDENT AND DEAN OF
THE SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL. I
AM RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE THIS MORNING. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. AND GOOD
MORNING. SOUTHWESTERN WAS
FOUNDED IN 1911, IN LOS ANGELES.
WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT NONPROFIT
SCHOOL THAT FOR 113 YEARS HAS
PROVIDED ACCESS TO LEGAL
EDUCATION TO THOSE HISTORICALLY
EXCLUDED FROM OR
UNDERREPRESENTED IN LAW SCHOOLS,
INCLUDING WOMEN, PERSONS OF
COLOR, WORKING PROFESSIONALS AND
CAREGIVERS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE
ABOUT 950 STUDENTS, THE MAJORITY
OF THOSE ARE WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF
COLOR. IN ADDITION TO OUR JD
PROGRAM, WHICH WE OFFER IN TWO,
THREE AND FOUR YEAR PROGRAMS,
PART TIME AND FULL TIME, ONLINE
AND RESIDENTIAL, WE OFFER THREE
PLUS THREE PROGRAM WITH CAL
STATE NORTHRIDGE AND A JD MBA
DUAL DEGREE PROGRAM WITH THE
DRUCKER SCHOOL AT CLAREMONT
GRADUATE UNIVERSITY. WE HAVE
BEEN ACCREDITED BY THE AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION'S COUNCIL FOR
THE SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION
AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR SINCE
1970. IN ADDITION TO THAT
ORGANIZATION ACCREDITING THE
FIRST DEGREE IN LAW, THE JD, IT
IS ALSO THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION RECOGNIZED ACCREDITOR
FOR FREE STANDING LAW SCHOOLS
LIKE OURSELVES FOR PURPOSES OF
TITLE FOUR AND FSA, THE ABA
STANDARDS. AS SENATOR NEWMAN
POINTED OUT, ARE RIGOROUS AND
COVER A VARIETY OF ISSUES
RANGING FROM ADMINISTRATION AND
FINANCE TO CONSUMER PROTECTION.
I URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF SB 1449,
WHICH WOULD RETURN SOUTHWESTERN
TO THE STATUS QUO THAT EXISTED
BETWEEN 2015 AND A FEW MONTHS
AGO. IT WOULD ALLOW US TO
CONTINUE CONTRACTING WITH BPP TO
REVIEW AND ACT ON COMPLAINT
COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE
INSTITUTION. THÀNH, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 600.9 OF
TITLE 34 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS. IN JUNE 2015, THE
BPP REACHED OUT TO SOUTHWESTERN
VIA EMAIL AND INDICATED THAT WE
WERE ELIGIBLE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT WITH THE BPP TO REVIEW
AND ACT ON COMPLAINTS. WE
PROMPTLY ENTERED INTO THAT THREE
YEAR INITIAL AGREEMENT AND HAVE
EXECUTED ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR
CONTRACTS IN 2018 AND 2021. IN
MID 2023, WHEN WE CONTACTED BPP
ABOUT ANOTHER PROGRAM, WE WERE
CONSIDERING OFFERING, WE WERE
THEN INFORMED THAT THE BPP HAD
MADE A MISTAKE. SOUTHWESTERN WAS
NOT ELIGIBLE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT. INSTEAD, WE EITHER HAD
TO PURSUE ACCREDITATION OR BPP
LICENSURE. BY THAT, I JUST NEED
YOU TO GIVE US YOUR FINAL WRAP
UP. THERE. CERTAINLY WE URGE YOU
TO REQUEST TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION. IT WOULD RETURN US
TO THIS, THE STATUS QUO FOR OUR
STUDENTS. IT WOULD ALLOW US A
BRIDGE BECAUSE WE ARE SEEKING
WOSC ACCREDITATION. WE HAVE
STARTED THAT PROCESS AND IT
WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DO THAT WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY IN MID 2023, WHEN
THE BPP TOLD US ABOUT THE
MISTAKE, GREAT. I ASSUME
TECHNICAL SUPPORT. DO YOU WANT
TO TESTIFY? I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT. ALL
RIGHT. VERY GOOD. ARE THERE
OTHERS IN THE ROOM WISHING TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB 1449?
NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME
FORWARD. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION OF SB 1449? PLEASE
COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NO ONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE DAIS. COLLEAGUES, COMMENTS,
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS. OKAY.
SEEING NONE. OBVIOUSLY WE CANNOT
TAKE A VOTE JUST YET, SENATOR
NEWMAN, BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO
PUT A CLOSE ON THE RECORD? NO, I
APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE HERE.
YOU'RE GETTING MY WITNESS HOME
IN TIME TO DO SOME OTHER WORK.
SO GRATEFUL FOR THAT. BUT YOU
KNOW, THE AMENDMENTS ARE VERY
SPECIFIC AND TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
THIS, THIS, THIS VERY SPECIFIC
SITUATION THAT RELATES TO THE
TIMELINE AND REQUIREMENTS AND
THEN THE OMISSION, AS MENTIONED
BY THE DEAN, RESPECTFULLY ASKING
FOR YOUR VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR COMING
UP TO TESTIFY. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE
LOOKING FOR AUTHORS. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL TAKE JUST A SECOND. AND IF
WE DON'T HAVE AN AUTHOR COME
THROUGH THE DOOR, WE HAVE A
COUPLE OF COMMITTEE BILLS I
COULD PRESENT. WE'LL HOLD FOR
JUST A MOMENT
.
AT THIS TIME, MADAM CHAIR, YOU
HAVE TWO BILLS TO PRESENT, LET'S
GO WITH SB 1452, ITEM NUMBER
TEN, PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
. THESE ARE COMMITTEE BILLS, SB
1454 IS THE BUREAU OF SECURITY
AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES
SUNSET EXTENSION BILL. SB 1454
ADDRESSES ISSUES DISCUSSED
DURING THE PROGRAM SUNSET REVIEW
HEARING IN THEIR SUNSET REVIEW
REPORTS AND IN THE COMMITTEE
SUNSET REVIEW BACKGROUND PAPERS.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL WOULD
EXTEND THE BUREAU'S
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OVER
THE SIX PRACTICE ACTS UNDER ITS
PURVIEW BY FOUR YEARS TO JANUARY
1ST, 2029. THIS BILL WOULD ALSO
EXTEND ALL PROVISIONS GRANTING
THE BUREAU AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A
LICENSE TO AN ALARM COMPANY OR
PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR BY FIVE
YEARS TO JANUARY 1ST, 2030. THIS
BILL WOULD PROVIDE A PATHWAY TO
LICENSURE FOR CALIFORNIA'S
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES. ALL
RIGHT. AND LASTLY, THIS BILL
WOULD EXEMPT EMPLOYEES OF
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES FROM
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER
THE PROPRIETARY SECURITY
SERVICES ACT. I BELIEVE I DO
HAVE A COUPLE OF WITNESSES HERE
WHO HAVE MADE THEIR WAY UP.
MADAM VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU, THE
WITNESSES GO FORWARD. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, CHARLES WRIGHT, ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN MANUEL BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS, SB 1454 WOULD
CLARIFY CALIFORNIA TRIBES
ABILITY TO OBTAIN PRIVATE
SECURITY RELATED REGISTRATIONS
AND LICENSES FOR OFF RESERVATION
ACTIVITIES, THE SAME AS FOR
OTHER NON-TRIBAL ENTITIES. THE
BUREAU OF SECURITY INVESTIGATIVE
SERVICES REGULATES SECURITY
PERSONNEL THROUGH THE
PROPRIETARY SECURITY 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
FIREARM 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 EXEMPTION FOR
GOVERNMENTAL 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 IS NOT
ENOUGH ROOM ON THE RESERVATION
AND TRUST LANDS AT THE SAME TIME
, THEY CANNOT OBTAIN THE
APPROPRIATE SECURITY LICENSING
FROM THE STATE BECAUSE THERE'S
LITERALLY NO BOX FOR THEM TO
CHECK ON RELEVANT APPLICATIONS.
TRIBES ARE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS
AND HAVE RIGHTS TO
SELF-GOVERNANCE THAT CURRENT
APPLICANT CATEGORIES DO NOT HAVE
. THE CURRENT APPLICANT
CATEGORIES DO NOT CAPTURE THE
GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTAL NATURE
OF TRIBES OR THEIR RIGHTS 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 TO MODERNIZE THE
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE,
AND WE ENCOURAGE THE LEGISLATURE
TO CONTINUE TO REMOVE LICENSURE
BARRIERS TO CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA'S 109 FEDERALLY
RECOGNIZED TRIBES. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. TRENT SMITH,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ALARM ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL, ALARM COMPANIES HAVE
HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ORGANIZE AS
LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS
SINCE 2012. THE FIRST YEAR WE
PASSED LEGISLATION TO GIVE THEM
THIS AUTHORITY. AT THAT TIME,
THE LEGISLATURE ALSO IMPOSED $1
MILLION INSURANCE POLICY TO HELP
PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST ANY
CLAIMS BROUGHT FORTH AGAINST AN
ALARM COMPANY. THIS IS THE
FOURTH EXTENSION AND WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT IT. WE WOULD REQUEST
THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONTINUE TO
CONSIDER REMOVING THE SUNSET ALL
TOGETHER, LARGELY BECAUSE IN THE
LAST 12 YEARS WE'RE UNAWARE OF
ANY LAWSUITS OR ACTIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH AGAINST
AN ALARM COMPANY THAT
JEOPARDIZED THAT MILLION DOLLAR
INSURANCE POLICY. IN ADDITION,
OUR REGULATOR, THE BUREAU OF
SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE
SERVICES, IN THEIR SUNSET
REPORT, RECOMMENDED REMOVING THE
SUNSET. THEY SEE NO, JEOPARDY TO
CONSUMERS WITH THE REMOVAL OF
THAT. SO AGAIN, WE SUPPORT THE
BILL AND PRINT, BUT LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND
THE LEGISLATURE AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD TO POSSIBLY REMOVE
THE SUNSET ALTOGETHER. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK THANK YOU, I
ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY SAID, LET'S
START WITH SB 1452, BUT WE ARE
ON SB 1454. I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW
THAT OUT ON OUR END, AT THIS
TIME, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES,
ME TO IN SUPPORT, PLEASE COME
FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR
TITLE. THANK. SEEING NONE DO WE
HAVE ANY OPPOSITION? LEAD
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. OKAY.
SEEING NONE. ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO
WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND OPPOSE
THE BILL? SEEING NONE THIS TIME.
I WILL BRING IT TO MY COLLEAGUES
. ANY QUESTIONS, SENATOR
ARCHULETA? YEAH. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, MY, MY QUESTION IS TO
YOUR PRESENTER. YOU MENTIONED
THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO LAWSUITS.
THERE'S BEEN NO INFRACTIONS, AND
CERTAINLY NOTHING THAT WOULD
OFFSET THAT MILLION DOLLAR
POLICY, WITH THE PRICE OF SOME
OF THE THINGS GOING UP AND UP,
IS THAT MILLION DOLLARS ENOUGH?
HAVE YOU EXPLORED THAT OR ARE
YOU OKAY WITH THAT? WHAT ARE
YOUR THOUGHTS TODAY? THANK YOU,
WE'RE FINE WITH THE MILLION
DOLLAR POLICY AGAIN, OVER THE
PAST 12 YEARS, WE'RE NOT AWARE
OF ANY LAWSUIT THAT'S EVEN COME
CLOSE TO THE MILLION DOLLARS, TO
BE HONEST WITH YOU, ALARM
COMPANIES ARE NOT SUED THAT
OFTEN, AND CERTAINLY NOT IN
JUDGMENTS, THAT WE'VE KNOW OF
THAT THAT APPROACH THE MILLION
DOLLARS, AGAIN I THINK WE'RE
FINE WITH THE MILLION DOLLARS,
BUT IF, OUR REGULATOR OR SOMEONE
WERE TO COME FORWARD AND SUGGEST
A LARGER AMOUNT TO, AS YOU
SUGGEST, BECAUSE OF INFLATION, I
THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD
CONSIDER GOOD. MADAM CHAIR,
ANOTHER QUESTION. SURE, VETTING
OF EMPLOYEES AND PAST STAFF AND
SO ON, WE JUST HAD A TREMENDOUS,
TREMENDOUS LOSS IN LOS ANGELES
CITY, QUITE A BIT OF MONEY WAS
STOLEN AND TAKEN, AND OF COURSE,
SECURITY WAS THE ISSUE. PAST
EMPLOYEES, CURRENTLY, THE FBI
AND EVERYBODY IS LOOKING IN TO,
WHAT WAS THE VETTING PROCESS OF
THOSE ENTIRE STAFF? COULD YOU
GIVE ME SOME BACKGROUND ON, IN
SOME OF THE VETTING PROCESS THAT
YOU HAVE IN THE INDUSTRY? YEAH,
SURE, I BELIEVE IN THAT
PARTICULAR WELL, I DON'T KNOW
ALL OF THE DETAILS. I'M FAMILIAR
WITH THE CASE A LITTLE BIT, BUT
WHEN IT COMES INTO QUESTIONING,
SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES, THE
BUREAU REGULATES AND LICENSE
BOTH ALARM COMPANIES, OUR
CLIENTS, AND THEN PRIVATE
SECURITY, WHICH IS NOT OUR
CLIENT. BUT IN EITHER CASE, THEY
DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH BACKGROUND
CHECKS THAT THE BUREAU, OVERSEES
FBI BACKGROUND CHECKS AS WELL.
FINGERPRINTING, LIVE SCAN AND
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT
REVIEW BEFORE THEY ARE ISSUED A
LICENSE. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO
KEEP THAT LICENSE AND, GOOD
STANDING. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY
CAN'T HAVE VIOLATIONS AND THINGS
OF THAT NATURE. SO I THINK THE
BUREAU DOES A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF
OVERSEEING, AND DOING BACKGROUND
ON ALL THESE INDIVIDUALS. I
CAN'T SAY FOR SURE. IN THE CASE
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER
THEY WERE ANY OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS OR NOT. YEAH. THANK
YOU. AND, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL MOVE
THE BILL WHEN IT WHEN
APPROPRIATE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS
QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE. MADAM
CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE.
JUST URGE AND I VOTE AND THANK
YOU TO THE WITNESSES FOR BEING
HERE. THANK YOU. WE'LL HOLD A,
CALL UNTIL WE HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU. AND AT THIS TIME, WE
WILL BE HEARING, SB 1452. YES,
WE ARE, BUT I AM GOING TO ASK
SENATOR ROTH TO PRESENT THIS
BILL AS APPROPRIATIONS IS
HOLDING THE ROLE FOR ME, AND
THEN I WILL BE RIGHT BACK. YEAH
SENATOR ROTH, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. THIS IS THE ARCHITECTURE
AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FOR
SUNSET EXTENSION BILL. THE BILL
ADDRESSES ISSUES DISCUSSED
DURING THE PROGRAM. SUNSET
REVIEW HEARING IN THE SUNSET
REVIEW REPORTS, AND IN THE
COMMITTEE'S SUNSET REVIEW.
BACKGROUND PAPERS. SPECIFICALLY,
THE BILL EXTENDS THE CALIFORNIA
ARCHITECTS BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE
AUTHORITY OVER THE PRACTICE ACT
REGULATING ARCHITECTS AND THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE, A COMMITTEE WITHIN
THE CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS BOARD.
TO JANUARY 1ST, 2029, THE BILL
REQUIRES 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 APPLICATION. THE
BILL ALSO REQUIRES AN EXISTING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, LICENSEE
WHO HAS A VALID EMAIL ADDRESS TO
REPORT TO THE BOARD THEIR EMAIL
ADDRESS AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL.
THE BILL ALSO PROHIBITS
APPLICANT AND LICENSEE EMAIL
ADDRESSES FROM DISCLOSURE. I
WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUBMIT
AMENDMENTS CONTAINED IN THE
ANALYSIS FOR CONSIDERATION.
THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD APPLY
EMAIL ADDRESS REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS TO APPLICANTS AND
LICENSEES OF THE CALIFORNIA
ARCHITECTS BOARD, ADDING THIS
AUTHORITY TO BOTH PRACTICE ACTS
WILL STANDARDIZE REQUIREMENTS
FOR ALL APPLICANTS AND LICENSEES
OF THE BOARD. REVISE EMAIL
SUBMISSION SECTIONS TO REQUIRE
AN UPDATE WITHIN 30 DAYS. MAKE
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS REGARDING
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TO MIRROR
SENATE BILL 630, WHICH GRANTED
ANOTHER PROGRAM WITHIN DCA
AUTHORIZATION TO REQUIRE EMAIL
ADDRESSES FROM ITS APPLICANTS
AND LICENSEES. AND FINALLY, THE
BILL REVISES REQUIREMENTS THAT
MUST BE MET BY A LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT WHOSE LICENSE HAS
LAPSED FOR FIVE YEARS AND MUST
APPLY FOR A NEW LICENSE.
AMENDMENTS WILL REPLACE AN
INCLUSIVE LIST WITH A STATEMENT
THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS OF A NEW
APPLICATION MUST BE MET BY SUCH
INDIVIDUAL. WE HAVE A SUPPORT
WITNESS HERE, LAURA ZUNIGA,
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS BOARD FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. BEFORE YOU
START, I'M ASSUMING YOU WILL. I
THINK THERE'S AMENDMENTS TO THIS
BILL AND YOU WOULD BE ACCEPTING
THE OR. MADAM CHAIR WOULD BE
ACCEPTING THOSE AMENDMENTS. OF
COURSE. OKAY. THANK YOU. GO
AHEAD PLEASE. GOOD MORNING.
LAURA ZUNIGA, EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FOR THE CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS
BOARD HERE IN SUPPORT. I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR,
PRESENTER AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
BILL. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THAT WAS
SHORT AND SIMPLE, AT THIS TIME,
IS THERE ANY WITNESS REYES IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
POSITION, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. THANK YOU, MADAM VICE
CHAIR JASON EICHER WITH
EDELSTEIN, GILBERT ROBERTSON
SMITH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS, AND VERY BRIEFLY,
SINCE THERE WAS ONLY ONE
WITNESS, JUST WANT TO EXPRESS
THEIR STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE
CONTINUED OPERATIONS OF BOTH CAB
AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY
REGULATED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR 71 YEARS, HAVING
A SEPARATE PROFESSIONALLY
COMPETENT BOARD OR TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE REGULATE THEM IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND OUR
CLIENT IS ON THE FRONT LINE OF
URBAN GREENING, REDUCING EXTREME
HEAT, PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM
EROSION AND FLOODING, PROTECTING
FROM EXPOSURE TO TOXIC FLORA.
AND SO FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS,
WE THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT AND PROTECTIVE OF
PUBLIC HEALTH TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF
CAB AND LATC. SO HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. HI, MY NAME IS ELLEN
BRITTINGHAM. I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE EXCUSE ME, INTERNATIONAL
INTERIOR DESIGN ASSOCIATION.
THÀNH JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO
STAKEHOLDER CONVERSATIONS.
EXCUSE ME, WITH CAB. AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO HAVING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AS, REFLECTED IN
THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO MORE SUPPORT, IS THERE
ANY LEAD LEAD WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION
WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP?
SEEING NONE. COLLEAGUES COMING
BACK TO YOU. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
AND THEN WE WILL LEAVE THIS CALL
OPEN UNTIL WE HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
INDULGENCE. AND THANK YOU,
SENATOR ROTH. GIVE US JUST A
MINUTE HERE. AND, SENATOR BECKER
WAS IN MY WAKE. HE SHOULD BE
HERE IN JUST A COUPLE OF
MOMENTS, AND THEN WE CAN GET A
QUORUM ESTABLISHED AND ALSO HEAR
HIS BILL
.
GREAT WOULD LOVE TO TAKE A ROLE
HERE. AND SEE IF WE CAN
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. ASHBY HERE.
ASHBY HERE. WHEN NGUYEN HERE.
ALVARADO. GIL ALVARADO. GIL.
HERE. ARCHULETA, HERE.
ARCHULETA. HERE. BECKER. BECKER.
HERE. DODD EGGMAN. LASER.
MENGIBAR. NILO ROTH. ROTH. HERE.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD
CUEVAS. HERE. WILK. GREAT. WE DO
HAVE A QUORUM. SENATOR BRADFORD,
ARE YOU READY TO PRESENT OR DO
YOU NEED. JUST A MOMENT? OKAY,
THEN I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO HERE
IS ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE
FOUR BILLS THAT WE HAVE HEARD,
AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO
SENATORS BRADFORD AND BECKER AND
CHAIR. YOU WANT ALSO. WELL,
LET'S START WITH SB 1041.
SENATOR PORTANTINO. THAT'S A
MOTION FROM SENATOR ARCHULETA.
TO GO READY? YEP. THAT MOTION IS
DUE PASSED THE SENATE HEALTH
COMMITTEE. ASHBY. AYE. ASHBY
AYE. WHEN? WHEN? AYE. ALVARADO.
GIL ARCHULETA. AYE. ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER AYE. BECKER. AYE.
DODD. EGGMAN LASER. MENGIBAR.
NILO. ROTH AYE. ROTH. AYE.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. AYE WILK SIX. OKAY, THAT
IS SIX TO NOTHING FOR NOW. WE'LL
PUT THAT ON CALL AND MOVE TO THE
NEXT. WHICH WOULD BE FILE ITEM
SIX, SB 1449 BY NEWMAN, WHICH IS
Dð PASS TO EDUCATION. SO MOVED
BY SENATOR ROTH. ASHBY. AYE.
ASHBY. AYE. NGUYEN AYE. WHEN?
AYE. ALVARADO. GIL ALVARADO.
GIL. AYE. ARCHULETA. AYE.
ARCHULETA. AYE. BECKER A BECKER.
AYE. DODD. EGGMAN LASER.
MENGIBAR. NILO. ROTH ROTH. AYE.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. AYE. WILK SEVEN. OKAY.
SEVEN TO NOTHING. WE WILL PUT
THAT ONE ON CALL AS WELL AND
MOVE ON TO FILE ITEM TEN, THIS
TIME IN THE RIGHT ORDER SB 1452
NEED A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION
ON THIS ONE. MOVE IT. SO MOVED
BY SENATOR ARCHULETA OKAY.
MOTION DOES DO PASS THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ASHBY AYE.
ASHBY. AYE. WHEN I WHEN I
ALVARADO. GIL. ALVARADO. GIL.
AYE. ARCHULETA AYE. ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER. BECKER. AYE. DODD
EGGMAN. GLASER. MENGIBAR. NILO
ROTH. ROTH. AYE. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS SMALL WITH CUEVAS. AYE.
WILK OKAY. SEVEN. AGAIN. CORRECT
THAT. OKAY. GREAT. THAT IS DUE.
PASS TO JUDICI. WE'LL PUT IT ON.
CALL ONE MORE HERE. FILE ITEM
11, SB 1454 FOR ANOTHER
COMMITTEE BILL. MOTION IS THERE.
SO MOVED BY SENATOR ROTH. MOTION
IS DUE. PASS THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ASHBY. AYE
ASHBY. AYE. WHEN I WHEN I
ALVARADO. GIL. ALVARADO. GIL.
AYE. ARCHULETA. AYE. ARCHULETA
AYE. BECKER. BECKER. AYE. DODD.
EGGMAN GLASER. GLASER. AYE.
MENGIBAR LILO. ROTH. ROTH. AYE.
SMALLWOOD CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. AYE. WILK EIGHT TO
NOTHING. WE'LL PUT THAT ONE ON.
CALL AS WELL. AND THEN, SENATOR
BECKER, ARE YOU YOU READY? ALL
RIGHT, WE'LL TAKE YOU. I THINK,
SENATOR BRADFORD IS GETTING HIS
WITNESSES IN ORDER. SO WE WILL
SKIP AHEAD TO FILE ITEM SEVEN,
SB 1206 BY SENATOR BECKER
.
I THANK YOU, CHAIR ASHBY AND
MEMBERS, I'M PROUD TO PRESENT SB
1206. THIS BILL WILL AUTHORIZE
THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
GO-BIZ. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME?
OKAY, OKAY, OKAY, TO CREATE A
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR
NEXT GENERATION SOLID STATE
BATTERY TECHNOLOGY AND
MANUFACTURING HUB IN THE BAY
AREA AND SACRAMENTO VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA IS ON THE FOREFRONT
OF GLOBAL COMPETITION WITH, WITH
CHINA AND OTHER GLOBAL POWERS TO
CREATE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE
AND, EFFICIENT BATTERIES TO
ELECTRIFY THE GRID AND
TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL
FUELS IN, IN VEHICLES AND OTHER
PLACES, THE RAPID GROWTH OF
DEMAND FOR BATTERY CREATES AN
IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY FOR
CALIFORNIA, AND WE'RE HOME TO
ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING
LITHIUM DEPOSIT ASSETS, AS WE'VE
DISCUSSED A LOT AS A BODY, WITH
OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THE
DEVELOPMENT OF NEXT GENERATION
BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, CALIFORNIA
HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THE
POTENTIAL OF A PUBLIC PRIVATE
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH ARCHES,
LED BY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES
HERE THAT'S RECEIVED NOW,
FEDERAL AND PRIVATE FUNDING,
WHICH IS A STATEWIDE HYDROGEN
HUB HOSTED BY GO-BIZ, SIMILAR TO
HOW WE WERE LEADING WITH THE
ARCHES PROGRAM FOR HYDROGEN.
CALIFORNIA NEEDS A HOLISTIC
STRATEGY FOR BATTERIES THAT
LEVERAGES ITS TECHNOLOGY
LEADERSHIP. LITHIUM RESERVES,
SKILLED WORKFORCE, AND ROLE AS A
MARKET MAKER IN TRANSPORTATION,
UTILITY AND INDUSTRIAL
ELECTRIFICATION. THIS BILL WILL
PRIORITIZE CALIFORNIA'S ROLE IN
CREATING THIS AND DEVELOP THIS
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR
THE BAY AREA AND SACRAMENTO
VALLEY, THEY'LL BRING HIGH
QUALITY FAMILY SUPPORTING JOBS
TO OUR STATE. BY DOING SO, WE
WILL POSITION CALIFORNIA TO BE
COMPETITIVE IN FUTURE FEDERAL
BATTERY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND MANUFACTURING GRANT
APPLICATIONS. AND WITH ME,
MICHAEL MONAGAN FROM THE STATE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL WILL BE MY WITNESS HERE
TODAY. WELCOME MADAM CHAIR,
THANK YOU, SENATOR BECKER
HANDLED THE POLICY ISSUES. I
THINK PRETTY CLEARLY. I JUST
WANT TO TOUCH BASE WITH THE
LABOR ISSUES IN THE BILL, I
REPRESENT THE STATE BUILDING
TRADES OF 500,000 MEN AND WOMEN
IN CONSTRUCTION. AND WE ARE THE
SPONSORS OF THE BILL, THE
ANALYSIS ACCURATE? EXCUSE ME?
THE ANALYSIS AND THE BILL
ACCURATELY DEPICTS THE ADDED
VALUE THAT COMES FROM A PROJECT
LABOR AGREEMENT, A BIG PIECE OF
THAT, WHICH I DON'T THINK GETS
GLOSSED OVER ONCE IN A WHILE. IS
THAT IT CREATES LABOR PEACE. SO
IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT AND YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO HAVE ANY STOPPAGE AT ALL ON
THAT PROJECT, THE OTHER THING
THAT IS OF INTEREST IS THAT THE
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE AT SECTION
2500 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT A
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT CANNOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NONUNION
CONTRACTORS. IT'S A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD. PLENTY OF HISTORY
OF NONUNION CONTRACTORS
PARTICIPATING IN PLA ON THE
STATE LEVEL, WHICH I VOTE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO
HEAR FROM OTHERS IN SUPPORT IN
THE ROOM WITH ME TO TESTIMONY.
COME ON. FORWARD NAME
ORGANIZATION POSITION ON THE
BILL. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
KEITH DUNN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
SELF-HELP COUNTIES COALITION,
JUST REALLY QUICKLY WOULD SAY
THAT AS CALIFORNIA MOVES TOWARDS
AN EV VEHICLE POLICY, IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE BATTERIES
MADE HERE IN CALIFORNIA. SO WE
HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS
AROUND THAT, CONSTRUCTION OF THE
BATTERY ITSELF, THE DISPOSAL OF
IT, AND ALSO HOW THEY'RE BUILT.
SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD URGE YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI
THERE. MEGAN MEKELBURG HERE ON
BEHALF OF CAL STAR IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MOZART AND BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
AND SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE. ARE THERE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1206 IN THE ROOM? IF SO, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. GO AHEAD. WE'LL
GIVE YOU A COUPLE MINUTES. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING SENATORS
RICHARD MARKUSON FOR THE WESTERN
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION. DESPITE THE
ASSERTION OF THE WITNESS PLAN,
ARE NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
IN FACT, PLAS IN CALIFORNIA
SPECIFICALLY DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST NONUNION APPRENTICES. AS
AS YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ALL GOING
TO BE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT
EVERY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT
EMPLOY APPRENTICES APPROXIMATELY
IN THE RATIO OF ONE APPRENTICE
HOUR FOR EVERY FIVE HOURS OF
JOURNEY WORKER. HOWEVER, PLAS
PROHIBIT NONUNION APPRENTICES
FROM BEING EMPLOYED ON THESE
TAXPAYER SUPPORTED PROJECTS. WE
WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE TO
REJECT THE MEASURE UNLESS IT
INCLUDES SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT
AUTHORIZES ANY STATE APPROVED
APPRENTICES TO BE EMPLOYED ON
THESE PROJECTS. WE TRULY WANT
THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD PLAS.
DON'T GIVE IT TO US. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. THANKS FOR BEING
HERE. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? PLEASE
FEEL FREE TO COME FORWARD. ME
TWO TESTIMONY HERE. SEEING NO
ONE, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE
DAIS. COLLEAGUES COMMENTS.
