GOOD MORNING, SIR. I THINK YOU
KNOW EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
MORNING. WELCOME TO THIS
MORNING'S ASSEMBLY BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE HEARING.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF BILLS ON
TODAY'S HEARING AGENDA. UH FIRST
, PLEASE NOTE A B 17 41 WALDRON
HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM TODAY'S
AGENDA WILL BE SET FOR ANOTHER
HEARING DATE. MAYBE 13 83 ORTEGA
HAS BEEN PULLED BY THE AUTHOR.
WE ALSO HAVE THE FOLLOWING SIX
BILLS ON CONSENT, MAYBE 332 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S EARLY, WHICH IS
DO PASS AS AMENDED AT THE
REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR. MAYBE 11
26 AND A B 16 16, BOTH BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LACKEY. MAYBE
15 64 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOW BB
17 31 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
SANTIAGO AND ABC SEVEN OR MAYBE
15 57 BY MY GOOD FRIEND, VICE
CHAIR FLORA, WHICH IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO ADD AN URGENCY CLAUSE
FOR EACH BILL BEING PRESENTED.
TODAY WE WILL BE ALLOWING
PRIMARY WITNESSES HERE IN THE
ROOM TODAY TO SPEAK FOR UP TO
TWO MINUTES EACH. WITH UP TO TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES PER SIDE. FOR
THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE FURTHER
COMMENTS WERE ACCEPTING WRITTEN
TESTIMONY THROUGH THE POSITION
LETTER PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. SO ONCE AGAIN, SO WE'LL
HAVE PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION. EACH
PRIMARY WITNESS CAN SPEAK FOR
TWO MINUTES, UM, SO UP TO FOUR
MINUTES PER SIDE THAN ANYBODY
ELSE WHO WANTS TO ADD ON AND
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO A BILL?
JUST GIVE YOUR NAME THE
ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH, IF ANY
IN YOUR POSITION ON THE BILL
EITHER SUPPORT OR OPPOSED FOR
THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE WE
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN
TODAY'S HEARING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. STILL DEFINITELY A
SUBCOMMITTEE, MR LEE. WAS THAT
AND WELL, YEAH. WHERE'S MY HERE
IT IS. UM SO WE'LL START WITH UH
, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 87 60 16.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. LET ME JUST
FIRST THANK THE COMMITTEE AND
YOUR COMMITTEE'S HELP YOUR HELP
FOR THEIR AMENDMENTS ON THE BILL
. WE'RE HAPPY TO BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. UH AS
YOU KNOW, UH, CURRENTLY, UH, IN
CANNABIS. WE HAVE A VARIETY OF,
UM, NEEDS IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO
CREDIT BECAUSE OF FEDERAL
RESTRICTIONS. PREVENTING THE
LEGAL CANNABIS BUSINESS FROM
ACCESSING CREDIT AND DEBT. WE
OFTEN HAVE SITUATIONS WERE TERMS
OF SALES ARE NOT HONORED IN SOME
BUSINESSES ALONG THE SUPPLY
CHAIN DO NOT PAY THIS ABSOLUTELY
HURTS, UH, THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY
IN CREATES AN INABILITY TO
ACTUALLY RUN A BUSINESS. UH WE
ALREADY HAVE. OUR STATE ALREADY
HAS CREDIT LAWS PROTECTING
BUSINESSES TO THE ALCOHOL,
BEVERAGE CONTROL AND CONTINENT
CONTRACTORS. STATE LICENSING
BOARD. NEW YORK ITSELF HAS
ALREADY ESTABLISHED CREDIT
PROTECTIONS FOR THE CANNABIS
BUSINESSES. THIS BILL WOULD
ADDRESS THE DEBT CRISIS IN THE
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS INDUSTRY BY
ESTABLISHING CLEAR TERMS FOR
SALE ACROSS THE SUPPLY CHAIN AND
ESTABLISHING OVERSIGHT OF SALES
ON CREDIT PAYMENT. I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES I HAVE EDDIE FRANCO
AND KAREN WOODSON. GOOD MORNING
. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS KAREN WOODSON FOR KIVA
CONFECTIONS AND OUR DISTRIBUTION
DIVISION, QUEBEC SALES AND
SERVICE. I'M ALSO HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND
THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION TO SUPPORT A B 766.