SENATOR GLAZIER AND SMALL. THANK
YOU, SENATOR BECKER, I APPLAUD
YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS SPACE. I
MEAN, THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE
DOING IS, GETTING THE STATE TO
BE COMPETITIVE IN THIS IMPORTANT
AREA. BATTERIES. BUT I, I SHARE
THE CONCERNS OF THE WITNESS. A
MOMENT AGO THAT HERE'S SOMETHING
WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT'S A
POSITIVE. BUT YOUR BILL CREATES
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON
THE MARKETPLACE. AND I JUST
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'D WANT
TO DO THAT. IF THIS IS ALL A
GOOD THING TO DO, THEN WHY ARE
WE GOING TO CREATE THESE
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SO
THAT'S WHAT BAFFLES ME ABOUT THE
BILL SPONSOR. WAIT TILL CLOSER
UP TO YOU. YEAH WELL, LET'S HEAR
MORE OF THE DISCUSSION. BUT, YOU
KNOW, WE BELIEVE THIS IS VERY
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION, THE BIDEN-HARRIS
ADMINISTRATION, HAS PUT FORWARD
WITH THE IRA. IT'S BEEN
REVOLUTIONARY, NOT JUST IN THE
AMOUNT OF DOLLARS FOR CLEAN
ENERGY AND FOR TO SUPPORT
MANUFACTURING AND BRING
MANUFACTURING BACK TO THE US AS
A WHOLE. BUT IT HAS VERY
SPECIFIC LABOR STANDARDS IN
THERE. SO WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT
HAVING THESE LABOR STANDARDS
WILL ACTUALLY POSITION US WELL
FOR THESE IRA DOLLARS. DO YOU DO
YOU THINK THAT WE WOULD BE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE WE
DIDN'T HAVE THAT? I THINK IT'S A
I THINK IT'S AN ADVANTAGE. I
GUESS, IS WHAT I'M SAYING. AND
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO IN GENERAL WITH,
WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN I TALK TO
THE ADMINISTRATION AND SO I
THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
GOOD JOBS, BUT ALSO I THINK IT'S
A, I THINK IT'S IN IN LINE WITH
THE GOALS. IF I COULD. SO, YOU
KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH ANY ENTITY DECIDING TO GO
INTO A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT,
IF THAT'S THE CHOICE THEY WANT
TO MAKE. BUT YOUR BILL REQUIRES
IT. WE JUST HAD THIS YEAR LONG,
TWO YEAR LONG DEBATE ABOUT
SKILLED AND TRAINED AND THE
WHOLE HOUSING SPACE. WE HAVE A
HOUSING CRISIS. WE KNOW WE NEED
TO DEAL WITH IT. AND FOR SOME IT
WAS STAY LOCKED DOWN, INTO NOT
CHANGING ANYTHING AND EXPECTING
A DIFFERENT RESULT. SO WE'VE HAD
THIS BIG DEBATE ABOUT SKILLED
AND TRAINED AND FINALLY THERE
WAS SOME CONSENSUS IN THE
LEGISLATURE THAT WHILE THAT'S A
PREFERABLE CIRCUMSTANCE, IT'S
NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD NOW
REQUIRE BECAUSE IT CREATES
LIMITATIONS ON ACHIEVING THE
GOALS THAT WE HAVE. AND THAT, OF
COURSE, IS HERE IN YOUR BILL
ALSO THAT IT'S A REQUIREMENT,
NOT THAT I'M OPPOSED TO THAT,
BUT THAT WHY IF WE'RE TRYING TO
ENCOURAGE THIS, WHY DO WE WANT
TO SAY PUT ROADBLOCKS UP NOW YOU
MAY IT MAY, AS YOU MAY SUGGEST,
SOMEHOW IF THERE'S THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO PUT
THAT AS A REQUIREMENT, OR, I
MEAN, I GUESS IT'S POSSIBLE THAT
COULD ALWAYS COME INTO PLAY. BUT
WE DON'T EVEN YOU'RE SPECULATING
, RIGHT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S
GOING TO BE AN ADVANTAGE. BUT
FOR ME AT LEAST, IT SEEMS LIKE
IT'S ONE STEP FORWARD AND
ANOTHER STEP BACK. AND THAT'S
THAT'S MY, MY CONCERN ABOUT THE
BILL WITH ALL THE BEST
INTENTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. SURE I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND, AND, I
MEAN, I THINK I BELIEVE I GUESS
I WOULD SAY YOU'RE ALL
SPECULATING THAT IT'S A
ROADBLOCK. I MEAN, AGAIN, WE
BELIEVE AND THIS IS A NEW ENTITY
THAT, WE'RE CREATING, WE BELIEVE
IT'S STRENGTHENED BY HAVING THAT
LABOR PARTNERSHIP. I THINK IT
DEMONSTRATES A STRONG, THAT
REALLY BROAD, STRONG PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS SO THAT
WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE MY
RESPONSE. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO
SOMETHING, AGAIN, THAT WE, WE
WANT TO SHOW WE WANT TO, AND
IMAGINE THIS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY
MY COLLEAGUE. SO I'LL LET YOU
YOUR POINT, BUT IT'S BEEN A BIG
PRIORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE, I'D
SAY, OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A
HALF THAT AS WE MOVE TO THIS NEW
GREEN ECONOMY THAT WE ASSURE
THERE'S GOOD JOBS AS AS PART OF
IT. AND WE THINK THAT THIS WILL
THE PLA DOES, PROVIDE THAT. SO
WE'LL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION THEN
I'LL CLOSE. LET'S HEAR FROM
SENATOR SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. NO, I
JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL. AND I THINK MARRYING THESE
TWO REALLY IMPORTANT ELEMENTS,
AND THAT IS MAKING SURE THAT WE
HAVE STRONG, PROVEN LABOR
STANDARDS BECAUSE AS WE ARE
GROWING THIS AMAZING, CLIMATE
RESILIENT ECONOMY AND LAUNCHING
THIS NEW SECTOR, WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT IT'S A HIGH ROAD
SECTOR AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT'S A PLACE WHERE WORKERS
ARE PROTECTED AND HAVE ALL OF
THE BENEFITS OF HEALTH AND
WELFARE, RETIREMENT AND THAT
THESE ARE GOOD, GOOD JOBS. THE
OTHER PIECE OF THE OF THE PUZZLE
HERE IS, IS THE EQUITY PIECE.
AND, WE TALK ABOUT THIS QUITE A
BIT, IN THE LEGISLATURE
CERTAINLY HAS BEEN A PRIORITY OF
THE SENATE AND CONVERSATION IS
THAT THESE FEDERAL DOLLARS HAVE
TO BE A MULTIPLIER AND NOT JUST
IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPACE, BUT
WE NEED IT IN THIS NEW
INNOVATION THAT IS GOING TO COME
TO PARTS OF THE STATE THAT
REALLY NEED TO SEE COMMUNITIES
LIFTED UP AND NOT JUST THE
BUSINESS SECTOR, BUT, A WAY TO
REACH DEEP INTO THESE TOOLS
AROUND POVERTY. AND WHEN YOU
HAVE LOCAL HIRE, WHEN YOU HAVE
DISADVANTAGED WORKER, WHEN
COUPLED WITH A PLA, THE EVIDENCE
SHOWS IT LIFTS AND IT WILL LIFT
WHOLE ZIP CODES IN TERMS OF
WHERE YOU CAN TARGET THESE
TOOLS. AND YOU KNOW, WE KNOW ZIP
CODES DETERMINE OUR SOCIAL
DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH, THEY
CERTAINLY ARE THE WAYS. AND SO
WHEN WE INVEST WE KNOW WE CAN
BRING OUR ECONOMIES TOGETHER.
AND SOME OF THE, THE POOREST,
MOST DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
THAT NEEDED THE MOST AND MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE BRINGING IN,
WOMEN, BLACK WORKERS, IMMIGRANT
WORKERS, COMMUNITIES THAT WERE
LEFT BEHIND IN OUR 20TH CENTURY
INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD OUT, THE
MARRIAGE OF PLA AND, AND,
COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENTS
HAVE PROVEN TO WORK. SO I'M
HAPPY TO MOVE THIS BILL WHEN
IT'S WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT, I'M
SO GLAD THAT YOU ARE
PRIORITIZING THIS SPACE AND I
THINK THE COMMUNITIES THAT WILL
BE SERVED THROUGH THIS KIND OF
POLICY, WE WILL SEE A DIFFERENCE
FOR GENERATIONS. SO THANK YOU
FOR THIS. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU FOR MY RESPONSE. SURE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS.
AND ALSO RAISING UP THE
COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENTS, AS
YOU MENTIONED AS WELL, TO MAKE
SURE THAT IT'S A DIVERSE
WORKFORCE, THAT IT REALLY IS,
THAT THESE BECOME NOT JUST GOOD
JOBS, BUT JOBS THAT LIFT UP
COMMUNITIES, LET ME JUST I
SHOULD HAVE TURNED MY WITNESS.
IF YOU HAD ANY QUICK COMMENTS,
THEN I'LL CLOSE. OR SENATOR
BECKER, YOU HAVE OTHERS WHO WANT
TO SPEAK. BEFORE WE DO THAT, I
THINK. LET'S HEAR FROM SENATOR
ARCHULETA. OKAY, SIR. SORRY
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, SENATOR
BECKER, I JUST WANT TO
CONGRATULATE YOU ON DOING THIS.
AS YOU KNOW, THE HYDROGEN IS,
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I'M SO
STRONGLY SUPPORTING, BUT WE'RE
ALSO SUPPORTING ANYTHING THAT
HELPS OUR ENVIRONMENT. HELPS
LABOR, AND MAKES CALIFORNIA
COMPETITIVE. WE TALK ABOUT SOME
OF THE THINGS THAT SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES ARE ALWAYS TALKING
ABOUT, HOW TO HELP THE, THE
COMMUNITIES THAT NEED SO MUCH.
BUT WHAT THAT NEED IS JOBS AND A
FAIR SHOT AT THE NEXT LEVEL,
WHICH WE ALL CALL THAT MEDIUM
LEVEL, WHERE YOU CAN BUY A HOME
AND YOU CAN BE PART OF THE
COMMUNITY. AND, OPENING THESE
DOORS, I THINK IS GOING TO BE
GREAT FOR OUR ECONOMY, GREAT FOR
CALIFORNIA, AND BRINGING LABOR
IN TO REALIZE AND RECOGNIZE
THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO
MAKE LABOR PART OF EVERYTHING WE
DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
RECEIVE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF
FINANCIAL SUPPORT, AND THE
TECHNICAL TRAINING, BECAUSE AS
WE EVOLVE IN, IN HYDROGEN AND
THE BATTERIES THAT WE'RE GOING
TO BE DOING, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE
THE WORKFORCE AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT IS IMPORTANT. SO I'M
HOPING AS WE PRODUCE, THESE NEW
ENTITIES, THAT WE ALSO LOOK TO
EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN A
FAIR AND EQUITABLE WAY. SO I,
WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE BILL
AND WISH YOU A LOT OF LUCK IN
THE FUTURE WITH IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET ME
LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUES TO MAKE
SURE THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS. I JUST HAVE ONE
COMMENT, SENATOR BECKER, AND
THEN WE'LL LET YOU CLOSE THERE.
I IT'S A IT'S A BILL THAT HAS A
JOURNEY AHEAD OF IT. AND YOU ARE
I THINK FROM HERE HEADED TO
ENERGY. AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
IT TODAY WITH AN I VOTE. BUT I
KNOW YOU'LL WORK HARD ON THE
BILL AS IT MOVES THROUGH EACH
COMMITTEE. AND MAKE SURE THAT
YOU HEAR EACH EACH COMMITTEE
CONSULTANTS AND ALL OF THE
SENATORS AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
WHO GO THROUGH AND BUT IT'S OFF
TO A GOOD START. SO DID YOU HAVE
ONE MORE ONE MORE COMMENT,
SENATOR? SURE. JUST RAISE THIS
QUESTION. AND THIS IS A QUESTION
THEN THAT JUST HELPS CLARIFY FOR
ME AS THE BILL IS WRITTEN, THERE
ISN'T SPECIFIC GUIDANCE AROUND
HOW WE'RE GOING TO TRACK AND
ENFORCE THE EQUITY PIECE. CAN
YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT
YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON HOW THAT
WILL WORK? YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THAT I HAVE TO GET PROBABLY
HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU, YOU
KNOW HOW ARCHES IS DOING IT, FOR
EXAMPLE, AND YOU KNOW, AND BE IN
CONVERSATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO
WORK WITH YOU ON THAT, YOU KNOW,
AS IT AS IT GOES FORWARD, I DO.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT. DO
ANY IS IT OKAY TO MY WITNESS,
ANY COMMENTS ON THAT BRIEFLY OR
ANYTHING BRIEFLY. THE ANALYSIS
INDICATED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE
SOME MASSAGE BEING DONE TO THE
GO-BIZ PIECE TO, TO GET SOME
MORE DIRECTION. AND I'M SURE
WE'LL WORK WITH THE SENATOR AND
YOUR STAFF WITH THAT. YEAH, I
THINK THAT'S HER POINT IS THAT
THE COMMITTEE STAFF'S REPORT
SHOWS THAT THERE ISN'T A DATA
ANALYSIS. I THINK SHE'S ASKING
YOU TO CONSIDER THAT MOVING
FORWARD, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
BRING IT BACK. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
US. I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU
ON IT. GREAT. ALL RIGHT.
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE THEIR
SENATOR. YEAH. I'LL JUST SAY I
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION AND
HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS GOING FORWARD,
PARTICULARLY ON ON THAT PIECE
AND, AND WITH OTHER FOLKS WHO
HAVE CONCERNS. IT IS THE FIRST
STEP IN THE JOURNEY. I WILL SAY,
I DID CONFIRM WITH MY TEAM THAT
THE FEDERAL GRANTS DO HAVE MORE
POINTS TO APPLICATIONS WITH
LABOR PROVISIONS. SO I
UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS HAS TO PENCIL
OUT. OTHERWISE WE'RE NOT GOING
TO GET THESE FACTORIES, YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T FEEL LIKE
THEY CAN ULTIMATELY MAKE MONEY,
BE COMPETITIVE. THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO BE HERE. SO I HOPE
THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY
ABOUT BRINGING EVERYONE TO THE
TABLE. AND I THINK HAVING LABOR
INCLUDED WILL BE, AGAIN, NOT
JUST A GREAT GOOD JOBS, BUT BUT
HELP US, BE COMPETITIVE IN THIS
APPLICATION. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU
DO HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR
SMALL. IS THAT RIGHT, SENATOR?
OKAY THEN WE WILL THIS AGAIN.
THIS IS Dð PASS TO ENERGY. WE'LL
CALL THE ROLL HERE. OKAY. DO
PASS THE SENATE ENERGY,
UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
COMMITTEE. ASHBY AYE. ASHBY.
AYE. WHEN? WHEN? NO ALVARADO.
GIL. ARCHULETA. AYE ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER. AYE. BECKER. AYE
DODD. EGGMAN. GLASER MENGIBAR.
NILO. ROTH. HI ROTH. AYE.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS AYE. WILK. OKAY. IT'S 5
TO 1. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON. CALL
SENATOR BECKER. ALL RIGHT. AND
THEN I SEE THAT WE DO HAVE HERE.
SENATOR BRADFORD, ARE YOU
PREPARED, SENATOR BRADFORD? ALL
RIGHT. GREAT. COME ON. FORWARD
THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH US
TODAY, SENATOR BRADFORD. WE'RE
BOUNCING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
THANK YOU. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, SIR. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'M
HERE TO PRESENT 1109, WHICH IS A
COMMON SENSE MEASURE THAT'S JUST
GOING TO REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT
OF CANNABIS CONTROL TO COLLECT
AND REPORT DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION OF CANNABIS
LICENSEES. I'M ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS, WHICH
MAKES IT VOLUNTARY AND NOT
MANDATORY. CURRENT LAW REQUIRES
THE DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT THE
NAMES OF ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO
HOLD A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A
CANNABIS BUSINESS, HOWEVER
LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE
DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS. IN RECENT YEARS,
THE LEGISLATURE HAS FOCUSED ON
ENSURING THAT CALIFORNIA'S
CANNABIS MARKET IS INCLUSIVE AND
SUPPORTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS
IMPACTED BY THE WAR ON DRUGS, AS
INTENDED BY PROP 64. I AUTHORED
A MEASURE IN 2018 TO SOCIAL
EQUITY AND DIVERSITY BILL, THE
FIRST IN THE NATION TO LOOK AT
THIS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE
STILL WOEFULLY SHORT OF MAKING
SURE THAT THE COMMUNITIES THAT
HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE WAR ON
DRUGS OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS ARE
REAPING THE BENEFITS OF TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THIS INDUSTRY.
CURRENTLY, THIS INDUSTRY IS 85%
WHITE MALE DOMINATED, AND WE
SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT, MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY,
AGAIN, IN ENTERING THE MARKET,
CONTINUED TO LACK THE DIVERSITY
AND THE RESOURCES NECESSARY.
CALIFORNIA HAS A RESPONSIBILITY
TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CANNABIS
INDUSTRY IS EQUITABLE FOR ALL.
SB 1109 WILL HELP PROVIDE
NECESSARY TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS INDUSTRY,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR, DO YOU
HAVE A LEAD WITNESS HERE TODAY
IN SUPPORT? I THINK SO, ALL
RIGHT. IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE
ROOM WHO IS IN SUPPORT OF SB
1109, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW.
SEEING NO ONE, ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1109, SEEING NO
ONE BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
COLLEAGUES WITH COMMENTS. I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. I THINK
WHENEVER WE TRACK AND MONITOR,
IT HELPS US REACH THE GOAL THAT
WE WANT TO REACH, WHICH IS
INCLUSION, TÍNH AND EQUITY. AND
SO THANK YOU FOR THIS BILL AND
I'M HAPPY TO MOVE IT WHEN THE
TIME IS RIGHT. I, TOO,
APPRECIATE YOUR DOGGED APPROACH
TO THIS MAKING SURE THAT THE
LAWS DON'T JUST COME IN PLACE
AND MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT ANYBODY
FOLLOWING UP TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE PROMISES ARE KEPT. I THINK
THAT IS REMARKABLE HOW MUCH
ATTENTION YOU'VE GIVEN TO THIS.
AND I'M HONORED TO VOTE FOR THIS
BILL TODAY, TOO. THANK YOU. YOU
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS WELL, I THINK
THIS GOES TO JUDICI NEXT. SO I
GET TO SEE IT ONE MORE TIME.
SENATOR BRADFORD, WE'LL TAKE THE
ROLE HERE. OKAY. MOTION IS TO
PASS THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. ASHBY. AYE. ASHBY.
AYE. NGUYEN ALVARADO. GIL.
ALVARADO. GIL. AYE ARCHULETA.
AYE. ARCHULETA. AYE. BECKER. AYE
BECKER. AYE. DODD. EGGMAN. LASER
MENGIBAR. NILO. ROTH ROTH. AYE.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD.
CLOVIS AYE. WILK IS THAT SIX?
NOTHING. WE'LL PUT IT ON. CALL.
SENATOR BRADFORD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEP.
SENATOR SKINNER, ARE YOU
PREPARED? GREAT. WE WILL HEAR
FILE ITEM FIVE NEXT. LOOK AT
THAT. WE GOT TWO IN A ROW IN
ORDER. WE'RE DOING SO GREAT.
IT'S A RECORD FOR THE DAY. ALL
RIGHT, SB 30, TÍNH ZERO SIX BY
SENATOR SKINNER. ONE MOMENT,
CHAIR. NO PROBLEM. WHEN YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. APOLOGIES DO YOU
NEED SOME WATER, SENATOR SKINNER
? GOOD. IT EVEN WATER WOULDN'T
NOT HELP. OKAY ANYWAY, THESE
RARE METALS AND MINERALS LIKE,
COBALT, LITHIUM, OTHERS. WE NEED
THEM FOR OUR CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSMISSION, TRANSITION. THEY
ARE WHAT WE USE IN OUR
BATTERIES, WHAT WE USE IN. SO
MANY, PIECES OF EQUIPMENT AND
THE TECHNOLOGY REYES THAT GIVE
US THE ABILITY TO DO THE CLEAN
ENERGY TRANSITION. NOW,
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WHILE
CALIFORNIA HAS A GREAT RESOURCE
OF LITHIUM ON WITHIN OUR STATE,
MOST OF THESE OTHER RARE
MINERALS AND METALS COME FROM
OTHER COUNTRIES. THERE'S A LOT
OF EXPLOITED ATION INVOLVED IN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TO
THEIR MINING. WE'VE ALSO GOT,
CHINA INCREASINGLY CONTROLLING
MUCH OF THE MINING OF THIS
RESOURCE. AND YET WE REALLY NEED
IT IN INTERESTINGLY, THE AMOUNT
THAT IS CURRENTLY THE AMOUNT OF
THESE METALS AND MINERALS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY IN ALL OF OUR
DEVICES, LAPTOPS, DESKTOP
COMPUTERS, PHONES, YOU NAME IT,
IS ALMOST EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE
NEED GOING FORWARD. SO IF WE CAN
RECLAIM THOSE FROM OUR EXISTING
ELECTRONICS, THEN WE GO A LONG
WAY TOWARD SATISFYING THIS TO BE
LESS DEPENDENT ON CHINA, TO
CREATE LESS ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION, YOU NAME IT. AND WE
HAVE, ELECTRONICS RECYCLING
PROGRAMS. I THINK MOST OF YOU,
ALL OF YOUR COUNTIES, IF YOU
GOOGLED IT, YOU WOULD HAVE YOU
COULD FIND A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN
DROP OFF ELECTRONICS. BUT WHAT
WE DON'T HAVE IS THOSE
ELECTRONICS THAT WE RECYCLE ARE
SENT MOSTLY TO CHINA. BUT PLACES
IN ASIA WHERE THEN THE MINERALS
ARE RECOVERED AND USED WITHIN
THEIR MARKETS. SO BY CREATING A
DOMESTIC MARKET FOR THIS, FOR,
RECLAIMING THESE MATERIALS
OURSELVES, THEN WE CAN UTILIZE
THEM. NOW, WHAT I WOULD HAVE
LOVED TO HAVE DONE IN THIS BILL
WAS TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE THE
DIRECTION AND THE MANDATE TO OUR
AGENCIES TO SET UP SUCH A
PROGRAM. BUT GIVEN OUR BUDGET
CONSTRAINTS AND THE FACT THAT
WE'RE IN DEFICIT INSTEAD, WHAT I
DID WAS, HEY, OFFICE OF BUSINESS
AND DEVELOPMENT GO-BIZ IS
WORKING WITH CAL RECYCLING AND
DTSC. PLEASE JUST STUDY WHAT THE
POSSIBILITIES ARE HERE AND
HOPEFULLY IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT
IT, THEY THEMSELVES CAN CONCLUDE
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE
REALLY NEED AND MANAGE TO FIT IT
INTO A FUTURE BUDGET OR A FUTURE
PROGRAM. SO THAT'S WHAT THE BILL
DOES. AND ALLOW ME TO HAVE MY,
WITNESS AND SUPPORT. JORDAN
WELLS FROM THE NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL
SPEAK. GREAT. YOU CAN STAND
THERE IF YOU WANT. IT DOESN'T
MATTER EITHER WAY. WHATEVER
YOU'D LIKE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR SKINNER, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I AM JORDAN WELLS WITH
THE NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP ACTION
COUNCIL, A NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES FOR
AN EQUITABLE CIRCULAR ECONOMY.
AND WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
SB 1306. SB 1306 FOLLOWS THE
SECOND PRINCIPLE OF A CIRCULAR
ECONOMY, AS DEFINED BY THE ELLEN
MACARTHUR FOUNDATION, WHICH SAYS
THAT WE MUST CIRCULATE PRODUCTS
AND MATERIALS AT THEIR HIGHEST
VALUE. RARE EARTH ELEMENTS ARE
USED IN A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIES,
INCLUDING HEALTH CARE,
TRANSPORTATION, POWER
GENERATION, AND MORE. WHAT WE
DON'T KNOW DOES HURT US. THIS
INCLUDES INCREASED COSTS, COSTS
TO PURCHASE GOODS AND MATERIALS,
HARMFUL MINING OPERATIONS
INCLUDING INHUMANE LABOR
PRACTICES, AND JUST PURE
WASTEFULNESS. EXPANDING OUR
CAPABILITY TO RECYCLE AND REUSE
MATERIALS ALLOWS US TO BETTER
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE THINGS WE
ALREADY HAVE. THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED POLICIES
TO KEEP PRODUCTS CONTAINING RARE
EARTH ELEMENTS OUT OF OUR
LANDFILLS, BUT WE MUST DO MORE
TO ENSURE THEY ARE KEPT IN THE
US AND NOT LOST TO INTERNATIONAL
MARKETS. KEEPING RARE EARTH
ELEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES
WILL PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE TO OUR
ENVIRONMENT, NATIONAL SECURITY,
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND ECONOMIC
GROWTH. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
SUPPORT SB 1306 AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENATOR SKINNER, DO YOU HAVE A
SECOND SUPPORT WITNESS? THAT'S
IT. OKAY. ANYONE IN THE ROOM
WISHING TO DO ME Tð TESTIMONY TO
SUPPORT SB 1306, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1306? ALL RIGHT
, LET ME COME BACK TO OUR
COLLEAGUES. ANY COMMENTS FROM
THE DAIS? SENATOR SMALLWOOD, I
JUST WANT TO SAY THANK THE GOOD
SENATOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. THIS STUDY IS, SEEMS SO
SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND
BUT VERY, VERY NECESSARY. AND
ALSO THINKING ABOUT WORKFORCE
AND WHAT THIS COULD MEAN FOR
FUTURE CAREERS AS WE LOOK AT THE
GREEN SECTOR. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. SENATOR
SMALLWOOD, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A
MOTION? I'M HAPPY TO MAKE. ALL
RIGHT. I THOUGHT I HEARD ONE
BURIED IN THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THAT'S A MOTION FROM
THE SENATOR FROM LOS ANGELES.
WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL AND HANG
ON JUST A SECOND. THIS IS HEADED
TO. WHERE ARE WE GOING?
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, I THINK
NEXT, SENATOR SKINNER. GREAT
MOTION IS DUE. PASS THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
ASHBY AYE. ASHBY. I WHEN I WHEN
I ALVARADO. GIL ALVARADO. GIL I
ARCHULETA I ARCHULETA I BECKER
DODD. EGGMAN. GLASER. GLASER. I
MENGIBAR. NILO. ROTH. ROTH I
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS I WILK. BECKER I. BECKER
I. I THINK THAT'S 8 TO 0 FOR
NOW. WE'LL PUT IT ON CALL.
SENATOR SKINNER, THANK YOU FOR
PRESENTING. SENATOR GLASER, ARE
YOU READY? ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE
UP A COUPLE OF YOUR BILLS HERE.
YOU WANT TO START WITH FILE ITEM
EIGHT, SB 1365, AND THEN WE'LL
GO TO FILE ITEM NINE, SB 1462.
SO WE'LL START WITH 1365. THANK
YOU. COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
HEARING THIS BILL TODAY. YOU
KNOW, WE WRESTLE A LOT WITH
HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND, AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU
LOOK AT IT AND IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES THERE'S
THESE TURF WARS THAT GO ON, THAT
BETWEEN FOLKS WHO PROVIDE
ASSISTANCE IN THAT SPACE COULD
BE SCOPE OF PRACTICE ISSUES OR
OTHER THINGS. AND, AND SO WHEN
PEOPLE SAY, WHY AREN'T HEALTH
CARE COSTS GOING DOWN, YOU KNOW,
WE KNOW FIRST HAND, FOR THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND IN THIS
COMMITTEE AND IN HEALTH FOR A
WHILE, THAT IT'S THESE TUSSLES
AND WHAT SHOULD BE AT THE
FOREFRONT OF, OF THESE TUSSLES
AND IT'S AS SIMPLE IT SHOULD BE
SAFETY. SAFETY SHOULD BE NUMBER
ONE THAT THAT OUR HEALTH CARE
INDUSTRY SHOULD HAVE THE
PATIENCE, SAFETY AS ITS CLEAR
FOCUS. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE.
IT KIND OF IS THE SECONDARY
ISSUE. THESE FIGHTS, SCOPE OF
PRACTICE, FIGHTS AND THE REST.
AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK IN THE
PHARMACY SPACE, I MEAN, WHO
DOESN'T? I'M NOT GOING TO ASK
YOU ABOUT YOUR OWN. YOU KNOW,
LAST TIME YOU WERE IN THE
PHARMACY. BUT I'D SAY FOR ME,
WHEN I GO IN THE PHARMACY, WHAT
DO I SEE WHEN YOU WALK UP TO
THAT COUNTER? OH, NO. EXCUSE ME.
YOU'RE WAITING IN A LINE TO GET
UP TO THE COUNTER, RIGHT?
BECAUSE IT'S THEY'RE SO BUSY AND
THEY'RE RUNNING AROUND TRYING TO
DO ALL THE WORK THAT THEY NEED
TO DO, AND, AND SO I KNOW I'VE
PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THAT. I
KNOW MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS
HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT CHALLENGE
OF WHY CAN'T THINGS BE DONE IN A
MORE EFFICIENT WAY. AND SO THE
BILL BEFORE YOU REALLY TRIES TO
GET AT THAT ISSUE, FARM TECHS,
IT, YOU KNOW, MOST WE FOR THE
MOST PART, WE HAVE A 1 TO 1
RATIO IN CALIFORNIA, ONE
PHARMACIST CAN ONLY SUPERVISE
ONE TECH PHARM TECH PERSON. IF
YOU LOOK AT ACROSS THE COUNTRY,
31 STATES HAVE A RATIO OF 6 TO 1
OR GREATER, 6 TO 1 OR GREATER,
CAN CAN DO THE WORK IN A
PHARMACY IN A SAFE MANNER. AND
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE BILL
BEFORE YOU ATTEMPTS TO, TO DEAL
WITH, WHEN I WAS FORMER CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE, WE HAD A BILL TO
ALSO RAISE THE, THE RATIO THAT
GOT OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
THEN WAS HELD. I KNOW THAT IN
THE STAFF WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE,
A SUGGESTION HAS BEEN PUT
FORWARD TO MAKE IT A 4 TO 1
RATIO. I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT
AMENDMENT, MADAM CHAIR, BECAUSE
FOR ME IT'S A PROGRESS POINT,
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM SOME
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION THAT MAY
RAISE THE ISSUE OF SAFETY. AND I
WOULD SAY TO YOU, SHOW ME AN
EXAMPLE OF WHERE IT'S BEEN
UNSAFE. AND ANY OF THESE 31
STATES TO HAVE A GREATER PHARM
TECH RATIO THAN WE HAVE, AND I
DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND
THAT. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A
LOT OF SQUABBLING ABOUT SOMEHOW
HEALTH CARE IS JEOPARDIZED. BUT
I REALLY THINK THAT IF YOU ASK
FOR THE EVIDENCE, IT'S REALLY
GOING TO BE LACKING. SO THAT'S
THE BILL THAT BEFORE IT'S BEFORE
YOU, PHARM TECHS GO UNDER A
TRAINING TO COUNT THE PILLS OUT
SO THEY DO IT RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO
SEE OUR PHARMACISTS TO BE ABLE
TO SPEND THEIR TIME, HELPING
COUNSELING PATIENTS, COUNSELING
FOLKS THAT COME IN RATHER THAN
RUNNING AROUND COUNTING OUT MORE
PILLS IN THE CONTAINER. SO I'M
PLEASED THAT WE HAVE SOME
SUPPORT HERE TODAY, LINDSAY IS
AT GULLAHORN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND A PHARMACIST, NICOLE GRAY,
IS HERE AS WELL. WE WELCOME YOU
BOTH. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL TODAY.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. YOU TWO, YOU EACH GET TWO
MINUTES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
OKAY GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS LINDSAY GOLDEN
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION'S
COMMUNITY PHARMACY COALITION, I
ALSO REPRESENT THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN DRUG
STORES, AND WE'RE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT SB 1365. AS YOU HEARD,
CALIFORNIA'S 1 TO 1 RATIO IS THE
MOST RESTRICTIVE IN THE COUNTRY.
24 STATES HAVE NO RATIO AT ALL,
INCLUDING EIGHT OF THE TEN
STATES THAT SURROUND CALIFORNIA,
AND THE MAJORITY OF OTHER STATES
HAVE RATIOS THAT RUN FROM ONE, 1
TO 3 TO 1 TO 6, INCREASING THE
RATIO IN CALIFORNIA TO 1 TO 4.
AS SB 1365 WILL BE AMENDED, WILL
ALLOW PHARMACISTS TO BRING ON
ADDITIONAL PHARMACY TECHNICIANS
TO ASSIST WITH PERFORMING
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL
DUTIES, AND THIS WILL FREE UP
PHARMACISTS TO SPEND MORE TIME
ON CLINICAL DUTIES, SUCH AS
PERFORMING PATIENT
CONSULTATIONS, DOING MEDICATION
THERAPY MANAGEMENT. THERE IS NO
DATA SHOWING THAT AN INCREASE IN
THE RATIO WILL JEOPARDIZE
PATIENTS PHARMACY TECHNICIANS IN
CALIFORNIA MUST ADHERE TO STRICT
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY MUST BE
SUPERVISED BY A PHARMACIST. I'M
ALSO INCREASING THE RATIO WILL
NOT LEAD TO MORE WORK FOR
PHARMACISTS AND PHARMACY
TECHNICIANS. IN FACT, THE
OPPOSITE IS TRUE. AND THAT'S WHY
THIS BILL IS SO NECESSARY. NOW
AND WHILE THERE ARE OTHER
PERSONNEL ALLOWED IN THE
PHARMACY, SUCH AS CLERKS WHO CAN
ASSIST WITH CASHIERING AND
CLERICAL DUTIES, THE CURRENT 1
TO 1 RATIO REALLY CREATES A
BOTTLENECK IN THE PHARMACY,
BECAUSE TECHNICIANS CAN DO
THINGS THAT CLERKS CANNOT, SUCH
AS HANDLING MEDICATIONS. I ALSO
WANT TO NOTE THAT SB 1365 IS NOT
A MANDATE. IT'S AN AUTHORIZATION
FOR PHARMACISTS TO SUPERVISE
ADDITIONAL TECHNICIANS. IT IS
NOT A REQUIREMENT. OUR RATIO HAS
REMAINED LARGELY UNCHANGED IN
CALIFORNIA FOR THREE DECADES,
WHILE PHARMACISTS ABILITY TO
PROVIDE A RANGE OF OTHER HEALTH
CARE SERVICES TO CALIFORNIANS
HAVE EXPANDED OVER THE PAST
DECADE OR SO, THE BOARD OF
PHARMACY ACTUALLY JUST CONDUCTED
A SURVEY OF PHARMACISTS, AND THE
RESULTS OF THAT SURVEY SHOWED
OVERWHELMINGLY THAT PHARMACISTS
IN CALIFORNIA BELIEVE THE RATIO
NEEDS TO BE INCREASED IN
NON-INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS. SO
NOW IS THE TIME TO UPDATE THE
RATIO TO ALLOW PHARMACISTS TO
FOCUS MORE TIME ON THEIR
CLINICAL DUTIES AND TO EASE
WORKFLOW PRESSURE IN PHARMACIES
AND ENHANCE ACCESS TO PHARMACY
SERVICES FOR CALIFORNIANS. SO
FOR THESE REASONS, WE'RE PLEASED
TO SUPPORT SB 1365. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. HI. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS NICOLE GRAY. I'M A
PHARMACIST. I'VE BEEN LICENSED
SINCE 2006. EXCUSE MY VOICE, MY
ALLERGIES. I AM LICENSED IN THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, AND I'M ALSO
LICENSED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I PRACTICE IN NEW
YORK FOR EIGHT YEARS, AND I'VE
BEEN PRACTICING HERE IN
CALIFORNIA FOR THE LAST TEN
YEARS. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL. THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW
ME TO GET BACK TO PRACTICING AT
THE TOP OF MY SCOPE OF PRACTICE.
IT ALLOWS ME TO BE MORE PATIENT
CENTERED. IT ALLOWS ME TO GIVE
MY PATIENTS THE TIME THAT THEY
DESPERATELY NEED AND THEY WANT
FROM US AS PHARMACISTS, AND
ALLOWS ME TO TAKE THAT TIME TO
CONSULT WITH THEM. IT ALLOWS ME
TO MAKE SURE THEY TOTALLY
UNDERSTAND THAT MEDICATIONS THAT
WE ARE GIVING THEM. IT ALSO
GIVES ME TIME TO SPEAK WITH
DOCTORS OFFICES THAT CALL
REGARDING DRUG DRUG
INTERACTIONS. IT JUST ALLOWS ME
TO DO THAT. IT ALSO PROVIDES
MORE FLEXIBILITY, IN THE
PHARMACY, IF I'M OFF HELPING
FILLING WITH THE TECHNICIAN, I
CAN'T BE DOING THE OTHER THINGS
THAT I NEED TO BE DOING TO HELP
MY PATIENTS AND TO STAY PATIENT
CENTERED. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHY
I BECAME A PHARMACIST TO HELP MY
PATIENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. WE NOW
GOING TO BE THE TIME FOR ME TO.
SO THOSE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1365
COME FORWARD. TELL US YOUR NAME
AND YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL, GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS CAITLIN
PADILLA. I'M A CERTIFIED AND
LICENSED SENIOR PHARMACY
TECHNICIAN AT WALGREENS, I
SUPPORT THIS BILL TO IMPROVE MY
DAY TO DAY WORKFLOW, LESSEN THE
STRESS, AND IMPROVE PATIENT
CARE. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR
BEING HERE. PETER KELLIS ON
BEHALF OF WALGREENS AND SUPPORT.
TRENT SMITH ON BEHALF OF RITE
AID PHARMACIES AND SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE
THERE, IF YOU Tê, YOU CAN STAY
IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT WE'RE GOING
TO INVITE LEAD OPPOSITION TO
ALSO COME TO THE FRONT TABLE IF
THEY WOULD LIKE IF THERE IS LEAD
OPPOSITION THÀNH COME ON
FORWARD. YOU WILL EACH ALSO GET
TWO MINUTES. WELCOME WHEN YOU'RE
READY. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR ASHBY AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
FRED AZIZ. I AM A PHARMACIST AND
I WORK OVER AT UNEC, WHICH IS
UNITED NURSES ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND UNION OF HEALTH
CARE PROFESSIONALS. AS A
PHARMACIST FOR MORE THAN 15
YEARS, I STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 1365
BECAUSE IT JEOPARDIZES PATIENT
SAFETY DESPITE LIMITED STUDIES
ON STAFFING RATIOS. ONE
UNDENIABLE FACT STILL REMAINS
THAT CALIFORNIA HAS ALWAYS SET
THE STANDARD FOR SAFEGUARDING
PATIENTS AND HEALTH CARE
WORKERS. SB 1365 FAILS TO UPHOLD
THESE VITAL CALIFORNIAN
PRINCIPLES. PHARMACIES HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN THE LAST LINE OF
CATCHING ERRORS. IT'S THE LAST
LINE FOR A CRUCIAL LAST LINE OF
DEFENSE AGAINST ERRORS AND THE
FACT IT'S UNDERSTOOD AND HAS
BEEN IN EXISTING RESEARCH. AND
SHOCKINGLY, WE STILL HAVE 7000
TO 9000 PATIENTS THAT LOSE THEIR
LIVES ANNUALLY IN THE UNITED
STATES DUE TO MEDICATION ERRORS.
AND THAT WAS CITED ALSO BY THE
UNITED NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
HEALTH, WHERE THEY HAD DONE A
STUDY WHERE IT WE'VE CAUGHT THAT
DISTRACTIONS WERE THE HAD LED TO
75% OF THESE ERRORS. SO WHAT
WERE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. IT
WAS TO EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION
WITH EVERY SINGLE ORDER, EVERY
SINGLE PRESCRIPTION. HAVING TO
SUPERVISE MORE TECHNICIANS WILL
ELIMINATE THAT EXTREME CAUTION.
THE PROPOSAL OF ADDING OF THE
INCREASE OF 600% OR CHANGE IN
THE PHARMACY RATIOS AT ALL, AS
IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO
BE AN ISSUE FOR PATIENT
CONSULTATIONS AND ERROR
PREVENTION. HAVING WORKED IN IN
MANY COMMUNITY PHARMACY
SETTINGS, MANY OF US ARE
INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE
CHALLENGES OF STAFFING AND HIGH
PACE, HIGH STRESS ENVIRONMENTS.
WHILE PHARMACIST TECHNICIANS AND
CLERKS PROVIDE VALUABLE SUPPORT.
AND THEY REALLY DO NOTHING
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EXPERTISE OF
HAVING AN ADDITIONAL PHARMACISTS
ON STAFF. AND DESPITE EXISTING
LAWS PERMITTING UP TO THREE
TECHNICIANS, BILLION DOLLAR
CORPORATIONS LIKE CVS AND OTHER
PHARMACIES PRIORITIZE COSTS OVER
SAFETY, OPTING TO SKIMP OUT ON
PHARMACISTS HIRES AGAIN, THE LAW
ALREADY ALLOWS TO HIRE THREE
TECHNICIANS, BUT RATHER THAN
HIRING AN EXTRA PHARMACIST,
COMPANIES ARE REALLY PUTTING
PROFITS OVER PATIENT SAFETY AND
HEALTH OF THE WORKFORCE, AND WE
JUST WENT THROUGH A PANDEMIC IN
OUR LIFETIME AND OUR WORKFORCE
WAS DEVASTATED, AND WE CONTINUE
TO SUFFER FROM COVID, COVID'S
DESTRUCTION. AS A STATE. WE
SHOULD NOT ELIMINATE PROTECTIONS
THAT WERE CREATED FOR PATIENT
SAFETY AND FOR THE PHARMACISTS.
WHEN IT COMES TO PATIENT SAFETY,
THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY
COMPROMISES. SB 1365 OR ANY
CHANGE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY IMPERIL
OUR LOVED ONES, OUR SAFETY, THAT
OF YOUR FAMILY AND MINE. I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. GO RIGHT AHEAD.
HELLO MY NAME IS JESSICA
CROWLEY. I'M A PHARMACIST, A
PROUD UFC W 770 MEMBER AND A
COMMUNITY. I'VE WORKED IN
COMMUNITY PHARMACY FOR OVER 14
YEARS. I'M HERE TO ASK YOU ALL
TO VOTE NO ON SB 1365, WHILE
HAVING MORE TECHNICIANS AND
PHARMACY MAY SOUND LIKE A
REASONABLE SOLUTION TO STAFFING
ISSUES, HAVING TO SUPERVISE
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL CREATES
MORE DISTRACTIONS SINCE
ATTENTION WILL BE SHIFTED TO
OVERSEEING THEIR WORK. INSTEAD
OF FOCUSING ON CLINICAL
DECISIONS. ABOUT A YEAR AGO, I
WAS WORKING WITH MYSELF AND ONE
OTHER TECHNICIAN WHO WAS HELPING
A PATIENT ASSIST WITH THEIR
INSURANCE. AFTER THE PATIENT
LEFT, WE REALIZED SOMETHING WAS
WRONG. OUR SYSTEM, ONE THAT'S
USED IN HUNDREDS OF PHARMACIES
IN CALIFORNIA ACROSS DIFFERENT
COMPANIES, ALLOWS A TECHNICIAN
OR CLERK TO PRINT OUT A NEW
LABEL AND PUT IT ON A BOTTLE
WITHOUT REQUIRING THEM TO SCAN
THE BOTTLE TO VERIFY THAT THE
CORRECT LABEL IS BEING APPLIED,
OR WITHOUT THE PHARMACIST TO
CONFIRM THAT THE PRODUCT IS
CORRECT. THE TECHNICIAN HAD
PRINTED A NEW LABEL FOR A
PATIENT'S SLEEPING MEDICATION
AND PLACED IT ON A BOTTLE FOR A
DIFFERENT PATIENT'S HEART
MEDICATION. MY PATIENT IS IN
THEIR 80S AND ALREADY HAD HEART
DISEASE. THIS COULD HAVE LED TO
A VERY DEADLY INTERACTION. WE
WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH THAT THE
PATIENT HADN'T LEFT THE STORE
YET, AND WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE
BOTTLE WITH AND CONFIRM THE
ERROR WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO GET
THE BOTTLE BACK. IT WOULD HAVE
LOOKED AS THOUGH I VERIFIED THE
WRONG PRODUCT. IN MY
PROFESSIONAL OPINION, I WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CATCH THAT
ERROR IF I HAD MORE TECHNICIANS
IN THE PHARMACY, BECAUSE I WOULD
HAVE BEEN MORE DISTRACTED. I'D
ALSO LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE
THAT CALIFORNIA BECAME THE FIRST
STATE TO REQUIRE ERROR
REPORTING. AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF
THIS YEAR, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO
ASSESS THE PATIENT SAFETY IN
OTHER STATES. I THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND ASK
YOU TO SUPPORT MYSELF AND OVER
100 USC PHARMACISTS WHO WROTE IN
OPPOSITION AND VOTE NO ON THIS
BILL TODAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. NOW WOULD BE
THE TIME FOR ME TO TESTIMONY FOR
THOSE OPPOSING SB 1365, YOUR
NAME ORGANIZATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL, GEORGE SOROS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MADAM CHAIR, MADDIE LEE, ON
BEHALF OF CVS HEALTH, I BLINKED.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. DANIEL PEARL,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY,
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, JAZZY
GAREWAL, ON BEHALF OF UFCW
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL IN
OPPOSITION. ELMER LOZADA ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, IN OPPOSITION.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE
DAIS AND HEAR FROM COLLEAGUES.
ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM
THE DAIS? SENATOR BECKER AND
THEN SENATOR DODD? YEAH, I JUST
WANT TO I GUESS I'D ASK THE
AUTHOR HOW HE RESPONDS TO THE
CRITICISM ON THE RATIO. I JUST
WANT TO, WELL, HOW WOULD YOU, I
GUESS, RESPOND TO THAT? I'LL
HAVE A COMMENT. WELL ON THE ON
THE SAFETY ISSUE. YEAH, THE
STUDY THAT I THINK WAS
REFERENCED BY ONE OF THE
WITNESSES, IDENTIFIED
PHARMACISTS AS THE SOURCE OF
MOST OF THOSE ERRORS, NOT
PHARMACY PHARM TECH EMPLOYEES.
SO THERE'S NO CONNECTION
WHATSOEVER TO THAT STUDY, TO THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER A RATIO WOULD
CREATE ANY KIND OF PATIENT
SAFETY ISSUES. THERE IS NO STUDY
THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT HAS
RAISED CRITICISM OF THE RATIO
THAT'S, 6 TO 1 OR GREATER IN
MOST STATES IN AMERICA. SO THAT
WOULD BE MY DIRECT RESPONSE TO
THE TESTIMONY ON ON ERRORS.
OKAY. WELL I JUST I'D LIKE TO
HEAR THE REST OF DISCUSSION. 1
TO 1 TO 1 TO 4. SOUNDS LIKE A
BIG JUMP. IT DOES SOUND LIKE YOU
KNOW, I DON'T LIKE TO HEAR WHEN
WE HEAR WHEN CALIFORNIA IS A,
YOU KNOW, HUGE OUTLIER OF SO
MANY STATES. SO IT FEELS LIKE,
YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE SORT OF
ULTIMATELY SOMETHING IN THE
MIDDLE. BUT I DON'T I'M INCLINED
TO NOT STOP THE BILL TODAY
BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE THERE,
THERE, YOU KNOW, COULD BE SOME
ROOM THERE, AND I'D LIKE TO KIND
OF HEAR THE DEBATE GOING
FORWARD. BUT THANK YOU FOR
ANSWERING THAT. SEN. DODD YEAH,
I AGREE WITH US, SENATOR BAKER,
TO KIND OF BECKER. EXCUSE ME,
WANT TO TAKE THE SAME TYPE OF,
YOU KNOW, APPROACH TO THE BILL?
I WILL SAY IT'S INTERESTING, AND
I APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY OF
THE CMA, BUT IT'S KIND OF
INTERESTING WHERE, IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN, DOCTORS CAN OVERSEE UP
TO NINE NURSE PRACTITIONERS.
DÍAS UP TO EIGHT. EXCUSE ME,
EIGHT NURSE PRACTITIONERS. AND,
YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE
THINGS. MAYBE THEY'RE NOT APPLES
TO APPLES, BUT IT SURE SEEMS
LIKE THE IT'S NOT AS CUMBERSOME.
AND TO MY FRIENDS AT UFCW, I
LOVE YOUR EMPLOYEES THAT I GO TO
AND MY PHARMACY. BUT DURING
COVID AND AFTER, THEY'RE JUST
SAYING, HEY, ACTUALLY, THEY WERE
JUST SAYING IT'S NOT OUR FAULT.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T HIRE ANYBODY
ELSE. AND SO, I KNOW THERE'S
EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, BUT IT'S
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I REALLY
BELIEVE THAT MY CONSTITUENTS,
CAN BENEFIT BY. AND IT'S CALLED
CUSTOMER SERVICE. IT'S CALLED
WHEN YOU GO THERE, YOU DON'T
HAVE TIME TO WAIT AROUND AND I
FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHAT I DID A
HECK OF A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, OVER
THE LAST FEW YEARS. AND
EMPLOYEES STILL AREN'T COMING
BACK AT THE RATE WE'D LIKE.
OKAY. SENATOR ARCHULETA. YES
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. AND I APPRECIATE
THE FACT THAT YOU'RE WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE AND THE
OPPOSITION. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS
, WHEN I SAW ORIGINALLY IT WAS,
WHEN THE SIX. NOW YOU'RE ONE TO
1 TO 4, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT
YOU'RE NOT DONE WITH THAT JUST
YET. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE THING
ABOUT NEGOTIATING. SO I'M NOT
GOING TO STOP THE BILL. AND
HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE NEGOTIATING, BECAUSE
THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING FOR. AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT. BUT I WOULD IMAGINE
SOME OF THESE TECHNICIANS THAT
ARE THERE ARE ONE DAY ASPIRING
TO BE PHARMACISTS AND TO INSPIRE
THEM AND TO TRAIN THEM AND GET
THEM READY AS PART OF THEIR
THEIR EDUCATIONAL STEP. SO I'M
HOPING THE DOORS WILL OPEN WITH
THEM AS WELL. SO I'M NOT GOING
TO STOP THE BILL AND I WILL GO
AHEAD AND CONCUR WITH MY WITH MY
COLLEAGUES AND MOVE THE MOVE THE
BILL FORWARD. OKAY. SENATOR
SMALLWOOD, CUEVAS. THANKS, NÓ. I
HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION. ARE YOU
WORKING INTO TO YOUR POINT, ARE
YOU WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION?
THÀNH DID YOU ARE YOU AGREEING
TO DO THAT? BECAUSE I AM CURIOUS
WHY? FOR WE WENT FROM SORT OF
FROM 6 TO 4. THEN WHAT'S THE
EVIDENCE ON THE FOUR, IS MY
OTHER QUESTION. BUT, BUT BUT
FIRST, ARE YOU WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION TO FIGURE THIS OUT?
YEAH, THROUGH THE CHAIR.
ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, THAT THE
BILL THAT I CARRIED A FEW YEARS
AGO, WAS SPONSORED BY THE UFCW,
I THINK RAISED IT TO 3 TO 1. SO
I'M TRYING TO MAKE PROGRESS IN
THIS SPACE. I DON'T THINK
ANYTHING'S PERFECT. I THINK 6 TO
1 IS SAFE. AND, BUT I'M HAPPY TO
HAVE COMPROMISED WITH THIS
COMMITTEE. AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO
LOOK FOR WAYS TO COMPROMISE.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN SAFETY
STANDARDS, BUT LOWER COSTS AND
MAKE IT MORE EASY FOR US TO GET
PRESCRIPTIONS AND TO HAVE PEOPLE
WORK IN THE AREA IN WHICH
THEY'RE PROPERLY TRAINED FOR. SO
WHEN WE SEND PHARMACISTS TO THE
HIGHER EDUCATION THAT THEY HAVE
TO GO THROUGH, IT'S NOT JUST THE
COUNT PILLS. SO PEOPLE CAN DO
THAT FOR THEM AND THEY CAN
ENSURE SAFETY AND THEY CAN WORK
TO THEIR HIGHER LEVEL OF
TRAINING. AND I'M HAPPY TO WORK
WITH ALL FOLKS. THERE'S A LOT OF
SCOPE OF PRACTICE FIGHTS.
THERE'S UNION FIGHTS, IT IS A IT
IS A INDUSTRY THAT'S UNDER
STRESS, AS WE HEAR ABOUT, BUT I,
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE PROGRESS
WITH THE BILL AND HOPEFULLY
WE'LL HAVE PARTNERS THAT CAN
JOIN IN THAT AS IF IT MOVES
FORWARD TODAY. ON THE QUESTION
OF THE FOUR, WAS THERE AN
EVIDENCE OR A STUDY THAT THAT
NUMBER WAS IT WAS A REQUEST FROM
THE COMMITTEE. OH, THAT'S OKAY.
AND I WAS AT 6 TO 1. THE
COMMITTEE ASKED THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON THE
FACT THAT OVER 25 STATES ARE AT
4 TO 1. THANK YOU. OKAY. SENATOR
ARCHULETA, DID YOU MAKE A
MOTION? I DID ALL RIGHT. SO THAT
IS SENATOR GLAZER, WOULD YOU
LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE?
YOU HAVE A MOTION, A COUPLE
THANK YOU AND A COUPLE JUST
CLOSING POINTS, WHICH IS THAT A
PHARMACIST UNDER THE LAW OF
CALIFORNIA CAN SAY THEY DON'T
WANT TO SUPERVISE. OKAY, THERE'S
ROOM FOR A PHARMACIST TO SAY NO.
IT'S NOT COMFORTABLE FOR ME. IT
DOESN'T WORK FOR ME. SO THAT
THAT PROTECTION IS ALREADY THERE
IN CURRENT LAW, SECONDLY, AS
SENATOR DODD ALLUDED TO, THIS
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR INCREASED
THE RATIO OF PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANTS TO 8 TO 1, A DOCTOR
HAVING EIGHT PEOPLE TO SUPERVISE
. SO THESE ARE THINGS WE'RE
TRYING TO DO IN A SMART WAY AND
A SAFE WAY, THAT'S MY FOCUS. I
KNOW IT'S YOURS AS WELL. AND
WITH THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. OKAY. YOU HAVE A
MOTION FROM SENATOR ARCHULETA.
THIS ONE IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS FROM HERE, WE'LL
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS DO PASS,
AS AMENDED TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. ASHBY
AYE. ASHBY. AYE. WHEN I WHEN I
ALVARADO. GIL. ALVARADO. GIL.
AYE. ARCHULETA AYE. ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER. BECKER AYE. DODD.
DODD. AYE. EGGMAN. LASER AYE.
LASER. AYE. MENGIBAR. NILO. ROTH
ROTH. AYE. SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS
WILK. IT'S 8 TO 0. WE'LL PUT IT
ON. CALL SENATOR GLACIER. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU READY TO
HEAR YOUR NEXT ONE? IF YOU ARE,
YOU'RE ON A ROLL. LET'S GO.
OKAY. DO IT, IT TELLS YOU THE
DIVERSITY OF THE SCOPE OF
PRACTICE OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT
WE GO FROM, PHARMACY TECHS TO,
TO HOUSING, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
WRESTLED WITH THIS HOUSING
CRISIS THAT CALIFORNIA IS FACING
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW, AND
SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS FOCUS IN
ON ON LOCAL, APPROVAL PROCESS,
REYES ON SEQUA. BUT WHEN I LOOK
AT THE, THE ISSUE OF WHY WE HAVE
A HOUSING CRISIS, IT KEEPS
POINTING BACK TO TWO THINGS THAT
WE DON'T HAVEN'T REALLY
ADDRESSED VERY MUCH. ONE IS
LIABILITY EXPOSURE FOR BUILDERS.
AND THE SECOND IS THE COST OF
MONEY, THE COST OF FINANCING.
AND THE BILL THAT'S BEFORE YOU
DEALS WITH THAT ISSUE OF THE
COST OF MONEY. IF YOU AT THE
FOCUS OF THIS BILL IS ON
CONDOMINIUMS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE HOUSING CRISIS, THAT AND BY
THE WAY, IT'S ACROSS THE NORTH
AMERICA, CANADA HAS A SERIOUS
HOUSING CRISIS. BUT ONE OF THE
FACTOIDS ABOUT CANADA, THEY
BUILD OVER 30% OF THEIR HOUSING
STOCK THAT THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING
IS CONDOMINIUMS. AND YOU KNOW
WHAT? THAT IS HERE IN CALIFORNIA
, IT'S ONLY 3, ONLY 3. THIS
ENTRY LEVEL OWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE, IS
BASICALLY NOT EVEN BEING
PRODUCED IN THE STATE TODAY. AND
A PART OF THE CHALLENGE IN THAT
SPACE IS, IS THE COST OF
FINANCING. SO THE BILL BEFORE
YOU PROVIDES A, A, AN AVENUE IN
WHICH WE CAN LOWER THE COST OF
FINANCING TO HELP DEVELOPERS OF
CONDOMINIUMS ENGAGE MORE IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SPACE THAT
BENEFITS ALL OF US. AND THE MOST
IMPORTANT OF ANY KIND OF REFORM
IN THIS SPACE IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT CONSUMERS ARE PROTECTED.
AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT,
THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LOWER THE
COST OF FINANCING BY UTILIZING
THE DEPOSITS THAT PEOPLE HAVE
PUT DOWN ON A ON A CONDOMINIUM,
THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE PROTECTED. SO THIS BILL
DOES THOSE TWO THINGS. IT ALLOWS
EXPANDS THE USE OF THOSE
DEPOSITS. AND AT THE SAME TIME,
IT BUILDS IN SOME CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS THAT REQUIRES THAT
BEFORE A DEVELOPER COULD USE
THOSE DEPOSITS, THEY HAVE TO
POST A BOND OR SOMETHING,
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR APPROVED
BY, IN THIS CASE, THE DEPARTMENT
OF REAL ESTATE, TO ENSURE THAT
THE PROMISES THAT ARE MADE IN
USING THAT DEPOSIT MONEY ARE
FULFILLED. I HAVE TWO PEOPLE
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. DAVID MARSHALL FROM
WEST BANK AND SPUR, ALONG WITH
JORDAN PENA, CARBAJAL, FROM
CALIFORNIA. YIMBY WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY, YOUR CONSIDERATION
OF YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU TWO,
TWO MINUTES EACH WHEN YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JORDAN
CARVAJAL, LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE
FOR CALIFORNIA YIMBY HERE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 1462.
CALIFORNIA IS A STATEWIDE
ORGANIZATION OF OVER 80,000
NEIGHBORS DEDICATED TO MAKING
OUR STATE AN AFFORDABLE PLACE TO
LIVE, WORK, AND RAISE A FAMILY
FOR ALL CALIFORNIA OWNS.
CONDOMINIUMS ARE OFTEN ENTRY
LEVEL HOMES FOR FIRST TIME HOME
BUYERS, AVERAGING 2.7 TIMES LESS
THAN THE STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY
HOME, MAKING HOMEOWNERSHIP MORE
AFFORDABLE TO WORKING FAMILIES.
AS SENATOR GLAZER MENTIONED.
DESPITE THIS, THE ONLY 3% OF NEW
HOMES IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN 2011
2021 WERE CONDOS. ONE OF THE
MAIN REASONS CONDOS PRODUCTION
REMAINS LOW IN CALIFORNIA IS THE
STATE'S LIMIT LIMIT ON
DEVELOPERS UTILIZING HOMEBUYERS
DEPOSITS WHEN CONSTRUCTING CONDO
PROJECTS. UNDER CURRENT LAW, ANY
DEPOSITS OVER 3% MADE DURING THE
PRE-SALE PROCESS WHEN THE CONDO
IS BEING BEING APPROVED AND
CONSTRUCTED MUST BE FULLY
REFUNDED TO THE BUYER IF THEY
DECIDE TO TERMINATE THE DEAL
BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE DEPOSIT
AND THE FINAL SALE. THE LIMITED
COMMITMENT FROM BUYERS ALSO
INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL RISKS FOR
THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR LENDERS.
INCREASING INSURANCE AND LOAN
COSTS. THIS TRANSLATES TO HIGHER
COST CONDOS AND FEWER, FEWER
AFFORDABLE CONDOS. OVERALL SB
1462 WILL ALLOW CONDO DEVELOPERS
TO USE DEPOSITS MADE BY BUYERS
DURING THE PRE-SALE PROCESS TO
COVER CONSTRUCTION COSTS, WHILE
UPHOLDING PROTECTIONS TO ENSURE
THE BUYER IS REFUNDED. WITH THE
PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED. TO
CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES IN
CALIFORNIA, WE MUST REDUCE THE
COST AND RISK FOR DEVELOPERS,
SUCH AS INCREASING THE
AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST FREE
FINANCING WHILE STILL REQUIRING
STRONG CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. AND
IT'S FOR THIS REASON I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT FOR SB 1462. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING, AND THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE AND MADAM CHAIR, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK THIS
MORNING. MY NAME IS DAVID
MARSHALL, AND I WORK FOR A
PROMINENT HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPER IN NORTH AMERICA. IN
ASIA, WE HAVE MANY ENTITLED
PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA AS WELL,
NONE OF WHICH ARE ENTITLED FOR
CONDOS, DESPITE OUR PREFERENCE,
EXPERIENCE, AND DISPOSITION TO
DO SO. THE REASON WE CHOSE NOT
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONDO IS
FOR ONE SIMPLE REASON. IT
DIDN'T. IT DIDN'T UNDERWRITE.
BUT THIS ISN'T JUST A HOUSING
ISSUE. MANY OF OUR PROJECTS ARE
RENTAL, RESIDENTIAL. IT IS
SIMPLY A CONDO LAW ISSUE TO
BREAK IT DOWN. THERE ARE TWO
DISTINCT CHARACTERISTICS THAT
THIS BILL HELPS TO UNDERWRITE
CONDOS THAT ALIGN BOTH THE
DEVELOPER AND THE BUYER. THESE
BECAME THE GUIDEPOSTS OF THIS SB
1462. FIRST, THIS BILL PROVIDES
CERTAINTY A DEVELOPER BONDING
AGAINST AND USING THE DEPOSIT
FUNDS GIVES GREATER CERTAINTY TO
THE BUYER THAT THEIR HOME WILL
BE BUILT AND TO THE DEVELOPER
THAT THE FUNDS ARE HERE TO
CONSTRUCT. CURRENTLY THE LAW
ESSENTIALLY CREATES A 3% OPTION
CONTRACT SHOULD THE MARKET GO
UP. GREAT. THE BUYER JUST BOUGHT
THE VALUE INCREASE FOR 3. SHOULD
THE MARKET GO DOWN AND THE BUYER
CAN BACK OUT FOR 3. GIVEN
HOUSING PRICES IN CALIFORNIA,
THIS IS HEAVILY FAVORING THE
BUYER. ALSO, I ASKED THE
COMMITTEE TO NOTE THAT THIS BILL
DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT BUYERS
MUST MAKE THEIR ENTIRE DEPOSIT
UP FRONT. BUYERS WOULD BE ABLE
TO MAKE DEPOSITS THROUGHOUT THE
DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW
BUYERS OF DIFFERENT INCOMES.
SECOND, FINANCE ABILITY. AS I
ALLUDED TO EARLIER, HIGHER
PRE-SALES AND DEPOSITS ARE
EVIDENCE TO A LENDER THAT THERE
IS A MARKET FOR THIS CONDO
PROJECT AND THUS SHIFT LESS
MARKET RISK ON THE LENDER
SHOULDERS. ADDITIONALLY, THE
BONDING COMPONENT OF THIS BILL
PROVIDES FINANCING FOR A PROJECT
AND OVERSIGHT TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS AND ENSURE COMPLETION.
THE ABILITY TO BOND AGAINST
DEPOSITS WOULD PROVIDE A
BACKSTOP FOR FINANCIAL MARKET
VOLATILITY, WHERE DEVELOPERS
WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO CHEAP
DEBT. GIVEN THE FINANCING COSTS
ARE SUCH A LARGE PORTION OF THE
COST TO CONSTRUCT RIGHT NOW,
BONDING HIGHER DEPOSITS DIRECTLY
DECREASED THE COST TO CONSTRUCT
AND LOWER THE PRICE POINT THAT A
DEVELOPER MUST HIT TO UNDERWRITE
THEIR PROJECTS. NATURALLY,
CREATING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
. I URGE THE COMMITTEE TO VIEW
SAN FRANCISCO OR SAN DIEGO AS AN
EXAMPLE OF THIS ISSUE. WHAT ARE
THE TYPES OF CONDOS BEING
CONSTRUCTED? IT'S ALL ULTRA
LUXURY, TO PUT IT BLUNTLY. WOULD
YOU ACCEPT THE MORE RISK FOR
LESS REWARD? THESE BONDS PROVIDE
MORE CERTAINTY OF THE MARKET TO
A DEVELOPER, MORE CERTAINTY TO A
BUYER THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL
DELIVER, AND THUS CREATES LOWER
RISK AND LOWER PRICES DELIVERED
BACK TO THE BUYER? THEREFORE, I
ASK THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER
THIS AS AN INTUITIVE OPTION FOR
DEVELOPERS TO CREATE FOR SALE
HOUSING DURING THIS CRISIS, AS
COMMUNITIES ARE STRONGEST NOT
ONLY WITH RENTERS BUT WITH
HOMEOWNERS THAT STAY AND INVEST
IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU BOTH
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. SO NOW, IF
THERE ARE OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1462, IN THE ROOM, THIS WOULD
BE YOUR CHANCE FOR ME TO
OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD TO
THE MIC. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS MICHAEL GUNNING,
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS HERE
ON BEHALF OF SPUR IN SUPPORT AND
APPRECIATE AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT FOR ME? TWO TESTIMONY.
ALL RIGHT THEN WE WILL GO TO
OPPOSITION. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1462? IF YOU ARE, IF THERE
ARE LEAD FOLKS, THEY CAN COME UP
TO THE TABLE AND WE WILL GIVE
YOU TWO MINUTES EACH AS WELL.
AND THEN WE WILL. ARE THESE THE
AGREED UPON TWO LEADS? ALL RIGHT
. RACE TO THE FRONT WHEN YOU'RE
READY. TWO MINUTES EACH. SURE
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, ANNA
BUCK, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, REPRESENTING NEARLY
200,000 REAL ESTATE LICENSEES IN
CALIFORNIA. HERE, IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1462, THIS BILL WILL
WELL-INTENTIONED TO ADDRESS THE
HOUSING CRISIS HAS THE POTENTIAL
TO FINANCIALLY DEVASTATE
POTENTIAL HOMEOWNERS. SB 1462
NOT ONLY ELIMINATES THE STATE'S
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CAP FOR NEW
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, BUT
ALSO ENABLES DEVELOPERS TO USE A
BUYER'S GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT
TOWARDS ANY COSTS OF THE
PROJECT, EFFECTIVELY, SB 1462
ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO KEEP THE
BUYER'S ENTIRE DEPOSIT
REGARDLESS OF THE PERCENTAGE OF
THE SALES PRICE, ALLOWING
DEVELOPERS TO USE BUYER FUNDS IN
THIS WAY IS EFFECTIVELY LENDING
DEVELOPERS BUYERS HARD EARNED
DOWN PAYMENT FUNDS AT 0%
INTEREST. IF DEVELOPERS CANNOT
AFFORD TO FUND BASIC
CONSTRUCTION, PERHAPS THEY
SHOULD NOT BE IN BUSINESS. THIS
BILL REQUIRES A WARNING TO
CONSUMERS AS WELL AS A BOND.
HOWEVER, THESE TYPES OF BONDS
DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST IN OUR
MARKET. HAVING A HOME PURCHASE
WHERE A BUYER IS WARNED THEY
MIGHT NOT GET A HOME THEY
SACRIFICE TO AFFORD BECAUSE THE
DEVELOPER DOES NOT COMPLETE THE
PROJECT AND MAY NOT GET THEIR
MONEY BACK, IS UNPRECEDENTED. IT
IS CONTRARY TO CALIFORNIA'S LONG
HISTORY OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
AND SIMPLY WRONG. YOU DON'T ASK,
AS THE ANALYSIS MAKES CLEAR,
REGULAR FOR ENTRY LEVEL HOME
BUYERS TO ENGAGE IN SPECULATIVE
INVESTMENTS WHICH LEND MONEY TO
INVESTORS INTEREST FREE.
THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO ASK YOU
FOR A NO VOTE ON THIS BILL
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
ANTHONY HELTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE
ASSOCIATION. WHILE WE APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR'S GOAL OF SEEKING TO
ENABLE THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ADDITIONAL HOUSING, WE'RE
OPPOSED TO SB 1462 MECHANISM OF
UTILIZING PURCHASER DEPOSITS
SECURED BY BONDS TO DO SO. AS
WE'RE CONCERNED THAT SUCH A
PRACTICE WILL EXPOSE PROPERTY
BUYERS TO ELEVATED RISKS OF
DEPOSIT LOSS AND EXPOSE ALL
PARTIES TO THE RISK OF
PROTRACTED LITIGATION. WITH THE
BILL ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT THESE
RISKS THROUGH THROUGH CERTAIN
GUARDRAILS. WE BELIEVE THAT
THOSE GUARDRAILS, SUCH AS
PERFORMANCE BONDS AND DRA
OVERSIGHT, WILL BE FAR MORE
COMPLICATED THAN EXPECTED AND
WILL FALL SHORT IN PRACTICE.
BOND COVERAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN
BE CONDITIONAL, MEANING THAT IF
DEVELOPERS DO NOT MEET THE
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE
BOND AGREEMENT, PAYMENT ON THE
BOND CAN BE DISPUTED OR DENIED.
WITH RESPECT TO DRA OVERSIGHT,
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IT WILL BE
IMPRACTICAL AT BEST, FOR THE
AGENCY TO EFFECTIVELY DETERMINE
WHETHER USE OF PURCHASER
DEPOSITS MEETS THE BILL'S
REQUIREMENTS. SEPARATELY, WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR
DRA TO HAVE SUFFICIENT STAFF TO
OVERSEE THIS PROCESS. BECAUSE OF
THE AMBIGUITY THE BILL
INTRODUCES INTO THE PROCESS, WE
BELIEVE IT WILL RESULT IN
LITIGATION WHEN PROJECTS FAIL,
WITH ESCROW COMPANIES A
CONVENIENT TARGET AS PURCHASERS
SEEK TO CHALLENGE WHETHER
DEPOSITS MET THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR RELEASE. FOR THIS REASON, WE
THINK OVERSIGHT FROM OTHER
AGENCIES SUCH AS DPI OR THE CDI,
AS WE'VE HEARD DISCUSSED, WOULD
RUN INTO SIMILAR ISSUES, AND
THAT THE INVOLVEMENT OF THOSE
AGENCIES IS NOT A VIABLE FIX. WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE ON THIS
ISSUE, BUT ARE UNCERTAIN AT THIS
TIME. WHAT AMENDMENTS COULD BE
MADE TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS
AND RESPECTFULLY URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO HOLD THE BILL TODAY
TO ALLOW FOR MORE TIME TO
DISCUSS THIS ISSUE, GIVEN THE
POTENTIAL FOR CONSUMER HARM,
SHOULD IT MOVE IN ITS CURRENT
FORM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. NOW, ME
TOO. IN OPPOSITION NAME,
ORGANIZATION, POSITION ON THE
BILL. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
CORNELIUS BURKE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. WE ARE YOUR HOME
BUILDERS. FIRST AND FOREMOST. I
JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR BEING
LATE. WE'RE NOT HAVING A LETTER
OR BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE
MORE THOROUGHLY WITH THE AUTHOR.
UPON INITIAL REVIEW OF THE BILL.
WE ARE NEUTRAL, BUT AN INITIAL
ANALYSIS WE DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS. OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS
THE DRA REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT ESTIMATES AND BUDGETS.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE
CAPABILITIES AND STAFFING TO DO
SO. WE HAVE OTHER MINOR
CONCERNS, BUT DEFINITELY LIKE TO
WORK WITH THE AUTHOR TO MAKE
SURE WE GET THE INTENT RIGHT OF
THIS BILL AND DO NOT CAUSE ANY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR.
BURKE. MADAM CHAIR AND SENATORS
CLIFF COSTA, TODAY ON ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ESCROW
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION, WOULD
YIELD MY COMMENTS, AFTER CGRTS
COMMENTS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. HAVING HEARD FROM ALL
THE FOLKS IN THE ROOM, I'M GOING
TO COME BACK TO THE DAIS.
SENATOR ARCHULETA. GOOD. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, ALL OF US KNOW THAT
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, WE
DEFINITELY NEED HOUSING, BUT WE
ALSO NEED PROTECTION. AND I
THINK THIS IS WHAT THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, THIS IS WHAT, COR IS
DOING, IS TO PROTECT THE
CONSUMER. AND AS IT WAS STATED
THAT IF A DEVELOPER IS GOING
FORWARD TO BUILD 40 OR 50
TOWNHOUSES OR CONDOMINIUMS,
THERE'S A LOT OF PAPERWORK
INVOLVED. AND ONE IS THE FACT
THAT THE BANK SHOULD HAVE
ANALYZED IF THAT DEVELOPER HAS
WHEREWITHAL, THE BACKING
FINANCIALLY TO START THE PROJECT
AND CONTINUE C¯ THROUGH THE
PROJECT AS IT GOES FORWARD. BUT
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE GOT
TO POINT OUT THAT THE BILL
MENTIONS THAT THAT DRA
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE IS
SUPPOSED TO FINISH THEIR
PAPERWORK WITHIN 30 DAYS. AND
LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT FOR JUST A
SECOND, IF I MAY, SOMETHING
THAT'S CALLED THE PUBLIC REPORT.
A PUBLIC REPORT IS ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
INDICATING EVERYTHING PERTAINING
TO THAT PROJECT, ITS LOCATION,
THE ASSOCIATION FEES, THE
DISTANCE FROM MARKETING,
SHOPPING, SCHOOLS. SO THE
CONSUMER KNOWS EVERYTHING, ANY
QUESTION THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE
PERTAINING TO THE PROJECT IN ITS
LOCATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE,
THAT PUBLIC REPORT IS VITAL FOR
THE CONSUMER BECAUSE THAT
REPORT, EVEN, EVEN AS THE LIFE
OF THE CONDOMINIUM DOWN THE
ROAD, TEN, 15, 20 YEARS FROM
NOW, THAT BUYER CAN GO RIGHT
BACK TO THAT PUBLIC REPORT AND
ASK TO SEE IT AGAIN. AND THERE'S
A FINE OF $500 FOR THE RECORD,
THAT IF IT'S NOT TRANSFERRED
OVER PUBLIC REPORT, VERY
IMPORTANT ALONG THOSE
DOCUMENTATIONS, YOU NEED A
BUDGET. HOW THAT BUDGET IS GOING
TO BE SET UP FOR THAT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, SO YOU'VE
GOT THE PUBLIC REPORT, THE
BUDGET, THE BYLAWS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE PROJECT ADHERES TO THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS, BY THE,
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ALSO
THE CONDO PLAN TO SEE EXACTLY
HOW IT'S LAID OUT, IF IT WERE A
CITY, IT WOULD BE A, YOU KNOW,
TO OVERLOOK AND SEE WHERE
EVERYBODY IS, WHERE THE SWIMMING
POOL IS. SO IT'S THAT CONDO PLAN
GIVES YOU AN IDEA, THE CONSUMER
WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE, THE
TRAFFIC FLOW, EVEN THE TRASH
PICKUP GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF
THAT. SO WE'RE TALKING PUBLIC
REPORT, THE BUDGET, THE CONDO
PLAN, THE ASSOCIATION, THE
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION. AND
THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE
NEEDED. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
REAL ESTATE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE DEVELOPER, DEVELOPS THIS TO
THE PROTECTION OF THE BUYER
GIVEN. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE
DEPOSIT, IF I MAY. AND IT IS
ALWAYS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT
ESCROW IS A THIRD NEUTRAL PARTY
THAT RECEIVES THE DEPOSIT AND
HOLDS IT, CANNOT RELEASE IT
UNLESS THERE'S AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER
. AND THIS IS WHERE THE ESCROW
DEPARTMENTS FEEL VERY SKEPTICAL
BECAUSE 1ST MAY HAVE THE
KNOWLEDGE, THE SKILL, THE
PROFESSIONALISM, THE EDUCATION
AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ONE
DOES NOT. AND NORMALLY, ENTRY
LEVEL BUYERS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IF
THAT DEPOSIT IS GOING TO BE USED
OR EVER RETURN, BUT THEY KNOW
THAT AS LONG AS IT'S IN ESCROW
AND THE PARTIES COME TOGETHER OR
DON'T COME TOGETHER, THEY HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE THAT
DEPOSIT BACK. SO I'M LOOKING AT
AT SOMETHING THAT'S SO VERY
IMPORTANT, THE OF COURSE, THE
BINDING CONTRACT, BUT ALSO THE
PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER THAT
DEPOSIT AND IT'S CALLED THE GOOD
FAITH DEPOSIT. AND LET ME
EMPHASIZE THAT GOOD FAITH. SO IF
BOTH PARTIES ARE ACTING IN GOOD
FAITH, YES, THAT DEPOSIT IS
PROTECTED IN ESCROW UNDER LAWS
AND REGULATIONS BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA NOT TO BE RELEASED.
SO, SENATOR, I HAVE SOME ISSUES
WITH THIS. AND IF THE BILL GOES
FORWARD, I'M HOPING YOU CAN
NEGOTIATE SOME OF THESE THINGS
OUT, BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT I
THINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO GET A
LITTLE BIT DEEPER IN RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR
CONSTRUCTION. BOOM. WE'VE BEEN
WAITING FOR DEVELOPERS TO COME
TO THE TABLE. BUT IF THEY'RE ALL
GOING TO COME BACK, THEN WE HAVE
TO HAVE THE REGULATIONS TO
PROTECT THE CONSUMER. AND I
THINK THAT BOTH THE BANKING
INDUSTRY AND ALL OF US HAVE GOT
TO DO THAT. AND THAT'S GOT TO BE
OUR PRIORITY. SO I THINK I MAY
HAVE TO HOLD OFF ON THIS BILL
AND TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ANOTHER
LOOK AT IT, IF IN FACT IT DOES
GO FORWARD. AND WITH THAT, MADAM
CHAIR, I THANK YOU FOR MY TIME,
SENATOR BECKER. YEAH, SURE.
THANK YOU. I TAKE THAT
SERIOUSLY. MY COLLEAGUE WHO'S,
BEEN IN THE REAL ESTATE, YOU
KNOW, BUSINESS HIMSELF, I JUST
LIKE, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE.
DO YOU AGREE 100% WITH THE GOAL
OF CREATING MORE FOR SALE,
BUILDINGS? HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO
THE QUESTIONS ABOUT CONSUMER
PROTECTION? IF I CAN, THROUGH
THE CHAIR? IT CERTAINLY HAS TO
BE PARAMOUNT TO ANY ANY CHANGE,
ANY, ANY NEW LAW IS THAT THE
BUYER IS PROTECTED. I THINK
THAT'S WHY WITH THE REQUIREMENT
IN THE BILL IS TO HAVE A BOND,
BE ESTABLISHED SO THAT THAT
GUARANTEES THAT THEIR MONEY
WON'T BE TAKEN FROM THEM. THE
PROJECT WON'T GET BUILT SO THAT
THE BOND IS A IS A REQUIREMENT
OF THE BILL TO ENSURE CONSUMER
PROTECTION. AND HOW DOES THIS,
HOW WOULD YOUR BILL BE SIMILAR
OR DIFFERENT TO WHAT'S DONE IN
OTHER STATES? I THINK EYE
WITNESS COULD SPEAK TO THIS IN
TERMS OF HOW THEY'VE HANDLED IT
IN CANADA. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
HAVE A YEAH, I CAN SPEAK MORE TO
THAT. THIS IS MODELED AFTER,
HAWAIIAN LAW. SO THIS IS VERY
SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY DO IN
HAWAII. OF COURSE, HAWAII HAS
MUCH MORE CONDO DEVELOPMENT. GOT
IT. AND THAT'S AND HAVE THEY HAD
CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES OR.
HOW'S THAT, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY
CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES.
OKAY. I MAY HAVE A FOLLOW UP.
SENATOR ROTH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I, I DO FIND IT ODD THAT
WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
LIKE THIS THAT WE HAVE TO TURN
TO, AS YOU INDICATED, SIR, OUR
MOST VULNERABLE, OUR YOUNG
PEOPLE AND SOMETIMES OUR SENIORS
TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
FOR DEVELOPERS. BUT MAYBE THAT'S
WHERE WE ARE THESE DAYS. THESE
PERFORMANCE BONDS IS, FIRST OF
ALL, AS THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD,
AND I'M SURE IT PROBABLY WILL.
SENATOR, I'D ASK YOU TO TAKE
THAT. YOU TAKE A LOOK AT HOW
PERFORMANCE BONDS, WHAT THEY
ARE, HOW THEY'RE ENFORCED, WHAT
THE ISSUES ARE. I'M WONDERING IF
THE AMOUNT THAT YOU'VE SPECIFIED
IN HERE, IN TERMS OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS ENOUGH,
BECAUSE WHEN PROJECTS BLOW UP,
OFTENTIMES IT'S PROBABLY GOING
TO REQUIRE MORE THAN JUST THE
CONSTRUCTION COST TO SATISFY
THOSE WITH THEIR HANDS OUT,
INCLUDING, BY THE WAY, THE YOUNG
FOLKS OR THE OLD FOLKS WHO WERE
PUT MONEY DOWN ON THESE UNITS.
SECONDLY, BONDS ARE TYPICALLY
ONLY AS GOOD AS THE BONDING
COMPANY ITSELF, AND THE BACKING
OF THE BONDING COMPANY, AND I
DIDN'T MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING
IN HERE THAT I MISSED IN TERMS
OF QUALITY. AND THEN OF COURSE,
WHEN THE PROJECT BLOWS UP, THE
DEVELOPERS ARE USUALLY GONE. SO
WHO ACTUALLY MAKES THE CLAIM
WITH THE WITH THE BONDING
COMPANY? SOMETIMES THEY'RE A
LITTLE SLOW TO PAY. SO WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE
PROBABLY SEEKING TO PURCHASE A
CONDO BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A
LOT OF MONEY, AND WE'RE GOING TO
TURN TO THESE PURCHASERS AND
SAY, GO COLLECT YOUR MONEY FROM
THE BONDING COMPANY. SO THEY
HAVE TO GO HIRE A LAWYER. THEY
HAVE TO GO TO CIVIL COURT. AND
IN SOME CASES HAVE TO SUE ON THE
PERFORMANCE BOND IN ORDER TO
RECOVER. SO AND THEN THERE'S
THIS WHOLE ISSUE ABOUT ALLOWING
EARLY CLOSE. I DON'T KNOW HOW
THAT WORKS. I DON'T WANT TO
BELABOR THE HEARING, BUT THERE
PROBABLY SOME ISSUES INVOLVED
THERE HAVING TO DO WITH
INSURABLE INTEREST IN IN IN THE
PROPERTY, HOW YOU GET INSURANCE,
WHAT THE AMOUNT OF THE INSURANCE
IS IF YOU'RE YOU HOLD IF YOU'RE
THE PURCHASER, YOU NOW HOLD
TITLE TO SOMETHING. I GUESS
THAT'S NOT COMPLETE, WHICH I
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY ANYBODY
WOULD DO THAT. BUT I THINK THOSE
DETAILS, AS YOU MOVE THIS
FORWARD NEED TO BE NEED TO BE
LOOKED AT, BECAUSE I THINK THEY
ARE, AS THE ANALYSIS REFLECTS,
SIGNIFICANT AND DO DIRECTLY
IMPACT, CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR,
AS I SAID, OFTENTIMES OUR MOST
VULNERABLE THROUGH THE CHAIR.
MAY I JUST RESPOND, SENATOR
ROTH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD
POINTS. A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE,
I'M OPEN TO THE ELIMINATING OF
EARLY CLOSE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT IF THE BILL MOVES FORWARD,
I'M VERY OPEN TO POTENTIALLY
REMOVING THAT OPTION. SECONDLY
THE BILL PROPOSES THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE GET
MONEY FROM THE DEVELOPER TO
OVERSEE THE BOND, THE BONDING
PROCESS AND THE REMEDIES THAT
YOU'VE YOU'VE RAISED. NOW, THERE
HAS BEEN SOME CONCERN RAISED AS
TO WHETHER THAT'S THE BEST
DEPARTMENT TO DO IT. AND IF THE
BILL MOVES FORWARD, I THINK WE
WANT TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATIONS TO SEE WHETHER
DOES ÁP IS A BETTER CHOICE FOR
THAT OVERSIGHT OR THE DEPARTMENT
OF INSURANCE IS A BETTER
OVERSIGHT. SO THERE'S
FLEXIBILITY FROM THIS AUTHOR IN
TERMS OF MAKING SURE WE GET THE
RIGHT PERSON TO THE RIGHT AGENCY
TO DO THAT OVERSIGHT, AND ONE OF
THE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
MENTIONED THAT THE MARKET THAT
THERE IS NO MARKET FOR BONDS
LIKE THESE AND THAT'S TRUE IF
THERE IS NO MARKET FOR BONDS,
THAT IS DEVELOPED AFTER THE
PASSAGE OF THIS BILL, THEN THERE
WILL BE NO BONDS. THEY WILL NOT
BE ANY USE OF DEPOSITS AS
PROPOSED IN THE BILL. THAT'S
IT'S AN OPTION. AND IF IT
DOESN'T EXIST, THEN IT CAN'T, IT
CAN'T BE USED. SO I THINK THAT
THE, THE WHO OVERSEES THE BOND
IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN
ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
CONSUMER IS PROTECTED, IF THERE
IS A DEFAULT OR SOME ISSUE THAT
COMES INTO PLAY. SO I'M IN
AGREEMENT WITH YOU, AND THAT I
THINK THAT IF THE BILL DOES GO
FORWARD, THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS
THAT HAVE TO GET RESOLVED AS IT
AS IT MOVES FORWARD TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE GET THE RIGHT PERSON,
THE RIGHT AGENCY IN CHARGE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT CONSUMERS
ARE PROTECTED. WELL, THE LETTER
OF CREDIT, OF COURSE, MAY BE AN
EVEN BETTER OPTION BECAUSE I
SEEM TO REQUIRE THAT RECALL THAT
THAT PROBABLY REQUIRES CASH OR
CASH EQUIVALENT, WHICH OF
COURSE, DEVELOPERS PROBABLY
DON'T WANT TO DO. BUT THERE'D BE
MONEY IN THE BANK. BUT I THINK
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ONLY
REASON THIS IS A VIABLE THIS IS
ON THE TABLE IS BECAUSE FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THEY SEE
THIS AS LOWERING COSTS. IF IT
DOESN'T LOWER COSTS, THEN
THERE'S NO REASON TO EVEN USE
THAT OPTION. EVEN IF THIS WERE
TO BECOME LAW. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
ARCHULETA, I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW
UP. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SENATOR, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND WORK WITH YOU AND MOVE THIS
THING FORWARD, BECAUSE I DO WANT
TO SEE IT GO FORWARD BECAUSE
THERE ARE WAYS OF COMING
TOGETHER. WE DO NEED NEW
HOUSING. WE DO HAVE TO WORK WITH
THE CONSUMERS AND I KNOW THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS ARE WORKING WITH
DEVELOPERS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,
BUT YOU'VE GOT TO PROTECT THAT,
THAT THAT VERY FRAGILE THING,
WHICH IS THAT DEPOSIT AND, AND
MAYBE YOU MIGHT LOOK IN WITH THE
COMMITTEE THAT ONLY A PORTION OF
IT NOT THE ENTIRE DEPOSIT,
BECAUSE THE DEPOSIT, AND TO
INSURE AND TO LOOK AT, AT THAT
INSURANCE COMPANY, IS THAT A
SURETY BOND? WHAT WHAT HOW IS
THAT GOING TO LOOK? AND THEN, OF
COURSE, YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE
ESCROW TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE
NOT LIABLE IN THEIR AGREEMENT
AND RELEASING THE FUNDS AND SO
ON. SO THERE'S A LOT OF ELEMENTS
THERE STILL NEED TO BE WORKED
ON, BUT I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN
WORK WITH IT. AND SO I'M GOING
TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE SURE THAT
WE, WE GO WITH IT. BECAUSE I
FEEL CONFIDENT THAT ONCE YOU
COME TO AN AGREEMENT, ONCE YOU,
COME TOGETHER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, NEVER THE BENEFITS
WILL BE ENORMOUS FOR OUR
ECONOMY. AND FOR OUR HOUSING
NEEDS. SO I WISH YOU WELL AND
LET'S GO AHEAD AND WORK TOGETHER
ON THIS THING. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? COLLEAGUES I HAVE ONE
QUICK ONE. IS THERE A DOES THE
BOND EXIST RIGHT NOW IN
CALIFORNIA? DO WE EVEN HAVE
THAT? WELL, THE BILL WOULD ALLOW
THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND IF THERE'S
NO BOND MARKET CREATED BY THE
PASSAGE OF THE BILL, THEN THIS
THIS OPTION WILL WON'T EVEN BE
USED. IT CAN'T BE USED BECAUSE
THAT'S A REQUIREMENT IN THE BILL
THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BOND TO
ENSURE THAT YOU ARE PROTECTING
THE CONSUMERS WHO PUT THE
DEPOSIT DOWN. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND AT THIS TIME, I'M
SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I WOULD JUST SAY THIS.
MEMBERS WE KNOW WE HAVE A
DYSFUNCTIONAL MARKETPLACE. I
MEAN, THAT'S THE CIRCUMSTANCE WE
FIND OURSELVES IN. WE WE'RE
NOWHERE IN A HOUSING CRISIS. WE
CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT THE
CONDOMINIUM OPPORTUNITIES JUST
DON'T EXIST IN CALIFORNIA. NO
ONE'S BUILDING. SO WE'RE TRYING
TO FIND A PLACE TO CREATE A
LITTLE MORE INCENTIVE FOR
DEVELOPERS TO BUILD CONDOS,
WHICH IS THE ENTRY LEVEL
OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY. LOOK, I
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE REALTORS
POSITION UNTIL THURSDAY NIGHT,
SO IT WAS A LATE OPPOSITION. I'M
HAPPY TO WORK WITH THEM. I'VE
ALWAYS WORKED WITH THEM ON THESE
TYPES OF ISSUES AS WE GO
FORWARD. SO YOU CERTAINLY HAVE
MY COMMITMENT TO THAT, IT'S HARD
TO MAKE A LOT OF PROGRESS WHEN
YOU JUST FIND OUT JUST BEFORE A
HEARING THAT THEY'RE IN
OPPOSITION. BUT I, I'M HOPEFUL
THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER. GOING
FORWARD. WE NEED TO FIND A WAY
TO BUILD MORE HOUSING. WE HAVE
TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER. I DON'T
WANT TO ADVANCE A BILL THAT
DOESN'T DO THAT. IT MAKES NO
SENSE. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL TODAY
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR SENATOR
ARCHULETA HAS ALREADY CLOSED.
DID YOU WANT TO? I JUST WANT TO
BRING ONE THING UP. THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS AND DRE, THE DEPARTMENT
OF REAL ESTATE, A REAL CONCERN
ABOUT ALL THE PAPERWORK I JUST
MENTIONED. SO BE SURE THAT YOUR,
AGREEMENTS ALLOW THEM THE TIME
THAT THEY NEED TO DO THE
VETTING, NOT ONLY ON THE ON THE
PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR, BUT THE
PROJECT ITSELF. YES, SIR. AND I
THINK THAT'S ANOTHER ELEMENT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ANY
FINAL? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION TODAY. I'M
COMMITTING TO WORKING WITH ALL
THE OPPONENTS. IF THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD, WE HAVE TO FIND A
WAY TO MAKE PROGRESS IN THIS
SPACE. AND HOPEFULLY IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH WITH ALL THE
FOLKS. AND LIKE SO MANY OTHER
BILLS THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY,
HAS A LONG JOURNEY AHEAD OF IT.
THIS BILL WOULD GO TO JUDICIARY
NEXT. SO PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY
TO CONTINUE WORKING ON IT. WAS
THERE A MOTION MADE WHILE I WAS
GONE? I'M SORRY I MISSED THAT,
SENATOR BECKER. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THEN, WE HAVE
A MOTION, AND IT IS TO PASS TO
JUDICIARY. WE'LL CALL THE ROLL.
ASHBY. AYE. ASHBY. AYE WHEN? NÓ.
NGUYEN. NÓ ALVARADO. GILL
ARCHULETA. AYE. ARCHULETA. AYE.
BECKER BECKER. AYE. DODD. AYE.
DODD. AYE. EGGMAN GLASER.
BLAZER. AYE. MENGIBAR THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. NILO. ROTH SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD CUEVAS. AYE.
WILK. OKAY, THAT'S 6 TO 1. BY MY
COUNT. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL
AND COME BACK TO IT. WE HAVE A
FEW MEMBERS HERE WHO HAVEN'T HAD
A CHANCE TO VOTE YET, SO COULD
WE LIFT THE CALL HERE AND GIVE
SOME FOLKS A COUPLE OF CHANCES
THAT BE ALL RIGHT? WE'LL START
WITH FILE ITEM THREE, WHICH IS
SENATOR PORTANTINO'S SB 1041. A
MOTION IS Dð PASSED THE SENATE
HEALTH COMMITTEE, CURRENT VOTES
6 TO 0 WITH CHAIR VOTING AYE,
ALVARADO. GIL ALVARADO. GIL.
AYE. DODD. DODD. AYE. EGGMAN
GLASER. LASER. AYE. PORTANTINO
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. AYE. NILO
WILK. BECKER. AYE BECKER IS AYE.
YES THIS IS ITEM NUMBER THREE,
THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER THREE,
SENATOR PORTANTINO, DID YOU GET
YOUR VOTE RECORDED THAT YOU
WANTED TO. SENATOR? OKAY. I'M
SORRY I LOST TRACK THERE. OH, 10
TO 0, 10 TO 0. I THINK WE'LL
LEAVE THAT ON CALL. AND WE HAVE
A COUPLE OF MEMBERS STILL
HANGING OUT THERE. NEXT UP, ITEM
FOUR, THIS IS SENATOR BRADFORD.
SB 11 09I MOTION IS Dð PASS THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
CURRENT VOTE 6 TO 0. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. WHEN DODD DODD AYE.
EGGMAN. LASER LASER. AYE.
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. AYE. NILO
WILK. THAT'S 9 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE
IT ON CALL NEXT UP, FILE ITEM
FIVE. SENATOR SKINNER'S SB 1306
MOTION IS TO PASS THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE,
CURRENT VOTES 8 TO 0 WITH THE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. DODD DODD AYE.
EGGMAN MENGIBAR. OH, I'M SORRY.
EGGMAN. MENGIBAR MENGIBAR AYE.
NHIÀU AND WILK. SO IT'S 10 TO 0,
I BELIEVE WE'LL LEAVE IT ON.
CALL HEAD TO ITEM SIX. SB 1449,
THIS IS NEWMAN 1449. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS THE SENATE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE CURRENT VOTES 7 TO 0
WITH CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. DODD DODD.
AYE. EGGMAN. GLASER. GLASER. AYE
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. AYE. NILO.
WILK 10 TO 0. LEAVE IT ON. CALL
AND WE'LL GO TO FILE ITEM SEVEN
BY SENATOR BECKER. SB 1206,
BECKER 1206. MOTION IS TO PASS
THE SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTES 5 TO 1. CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. ALVARADO, GIL DODD. AYE.
DODD. AYE. EGGMAN. GLASER
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. AYE NILO.
WILK 7 TO 1. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON.
CALL WE'LL GO TO GLAZIER'S. FILE
ITEM EIGHT. GLAZIER 1365. THIS
IS THE PHARMACY TECH. MOTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTES 8 TO 0. CHAIR.
VICE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
VOTING AYE. EGGMAN EGGMAN. AYE.
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR AYE. NILO
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS AND WILK. SO
THAT'S 10 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE IT
ON CALL AND WE'LL GO TO FILE
ITEM NINE. THE SECOND GLAZIER
BILL ON SUBDIVISIONS SB 1462
MOTION IS DUE. PASS THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. CURRENT
VOTES 6 TO 1. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. ALVARADO.
GIL. EGGMAN MENGIBAR. NILO ROTH.
WILK. STAY 6 TO 1. WE'LL LEAVE
IT ON. CALL ITEM TEN. THIS IS
THE COMMITTEE BILL SB 1452 ON
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE.
MOTION IS DUE PASSED THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. CURRENT
VOTE 7 TO 0 WITH THE CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. DODD DODD
AYE. EGGMAN EGGMAN. AYE. GLASER.
GLASER. AYE. MENGIBAR MENGIBAR.
AYE. NILO. WILK. 11 TO 0. LEAVE
IT ON. CALL. WE'LL GO TO THE
FINAL FILE ITEM HERE. FILE ITEM
11. ALSO A COMMITTEE BILL. SB
1454 ON ALARM COMPANY OPERATORS.
MOTION IS DUE PASSED THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. CURRENT
VOTES 8 TO 0 WITH CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. DODD. DODD.
AYE. EGGMAN. EGGMAN AYE.
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. AYE NILO.
WILK 11 TO 0. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON
CALL, LET'S DO A COUPLE MORE
ROLL CALLS. HERE WE. SENATOR
EGGMAN, I THINK, COULD VOTE ON A
COUPLE OF THESE THAT WE HAVE UP.
Ó AND SENATOR WILK WILL GO ONE
MORE TIME THROUGH HERE. OH, I
NEED MY TIME. THEY'RE ALL HERE,
SO WE CAN. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS. I
BELIEVE THIS IS EVERYBODY. SO
THIS WILL BE OUR FINAL TIME
THROUGH ON THE ONES THAT WE'VE
ALREADY HEARD. OKAY AND THEN WE
HAVE TWO BILLS LEFT AND WE'LL
WE'LL TALK. WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT
AFTERWARDS HERE. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH FILE
ITEM THREE. THIS IS SENATOR
PORTANTINO SB 1041. THE
PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS FROM
ARMENIA GO AHEAD. CURRENT VOTE
IS 10 TO 0. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. EGGMAN EGGMAN. AYE.
NILO. WILK AYE. WILK AYE. ALL
RIGHT. 12 TO 0. THAT ONE'S OUT.
FILE ITEM FOR BRADFORD'S
CANNABIS BILL. SB 1109. CURRENT
VOTE IS 9 TO 0 WITH CHAIR VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR NOT VOTING. WHEN
EGGMAN BRADFORD CANNABIS.
EGGMAN. AYE. NILO WILK AYE. WILK
AYE. ALL RIGHT. 11 TO 0. THAT'S
OUT A FILE ITEM FIVE. SENATOR
SKINNER'S SB 1306 ON RECYCLING.
CURRENT VOTES 10 TO 0 WITH THE
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE. NILO WILK.
AYE. WILK. AYE. 12 TO 0. THAT
ONE'S OUT. NEXT ONE. FILE ITEM
SIX. SENATOR NEWMAN'S CALIFORNIA
PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
BILL, SB 1449. CURRENT VOTES 10
TO 0 WITH CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE.
NHIÀU WILK. AYE. WILK. AYE. 12
TO 0. THAT ONE IS OUT. FILE ITEM
SEVEN. SENATOR BECKERS GO BIZ
BILL SB 1206 CURRENT VOTE SEVEN
TO ONE. ASH, EXCUSE ME. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. ALVARADO GIL. EGGMAN EGGMAN.
AYE. GLASER. NILO WILK. AYE.
WILK. AYE 9 TO 1. THAT ONE'S OUT
. AND WE'LL GO TO FILE ITEM
EIGHT. THIS IS SENATOR GLAZIER'S
PHARMACY TECH BILL, SB 1365.
CURRENT VOTE IS 10 TO 0 WITH THE
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
NHIÀU WILK. AYE. RIVAS. WILK.
WILK. AYE 11 TO 0. THAT ONE'S
OUT. WE'LL GO TO SENATOR
GLAZIER'S NEXT BILL. FILE ITEM
NINE, SB 1462. THIS IS THE ONE
ON SUBDIVISIONS. CURRENT VOTES 6
TO 1. CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE
CHAIR VOTING NO. ALVARADO. GIL.
EGGMAN MENGIBAR. NILO. ROTH
WILK. NAY. WILK. NO OKAY, THAT'S
6 TO 2. IT DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT.
WE'LL OFFER RECONSIDERATION AND
MOVE TO FILE ITEM TEN. THIS IS
THE COMMITTEE BILL, SB 1452 ON
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING.
CURRENT VOTES 11 TO 0 WITH CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. NILO
WILK Ã WILK. AYE ALL RIGHT.
THAT IS 12 TO 0. SO IT'S OUT.
THAT'S OUT. AND WE'LL GO TO THE
LAST BILL ON THE ROLL HERE. 11,
THIS IS SB 1454. CURRENT VOTES
11 TO 0 WITH CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. NHIÀU WILK.
AYE. WILK. AYE OKAY. THAT WAS 12
TO 0. THAT BILL IS OUT. JUST ONE
CORRECTION. WE'RE GOING TO GO
BACK TO FILE ITEM NINE WHICH IS
GLAZIER'S. SB 14 TÍNH ZERO TWO
AND OR 62 I'M SORRY, 1462. I'M
GOING TO LEAVE THE FILE OPEN
UNTIL THE END OF THE HEARING. IT
IS, IT NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE TO
GET OUT. SO WE WILL LEAVE IT
OPEN FOR HIM TO TALK TO
COLLEAGUES FOR A LITTLE BIT. AND
THEN I'M JUST GOING TO ASK FOR A
HOLD HERE FOR JUST ONE SECOND.
OKAY. IT IS 1210. WE HAVE TWO
BILLS REMAINING. WE ARE GOING TO
TAKE A BREAK AT 1230, WHICH
MEANS WE HAVE 20 MINUTES NOW. SO
WE WILL TAKE UP SENATOR WEINER'S
PHARMACY BENEFITS BILL, WHICH IS
FILE ITEM ONE, SB 966. IF YOU'RE
PREPARED, SENATOR WEINER,
WELCOME. IS THAT A BREAKTHROUGH
FOR OR THROUGH? NO, IT'S JUST A
QUICK BREAK. THANKS. PROBABLY BE
ABOUT 15 MINUTES AT AT 1230.
GREAT GO FOR IT WHEN YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR
SETTING THE BILL AND FOR WORKING
WITH US ON SB 966, WHICH WILL,
PROVIDE LONG OVERDUE OVERSIGHT,
AND, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
STANDARDS FOR PHARMACY BENEFIT
MANAGERS, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO
START BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE
REGULATING ENTITY FROM BOARD OF
PHARMACY TO DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE, IN ADDITION TO THE
OTHER AMENDMENTS LISTED IN THE
ANALYSIS. AND WE APPRECIATE THE
CHAIR WORKING WITH US,
COLLEAGUES, PBMS ARE ESSENTIALLY
THE MIDDLEMEN, MIDDLE PEOPLE OF
THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND
OF THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY. IN
MANY WAYS. THEY NEGOTIATE DRUG
PRICES AND OTHER PHARMACY
BENEFITS WITH PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANIES ON BEHALF OF A RANGE
OF CLIENTS, INCLUDING LARGE
EMPLOYERS, HEALTH PLANS AND SO
FORTH, THE THREE LARGEST PBMS,
CVS CAREMARK, EXPRESS SCRIPTS
AND OPTUMRX UNDER OPERATE UNDER
THE UMBRELLAS OF LARGE HEALTH
PLANS. AND TOGETHER THESE THREE
COMPANIES CONTROL APPROXIMATELY
80% OF THE PBM MARKET AND MANAGE
PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS FOR
ALMOST 90% OF PEOPLE, PBMS PLAY
AN INTEGRAL ROLE IN DETERMINING
THE TYPES OF MEDICATIONS AND
SERVICES PATIENTS RECEIVE AND
THE PRICES THEY PAY FOR THEM,
YET THEY REMAIN ALMOST ENTIRELY
UNREGULATED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WE REMAIN FAR BEHIND
MANY OTHER STATES, AND OVERSIGHT
OF THIS AREA. I WANT TO ALSO
STRESS THAT THIS, IS IN MANY
WAYS A BIPARTISAN ENDEAVOR
BECAUSE IN CONGRESS, THERE IS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO BEGIN
REGULATING PBMS. PBMS NEGOTIATE
AND BUY PRESCRIPTION DRUGS IN
BULK FROM MANUFACTURERS ON
BEHALF OF HEALTH PLANS AND
OTHERS, AND ESTABLISH
FORMULARIES AND PHARMACY
NETWORKS AND SET REIMBURSEMENT
RATES. THESE ARE DECISIONS WITH
MASSIVE IMPACTS ON THE HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM AND ON CONSUMERS.
AND YET THEY OPERATE IN THE
SHADOWS WITH VERY LIMITED
TRANSPARENCY AND ESSENTIALLY NO
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS, PBMS HAVE
USED THEIR MARKET POWER TO
ENGAGE IN SEVERAL ANTI-CONSUMER
AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES.
THE RESULT IN HIGHER PRICING,
FOR EXAMPLE, POCKETING REBATE
DOLLARS, WHICH IS BILL ADDRESSES
SPREAD PRICING AND STEERING
TOWARDS PHARMACIES THAT THEY OWN
IN OTHER WORDS, FORCING PEOPLE
TO USE THE PHARMACIES THAT THEY
OWN. THE FTC IS ACTUALLY
INVESTIGATING PBMS FOR THIS
BEHAVIOR. 25 OTHER STATES HAVE
INSTITUTED LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PBMS AND 17,
PROHIBIT PATIENT STEERING, SEVEN
PROHIBIT SPREAD PRICING IN
CALIFORNIA. WE DO NONE OF THESE
THINGS, THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE
LICENSING UNDER THE DEPARTMENT
OF INSURANCE, PER THE
AMENDMENTS, AND WILL PROHIBIT
SOME OF THESE ANTI-COMPETITIVE
PRACTICES. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY. IS CLINT HOPKINS, OWNER
OF PUCCI'S PHARMACY HERE IN
SACRAMENTO, AND PEDRO DEL COLLE,
A PATIENT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WELCOME TO YOU BOTH. YOU EACH
HAVE TWO MINUTES. GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M DOCTOR
CLINT HOPKINS, PHARMACIST AND
OWNER OF PUCCI'S PHARMACY,
INDEPENDENTLY OWNED IN
SACRAMENTO SINCE 1930. PBMS NOW
DOMINATE NOT ONLY THE PHARMACY
MARKET, BUT ALSO THE HEALTH CARE
MARKET AT LARGE. THEY OWN HEALTH
CARE. THEY OWN HEALTH PLANS. THE
PHARMACY DOWN THE STREET, THE
SWITCH THAT PROCESSES OUR
CLAIMS, THE MAIL ORDER PHARMACY
TO WHICH THEY STEER PATIENTS AND
THEY DICTATE THE CONTRACTS THAT
UNDERPAY AND FORCE PHARMACIES
OUT OF BUSINESS. IN RECENT
YEARS, PBMS HAVE BEGUN
PURCHASING PHYSICIAN PRACTICES
AND CLINICS. Tð CONTRACTS WITH
PBMS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE AND
UNPRECEDENTED IN ANY OTHER
INDUSTRY. OUR REQUEST TO
NEGOTIATE FOR FAIR REIMBURSEMENT
ARE DENIED. THESE TAKE IT OR
LEAVE IT CONTRACTS FORCE
PHARMACIES TO TURN AWAY PATIENTS
THAT WOULD PREFER TO GET THEIR
MEDICATIONS FROM A PHARMACIST
THEY CAN KNOW AND TRUST. THEN
FROM THEIR MAILBOX FOR THE DRUGS
WE DISPENSE. PBMS CONTINUE TO
FIND WAYS TO SCAM PHARMACIES AND
CONSUMERS USING PRACTICES. SUCH
EFFECTIVE RATES, SUCH AS
EFFECTIVE RATES AND SPREAD
PRICING. THANKS TO RECENT
FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THE PBM
PRACTICE OF CLAWBACKS ON
MEDICARE CLAIMS WAS STOPPED IN
2024, BUT NOW INSTEAD, WE ARE
SERVED WITH CONTRACTS WITH
UNSUSTAINABLE RATES, FORCING
PHARMACISTS TO AGAIN TURN AWAY
PATIENTS. PBMS DETERMINE WHICH
MEDS ARE ON FORMULARIES,
OFTENTIMES CHOOSING A DRUG THAT
COSTS THE PATIENT MORE. BUT THE
PBM PREFERS THAT DRUG BECAUSE
THEY GET A LARGER MANUFACTURE
REBATE. THIS HIGH COST PAY TO
PLAY STRATEGY HAS RESULTED IN
SKYROCKETING COSTS OF BRAND NAME
MEDICATIONS, MAKING THEM
UNAFFORDABLE TO MANY PATIENTS. I
AM CERTAIN NO ONE IN THIS ROOM
CAN SAY THAT THEY'VE EVER
RECEIVED A REBATE CHECK FROM A
PBM. PBMS JACK UP PRICES AND
RETAIN THOSE REBATES AS PROFITS
FOR FAR TOO LONG, PBMS HAVE
OPERATED IN THE SHADOWS,
EXTRACTING EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF
MONEY FROM THE SYSTEM THAT
THEY'VE DESIGNED. PBMS ARE THE
ONLY ENTITY IN THE HEALTH CARE
CASCADE OPERATING UNLICENSED BY
THE STATE. WITHOUT LICENSURE,
PBMS WILL CONTINUE TO RUN AFOUL,
CAUSING PHARMACIES TO CLOSE
LOCAL JOBS TO BE LOST AND
PATIENTS TO LOSE ACCESS TO
HEALTH CARE IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE ON SB 966.
THANK YOU. OKAY. HELLO, MY NAME
IS PEDRO DEL COLLE. I'VE BEEN A
PATIENT OF PUCCI'S PHARMACY FOR
ABOUT A YEAR, BUT MY JOURNEY TO
FINDING PUCCI'S WAS FRUSTRATING.
MY DOCTOR PRESCRIBED MEDICATION
FOR ME THAT ONLY AND THE ONLY
OPTION I HAD TO GET IT WAS
THROUGH MAIL ORDER. THE
MEDICATION NEVER ARRIVED, SO I
WENT BACK TO THE CLINIC AND I
WAS DIRECTED TO GO TO AN
INFUSION CENTER INSTEAD. FOR
SOME REASON THEY DIDN'T HAVE MY
PAPERWORK AND NOBODY WAS ABLE TO
HELP ME, SO I STILL DID NOT GET
MY MEDICATION. AT THIS POINT, MY
DOCTOR SUGGESTED TO GO TO
PUCCI'S PHARMACY, WHICH IS THE
ONLY PHARMACY THAT OFFERS THIS
MEDICATION. SO I'M HAPPY TO SAY
THAT SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN
RECEIVING MY MEDICATION AND
EXCELLENT CARE. UNFORTUNATELY,
MY PHARMACY IS LOSING $177 ON
EVERY DOSE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND
HOW PBMS ARE ALLOWED TO DO THIS.
THIS IS WRONG. I AM AFRAID THAT
IT MIGHT NOT BE SUSTAINABLE. MY
PHARMACY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE PROVIDING MY MEDICATION
AT A LOSS IN THE FUTURE. IT TOOK
OVER A MONTH FOR ME TO FINALLY
START GETTING MY MEDICINE, AND I
HOPE NONE OF YOU EVER FEEL THE
FRUSTRATION I DID. I JUST WANTED
MY MEDICINE AND I COULDN'T GET
IT. AS A MEMBER OF THE LGBTQ
PLUS COMMUNITY, IT IS IMPORTANT
TO RECEIVE MY CARE FROM SOMEONE
WHO UNDERSTANDS MY NEEDS. AND AS
A LATINO, I KNOW THERE ARE MANY
MÐI MANY PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY
WHO FEEL AS HOPELESS AS I DID,
BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO,
SO THEY WAIT. OR WORSE, THEY
GIVE UP. EVERYONE DESERVES
ACCESS TO THE MEDICATIONS THEY
NEED. I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT SB
966. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
OKAY, OTHERS IN THE ROOM IN
SUPPORT OF SB 966, PLEASE COME
TO THE MIC WITH ME TO TESTIMONY
GEORGE SOROS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ALEX KAHN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHRONIC CARE
COALITION, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR,
AS WELL AS THE ALS ASSOCIATION
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. DEAN GRAFILO
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LIFE
SCIENCES, AS WELL AS THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG
STORES IN SUPPORT OF SB 966.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ERIC
ROBLESS ON BEHALF OF UNAC IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MICHELE
RIVAS K¾T FOR KHÎI SPONSOR AND
SUPPORT. I'M FRED NOLTE. WE'RE
REPRESENTING THE PHARMACEUTICAL
RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF
AMERICA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, RANDY
MARTIN, ON BEHALF OF THE AIDS
HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, WHICH
OPERATES 12 INDEPENDENT
PHARMACIES ACROSS THE STATE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THEN
DO WE HAVE OPPOSITION ON LEAD?
OPPOSITION. COME ON. FORWARD.
YOU CAN EITHER SPEAK AT THE
MICROPHONE OR THE TABLE. UP TO
YOU. YOU WILL EACH GET TWO
MINUTES WHEN YOU'RE READY, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. GOOD AFTERNOON. OR
LATE MORNING? MY NAME IS BILL
HEAD WITH PCMA, THE NATIONAL PBM
TRADE ASSOCIATION, I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR ACCEPTING
THOSE. THOSE ARE IMPORTANT
STEPS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILL
STILL REMAINS VERY PROBLEMATIC.
AND I'LL GIVE JUST TWO EXAMPLES
FOR THE SAKE OF TIME. ONE IS
TAKING AWAY THE ACCREDITATION
STANDARDS FOR SPECIALTY
PHARMACIES. THOSE ARE IMPORTANT
CONSUMER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER
MEDICARE. THEY'RE REQUIRED UNDER
MEDICAID, AND PBMS REQUIRE THEM
OF SPECIALTY PHARMACIES THAT ARE
AFFILIATED WITH THE PBMS, THAT
THEY BE NATIONALLY ACCREDITED BY
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE JOINT
COMMISSION AND URAC. I THINK
THAT'S WHY URAC WAS OPPOSED TO
THE BILL FOR THOSE, I DON'T SEE
HOW THAT IS A CONSUMER
PROTECTION THAT ACTUALLY IS
TAKING AWAY CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS. THE OTHER
PROVISION, I'LL POINT TO IS ANY
WILLING PHARMACY, THIS PROVISION
ONLY SAYS THAT ANY PHARMACY CAN
BE IN THE NETWORK, BUT THEY
DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF BEING IN THE
NETWORK. SO NOT ONLY DOES THAT
DISMISS THE CREDENTIALING AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION ASPECTS, BUT
IT SAYS THEY DON'T HAVE TO
ACCEPT THE PAYMENT EITHER, AND
THEY CAN CHARGE WHATEVER THEY
WANT FOR THAT PARTICULAR DRUG. I
DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO
HELP PATIENTS ACCESS DRUGS OR
GET MORE ACCESS TO MORE
AFFORDABLE MEDICATIONS. ON THE
CONTRARY, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE
PRICES. AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WE DON'T WANT TO SEE INDEPENDENT
PHARMACIES SUFFER. WE NEED THEM
IN NETWORKS. WE NEED THEM,
PARTICULARLY IN RURAL AREAS. BUT
IN ESSENCE, THIS BILL BASICALLY
ALLOWS PHARMACISTS TO DICTATE
HOW HEALTH PLANS, HOW EMPLOYERS,
HOW UNIONS THAT ARE FULLY
FUNDED, HOW THEY MANAGE AND PAY
FOR THEIR DRUG BENEFIT. AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK A NO VOTE ON SB 966. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GO AHEAD. MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS JOHN WINGER, ON
BEHALF OF AMERICA'S HEALTH
INSURANCE PLANS, WHERE THE
NATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR
HEALTH PLANS. WE'VE WORKED ON
THIS ISSUE ON BOTH THE NATIONAL
LEVEL AND OTHER STATES. SO
APPRECIATE, OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE OUR PERSPECTIVE. I THINK
JUST FROM AN OVERARCHING
PERSPECTIVE, SOPHISTICATED
PURCHASERS LIKE HEALTH PLANS,
SELF-INSURED LARGE BUSINESSES,
UNION TRUSTS, PUBLIC EMPLOYERS,
THEY ALL VOLUNTARILY ENTER INTO
AGREEMENTS WITH PBMS FOR THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF REDUCING HEALTH
CARE COSTS, FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A LOT OF
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL THAT
WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE HEALTH
CARE COSTS AND THE DRUG SPEND
FOR OUR PLANS, SPECIFICALLY ON
THE ANY WILLING PROVIDER,
PERSPECTIVE, PLANS UTILIZE
NETWORKS AND TRY TO STRIKE AN
APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN
PROVIDING TIMELY ACCESS TO CARE
WHILE ALSO BEING ABLE TO CREATE
A CERTAIN LEVEL OF VOLUME TO ITS
NETWORK PHARMACIES, WHICH HELPS
DRIVE DOWN THE COST. BLOWING UP
THOSE NETWORKS WOULD
DRAMATICALLY INCREASE DRUG
COSTS. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE
BAN ON SPREAD PRICING IS ALSO
PROBLEMATIC FOR US, THERE'S A
VARIETY OF OPTIONS THAT PLANS
ARE GIVEN TO PAY FOR PBM
SERVICES. THE PLAN CHOOSES
WHAT'S BEST, WHAT'S THE BEST FOR
THEM? SOME CHOOSE SPREAD PRICING
THAT IS OFTEN CHOSEN BY PAYERS
THAT WANT MORE PREDICTABILITY
OVER THEIR DRUG SPEND AND WANT
TO AVOID THE VOLATILITY AND THE
MARKET WHEN IT COMES TO DRUG
PRICING. AND THEN FINALLY, I
GUESS WE ARE WE ARE ALSO VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE
ACCREDITATION STANDARDS FOR
SPECIALTY PHARMACIES. THESE
STANDARDS ARE USED TO ENSURE
QUALITY FOR COMPLEX DRUGS THAT
REQUIRE SPECIAL HANDLING. THEY
REQUIRE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF
PATIENT CARE. AND SO PROHIBITING
THESE STANDARDS WOULD REDUCE THE
QUALITY OF OUR NETWORKS. AND SO
WE'RE CONCERNED WITH THAT AS
WELL. I THINK OVERALL, PBMS ARE
USED TO CONTINUE TO CONTAIN THE
DRUG SPEND ON OUR SIDE. AND SO
FOR THE PAYERS, WE ARE OPPOSED
TO THE BILL. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. SO OTHER ME TWO
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO SB
966 IN THE ROOM. PLEASE COME TO
THE MIC. GEMMA GONZALEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HISPANIC CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE,
OPPOSING THE BILL. OKAY BETH
CAPELL, HEALTH ACCESS. WE
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS AND
THINK THEY MOVE IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION, BUT ARE STILL IN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED TO THE
CURRENT VERSION AS WE UNDERSTAND
IT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE NEED
TO TAKE A BREAK HERE FOR I KNOW
MY COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO HAVE
COMMENTS AND I DON'T WANT TO
HAVE TO CUT THEM OFF. SO WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE A BREAK FOR ABOUT
15 MINUTES. MIGHT BE 20 MINUTES
AT THE MOST. AND THEN WE'LL COME
BACK. WE'LL FINISH OUT THIS ITEM
AND WE WILL TAKE UP THE LAST
ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. OKAY
COLLEAGUES WOULD BE A GREAT TIME
TO GREAT TIME TO DO WHATEVER YOU
NEED TO DO. WE'LL BE IN RECESS
FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME. OKAY.
WE LEFT OFF HAVING HEARD FROM
BOTH SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION ON
SENATOR WIENER'S BILL HERE. SB
966 WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
DAIS FOR COLLEAGUES WITH
COMMENTS. YES, SENATOR. I'M
CHAIR AND I'M NOT SURE, SENATOR,
IF THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU OR
FOR, EITHER SIDE OR MAYBE FOR
PBMS. I NEED SOME CLARITY. AND
WHAT COULD HAPPEN? AND WOULD
THIS PREVENT PBMS FROM
NEGOTIATING, WAITING FOR REBATES
ON DRUGS, THEY CAN NEGOTIATE ON
REBATES, BUT THEY CAN'T POCKET
THE REBATES THAT THAT'S WHAT IT
THAT'S WHAT IT REQUIRES. WOULD
YOU THEN POTENTIALLY SEE AN
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF PBMS
WHO PERHAPS HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO
DO IT, WILL NO LONGER NEGOTIATE
REBATES, AND THEN THE CONSUMER
WON'T SEE. BUT THE CONSUMER
OFTEN IS NOT SEEING IT TO BEGIN
WITH. SO IF, IF BY HAVING TO NOT
POCKET THE REBATE, IT MEANS THEY
NO LONGER USE THE REBATE SYSTEM,
THEN THEY'LL CHANGE TO A
DIFFERENT METHOD OF
COMPENSATION. AND SO YEAH. MADAM
CHAIR, CAN I CAN I TURN THAT
QUESTION OVER TO OPPOSITION AS
WELL TO GET THAT? IF YOU HAVE A
QUESTION FOR OPPOSITION, THAT
SAME QUESTION THAT I GO AHEAD.
YEAH. THANK YOU SENATOR. AND
YES. SO CURRENTLY IT IS ALWAYS
THE DEPENDENT OR DECIDED BY THE
PLAN SPONSOR WHAT TO DO WITH THE
REBATE. THEY CAN ASK FOR 100%
PASS THROUGH OR THEY CAN SAY
KEEP A PORTION OF IT FOR YOUR
PAYMENT. AND SO THAT THAT IS
JUST ONE MODEL FOR THAT. FOR THE
PLAN TO CHOOSE HOW IT IS, IS
PAID FOR. THE PBM IS ALWAYS
GOING TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE THE
BEST REBATE ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAN SPONSOR. BOTH CDI AND MHC
CONCLUDED THAT THE REBATE SYSTEM
IN CALIFORNIA ACTUALLY HELPED
LOWER PREMIUMS BECAUSE IT IS
PASSED ON THROUGH LOWER PREMIUMS
AND LOWER COPAYS BY THE HEALTH
PLAN, AND CURRENTLY, ROUGHLY
9,596% OF THE REBATE DOLLAR DOES
GO THROUGH TO THE PLAN SPONSOR.
WOULD YOU CONTINUE, NEGOTIATING
FOR REBATE SHOULD THIS BILL MAKE
IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK AND HE
SIGNS IT? WE WOULD ON BEHALF OF
THE WE WOULD, OF COURSE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CLIENT. BUT I
THINK YOU'RE TAKING AWAY A TOOL
FROM THE PLAN SPONSORS TO HOW
THEY MANAGE AND PAY FOR THEIR
DRUG BENEFIT. AND I THINK THAT
WOULD BE THE DISRUPTIVE OF
POTENTIAL DISRUPTIVE EFFECT OF
IT, SENATOR, MENTOR, IF YOU
WOULD LIKE, I ALSO CAN HAVE ONE
OF OUR FOLKS FROM OUR SPONSOR
ALSO RESPOND TO THAT ON A MORE
TECHNICAL LEVEL, BECAUSE WE HAVE
A DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT'S FINE.
SO I'LL ASK, RACHEL, COME ON UP.
HI. THANK YOU. RACHEL ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PHARMACIST
ASSOCIATION, I THINK THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT THE REBATE PASS
THROUGH WOULD ENSURE THAT THE
CONSUMERS AND THE PLANS ARE
GETTING THOSE DOLLARS, AND OUR
UNDERSTAND IS THAT THAT WOULD
NOT, IN FACT, DISINCENTIVIZE
REBATES. WE HAVE SEEN, NOT A LOT
OF TRANSPARENCY AROUND HOW THE
REBATES ARE PASS THROUGH. WE
HAVE SEEN DIFFICULTIES FROM BOTH
EMPLOYERS WHO CONTRACT WITH PBMS
AS WELL AS PLANS UNDERSTANDING
EXACTLY WHAT THOSE ARE. AND SO
THIS IS A MECHANISM TO ENSURE
THAT THERE'S MORE TRANSPARENCY
AROUND WHAT THOSE REBATES ARE
AND HOW THEY'RE PASSED THROUGH.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE'S A BUT
THERE IS ACTUALLY TRANSPARENCY
UNDER AB 315. THE PBMS ARE
ACTUALLY REQUIRED. WE'RE GOING
TO WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON
THAT. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
WE'LL LOSE. WE'LL LOSE THE ROOM.
GO AHEAD. I MY SEPARATE QUESTION
IS RELATED TO AND I KNOW,
SENATOR, YOU'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH EVERYBODY. YOU TOOK SOME
AMENDS AND SO FORTH. AND I KNOW
THAT'S ADDRESSED A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS, OTHER QUESTIONS
RELATED TO A CONSUMER THEN GOING
OUTSIDE OF OUTSIDE OF THEIR
NETWORK TO BE ABLE TO GO TO ANY
PHARMACY. AND THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE COST
BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER IN
THEIR NETWORK. SO ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE ACCEPTING
FROM THE COMMITTEE, IT'S AT THE
BOTTOM OF PAGE 15, HAS TO DO
WITH THAT ISSUE ABOUT THE
ACCREDITATION. ANY WILLING
PROVIDER, SO THAT'S, IT'S DOES
THAT ADDRESS MY QUESTION DOES
DID THAT SO THE BILL SHOULD BE
AMENDED TO ENSURE PBMS ARE NOT
FORCED TO INCLUDE PHARMACIES AND
PHARMACISTS IN A NETWORK THAT DO
NOT MEET SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS
AND REQUIREMENTS ARE NECESSARY?
NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THAT. I
DON'T THINK THAT'S MY QUESTION,
SENATOR, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M
READING THIS INCORRECT. IF I'M
READING THIS INCORRECTLY, THAT A
CONSUMER WILL HAVE THE ABILITY
TO CHOOSE ANY, TO BE ABLE TO GO
TO ANY PHARMACY WHATSOEVER AND
THEN POTENTIALLY GO TO A
PHARMACY THAT IS OUTSIDE OF
THEIR NETWORK. THAT WOULD RAISE
THEIR COSTS. NO THERE HAS BEEN
LANGUAGE AMENDED INTO THE BILL
THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT IT'S
WITHIN THE NETWORK. SO WHAT IS
HAPPENING, FROM THE PHARMACIST
SIDE IS THAT THERE IS THE
NETWORK THAT IS ON PAPER THAT IS
ESTABLISHED BY THE PLAN, AND
THEN THE PBMS ARE ADDING
ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER LAYER OF
RESTRICTION ON WHERE AN
INDIVIDUAL PATIENT SHOULD GO.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL
RESTRICTIONS OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE
PLAN HAS REQUIRED. WE OF COURSE,
APPRECIATE THAT NETWORKS AND THE
PLANS ABILITY TO ESTABLISH A
NETWORK ARE CRITICAL. PART OF,
OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BROADLY
AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DISRUPT
THAT. SO AND SO LIKE WHAT
HAPPENED, HOW IT PLAYS OUT NOW
IS THAT LET'S SAY WALGREENS JUST
TO PICK A PHARMACY THAT DOES,
WALGREENS IS IN YOUR NETWORK
THAT YOU TYPICALLY AND THAT
YOU'RE THEN FORCED NOT TO GO TO
WALGREENS, BUT INSTEAD ONLY TO
GO TO THE PHARMACY THAT THE PBM
OWNS, EVEN THOUGH WALGREENS IS
IN YOUR NETWORK. AND THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENS NOW SOMETIMES, AND
SOMETIMES IT'S NOT. IT'S SORT OF
BY SUGGESTING THAT YOU CAN'T
SOMETIMES IT'S BY OUTRIGHT
TELLING PEOPLE, BUT THEY'RE
BASICALLY BEING THAT'S WHAT WE
CALL IT STEERING. THEY STEER
INTO THEIR OWN PHARMACY THAT
THEY OWN AND THAT BASICALLY
HELPS THEIR BOTTOM LINE, BUT IT
PREVENTS YOU FROM GOING, FOR
EXAMPLE, TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
PHARMACY AND YOUR BILL. THE
INTENT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE
CONSUMER HAS ANY ABILITY TO
CHOOSE WITHIN THEIR OWN NETWORK,
WITHIN THE NETWORK. YES. WE'RE
NOT TRYING TO BREAK OUT OF THE
NETWORK. MADAM CHAIR, CAN I?
YEAH, I THINK THE OPPOSITION
WOULD LIKE A SHOT. AND JUST IF
YOU WANT CLARITY FROM STAFF HERE
TO THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS
PROPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE IS
ACTUALLY ABOUT THE ACCREDITATION
PIECE AND NOT WHAT I'M. YEAH.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE AS TO WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING. GO AHEAD, MR.
WENGER. YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
YEAH. THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE
ISSUES. ONE IS THE ACCREDITATION
ISSUE AND THEN THE OTHER IS THE.
AND LET ME ADDRESS THIS NOTION
OF STEERING THE PBM SIMPLY
IMPLEMENTS THE CONTRACT. IT WAS
CONTRACTED TO DO. SO IF THAT
MEANS GOING TO MAIL ORDER THAT'S
WHAT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
THE PROVISION IN THIS BILL SAYS
ANY PHARMACY CAN BE IN THE
NETWORK, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT
TECHNICALLY IN THE NETWORK AND
DOESN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE
TERMS OF CONDITIONS. THAT'S A
SEPARATE ISSUE FROM
ACCREDITATION. AND THAT WILL
DRIVE UP COSTS BECAUSE ANY
PHARMACY CAN BE DISTRIBUTE THE
DRUG AND CHARGE YOU'RE READING
IT, AS THEY WILL BE ABLE TO
CHOOSE ANY PHARMACY OUTSIDE OF
THEIR NETWORK. CORRECT? OKAY
YEAH. I, I HAVEN'T NGUYEN
DOESN'T LIKE YOU. THAT DOESN'T
LIKE YOU. YEAH. NO, I MEAN,
THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS
WHERE YOU HAVE KIND OF SPECIALTY
DRUGS WHERE THE PREFERRED AVENUE
IS, IS THROUGH THE, THE MAIL
ORDER, WHICH IS THE PBM
SPECIALTY PHARMACY THAT WAS,
THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. BUT YOU
STILL HAVE AN OPTION TO GO TO
OTHER PHARMACIES AT A DIFFERENT
COST. SHARE AND THAT REALLY JUST
CONTINUES TO GO AROUND THE COST
TRYING TO DRIVE DOWN THE COST
THROUGH THE BALANCE BETWEEN,
MAINTAINING ADEQUATE NETWORKS,
WHICH WE ARE REGULATORILY
REQUIRED TO DO, AND ALSO TRYING
TO GET THE BEST COST POSSIBLE
FOR OUR ENROLLEES. AND LAST
QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR, TO THE
OPPOSITION, CAN YOU WALK ME
THROUGH WHAT DOES THAT LOOK
LIKE? I GO SEE MY PHYSICIAN. I'M
PRESCRIBED XYZ, DO I THEN COME
OUT? DO I CALL SOMEONE TO SAY,
HEY, WHERE CAN I GO? DOES MY
PHYSICIAN DIRECT ME TO WHERE
WHAT PHARMACY I CAN GO TO?
WHERE? WHERE IS THERE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO BE STEERED
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? WELL, AND
I WOULDN'T CALL IT STEERING.
IT'S SIMPLY THE BENEFIT DESIGN
THAT THAT ENROLLEE HAS. SO THEY
GET THE PRESCRIPTION FROM THEIR
PHYSICIAN. THEY WOULD GO TO A
HOPEFULLY THEIR A PHARMACY AND
NETWORK, WHICH MOST ARE GOING TO
BE IN NETWORK. AND THEN IF IT'S
A MAINTENANCE DRUG, SO A DRUG A
PRESCRIPTION THAT THAT PERSON
COULD BE ON FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME. THE PLAN WILL OFTEN SAY WE
WANT THOSE MAINTENANCE DRUGS TO
BE DISTRIBUTED VIA MAIL ORDER,
BECAUSE THE VOLUME DISCOUNT THAT
THE MAIL FACILITY GETS IS MUCH
DEEPER THAN A BRICK AND MORTAR
PHARMACY CAN GET. SO THAT THAT
SAVINGS IS PASSED ON TO THE
PAYOR AND TO THE PATIENT. SO THE
INCENTIVE IS IF YOU IF YOU GO TO
IF YOU GET THIS THROUGH MAIL
ORDER, YOUR COPAY WILL BE
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. SO THAT'S
THAT'S THE INCENTIVE. THEY CAN
STILL GO TO THE OTHER NETWORK
PHARMACY THAT INFORMATION GIVEN
TO THE CONSUMER. YES, YES, I'M
GOING TO SAVE MONEY HERE. YES,
EXACTLY. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE
INCENTIVE IS THAT IT'S
BENEFITING THE PATIENT WITH A
LOWER COPAY. THEY CAN STILL GO
TO ANOTHER NETWORK PHARMACY
THAT'S NOT MAIL ORDER, AND GET
THE DRUG. IT'LL BE A HIGHER
COPAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT
THEY'RE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THE SAVINGS THAT THE PLAN WANTS
THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. OKAY,
HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I THINK THE
AUTHOR WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS
THAT. YEAH. I MEAN, THEY CAN
DESCRIBE THAT AS A BENEFIT TO
THE CONSUMER. WHAT IT'S SAYING
IS, SURE, YOU CAN GO TO YOUR OWN
PHARMACY, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO
PAY MORE IF YOU DO THAT. AND SO
IT'S PENALIZING THEM FOR
EXERCISE, EASING THAT CHOICE. I
ALSO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE
THING IN TERMS OF THE OUR INTENT
IS NOT TO FORCE OUT OF NETWORK.
THAT WAS I APOLOGIZE. IT WAS NOT
A COMMITTEE AMENDMENT. WE
SUBMITTED AMENDMENTS WHICH I
ASSUME ARE BEING PROCESSED ALONG
WITH THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THERE'S
ANY CONFUSION ABOUT THAT, THAT
WE'RE NOT, OUR INTENT IS NOT TO
FORCE OUT OF NETWORK. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY.
NUMBER FOR THE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS. JUST JUST REALLY
QUICK THOUGH. THOSE I SEE
SENATOR ROTH LEANING FORWARD,
SHOULD THIS BILL PASS THROUGH
HERE, IT WILL GO TO HEALTH. AND
I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE THOSE
AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TAKEN UP.
BUT, SENATOR ROTH, DO YOU WANT
TO SPEAK TO THAT ITEM? WELL
WELL, LET ME FIRST, LET ME JUST
SAY THIS BEFORE WE BEFORE I
FORGET TO SAY IT, I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THE MEASURE. IT'S
GOING TO COME TO ME IN HEALTH.
SO OBVIOUSLY I WANT TO MOVE IT
ALONG AND WE'LL GET IT OVER
THERE. AND THINGS MAY STAY IN OR
MAY COME OUT. I DON'T KNOW, BUT
WITH RESPECT TO THIS WILLING
PHARMACY ISSUE, I'M STILL
CONFUSED. NOW I'M I'M MORE
CONFUSED NOW. I WASN'T CONFUSED,
I DIDN'T THINK BEFORE. SO Ã
PHARMACY IS NOT IN THE NETWORK.
THE CONSUMER GOES TO THE
PHARMACY, THE PHARMACY FILLS THE
PRESCRIPTION AND ASKED TO GET
PAID. NOT THE NETWORK RATE, BUT
THE RATE THAT THE PHARMACY
DECIDES TO CHARGE HAS HAS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN. THAT WOULD BE. YES,
THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. WE
HAVEN'T SEEN THAT WAS NOT OUR
INTENT AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE
SUBMITTED AN AMENDMENT. OH, I
SEE THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT. YEAH. WHICH APPARENTLY IS
GOING TO HAPPEN IN IN HEALTH.
WE'LL SEE IT THERE. YEAH. THANK
YOU. IN OTHER WORDS WE'RE
PUNTING TO YOU, SENATOR ROSS.
THAT'S ALL CLEAR NOW FOR
EVERYONE. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR ARCHULETA. YES. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. AND OF COURSE, OUR
OUR PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE TRYING
TO ENLIGHTEN US AND EDUCATE US.
BUT IF THE BILL PRIMARILY IS TO
LICENSE AND REGULATE WHAT IS THE
FEAR FACTOR? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE
DOING THE JOB, YOU'RE PROTECTING
THE CONSUMER. AND WE'RE TRYING
TO FIND A WAY TO LOWER THOSE
PRICES SO EVERYONE HAVE A FAIR
SHOT TO GO TO THEIR EITHER THEIR
LOCAL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN
I GO TO THE DENTIST, THERE'S A
PHARMACIST DOWNSTAIRS AND GET A
PRESCRIPTION. GO DOWNSTAIRS,
FILL IT OUT, OR I CAN JUMP IN
THE CAR AND DRIVE A LITTLE
CLOSER TO HOME AND FILL IT OUT
THERE. I MEAN, WOULDN'T THE
REGULATIONS REGULATE BOTH? AND
TO MAKE THEM EQUITABLE AND FAIR
TO EVERYONE? AND SO I DON'T I
DON'T SEE WHAT THE NEGATIVE IS
ON, HAVING, THE, THE BPM'S
LICENSED AND REGULATED BECAUSE
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY ISSUES THERE.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU ADDRESS SOME
OF THOSE THINGS THAT THAT YOU'RE
REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT? YEAH. I
MEAN, WHAT WE'RE, TRYING SO JUST
SORT OF BACKING UP ON PBMS WERE
CREATED. IT WAS THESE WERE
SMALLER FOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
ENTITIES TO TRY TO HELP HEALTH
PLANS, YOU KNOW, DO CERTAIN
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS AROUND
THE FORMULARY AND SOME
NEGOTIATION OVER TIME IN,
PARTICULARLY IN THE LAST LESS
THAN A DECADE, THESE ARE NOW
MASSIVE CORPORATIONS IN THEIR
OWN RIGHT THAT ARE THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE BELIEVE IN SOME
INSTANCES DRIVE UP COSTS AND
INCREASED COSTS IN THE HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM AND ARE NOT DOING IT
NECESSARILY IN THE INTERESTS OF
CONSUMERS. AND SO WE'RE ASKING
FOR LICENSURE AND FOR SOME BASIC
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN THE BILL
AROUND THE SPREAD PRICING AND
THE NOT POCKETING THE REBATES
AND NOT FORCING YOU TO USE
PHARMACIES AND PREVENTING YOU
FROM USING PHARMACIES THAT ARE
IN YOUR NETWORK. AND WE THINK
THIS IS A REASONABLE APPROACH.
OTHER STATES ARE DOING DIFFERENT
VERSIONS OF THIS. OBVIOUSLY,
THIS IS THE FIRST COMMITTEE, AND
THIS WILL BE AN ONGOING
CONVERSATION, INCLUDING IN
SENATOR ROTH'S COMMITTEE. AND I
THINK THIS IS LONG OVERDUE. THIS
IS A HUGE MARKET. THEY SHOULD BE
LICENSED AND REGULATED. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SENATOR EGGMAN
, THANK YOU. I WILL ALSO BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. AND
IF IT HASN'T BEEN MOVED YET,
I'LL MOVE IT AT THIS TIME, JUST
BECAUSE I THINK IT MAKES SENSE
THAT WE TRY TO GET OUR ARMS
AROUND THIS IN A BIG, IN A
BIGGER, BIGGER WAY. AND I. AND
NOBODY'S TALKED ABOUT THIS AND
MAYBE SOMEBODY DID BEFORE, BUT
JUST ALSO THE DOMINATION OF THE
MARKET, I THINK ANYBODY, ANYBODY
WHO CARES ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS
AND NEIGHBORHOOD STUFF SHOULD
CARE ABOUT THIS. THIS HAS BEEN
ONE OF MY PET PEEVES FOR A LONG
TIME. I HAD 49, PHARMACY, BUT
OPEN 100 YEARS. I WENT THERE ALL
THE TIME. THEY THEY'RE CLOSED
NOW. TRY TO FIND ANOTHER SMALL
ONE. SO I FIND MYSELF AT AT CVS
NOW. BUT WHEN I WAS ON AT THE ON
THE CITY COUNCIL, WE WENT
THROUGH THIS WITH TRYING TO
DECREASE COSTS. BUT IT, IT JUST
TAKES EVERYTHING AWAY FROM THAT
SMALL PERSON THAT YOU MAY KNOW
TO THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, IT'S
MAIL ORDER, THE NEXT THING YOU
KNOW IT'S THIS. AND THEN NEXT
THING YOU KNOW, IT'S AUTOMATIC.
THE DELIVERY. YOU DIDN'T EVEN
ASK FOR IT AGAIN. AND HERE IT
COMES AGAIN. SO ANYWAY, I THINK
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD BILL. I
THINK IT'S A GOOD START TO SOME
OF THE REGULATIONS WE NEED TO
PUT IN PLACE. SENATOR SMALL,
THANK YOU. AND THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS DISCUSSION, TO
THE LEGISLATURE ON THIS ISSUE, I
MEAN, ULTIMATELY, OUR GOAL IS TO
BRING DOWN DRUG PRICES, FOR
COMMUNITIES AND PARTICULARLY
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
DISADVANTAGED AND IN NEED. YOU
KNOW, OTHER STATES HAVE HAVE
IMPLEMENTED THESE KINDS OF
REGULATIONS ON PBMS. AND I'M
JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE
SCENARIOS, WHAT WHAT ARE THE
IMPACTS FOR CONSUMERS? WHAT ARE
YOU WHAT ARE WHAT HAVE WE SEEN
IN TERMS OF IMPACTS FOR
CONSUMERS IN LOWER DRUG COSTS?
YEAH. AND I THINK, AND I WANT TO
BE VERY CLEAR, AT NO POINT HAVE
I SAID, OR WILL I SAY, THAT PBMS
ARE THE ONLY ISSUE IN OUR HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM. THERE'S NO SILVER
BULLET, BUT THIS IS ONE PIECE OF
THE PUZZLE, A BUNCH OF THESE
REGULATIONS ARE RATHER RECENT,
BUT RACHEL MAY BE ABLE TO, ADD.
THE QUESTION, SENATOR, IT IS
CHALLENGING BECAUSE THERE WAS
THERE WERE PREEMPTION ISSUES.
THERE WAS A SUPREME COURT CASE
THAT WAS OVERTURNED SEVERAL
YEARS AGO THAT ALLOWED STATES TO
THEN TAKE A MORE AGGRESSIVE
STANCE AGAINST PBMS. SO THEY ARE
RELATIVELY RECENT, AND THERE IS
A WIDE RANGE OF, OF, METHODS
THAT THE STATES HAVE USED TO
ATTACK THESE. SOME HAVE LOOKED
AT PARTICULAR PRACTICES, SOME
HAVE CREATED LICENSING BOARDS,
SO THERE'S IT'S HARD TO SAY
EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPACT IS
DIRECTLY RIGHT NOW AT THIS TIME.
I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE SEEN
SOME EVIDENCE FROM, MEDICAID
PLANS, MEDICAID PLANS, SAVINGS.
SO A DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE
ARE SOME DOLLARS KEPT AT THE
STATE LEVEL BECAUSE OF THE
IMPACT OF THESE REGULATIONS. AND
SO THAT CERTAINLY IS A VALUE TO
THOSE STATES. AND, ULTIMATELY,
THE TRANSPARENCY AND CREATING,
AN ENTITY IN CALIFORNIA THAT
ENDS UP BEING THE EXPERT ON PBMS
AND IS A REGULATOR THAT CAN
REALLY HAVE THE APPROPRIATE
LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO DO SOME
EFFECTIVE REGULATION IS REALLY
WHAT WE'RE AIMING, AND WE THINK
THAT IT WILL BE VERY EFFECTIVE
TO HELP LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I AGREE,
I THINK THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
GIVEN OUR SIZE AND SCALE AND
BUYING POWER, WE SHOULD BE ABLE
TO SEE SOME OF THOSE SAVINGS AS
WELL. THANK YOU. SEEING NONE,
WOULD YOU LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE? SENATOR, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE, MADAM CHAIR, I
THINK I HEARD A MOTION FROM
SENATOR EGGMAN ALREADY. THIS IS,
AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, READY TO
GO TO HEALTH. SO WE WILL CALL
THE ROLL. MOTION IS TO PASS THE
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE. ASHBY.
AYE, ASHBY. AYE. NGUYEN
ALVARADO. GIL. ALVARADO. GIL.
AYE. ARCHULETA AYE. ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER BECKER. AYE. DODD.
DODD. AYE. EGGMAN EGGMAN. AYE.
GLAZER. MENGIBAR MENGIBAR. AYE.
NILO. ROTH. ROTH AYE. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. AYE.
WILK. AYE WILK. AYE. WHEN I WHEN
I. THAT'S 11 TO 0. WE'LL PUT IT
ON CALL, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE
STILL MISSING AT LEAST ONE. AND
WE WILL MOVE ON. THANK YOU. FILE
ITEM TWO THE LAST OF THE DAY SB
1012 BY SENATOR WIENER. ARE YOU
PREPARED? SENATOR WIENER, DO YOU
NEED A MINUTE? YOU GOT IT. OKAY
WHEN YOU'RE READY, SIR. AYE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. COLLEAGUES, I'M, HERE TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL 1012, WHICH
WILL PROVIDE REGULATED,
SUPERVISED ACCESS FOR PEOPLE 21
AND OLDER TO CERTAIN PSYCHEDELIC
SUBSTANCES UNDER THE SUPERVISION
OF A LICENSED AND TRAINED
FACILITATOR, SB 1012 IS A
NARROWER VERSION OF WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE, LEGISLATURE PASSED
LAST YEAR. SENATE BILL 58, WHICH
WAS SUPPORTED BY A MAJORITY OF
THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, WHICH
WOULD HAVE BROADLY
DECRIMINALIZED PERSONAL
POSSESSION AND USE OF CERTAIN
PSYCHEDELICS, AS YOU MAY RECALL,
THE GOVERNOR VETOED SB 58 AND IN
HIS VETO MESSAGE, CALLED ON THE
LEGISLATURE TO SEND HIM A BILL
FOCUSING ON THERAPEUTIC USE OF
PSYCHEDELICS. WE IMMEDIATELY GOT
TO WORK WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS.
AND THAT WORK ULTIMATELY
RESULTED IN SB 12. AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR MY ALLERGIES. IF
MY VOICE SOUNDS A LITTLE WEIRD,
IT'S VERY SACRAMENTO OF YOU. YES
AND WE WORKED WITH A BROAD ARRAY
OF STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING
OPPONENTS OF SB 58, WHO ARE NOW
SUPPORTING THIS EFFORT. AND YOU
WILL HEAR FROM ONE SUCH PERSON
TODAY. SB 1012 SUPPORT COALITION
INCLUDES COMBAT VETERANS AS
FIRST RESPONDERS, HEALTH CARE
EXPERTS AND A COALITION OF
PARENTS WHO TRAGICALLY LOST
CHILDREN WHO USE PSYCHEDELICS
AND WHO ARE TELLING US THAT SB
1012 WILL REDUCE THE RISKS OF
OTHER PARENTS SUFFERING THAT
UNIMAGINABLE LOSS. SB 1012 UNDER
SB 1012, THE STATE WILL LICENSE
TRAINED PSYCHEDELIC FACILITATORS
WHO WILL THEN BE AUTHORIZED TO
SUPERVISE AND FACILITATE
CONSUMPTION OF THESE PSYCHEDELIC
GOVERNED BY PROFESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT AND GUIDELINES. PEOPLE
SEEKING THE SUPERVISED USE WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO BRING THEIR OWN
PSYCHEDELICS, NOR WILL THEY BE
ABLE TO TAKE THE PSYCHEDELICS
AWAY AFTER THE SESSION. RATHER,
THEY WILL USE WITH THE
FACILITATOR, AND ONLY IN THAT
SESSION. I DO WANT TO KNOW, AND
I WANT TO THANK SENATOR MENJIVAR
AND SENATOR GLASER FOR WORKING
WITH US. AND BASED ON THOSE
CONVERSATIONS, I WILL I AM
COMMITTING TO AMEND THE BILL, TO
LIMIT THE LICENSURE OF TO BE A
FACILITATOR TO EXISTING, MENTAL
OR EXISTING LICENSE HEALTH
PROVIDERS SPECIFICALLY. AND I'LL
JUST LIST THEM OUT TO
PHYSICIANS, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO PSYCHIATRISTS,
PSYCHOLOGISTS, MARRIAGE AND
FAMILY THERAPISTS, LICENSED
CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS, NURSE
PRACTITIONERS, PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANT S LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL COUNSELORS
, AND LICENSED DRUG AND ALCOHOL
COUNSELORS. SO THOSE WILL BE THE
ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE
ABLE TO GO AND SEEK A LICENSE.
THEY'LL STILL HAVE TO GET THE
TRAINING AND RECEIVE THE LICENSE
TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS, BUT IT
WILL NOT IT WILL NOT GO BEYOND
THAT EXISTING CATEGORY OF,
LICENSE HOLDERS, SB 1012 ALSO
CONTAINS PROVISIONS TO EXPAND
EDUCATION SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW
HOW TO USE PSYCHEDELICS MORE
SAFELY. THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT
FOR OUR COALITION. PUBLIC
EDUCATION AROUND PSYCHEDELICS IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THESE SUBSTANCES, LIKE ANY
POWERFUL SUBSTANCE AND THEY ARE
POWERFUL, INCLUDES RISKS, BOTH
THOSE FACILITATING AND THOSE
USING MUST BE AWARE OF THOSE
POTENTIAL HARMS AND HOW TO
REDUCE THAT RISK. GROWING
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THESE
SUBSTANCES CAN CHANGE PEOPLE'S
LIVES. THE FDA IS ANTICIPATED TO
APPROVE ONE OR MORE PSYCHEDELIC
THERAPY IN THE COMING YEARS.
HOWEVER, AS INDICATED IN THE
RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS BY DOCTOR BRIAN
ANDERSON, THAT AUTHORIZATION IS
LIKELY TO BE QUITE LIMITED TO A
NUMBER TO A LIMITED NUMBER OF
PROVIDERS WITH DEA AUTHORIZED
ACTION, AND FOR A LIMITED
CATEGORY OF DIAGNOSES, AS IT
WILL BE A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD.
BUT HAVING THAT COMPLEMENTED
WITH THIS BILL IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF EXPANDING
ACCESS. THIS BILL IS A
CULMINATION OF ABOUT 40, ALMOST
FOUR YEARS OF WORK. WE HAVE.
IT'S BEEN A REAL JOURNEY, AND I
THINK WE HAVE A VERY STRONG WORK
PRODUCT HERE. OBVIOUSLY, AS WITH
ANY COMPLICATED AREA, THERE'S
ALWAYS MORE WORK TO BE DONE.
THIS IS THE FIRST POLICY
HEARING, AND I'M ASKING THE
COMMITTEE TO GIVE ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO DO
THIS WORK. MANY PEOPLE ARE
CURRENTLY USING PSYCHEDELICS
TODAY. THEY'RE DOING SO IN THE
SHADOWS SINCE WE CRIMINALIZE
THEIR USE. MANY PEOPLE ARE DOING
IT IN CALIFORNIA. MANY PEOPLE
ARE BEING FORCED TO TRAVEL TO
OTHER COUNTRIES TO RECEIVE THIS,
FACILITATING THÀNH. LET'S BRING
IT OUT OF THE SHADOWS, INTO THE
SUNLIGHT, AND HELP PEOPLE USE
PSYCHEDELICS MORE SAFELY IN A
STRUCTURED SETTING. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
WITH ME HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY
ARE JASON MOORE-BROWN, A UNITED
STATES ARMY VETERAN WITH THE
HEROIC HEARTS PROJECT, WHICH IS
ONE OF OUR SPONSORS, AND SUSAN
SIGI, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
PSYCHEDELIC SAFETY AND EDUCATION
. OKAY, SO TO THE TWO OF YOU ALL
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH, AND I
ASSUME WHOEVER IS HERE FOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT, IF THERE ARE
QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, FELLOW VETERANS,
INCLUDING SENATORS ARCHULETA,
MENGIBAR AND ROTH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JASON
MOORE-BROWN. I'M A MEMBER OF THE
VETERANS MENTAL HEALTH
LEADERSHIP COALITION AND AN
AMBASSADOR FOR THE HEROIC HEARTS
PROJECT, THE BILL SPONSOR. I'M
HERE ON THEIR BEHALF AND ON
BEHALF OF THE 1.8 MILLION
VETERANS THAT COMPRISE YOUR
CONSTITUENCIES. ASK YOU FORGOT
SENATOR EGGMAN, A FELLOW
VETERAN. I APOLOGIZE, I THOUGHT
I DID MY RESEARCH. I'LL WORK ON
THAT, BUT I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU
, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE 1.8
MILLION VETERANS THAT COMPRISE
YOUR CONSTITUENCIES ASKING YOU
TO VOTE YES TODAY ON SB 1012. I
LIVE IN PLACER COUNTY WITH MY
BEAUTIFUL WIFE AND FIVE CHILDREN
AND MY GRANDDAUGHTER. I SERVE
WITH DISTINCTION AS AN ARMY
OFFICER FROM 2000 TO 2008,
DEPLOYED THREE TIMES IN SUPPORT
OF THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR.
DURING THAT TIME, Ã
SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCTED OVER 300
COMBAT MISSIONS. STATISTICALLY,
I SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED 15
TIMES. I RECEIVED TWO BRONZE
STARS FOR MY ACTIONS IN COMBAT,
GENERAL WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMAN
SAID. WAR IS HELL. I REALIZED
HOW TRUE THAT STATEMENT WAS
DURING THE INVASION OF IRAQ IN
2003. HONESTLY, IT'S FRUSTRATING
TO BE SITTING HERE BEFORE YOU
ALL AGAIN WITH MY HAT IN MY
HAND, RELIVING MY STORY AND
PLEADING WITH YOU ALL, ASKING
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. SUPPORT THAT
WILL GIVE CALIFORNIA VETERANS
LIKE ME A PATHWAY TO THE ONLY
THING THAT IS PROVIDED MANY IN
OUR COMMUNITY WITH ANY LONG
LASTING RELIEF. AND THAT'S
PSYCHEDELICS. SOMETIMES WE ARE
CALLED TO BE BRAVE AND DO HARD
THINGS. SO HERE I SIT. HERE IS
THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IN
SOME FACTS, OVER 133,000
VETERANS HAVE COMMITTED SUICIDE
IN THIS COUNTRY BETWEEN 2001 AND
2021. IN 2021, VETERAN SUICIDES
IN CALIFORNIA ACCOUNTED FOR OVER
11.5% OF ALL OF THE SUICIDES IN
THIS STATE. CALIFORNIA HAS THE
LARGEST U.S. VETERAN POPULATION
IN THE UNITED STATES. I TOOK
AYAHUASCA WITH OTHER VETERANS AT
A HEROIC HEARTS RETREAT IN PERU
A YEAR AGO, AND IT'S THE ONLY
THING THAT HAS HELPED ME FIND
PEACE IN THE 21 YEARS SINCE I
FIRST EXPERIENCED WAR, MY WIFE
WAS SO MOVED BY THE
TRANSFORMATION THAT SHE DEALING
WITH HER OWN TRAUMAS, SOME
INFLICTED BY ME, TOOK PSILOCYBIN
IN MEXICO AT A RURAL RETREAT
WITH OTHER VETERAN SPOUSES. SHE
HAD ALSO SOUGHT RELIEF VIA
DIFFERENT MODALITIES AND NOTHING
WAS AS THERAPEUTIC AS THE
PSYCHEDELICS. IF SB 1012 WERE
ENACTED, MY WIFE AND I WOULD NOT
HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE
COUNTRY TO ACCESS THIS LIFE
SAVING MEDICINE. NOTHING
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO VETERANS
HAS SHOWN THE POTENTIAL TO
DECREASE SUICIDES AND IMPROVE
MENTAL HEALTH, LIKE
PSYCHEDELICS. IF THERE WERE
OTHER BETTER OPTIONS, I WOULDN'T
BE SITTING HERE IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY. SO LET'S PLEASE PUT ASIDE
POLITICS, PERSONAL MISGIVINGS
AND LOOK AT WHAT'S AVAILABLE IN
RESEARCH AND THE OTHER
LEGISLATION THAT'S PASSED IN
OTHER STATES AND AT THE NATIONAL
LEVEL, AND MOVE THIS BILL IF YOU
WANT TO THANK VETERANS FOR THEIR
SERVICE, YOU'LL VOTE YES ON SB
1012 TODAY. TODAY, I CHALLENGE
YOU ALL TO BE BRAVE AND SIT HERE
WITH ME AND MY COLLEAGUES, AND
LET'S DO THE HARD THINGS
TOGETHER ON BEHALF OF THE
VETERANS IN CALIFORNIA, WE THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
GO AHEAD. TWO MINUTES. THANK
YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON, SENATORS.
I'M SUSAN SIGI, REPRESENTING MY
FAMILY AND THE COALITION FOR
PSYCHEDELIC SAFETY AND
EDUCATION. LOSING MY 21 YEAR OLD
CHILD TO A DISTRESSING
EXPERIENCE WITH PSILOCYBIN
DRIVES ME HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT
A BILL THAT WILL CREATE
SAFEGUARDS, SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL
PROVIDE REGULATED ACCESS AND
INCREASED AWARENESS OF THE RISKS
OF PSYCHEDELICS THROUGH PUBLIC
EDUCATION. MY CHILD WAS A
TRAPEZE INSTRUCTOR, A FULL TIME
HELD A FULL TIME JOB AND HAD A
FUTURE AT UC DAVIS AND
TRAGICALLY PASSED AWAY AFTER
USING PSILOCYBIN ALONE. IT WAS
ALL CAPTURED ON A VIDEO, SO WE
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. THE
PREVAILING ONLINE NARRATIVE THAT
I WAS SEEING BEFORE AND AFTER MY
CHILD'S DEATH HIGHLIGHTED THE
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THESE
SUBSTANCES WITHOUT REALLY
MENTIONING MUCH ABOUT THE RISKS.
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SUCH A BAD
IDEA FOR HER TO TRY IT. I AM NOT
ALONE IN SEVERAL OF THE PARENTS
IN OUR COALITION HAVE LOST
CHILDREN TO PSYCHEDELIC USE, AND
OTHERS HAVE CHILDREN THAT ARE
STRUGGLING AFTER HAVING ADVERSE
EVENTS. WHAT BONDS US AND BINDS
US IS NOT JUST OUR STRUGGLES AND
LOSS, BUT OUR BELIEF THAT
PSYCHEDELICS, TAKEN IN A
RESPONSIBLE MANNER, ARE THE
RIGHT WAY. WITH PROPER SCREENING
AND FACILITATION CAN BE VERY
HELPFUL TO MANY PEOPLE. WHAT
ALSO BINDS US IS THE KNOWLEDGE
THAT PSYCHEDELICS ARE BEING USED
RIGHT NOW, AND THEY'RE BEING
USED IN AN INCREASINGLY LARGE
RATE, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO
STOP. AND THEY'RE BEING USED BY
THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. PEOPLE WITH MENTAL
HEALTH CONDITIONS, YOUTH, YOUNG
ADULTS, WHEN THERE'S AN INCREASE
IN USE, THERE'S JUST GOING TO BE
A USE INCREASE IN HARMS. I HAD A
CONVERSATION WITH A 16 YEAR OLD
RECENTLY WHO TOLD ME THAT
PSYCHEDELICS ARE USED IN VERY
PREVALENT IN HER HIGH SCHOOL.
AMAZING. THIS INCREASE IN USE
WILL NOT STOP. SO WE NEED
SAFEGUARDS LIKE ONE REGULATED
ACCESS AND TWO, WE NEED PUBLIC
EDUCATION. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE BALANCED MESSAGING ABOUT
THE RISKS OF PSYCHEDELICS, AS
WELL AS THE BENEFITS. AND THAT
BALANCED NARRATIVE DID NOT EXIST
WHEN MY CHILD, TRIED PSILOCYBIN
LAST YEAR, OUR COALITION OPPOSED
SB 58 BECAUSE WE WOULD NEVER
SUPPORT A BILL THAT CREATED A
MARKETPLACE OR ALLOWED FOR
UNREGULATED USE. SO TODAY, IF
YOU DON'T APPROVE THIS BILL,
WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE WHERE WE
ARE TODAY, HAD HB 1012 EXISTED
WHEN MY CHILD TOOK PSILOCYBIN,
THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
DISCUSS THAT INTEREST WITH A
THERAPIST OR A COUNSELOR, AND
THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TOLD TO GET A
SAFETY SCREENING AND BEEN TOLD
TO USE THE SUBSTANCES. NOT ALONE
. BUT THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN
WITHOUT SB 1012, BECAUSE A
COUNSELOR OR A THERAPIST WOULD
BE AFRAID TO COUNSEL A YOUTH
ABOUT THE USE OF A SUBSTANCE
THAT WASN'T LEGAL. DO YOU HAVE A
FINAL? CAN YOU CAPTURE YOUR
FINAL THOUGHT THERE? YES. WE
URGE YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE SB
1012 TODAY TO FUND. IT'S A BILL
THAT PROVIDES FOR A FUND FOR
PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE RISKS
OF THESE VERY POWERFUL
SUBSTANCES AND HOW THEY CAN BE
USED SAFELY AND IT ALSO PROVIDES
A REGULATED FRAMEWORK FOR USE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. OKAY.
WE'VE REACHED THE PART WHERE
FOLKS WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB
1012, BUT WOULD LIKE TO OFFER
THEIR METOO TESTIMONY, NAME AND
AFFILIATION POSITION ON THE
BILL. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
ANTHONY MOLINA ON BEHALF OF NEW
APPROACH ADVOCACY, LEAP LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACTION PARTNERSHIP,
THE STEINBERG INSTITUTE, AND THE
SACRAMENTO INSTITUTE FOR
PSYCHOTHERAPY AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. I'M CHRIS KOCH,
I'M DIRECTOR OF POLICY FOR
VETERANS EXPLORING TREATMENT
SOLUTIONS. WE'RE A 500 1C3 AND
WE ARE CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL AS
WELL. AND WE URGE YOU TO VOTE
YES. THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS
ISAAC GILMORE. I'M A NATIVE
CALIFORNIAN AND FORMER NAVY
SEAL. I'M ON HERE ON BEHALF OF
HPE. I WAS PART OF TREAT
CALIFORNIA LAST YEAR TO ADD OUT
TO OUR COALITION. I BOTH
RECEIVED BENEFIT FROM AND I'VE
ADVOCATED FOR THIS USE OF THESE
MEDICINES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
TO OUR GENERATION OF WAR
FIGHTERS. PSYCHEDELICS MEANS
HOPE. THANK YOU. NEED FOLKS TO
JUST STICK TO YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. MY NAME IS
ANGELA GRAHAM. I WAS A
FIREFIGHTER FOR 17 YEARS AND I
HAVE CO-FOUNDED THE SIREN
PROJECT, WHICH PROVIDES
ENTHEOGENIC MEDICINES FOR FIRST
RESPONDERS IN SUPPORT AND
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. NORA
BACA, VICE CHAIR OF THE LAKE
COUNTY DEMOCRATS. I'M HERE, ON
BEHALF OF THE LAKE COUNTY
DEMOCRATS, THE ALAMEDA COUNTY
DEMOCRATS, THE LOS ANGELES
DEMOCRATS, SONOMA COUNTY
DEMOCRATS, MONTEREY COUNTY
SUPERVISOR WENDY ROOT ASKEW,
SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE BERKELEY
CITY COUNCIL. ANY POSITIVE
CHANGE, A HARM REDUCTION PROGRAM
MICHAEL BAUMANN, FOUNDER OF RED
DOT, AN ORGANIZATION THAT TREATS
PTSD AND FIRST RESPONDERS.
COSMOVISION ANCESTRAL IS A
COMMUNITY BASED RESEARCH
DESIGNING PUBLIC HEALTH
INTERVENTIONS FOR VIOLENCE,
INJURY, AND DISASTER PREVENTION,
AND DOCTOR BRONNER'S SOAPS
FOUNDATION ALL IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. THANK YOU. HI
THERE. GOOD AFTERNOON, ISMAEL
ALI, ON BEHALF OF THE
MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATION
FOR PSYCHEDELIC STUDIES IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
REBECCA NIEVES MCGOLDRICK, A
MOM, AN ASSOCIATE MARRIAGE AND
FAMILY THERAPIST, AND ALSO ON
BEHALF OF A NEW PATH, WHICH
SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S
EVERYBODY FOR SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT, THEN WE'LL TAKE
OPPOSITION. IF THERE'S LEAD
OPPOSITION YOU COME ON FORWARD.
IN FACT, I'M GOING TO ASK THE
FOLKS TO STEP DOWN SO THEY CAN
COME FORWARD AND HAVE THE SEATS.
WE'LL JUST HAVE A CHANGING OF
THE GUARD HERE WHERE YOU CAN.
TWO OF YOU CAN STAY UP. YEAH. I
HAVE A SEAT. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN
YOU WILL ALSO EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES WHEN YOU'RE READY. CAN
YOU HEAR ME? NOPE. WE NEED YOU
TO PUSH THE BUTTON FIRST. THAT
THAT'S BETTER. GREAT, CHAIR
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS GREG BIRCH.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA FAMILY COUNCIL, AND
WE HAVE SOME GRAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE HARM THIS BILL WILL
CAUSE TO OUR STATE CITIZENS.
THERE'S NO REASON TO DOUBT THE
SINCERITY OF THE VETERANS AND
OTHERS HERE TODAY. DESPERATE FOR
BETTER TREATMENT FOR MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES LIKE PTSD. BUT
NOTICE, SENATOR WIENER DIDN'T
TALK MUCH OR SERIOUSLY ABOUT ALL
THE VETERANS AND OTHERS WHOSE
CONDITIONS WERE ONLY MADE WORSE
BY THESE DRUGS OR HER Ó OR WHO
WERE RUSHED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH
HEART ISSUES, SEIZURES AND
NAUSEA, ACUTE ANXIETY OR
HALLUCINATIONS, AS ACKNOWLEDGED
IN THE BILL ANALYSIS. AS A
RECENT STANFORD STUDY, SAID THAT
CALIFORNIA HOSPITALIZATIONS AND
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS
RELATED TO HALLUCINOGEN USE
INCREASED BY MORE THAN 50%
BETWEEN 2016 AND 2022. WHAT DO
YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF
CALIFORNIA TELLS THE PUBLIC THAT
PSYCHEDELIC PICKS ARE SAFE?
EVERYONE WANTS TO HELP VETERANS
WHO HAVE SACRIFICED THEIR LIVES
AND SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. WE
OWE THEM A GREAT DEBT OF
GRATITUDE. BUT MAKE SURE YOUR
EMOTIONS ARE NOT BEING
MANIPULATED IN SERVICE OF
SENATOR WIENER'S GRAND PLAN TO
END THE WAR ON DRUGS ON ALL
ILLEGAL DRUGS IN 2020, SENATOR
WIENER WROTE THE FOLLOWING ON
HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT. AND I
QUOTE, TO BE CLEAR,
DECRIMINALIZATION,
DECRIMINALIZING PSYCHEDELICS IS
SIMPLY ONE STEP IN ENDING THE
WAR ON DRUGS. WE ULTIMATELY NEED
TO DECRIMINALIZE ALL DRUG USE
AND STOP PUTTING PEOPLE IN
PRISON OR, OR DRUG USE OR
POSSESSION. WE ARE WORKING ON
ALL OF THIS, BUT FOR NOW, LET'S
GET IT DONE WITH PSYCHEDELICS.
DO YOU HAVE A CASE WE NEED YOU
TO DO A FINAL WRAP THOUGHT HERE.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THIS BILL
REALLY ISN'T ABOUT SCIENCE. IT'S
ABOUT SKIPPING SCIENCE. SENATOR
WIENER DOESN'T WANT YOU TO GO
THROUGH THE NORMAL SCIENTIFIC
PROCESS. OUR STATE LEGISLATORS
OR FEDERAL LEGISLATURE HAS
ALREADY SET UP TO MAKE SURE THAT
DRUGS USED FOR THE PUBLIC ARE
SAFE. HE WANTS PSYCHEDELICS TO
SKIP THE STRICT SCIENTIFIC
STANDARDS, BUT TO DO SO, HE
NEEDS YOU TO CREATE AN APPROVAL
SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE
A PSYCHIC FACILITATOR TO HAVE
MEDICAL TRAINING BEFORE TRYING
TO HELP A VETERAN STRUGGLING
WITH PTSD OR OTHER MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES. AND FOR THESE REASONS,
WE OPPOSE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. BRIEFLY,
MADAM CHAIR. YEAH THANKS, I'M
RYAN SHERMAN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
NARCOTIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, IN
PRINT AND ALSO TODAY
REPRESENTING OTHER POLICE
OFFICER, GROUPS IN OPPOSITION,
INCLUDING THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA RESERVE
PEACE OFFICERS, CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF SCHOOL SAFETY
PROFESSIONALS, DEPUTY SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, MONTEREY AND PLACER
COUNTIES, AND POLICE OFFICER
ASSOCIATIONS OF ARCADIA, BURBANK
, CLAREMONT, CORONA, CULVER
CITY, FULLERTON, MURRIETA,
NEWPORT BEACH, NOVATO, PALOS
VERDES, POMONA, RIVERSIDE, SANTA
ANA, AND UPLAND, I WANT TO START
OFF BY JUST THANKING THE SENATOR
FOR TAKING THE AMENDMENTS OR
PLEDGING TO TAKE THE AMENDMENTS
TO LIMIT, THE FACILITATORS AND
THEIR BACKGROUND AND THEIR
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE. WE
STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
THE DRUG AND ALCOHOL COUNSELORS
BECAUSE THEY'RE, LICENSING IS A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, SO WE DO
HAVE SOME CONCERNS THERE, BUT WE
DO APPRECIATE HIS EFFORTS, WE
ALSO WOULD, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
THAT, ECSTASY BE REMOVED FROM
THE BILL AS IT WAS IN SB 58,
THAT PASSED LAST YEAR. IT DID
NOT INCLUDE THE FINAL VERSION,
DID NOT INCLUDE ECSTASY. AND WE
THINK THAT'S STILL A BIG PROBLEM
TO HAVE, BE DISPENSED BY
NON-MEDICAL PERSONNEL. IT'S
STILL SCHEDULE ONE, ADDERALL,
YOU KNOW, IS PRETTY COMMON DRUG.
AND IT'S DISPENSED, ONLY BY
LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS,
IT'S A SCHEDULE TWO. THIS IS THE
SCHEDULE ONE, AND IT WILL BE
ABLE TO BE DISPENSED BY, NON
MEDICAL FOLKS. SO FOR THOSE AND
OTHER REASONS, LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND
HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET
TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE OTHER
FOLKS IN THE ROOM IN OPPOSITION?
NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME
FORWARD. TELL US YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION. YOU DO. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. IF I COULD DO
CONCERNS AS NOTED IN YOUR
ANALYSIS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS, WHO HAVE HAD
CONCERNS, WE'RE TALKING TO THE
CENTER ON A REGULAR BASIS,
INVITING THE PROPONENTS TO BE AT
OUR NEXT MEETING THURSDAY NIGHT.
WE'LL JUST KEEP WORKING WITH
HIM, SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH
THIS, BUT APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENT CENTER. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER IN
OPPOSITION OR CONCERN? ALL
RIGHT. THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO
THE DAIS FOR CONVERSATION ON
WITH COLLEAGUES. YOU WANT TO
START OUT ARCHULETA AND THEN
SENATOR EGGMAN AFTER THAT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, AGAIN, FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I KNOW
I'VE BEEN WITH YOU ON THIS
JOURNEY. OFTENTIMES IN THE
OPPOSITE SIDE. AS YOU KNOW, MY
LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND, MY
SERVICE WITH THE 82ND AIRBORNE,
AS A COMBAT VETERAN, I WAS VERY,
VERY TOUGH ON YOU AS YOU STARTED
YOUR JOURNEY. BUT OVER TIME,
I'VE GOTTEN CLOSER AND CLOSER TO
YOU AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU
WERE TRYING TO DO HELP VETERANS
WHO REALLY NEED IT, BUT I THINK
WHAT'S REALLY TAKEN ME OVER THE
TOP TODAY IS THE FACT THAT
YOU'VE LISTED ALL THESE
PROFESSIONALS, PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONALS THAT I ARE HERE IN
THE DAIS WITH US, THAT ARE GOING
TO BE PART OF THAT. AND, AND
LET'S, LET'S JUST FOR A SECOND,
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON THE
STREETS. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE,
THERE WHERE ANYONE CAN JUST BUY
IT. IT'S GOING TO BE SUPERVISED
BY THESE PROFESSIONALS AND ONLY
IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA,
BECAUSE NOT EVERY VETERAN IS IN
NEED OF, THE PSYCHEDELIC DRUG.
THEY THERE'S COUNSELING. AND I
THINK YOU ASSURED ME THERE WOULD
BE STEPS AND PROCEDURES WHEN YOU
FINALLY GET TO THAT POINT WITH
THE PROFESSIONAL SAYS, I THINK
WE NEED TO TRY THIS IN SMALL
AMOUNTS AND THEN GO FROM THERE.
AND WE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF A
VETERAN THAT CHANGED HIS LIFE.
SO I THINK WE'RE IN THE RIGHT
TRACK. AND I THINK THAT, THIS
WILL HELP OUR VETERANS. AND IN
REFERENCE TO OUR FIRST
RESPONDERS, WE HAVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS,
FIREFIGHTERS WHO EXPERIENCE
THINGS THAT THAT ARE PRETTY
EQUAL TO COMBAT AND, AND THEIR
LIVES ARE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN. SO
NOW WE'RE OPENING THE DOORS FOR
THEM, TOO. SO FOR ALL THESE
REASONS, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
IT. AND LET'S CONTINUE THE
RESEARCH AND LET'S CONTINUE
OPENING THE DOORS TO BRING OUR
VETERANS HOME. THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE,
SENATOR EGGMAN. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, SO THIS IS A BIG,
AMBITIOUS BILL SETTING UP THREE
DIFFERENT, THREE DIFFERENT NEW
DIVISION OF BOARD AND AN
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, AND SO THE,
THE, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
SETTING UP WHAT THE CRITERIA IS
FOR THE EDUCATION TO BECOME A
LICENSED PERSON WILL BE
ESTABLISHED BY THE DIVISION, AS
I UNDERSTAND IT. AND THEN THOSE
FOLKS WILL BE OVER. WILL BE WILL
BE BE SUPERVISED BY THE BOARD,
WHICH WILL THEN BE. SO CAN YOU
TALK A LITTLE ABOUT THAT AND
ALSO ABOUT THE ISSUE OF
DISPENSING? I'VE HEARD ABOUT
DISPENSING, BUT I DON'T SEE
ANYTHING HERE THAT THAT PERTAINS
ESSENTIALLY TO THAT. SO THE
BOARD WILL ESSENTIALLY BE LIKE
THE EQUIVALENT OF THE MEDICAL
BOARD OR THE DENTAL BOARD IN
TERMS OF THE LICENSURE. THE
DIVISION WILL HELP SET THE
ACTUAL STANDARDS, AND THAT WILL
ALSO INCLUDE THE CULTIVATION
MANUFACTURING, SO THAT THAT'S
BEING DONE. AND WE KNOW THAT
THAT WILL REQUIRE WE WANT THAT
TO HAVE THAT REGULATORY
OVERSIGHT. BECAUSE AGAIN, AS I
SAID AT THE BEGINNING, THIS
ISN'T ABOUT PEOPLE TAKING
SOMETHING FROM THE STREET. AND
BRINGING IT IN OR TAKING IT WITH
THEM. IT'S A VERY CONTROLLED,
SETTING. I, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO
AND THEN WE, OF COURSE, WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
THESE EXISTING LICENSEES WHO
THEN GET THIS ADDITIONAL
ADDITIONAL LICENSURE, ARE THAT
THAT VERY CLEAR TRAINING
STANDARDS ARE IN PLACE AND
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND MAKING
SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ACT
INAPPROPRIATELY OR VIOLATE THE
LAW ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
THAT. I DO WANT TO JUST SAY WE
OF COURSE, THIS IS THE FIRST
COMMITTEE. WE KNOW THAT THE
REGULATORY STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW,
ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE WE HAVE, YOU
KNOW, BEEN COMMUNICATING AND
REACHING OUT TO THE
ADMINISTRATION. AND I IMAGINE AT
SOME POINT THEY WILL HAVE AN
OPINION. I'M ASSUMING, ABOUT HOW
THAT SHOULD LOOK. AND SO WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THAT WORK.
AND, AND WE HAVE BEEN TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS YET. BUT WHAT ARE
YOU THINKING ABOUT COSTS. AND
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BUDGET
HERE LIKE THIS YEAR. YES AND I
THIS YEAR AM ACUTELY AWARE, I
WISH I WERE BUDGET CHAIR DURING
A MEGA SURPLUS HERE, BUT ALAS,
YOU KNOW, WE WILL, OF COURSE, BE
WORKING ON COST SAVINGS FOR
APPROPRIATIONS, AND I, YOU KNOW,
WE STARTED WORKING RIGHT AFTER
THE VETO LAST YEAR. YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY THINGS HAVE MOVED IN A
CERTAIN DIRECTION. AND THAT'S
SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO, DEAL WITH AND ADDRESS
CONTEND WITH. AND, AND I WOULD
GUESS THIS IS GOING TO TAKE A
COUPLE OF YEARS TO SET UP. I
MEAN, AS SOMEBODY WITH A
LICENSE, I WOULDN'T FEEL
COMFORTABLE GETTING ANOTHER
LICENSE BECAUSE THEN YOU PUT
YOUR YOUR PRIMARY LICENSE AT
RISK. YEAH. IT'S A MULTI YEAR
IMPLEMENTATION. AND, IT'LL AND
THEN THE, THE TRAINING THAT THEY
SET UP, YOU KNOW THIS WILL BE A
GRADUAL RAMP UP FOR SURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SENATOR NGUYEN.
AND THEN COME TO THE SIDE OF THE
ROOM. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I
JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. IS THERE
IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT? I
MEAN, IF A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
OCCUR, IS THERE IS IT REQUIRED
TO RECEIVE PSYCHEDELIC TREATMENT
OR THERAPY? DO WE NEED A MEDICAL
DIAGNOSIS TO RECEIVE IT, A
FORMAL A FORMAL DIAGNOSIS. NOW
THERE IS A THERE IS A PROCESS
SET UP FOR EVALUATION. SO AGAIN
THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL HAVE BEEN
HAVE TO UNDERGO EVEN IF THEY'RE
CURRENTLY A PSYCHIATRIST.
THEY'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
TRAINING TO BECOME TO RECEIVE
THIS LICENSE. AND THEY WILL HAVE
TO MAKE AN EVALUATION. AND
THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS LAID OUT
IN THE BILL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE
TO DO BEFOREHAND, WHAT THEY HAVE
TO DO AFTERWARDS. SO IT'S NOT
JUST LIKE I WALK IN AND SAY, I
WANT, YOU KNOW, I WANT THIS. AND
SO THEY, THEY, THEY GET IT.
THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS BEFORE
AND AFTER. BECAUSE YOU AFTER IS
IMPORTANT AS WELL. SO A FORMAL
DIAGNOSIS, JUST LIKE WE WOULD IF
WE WERE TO GET ANY OTHER
TREATMENTS, NOT NOT EXACTLY THE
SAME, BUT THERE IS A SCREENING
THAT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFOREHAND
AND THAT'S LAID OUT IN THE BILL.
AND THE BOARD WOULD ALSO HAVE
THE ABILITY TO, TO MAKE ITS OWN
RULES. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY.
JUST ONE POINT HERE TO MY
COLLEAGUES. WE HAVE A FLOOR
SESSION IN 15 MINUTES. SO I'M
TRYING TO GAUGE IF YOU WANT TO
STOP HERE AND COME BACK WITH
COMMENTS. THERE ARE AT LEAST
FIVE OF YOU WITH YOUR HANDS
STILL RAISED TO SPEAK. AND I
KNOW IT TAKES US A FEW MINUTES
TO GET OVER THERE, AND I'M NOT
SURE HOW MANY OF YOU NEED TO GO
UPSTAIRS TO GRAB ITEMS. SO JUST
GAUGING ACROSS THE BOARD. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO STOP HERE? YEAH
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO
RECESS THEN. AND WE'LL COME BACK
AFTER SESSION AND FINISH OUT
THIS BILL. SO SORRY TO EVERYONE.
THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. SORRY.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND GET STARTED. CALL THE
MEETING BACK TO ORDER. WE HAVE
HEARD FROM THE AUTHOR ON SENATE
BILL 1012. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE
SUPPORT AND THE OPPOSITION, AND
WE'VE HEARD ME TWO TESTIMONY.
WE'VE HEARD FROM A FEW MEMBERS
OF THIS DAIS. AND WE ARE COMING
BACK TO THIS DAIS. WE'RE GOING
TO START WITH SENATOR ROTH AND
THEN GO TO SENATOR BECKER. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YOU KNOW, AS
THE AUTHOR KNOWS, I HAVE SOME
ISSUES WITH THE BILL, WHICH I
KNOW HE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON
WHEN THE BILL MOVES OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE. AND I ADDRESS THOSE
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS, FRANKLY, SHOULD BE
ALLEVIATED BY SHIFTING THE BILL
TOWARD, CLINICIANS IN A
THERAPEUTIC SETTING, WHICH, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, IS WHAT THE
GOVERNOR WANTED TO BEGIN WITH. I
THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. YOU
KNOW, I HAVE HAD SOME CONCERNS
UTILIZING THE DCA BOARD
STRUCTURE, IN THIS CONTEXT. BUT
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, SENATOR,
SINCE YOU'VE LISTED, A NUMBER OF
LICENSED HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
AS THE ONES WHO WILL BE
PROVIDING THIS THERAPEUTIC,
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PSYCHEDELIC
INSTEAD OF SETTING UP A SEPARATE
BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF LICENSURE.
I WONDER IF IT WOULDN'T BE MORE
COST EFFECTIVE TO BUILD THESE
ITEMS INTO THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE
THAT THOSE INDIVIDUAL LICENSEES
HAVE UNDER THE BOARDS THAT DO
REGULATE THEM? THIS BEING SIMPLY
AN ADDITION TO THE ACTIVITY THAT
THEY ARE LICENSED TO PERFORM, BY
THEIR OWN BOARDS. DID YOU WANT
TO. THAT'S A QUESTION. OKAY,
GREAT. SURE I THINK IT WAS. I
SAID, I WONDER IF I DIDN'T
PHRASE IT LIKE WE OUGHT TO BE
QUESTION MARKS LAWYERS. RIGHT, I
THINK GIVEN THE AMENDMENT THAT
I'VE COMMITTED TO, THAT IS
CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE WILL TAKE
A LOOK AT, AND WE'LL HAVE TO
SORT OF LOOK AT THE DETAILS OF
IT. BUT I APPRECIATE THAT IDEA.
GOOD GOOD. KEEP ME POSTED. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY. SENATOR
BECKER. I THANK YOU. I'LL KIND
OF KEEP IT BRIEF, BECAUSE I KNOW
FOLKS OF OTHER COMMITTEES ARE
TRYING TO GET TO. I'LL JUST SAY
THAT I APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY
AND, OVER THE COURSE OF THIS
BILL, OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS
HAVE HEARD, A LOT OF SIMILAR
TESTIMONY AND, INCLUDING MY OWN
DISTRICT. THERE WAS A LARGE
EVENT, THERE WAS A WHOLE MOVIE
KIND OF ABOUT THIS. AND, YOU
KNOW, WHAT THESE KIND OF
THERAPIES HAVE DONE FOR,
VETERANS. AND I'LL NOTE THAT I
THINK IT'S SOMETHING LIKE ALMOST
50% OF THE NEW MENTAL HEALTH,
THERAPIES THAT ARE GOING THROUGH
, APPROVAL RIGHT NOW ARE, ARE
PSYCHEDELICS BASED, SO THAT'S
BEEN ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS, TOO,
IS MAKING SURE WE CAN ACTUALLY
DO THE RESEARCH AND, AND, YOU
KNOW, WORK TOWARDS THIS. SO, I
JUST, APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
EFFORTS TO REALLY TAKE THE
GOVERNOR'S FEEDBACK INTO ACCOUNT
AND REALLY WORK ON MAKING THIS
INTO SOMETHING THAT KIND OF
WORKS WITH OUR HEALTH SYSTEM.
AND, I APPRECIATE I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. I'LL
MOVE IT WHEN APPROPRIATE. OKAY
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO SENATOR
EGGMAN AND THEN MENGIBAR AND I
HAVE DODD ON HERE TOO, BUT I
THINK HE HAD TO PRESENT
SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE'LL SEE IF HE
GETS BACK IN TIME. THANK YOU.
AND I KNOW I'M COMING BACK AT
THIS TWICE, BUT JUST A QUESTION,
BECAUSE YOU'VE DELINEATED OUT,
ALL ALL THE PROFESSIONS WHO CAN
BE MONITORED. NOW SAY I APPLY
FOR THAT, THEN I HAVE I CAN
PRESCRIBE I DON'T HAVE
PRESCRIBING POWERS CURRENTLY, SO
HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU GET AROUND
THAT? WELL IT'S NOT ABOUT THE
PRESCRIBING. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY
WHEN THE FDA, WHENEVER IT GETS
AROUND TO PROVIDING SOME
LIMITED, YOU KNOW, PRESCRIBING
ACCESS THAT WILL BE
PRESCRIPTION, THIS IS ABOUT,
FACILITATION. AND SO WHAT WE'RE
SAYING WITH THE AMENDMENTS TODAY
IS THAT THE FACILITATORS WILL BE
LIMITED TO THIS POOL OF PEOPLE
WHO ALREADY HAVE MENTAL HEALTH
RELATED, OR THE LISTED,
LICENSURES. THEY WILL THEN BE
ABLE TO OBTAIN THIS LICENSE,
ADDITIONAL LICENSE, TO BE ABLE
TO FACILITATE IT, AND SO IT'S
NOT A PRESCRIPTION PER SE, THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DO
BASED ON FDA APPROVAL. IT'S
FACILITATION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, I HEAR
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK
I THINK I THINK THAT BEARS MORE
LOOKING AT AS, AS YOU MOVE
ALONG. YEAH. THANK YOU. SENATOR
MENGIBAR, DO YOU WANT TO BE
HEARD? THANK YOU SO MUCH,
SENATOR. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
OVER THE WEEKEND CHECKING IN ON
THIS. AND I REALLY, REALLY DO
APPRECIATE IT. AND YOUR TALKING
POINTS, YOU COMMITTED TO SOME OF
THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
AND I KNOW THERE'S STILL GOING
TO BE ADDITIONAL WORK ON IT,
BECAUSE I THINK WHAT SENATOR
EGGMAN BROUGHT UP IS A KEY
THING. BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT
TO SOME OF THE STUFF THAT STILL
IS ON MY MIND, VERSUS THE
ECSTASY STILL BEING INCLUDED IN
THE BILL. I KNOW THAT WAS ONE
THING THAT WASN'T IN THE BILL
LAST YEAR, AND THEN OF THE
LEVELS THAT YOU, PULLED OUT,
THERE'S ONE THAT ONE THAT IS IN
GRADUATE LEVEL, WHICH IS THE
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELOR. THAT
IS ONE LEVEL THAT STILL WORRIES
ME, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A
LICENSE, BUT RATHER A
CERTIFICATE THAT, AND IT'S NOT
RELATED. IT'S MORE PEER VERSUS
THERAPEUTIC WORK. AND THEN JUST
TO CLARIFY WITH THIS, DELEGATION
OF A CERTAIN LICENSES, THE BOARD
WAS STILL THE BOARD YOU'RE
LOOKING TO CREATE WOULD STILL
COME UP WITH THE TRAINING FOR
THESE INDIVIDUALS. YES OKAY, AND
DO YOU ANTICIPATE. AND MAYBE
THAT'S FOR A LATER ONE BECAUSE,
I MEAN, SO MANY POTENTIAL
QUESTIONS COMING UP. I JUST
WANTED TO I'LL BACK UP A LITTLE
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT
OF ADDITIONAL WORK. I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE THOSE THREE
POINTS. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS
TOO. SO, SENATOR MENGIBAR, IF
YOU WANT TO SPEAK AGAIN AFTER
THAT, I'LL TAKE ANOTHER PASS
THROUGH. SO YOU KNOW, FIRST OF
ALL, RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I JUST
WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY INVOLVED
IN THE BILL. THESE CONVERSATIONS
ACTUALLY PREDATE ME ON THIS. IN
THIS ROLE AS CHAIRPERSON, I KNOW
SENATOR ROTH STARTED THE DIALOG
HERE OR WAS IN THE SEAT WHEN IT
FIRST STARTED, AND I WANT TO
THANK THE STAFF OF THE BUSINESS
PROFESSIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
TEAM WHO HAVE, ALONG WITH ALL
THE OTHER BILLS, WORKED REALLY
HARD TO MEET WITH THE SPONSORS,
MEET WITH THE AUTHOR, MY OWN
STAFF. WHO ARE SOME OF YOUR
FAVORITES MEETING WITH YOU AND
WITH THE SPONSORS? MANY TIMES.
SO THIS IS A BIG, BIG BILL. AND
THAT MAY BE ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF
HESITATION. I HAVE A LOT OF
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL. I KNOW
YOU KNOW THIS, I ISSUED A NO
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. IT'S THE
ONLY ONE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE
CLEAR ABOUT WHY I DID. AND THEN
WHAT? HOWEVER, FOLKS VOTE, THEY
VOTE. AND YOU AND I, YOU HAVE
BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH FOR ME
ON THIS BILL. BUT FIRST OF ALL,
I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THIS IS A
MARKETPLACE BILL. IT IT HAS TO
BE IT CAN BE NOTHING OTHER THAN
A MARKETPLACE BILL WHEN IT CALLS
FOR SETTING REGULATIONS FOR. AND
THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE BILL
ITSELF. PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION
, TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE,
PROCESSING, MANUFACTURING,
TESTING, QUALITY CONTROL, SALE,
LICENSURE. LOCATIONS OF THE
STOREFRONTS, TRANSPORTATION
DELIVERY REGULATIONS AND
SELF-COLLECTION OF AGGREGATE
DATA THAT IS LIKE THE DEFINITION
OF A MARKETPLACE BILL BECAUSE IT
SETS EVERYTHING FROM
MANUFACTURING TO POINT OF SALE
AND ALL OF THE COMPONENTS IN
BETWEEN. AND HOW DOES IT SET
THAT MARKETPLACE? IT SETS IT BY
CREATING THREE NEW TIERS OF
GOVERNMENT AND NEW AGENCY LEVEL
DIVISION INSIDE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
A NEW NINE PERSON BOARD OF
REGULATED PSYCHEDELIC
FACILITATORS, AND A NEW 14
MEMBER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, ALL
OF WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE
IN TIME FOR 25. SO NEXT YEAR,
APRIL, FOR THIS TO BE IN PLACE.
SO FOR FOLKS WHO SAID MULTI YEAR
MULTI NO IT'S FOR 25 IS THE DATE
WRITTEN INTO THE BILL. AND THESE
THREE NEW TIERS OF GOVERNMENT
WOULD BE WHOLLY IN CHARGE. THEY
DECIDE WHO GETS THE LICENSE.
THEY DECIDE WHAT IT TAKES TO GET
THE LICENSE. THEY DECIDE WHERE
THE SITES GO. THEY DECIDE
EVERYTHING FROM POINT A TO POINT
OF SALE. THE BOARD CREATES NEW
STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF
PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS. IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ACCESS TO MEDICAL
RECORDS AT THIS POINT. IT DOES
NOT. THIS WOULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL
COMES IN AND THEY VOLUNTARILY
TELL YOU WHAT THEIR MEDICAL
RECORDS ARE. THERE IS NOT A
THERE'S NO HIPAA COMPONENT TO
THIS. SO THERE'S NO ABILITY TO
LOOK AT THE PERSON'S MEDICAL
RECORDS TO SEE WHEN THE LAST
TIME THEY WENT TO A DIFFERENT
LOCATION OR WHAT. DOCTOR THEY'RE
SEEING FOR WHAT OTHER SERVICES
IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE CLINICAL
OR MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
ENGAGEMENT. AND I HEAR THE
AUTHOR SAYING HE'S GOING TO TAKE
SOME AMENDMENTS ON THAT POINT
TODAY. I THINK LARGELY HAVING
HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF FOLKS WHO
HAVE BACKGROUNDS IN THAT SPACE,
I AM CONCERNED EVEN WITH THE
AMENDMENT THAT IT DOES DROP TO A
LEVEL BELOW EVEN A MASTER'S
DEGREE AND DOESN'T NECESSARILY
INCLUDE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.
STILL IT ESTABLISHES FULL
HIRING, FIRING, EDUCATION AND
SCOPE OF PSYCHEDELIC FACILITIES
ALL UNDERNEATH THAT BOARD. THIS
IS NO LONGER ABOUT ONE
POPULATION. PREVIOUS ITERATIONS
OF THE BILL WERE VERY FOCUSED ON
ONE ITERATION THAT WE DID HEAR
FROM TODAY. THIS IS ABOUT
EVERYBODY FROM 21 AND UP
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THERE IS NO LOCAL
CONTROL LEFT ON THE BILL, ALL
CITIES AND ALL COUNTIES. IS THE
LANGUAGE WRITTEN INTO THE BILL
RIGHT NOW. AND CITIES AND
COUNTIES COULD NOT ADD AN
ADDITIONAL LICENSURE REQUIREMENT
. IN OTHER WORDS, IF I'M IN THE
CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND THE BOARD
DECIDES THEY'RE GOING TO OPEN
ONE OF THESE HERE, I CANNOT, AS
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ADD A
SECURITY LICENSE OR ANY OTHER
FORM OF LICENSE THAT THE CITY OF
SACRAMENTO WOULD NORMALLY ADD ON
SOME OF THE OTHER SIMILAR TYPE
BUSINESSES. TRANSPORTATION IS
ALSO ENSHRINED, MEANING
TRANSPORTATION THROUGH CITIES
AND COUNTIES. AS THE BILL WAS
WRITTEN. NOW THERE ARE NO
LICENSED THERAPISTS, NO
PHARMACISTS, NO DOCTORS, AND NO
MEDICAL RECORDS INCLUDED
SUBSTANCES. AND MOST OF THESE
NAMES ARE TOO DIFFICULT FOR ME
TO PRONOUNCE. WE'D HAVE TO GO
BACK A COUPLE OF HEARING ITEMS,
GET ONE OF THOSE PHARMACISTS IN
HERE FOR ME TO HAVE SOME HELP TO
BE ABLE TO PRONOUNCE THESE, BUT
IT DOES INCLUDE DMT, MESCALINE,
MDMA, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT
YOU'VE HEARD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT TODAY. STREET NAMES
FOR MDMA OR ECSTASY. MOLLY AND
MANDY IN ITS CRYSTAL FORM, AND
PSYCHO CELINE, WHICH IS SHROOMS.
MESCALINE IS STREET NAME IS
PEYOTE. THESE ARE MOST OF THEM,
INCLUDING ALL OF THE MDMA DRUGS
ARE SCHEDULE ONE DRUGS. SCHEDULE
ONE DRUGS ARE DEFINED BY THREE
CRITERIA. THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL
THREE HIGH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE.
NO CURRENT ACCEPTABLE MEDICAL
USE IN TREATMENT, AND LACK OF
SAFETY EVEN IF UNDER MEDICAL
SUPERVISION. SO THESE DRUGS
CURRENTLY ARE LISTED THERE. THIS
BILL CREATES AN ENTIRE NEW
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE TO
ESTABLISH STATEWIDE MARKETPLACE
SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND
MANUFACTURING OF PSYCHEDELIC
HALLUCINOGENICS CURRENTLY DEEMED
UNACCEPTABLE UNDER SCHEDULE ONE
AS TOO DANGEROUS EVEN UNDER A
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS CARE. IT
TOOK MANY YEARS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR LOTS OF RESEARCH,
LOTS OF DIALOG TO MAKE MARIJUANA
LEGAL JUST FOR MEDICINAL
PURPOSES. AND THEN MANY YEARS
BEYOND THAT FOR MARIJUANA TO
BECOME THE MARKETPLACE THAT IT
IS NOW, WHICH STILL INCLUDES
CITIES AND COUNTIES HAVING THE
ABILITY TO OPT OUT. THIS BILL,
INTRODUCED IN THE SECOND YEAR OF
A TWO YEAR SESSION, SEEKS TO
SHORTCUT ALL OF THOSE DIALOGS. I
WILL SAY TO THE AUTHORS CREDIT,
IT'S NOT HIS FIRST GO ROUND. HE
DIDN'T JUST BRING IT UP, HE'S
WORKED ON IT OVER SEVERAL YEARS.
AND HERE'S WHERE HE IS NOW. BUT
IT MAY WELL WARRANT A LONGER
DISCUSSION WITH MORE INPUT AND A
LOT MORE STAKEHOLDERS. THIS
DOESN'T INCLUDE THE VOTERS,
WHICH I WORRY ABOUT DEEPLY. IT
JUMPS DIRECTLY TO STOREFRONT
BUSINESS MANDATED IN EVERY CITY
AND COUNTY, WITH NO OPT OUT
PROVISIONS. IN MY OPINION, IT IS
TOO MUCH, TOO FAST, WITH TOO
LITTLE INPUT AND TOO LITTLE
MEDICAL PARTICIPATION. SO I WILL
BE VOTING NO. COLLEAGUES, ANY
OTHER COMMENTS? SENATOR
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS, I JUST WANT
TO, THANK THE AUTHOR FOR, BEING
VIGILANT IN THIS PROCESS. AND I
THINK FROM THE, THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD
ABOUT THIS BILL, YOU KNOW,
THINGS THAT WILL PROVIDE RELIEF
AND CARE, THINGS THAT, HELP
MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. SAVE
LIVES, WE'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE
THROUGH THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE
CAN TO PROTECT THOSE. AND
PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO HAVE
GIVEN SO MUCH. SO YOU KNOW, I, I
WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I
SEE THE LONG LIST OF SUPPORT,
YOU KNOW, FOR THIS BILL, AND,
AND I THINK, I THINK WE CAN
FIGURE THIS OUT, AND ALLOW THIS
BILL TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD
AND, AND, ADDRESS THESE
QUESTIONS, THAT HAVE COME UP IN
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH.
SO MANY, TO, TO, TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT, BECAUSE
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS
ABOUT SAVING PEOPLE'S LIVES.
IT'S ABOUT, LOOKING AT
INNOVATION OF CARE THAT CAN MAKE
A DIFFERENCE. AND SO, WITH THAT,
I'M, I, I HEARD I HEAR THE
QUESTIONS OF MY COLLEAGUES.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BILL,
BUT I THINK, WE WILL CONTINUE TO
DISCUSS IT. IT'S GOING IT'S
BEING DOUBLE REFERRED. SO THERE
WILL BE ANOTHER COMMITTEE THAT
WILL LOOK AT THIS, AND, AND HELP
US GET IT TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO
BE. AND SO, I, I LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING WHERE THIS BILL GOES AND
MAKING SURE THAT WE GET IT RIGHT
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
SENATOR MENGIBAR AND THEN
SENATOR DODD. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. YOU KNOW, SENATOR, YOU
YOU HEARD EVEN LAST YEAR, I HAD
A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL
. I DID BELIEVE THAT THIS, ITEM
OR DRUG SHOULD BE APPROACHED
THROUGH A PRESCRIPTION AND
THERAPEUTIC APPROACH. I KNOW
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE
CERTIFICATE PLANS THAT EXIST
TRAINING AT A MINIMUM OF EIGHT
MONTHS FOR A LOT OF LICENSED
CLINICAL INDIVIDUALS JUST TO GET
TRAINED ON THIS FOR THE FUTURE
OF APPROVING THESE ITEMS. I KNOW
THE MENTAL HEALTH FIELD IS
PREPARING FOR THIS, AND THE MAIN
THING THAT REALLY PULLED ME IS
SEEING MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS
SUFFERING, WHO NEEDED THIS TO
ADDRESS A LOT OF PTSD. NOW, I
STILL HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF
CONCERNS BECAUSE YEARS AGO WHEN
WE TALKED ABOUT MEDICINAL
MARIJUANA, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW I
WASN'T GOING TO BE ADDICTIVE.
AND NOW WE'RE SEEING KIDS
ADDICTED TO MEDICINAL TO
MARIJUANA WHO ARE IN TREATMENT.
AND I DO WORRY THAT, THIS WILL
GET TO THAT LEVEL. MY ACTUAL
STANCE ON THIS IS THAT I WOULD
WANT TO REFRAIN IT TO
PRESCRIPTION ONLY AND NOT PUBLIC
USE. WHAT SO EVER. I DO WORRY
ABOUT STOREFRONTS BECAUSE MOST
OF THE TIME THOSE ARE ALWAYS IN
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, I DO HAVE
THE CONCERNS OF WHO'S GOING TO
BE ABLE TO WHO'S GOING TO BE
ALLOWED TO GIVE THIS OUT AND SO
FORTH, BUT IF THERE IS AN
ABILITY TO BRING SOME RELIEF TO
A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS, LIKE OUR
FIRST RESPONDERS, THE
FIREFIGHTER THAT WE HEARD SPEAK
TODAY, THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT
I'VE SPOKEN TO ARE OUR VETERANS,
I THINK FOR RIGHT NOW, IT
OUTWEIGHS RIGHT NOW THE CONS TO
PROVIDE YOU THE ABILITY TO WORK
WITH THE LAUNDRY LIST OF
STAKEHOLDERS YOU HAVE AROUND THE
TABLE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING
THAT WORKS. NOW NOW, I'VE SAID
TO YOU AND I'LL SAY IT HERE, I
WILL 100% NOT VOTE FOR THIS BILL
ON THE FLOOR. IF THERE ISN'T
MOVEMENT TO GET TO A PLACE THAT
IS MORE CLEAR, THAT PERHAPS
TRIMS THE BILL BECAUSE IT IS A
HEAVY BILL, AND I DON'T THINK IT
WILL BE READY BY NEXT YEAR, BUT
MOVES US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO THIS
RIGHT. OKAY. SENATOR DODD. YES,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, I
APPRECIATE YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR
COMMENTS. I HAVE BEEN I'M A
COAUTHOR ON THIS BILL THIS YEAR,
AND I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
BILL, YOU KNOW, WITH PEOPLE MAD
AT ME, PEOPLE HAPPY WITH ME,
ALL, YOU KNOW, ALL ALONG THE
WAY. AND IT WAS LIKE FOUR YEARS
AGO WHEN THE FIRST BILL CAME
OUT. I WAS SOLID NÓ. AND THEN I
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY BE ON THE
PHONE ON THE WAY INTO THE
COMMITTEE HEARING TO TALK TO THE
ADVOCATES, PARTICULARLY THOSE
ADVOCATES AND, YOU KNOW, HELPING
VETERANS. AND THEY CHANGED MY
MIND. THEY ABSOLUTELY CHANGED MY
MIND ABOUT HOW I FELT ABOUT THIS
BILL AND WHAT THIS BILL COULD BE
. I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR
THE PEOPLE AROUND THE ROOM THAT
HAVE JUST GIVEN COMMENTS, AND I
DON'T DISAGREE WITH SOME OF
THOSE COMMENTS. AND I WOULD
AGREE THAT, SENATOR WIENER, I
MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNOR
VETOING THIS BILL LAST YEAR AND
THEN SETTING OUT, YOU KNOW,
SETTING OUT SOME PROVISIONS
UNDER WHICH HE WOULD NOT VETO
ONE, ACTUALLY EVEN MADE IT
HARDER FOR YOU. I THINK, YOU
KNOW, THIS YEAR. BUT I'VE GOT
THE CONFIDENCE, YOU KNOW, THAT
SENATOR WIENER IS GOING TO WORK
THIS BILL AND DO THE TYPE OF
THINGS HE'S HE'S GOT TO DO TO
GET THIS BILL IN SHAPE AS WE
MOVE TO THE FUTURE. THIS IS THE
FIRST POLICY BILL
NOTWITHSTANDING. I STILL THINK
THERE'S AMPLE TIME FOR HIM TO
WORK, WORK A LOT OF THESE THINGS
OUT. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE, SENATOR ARCHULETA. YES
FIRST OFF, AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE SENATOR AND THE
VETERANS AND EVERYONE IN THE
ROOM WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR US
VETERANS. BUT, MADAM CHAIR, I'VE
GOT TO HAND IT TO YOU, YOUR
PRESENTATION. JUST A FEW MINUTES
AGO, THAT I THINK RELEASES US
FROM, ACTUALLY VOTING WITH THE
CHAIR OR OR GIVING US THE
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AGAINST THE
CHAIR, AND I APPRECIATE THAT,
AND I SAID EARLIER THAT I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL
BECAUSE I KNOW THE WORK YOU'VE
DONE. I WILL CONTINUE TO DO
THAT. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO COME
BACK AT US WITH ENORMOUS
CHANGES, ENORMOUS CHANGES
BECAUSE OF THINGS THAT THE CHAIR
JUST LAID OUT, THE THINGS THAT
OUR COLLEAGUES ARE LAYING OUT.
AND, AND IF IT'S TOO SOON, TOO
MUCH, HEY, TAKE TAKE A STEP BACK
. AND IF YOU NEED TO COME BACK
AGAIN NEXT YEAR, THEN LET'S DO
IT. BUT LET'S MAKE IT A GOOD,
SOLID BILL AND WE'RE GOING TO
SUPPORT IT, BECAUSE I'M HOPING
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
PUT EVERYBODY TOGETHER AND, AND,
AND LOOK AT SOME OF THESE THINGS
THAT SHOULD BE THE AMENDMENTS.
AND BUT I WILL VOTE FOR IT RIGHT
NOW AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL IT'LL
KEEP GOING FORWARD WITH ALL THE
WORK THAT'S GOING TO, BE DONE TO
HELP OUR VETERANS AND HELP
EVERYONE. AND SOME OF THE THINGS
WE HEARD, THE FEAR FACTOR OF
HAVING A STOREFRONT VERSUS
REALLY TOUGH CLINICAL
PSYCHOLOGISTS AND MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS IN A PROFESSIONAL
SETTING TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE
EACH AND EVERY PERSON
INDEPENDENTLY AND ONLY WITH
PRESCRIPTIONS AND ONLY WITH, A
TRUE SENSE OF HAVING THAT
INDIVIDUAL FEEL THAT THEY'RE ON
THEIR WAY TO, TO, BEING CURED.
AND THIS JUST MIGHT BE ONE
ELEMENT THAT'LL DO IT. SO, AGAIN
, I WILL VOTE YES ON IT AND LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING ALL THE
AMENDMENTS AND THE CHANGES WHEN
WE HIT THE FLOOR. THANK YOU,
SENATOR DODD. YES, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT TO SENATOR ARCHULETA, I
KNOW WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO
THERE, BUT NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM
AM I VOTING AGAINST THE CHAIR
HERE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT
CLEAR. I THINK HER ARGUMENTS
WERE ABSOLUTELY COGENT, AND
VERY, VERY WELL PUT OUT THERE
FOR THE AUTHOR TO HEAR. YOU
KNOW, IN MY CASE, AS I SAID,
I'VE ALREADY BEEN INVESTED IN
THIS BILL, AND I'M GOING TO
ALLOW HIM SOME TIME. BUT THIS IS
NOT A VOTE AGAINST THE CHAIR.
IT'S A VOTE WITH THE AUTHOR. HE
I BELIEVE HE HAS A MOTION FROM
SENATOR BECKER. IS THAT RIGHT?
SENATOR BECKER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I, I WOULD, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR THE
ROBUST DISCUSSION, AND, OF
COURSE, AS WE ALWAYS DO, WE'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE BILL. I
WILL NOTE THAT THE SUSPENSE
HEARING IS FOUR AND A HALF WEEKS
FROM TODAY. I DON'T KNOW WHEN
THE DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENTS IS.
IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 2 TO 3
WEEKS. AND SO I ALSO DON'T WANT
TO, ELEVATE HOPES THAT
EVERYTHING WE'RE GOING TO GET,
EVERY PIECE OF FEEDBACK WE NEED
IN THE NEXT TWO, TWO AND A HALF
OR SO WEEKS TO BE ABLE TO GET
STUFF DRAFTED IN THE COUNCIL
FORM AND HAVE EVERYTHING TIED
ABOUT A BOW AROUND IT. ANYONE
WHO HAS EVER WORKED WITH ME
BEFORE, ANYONE WHO HAS EVER
CHAIRED A COMMITTEE THAT I'VE
WORKED ON, KNOWS THAT I WORK MY
REAR END OFF, AND I WANT TO JUST
SAY, FOR THE LAST THREE AND A
HALF YEARS, THE STAKEHOLDER THAT
WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH IN THIS
BILL, INCLUDING FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT RANGE, INCLUDING
LAST YEAR, WHEN MISS SIGI AND
HER COALITION WERE, VERY, VERY
VOCALLY OPPOSING MY BILL AND I
NEVERTHELESS, WE MET, WE ENGAGE
AND ULTIMATELY THIS YEAR WE
WORKED VERY HARD TOGETHER TO
PRODUCE A BILL THAT THAT THEY
ARE NOW SUPPORTING. AND SO I
DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY
IMPRESSION TO THE CONTRARY. WE
WORK WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS,
PEOPLE WHO LOVE WHAT WE'RE
DOING, THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE
WHAT WE'RE DOING, THERE WERE A
FEW STATEMENTS I JUST WANT TO I
COMPLETELY RESPECT THE CHAIR'S
OPPOSITION. A FEW THINGS THAT I
JUST DO WANT TO NOTE. FIRST OF
ALL, THIS IS NOT A MARKETPLACE
BILL. A MARKETPLACE BILL
SUGGESTS THAT CONSUMERS CAN JUST
GO IN AND PURCHASE LIKE YOU CAN,
FOR EXAMPLE. NOW WITH CANNABIS,
THIS IS ONLY AVAILABLE WHEN A
LICENSEE HAS YOU IN TO
FACILITATE, CAN'T BRING IT IN
WITH YOU. YOU CAN'T BRING IT OUT
WITH YOU. YOU CAN'T GO INTO A
STORE OR STOREFRONT. I THINK IS
NOT A NOT THE RIGHT TERME. THIS
IS INTO A PRACTITIONER'S OFFICE,
THIS IS NOT A STORE WHERE YOU GO
IN AND JUST BUY AND LEAVE WITH
YOUR PRODUCT, AND SO I THINK
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT IN TERMS OF
CITIES, CITIES, THE BILL IS VERY
EXPLICIT THAT THE CITIES CAN
ADOPT TIME, PLACE AND MANNER,
REGULATIONS. IT'S NOT THE CASE
THAT CITIES CAN DO NOTHING. AND
THAT IS A CONVERSATION WE'RE OF
COURSE, ALWAYS OPEN TO, THE, IN
TERMS OF THE TIMETABLE, THE
BOARD IS REQUIRED TO ADOPT
REGULATIONS BY 2026. SO THAT'S
TWO YEARS FROM NOW. THAT'S NOT
2025, A COUPLE OTHER THINGS, YOU
KNOW, IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT
TODAY AND IN THE ANALYSIS THAT
THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR OF A TWO
YEAR SESSION. AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS, FOR FOUR YEARS,
AND WE THINK WE HAVE A GOOD BILL
THAT WILL, WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
ON, OF COURSE. BUT I ALSO DON'T
WANT TO SEE ANYONE WALK AWAY
WITH THAT. THIS IS SOMEHOW A
POORLY CONSTRUCTED BILL. THIS IS
A VERY, VERY THOUGHTFULLY
CONSTRUCTED BILL. LIKE ANY
THOUGHTFULLY CONSTRUCTED BILL,
THERE'S ALWAYS MORE WORK TO DO.
AND WE WILL DO THAT WORK, THERE
WAS REFERENCE MADE TO THE
VOTERS, AND I'LL BE HONEST THAT
THE, THE VOTERS PASSED PROP 64.
THAT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND, THIS
LEGISLATURE FOR HAS LONG BEEN
INCAPACITATED AND ACTUALLY
DEALING WITH CANNABIS. AND SO
THE VOTERS TOOK IT INTO THEIR
OWN HANDS BECAUSE THE
LEGISLATURE COULDN'T DO IT. AND
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT WE
HAVE A LOT LESS FLEXIBILITY TO
TWEAK AND MASSAGE AND UPDATE THE
LAW, BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE
FAILED AND DID NOT ACT AND SO
THE VOTERS DID IT. AND NOW WE
ARE CONSTRAINED TO DEAL WITH
CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES. HOW
ABOUT WE NOT LET LEAVE IT TO THE
VOTERS TO DEAL WITH IT? HOW
ABOUT WE DO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED
TO DO, WHICH IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THERE ARE A HUGE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THESE
SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING MDMA,
RIGHT NOW, AND THEY ARE DOING IT
IN THE SHADOWS, AND THEY ARE
DOING IT AT TIMES IN WAYS THAT
ARE NOT SAFE, AND THEY'RE NOT
GETTING THE EDUCATION AND THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO BE
SAFE AND THIS BILL CREATES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO BE
ABLE TO GO TO SOMEONE AND USE IN
A CONTROLLED, SUPERVISED,
STRUCTURED SETTING TO REDUCE THE
RISK AND OBTAIN BENEFITS WHILE
STAYING ALIVE AND STAYING
HEALTHY. THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL
CREATES A PATH TO DOING. I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK.
THERE WERE NO AMENDMENTS IN THE
ANALYSIS TODAY, THERE ARE
FLAGGING MANY ISSUES, NO
AMENDMENTS. BUT OF COURSE WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
MOTION AND CALL THE ROLL. THIS
BILL, BY THE WAY, IS DUE PASS TO
PUBLIC SAFETY. ASHBY. NO ASHBY.
NO. WHEN. NO. WHEN. NO. ALVARADO
GIL. ARCHULETA. YES. ARCHULETA.
AYE. BECKER AYE. BECKER. AYE.
DODD. DODD. AYE EGGMAN. GLASER.
LASER. AYE MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR.
AYE. NILO. ROTH SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS CUEVAS. AYE. WILK. NO.
WILK. NO THAT IS SIX TWO. THREE
THREE. SURE WE WILL CALL THE
ROLL ONE MORE TIME. ALVARADO,
GIL. NO ALVARADO, GIL! NO
EGGMAN! NILO ROTH! SIX TO 6 TO
4. LEAVE IT, LEAVE IT AT THAT.
SHOULD BE SEVEN TO HOLD ON
.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE
IT FOR A MOMENT. LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN FOR A SECOND, AND WE'RE
GOING TO COME BACK TO. WE HAVE A
COUPLE OF ITEMS, I THINK.
ALTHOUGH, YES, WE HAVE ONE ITEM.
THIS IS SENATOR GLAZIER'S BILL.
NÓ THE ONLY ONE LEFT OPEN IS. HE
WAS NOT HERE, AND WE LEFT IT
OPEN. WE DID? YEAH. OKAY. YEAH
OH. OH, YES. YOU'RE RIGHT,
YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. YES. OKAY.
SO NO, LET'S DO LET'S DO.
SENATOR GLAZIER'S BILL FILE ITEM
NINE SB 1462 GLACIER
SUBDIVISIONS. LET'S CALL THE
ROLL CALL. VOTE 6 TO 2, CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. ALVARADO. GIL. AYE ALVARADO.
GIL. AYE. EGGMAN. MENGIBAR NILO.
ROTH. OKAY OKAY. THAT IS 7 TO 2,
I BELIEVE THAT BILL IS OUT. ONE
MORE FOR YOU, SENATOR GLACIER.
WE HAVE FILE ITEM ONE, SB 966.
NINE SIX. WE ALREADY DID THAT.
CURRENT VOTES 11 TO 0. GLACIER
LASER I NILO. OKAY, THAT ONE'S
12. OH, THAT ONE GETS OUT.
SENATOR WIENER. AND WE WILL COME
BACK TO SB 1012. WE ARE WAITING
FOR ONE MEMBER. OKAY. CAN YOU
STATE THE HOLD ON. OKAY, YOU
GUYS, LET'S FINISH UP HERE. ALL
RIGHT. CAN YOU RECALL THIS BILL?
SURE. ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 1012.
Dð MOTION IS DUE PASSED. THE
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
CURRENT VOTE 6 TO 4. CHAIR.
VOTING NO. VICE CHAIR VOTING NO.
EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE. NILO. ROTH
OKAY, THAT IS SEVEN TO
SOMETHING. OR THAT ONE GETS OUT.
THAT'S IT FOR OUR AGENDA TODAY.
THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK YOU