A LACK OF NORMAL BANKING SERVICE
, COUPLED WITH LIMITED RETAIL
ACCESS HAS RESULTED IN AN
EXTENSION OF CREDIT INTO THE
MARKET THAT THREATENS THE
STABILITY OF THE LEGAL SUPPLY
CHAIN. TODAY, ONLY 1600 RETAIL
LICENSES ARE ACTIVE AND AS A
RESULT OVER SEVERAL YEARS,
BUYERS ARE FORCING CHANGES TO
NEGOTIATED TERMS. TO EXTEND
PAYMENT AND OTHERS ARE DELAYING
PAYMENTS TO PRESERVE THEIR CASH
FLOW. THAT BEHAVIOR CREATES
UNCERTAINTY AND PLACES,
SUPPLIERS AND A NEGATIVE CASH
FLOW POSITION. REFUSING TO SELL
IN AN ARTIFICIALLY RESTRICTED
MARKET CAN BE CATASTROPHIC FOR
BRANDS, ESPECIALLY THE RETAIL AS
THE RETAIL SECTOR CONTINUES TO
CONSOLIDATE. AMONG A FEW PLAYERS
, IMPACTS ARE INSURMOUNTABLE FOR
START UP AND SMALL BRANDS THAT
CAN'T AFFORD TO NOT CANNOT
AFFORD TO JEOPARDIZE MARKET
ACCESS OR CARRY THE DEBT. TRADE
CREDIT IS A TOOL USED BY OTHER
INDUSTRIES AND IN OTHER STATES,
PARTICULARLY WHEN NONPAYMENT
THREATENS MARKET STABILITY AND
MORE IMPORTANT GOVERNMENT
REVENUES. BPC CODE REQUIRES
CONTRACTORS PAY ANY
SUBCONTRACTOR WITHIN 10 DAYS OF
FAILURE. WITHIN WITHIN
COMPLETION, AND FAILURE TO PAY
IS SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY
ACTION BY THE CONTRACTORS. STATE
LICENSING BOARD. BPC ALSO ENACTS
CREDIT LAW FOR BEER, WINE AND
SPIRITS, IN FACT, EVERY STATE
AND REGULATES CREDIT BETWEEN
ALCOHOL SUPPLIERS AND RETAILERS,
MOST MARRYING FEDERAL LAW, BUT
SOME STATES PROHIBIT CREDIT
ALTOGETHER. CREDIT PROTECTION
ENSURES THAT SUPPLIERS ARE PAID
CONSISTENTLY, WHICH IN TURN
SUPPORTS SCALE AND GROWTH
WITHOUT CONSISTENT SUPPLY OF
CASH. THE PROCESS BREAKS DOWN
ABSENT CREDIT LAW, BUYERS ARE
INCENTIVIZED TO STOP PAYING ONE
SUPPLIER AND BUY IT FROM ANOTHER
AND PAYMENT COLLECTION BECOMES
THE FOCUS OF THESE
RELATIONSHIPS. ABSENT
ENFORCEMENT, HEALTHY CYCLE OF
COMMERCE STOPS, LEGISLATIVE
ACTION IS NEEDED TO STABILIZE
AND ENFORCE CREDIT TERMS IN A
NASCENT MARKET. A B 766
REPRESENTS A STEP IN THAT RIGHT
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. PLEASE
NÓI AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS EDDIE
FRANCO, DIRECTOR OF POLICY FOR
NAVIS, LEADING CANNABIS
WHOLESALE PLATFORM AND LICENSED
DISTRIBUTOR HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
ALSO HUMBLED TO BE THIS YEAR'S
BOARD VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND A PROUD BOARD
MEMBER OF THE DISTRIBUTION
ASSOCIATION. VERY HAPPY TO BE
TESTIFYING ON ABC, 766 AND THANK
YOU ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS. AS A
TRANSPORTATION WHOLESALE
BUSINESS VERY SIMILAR TO A FEDEX
OF THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY. WE
SERVE ALL SHAPES AND SIZES OF
LICENSED BUSINESSES HERE IN
CALIFORNIA IN EVERY LEGAL
JURISDICTION IN THE STATE AS
SUCH OUR ROLE IN OUR IN THE
SUPPLY CHAIN COMBINED WITH ART
SERVICE IN THE RESPECTIVE TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS GIVES US A UNIQUELY
HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE REALITY OF
VARIOUS ISSUES HAPPENING IN THE
CANNABIS INDUSTRY. OPERATORS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE FROM SMALL
CULTIVATORS IN THE NORTH COAST
TO SOME OF THE MOST RECOGNIZABLE
BRANDS IN CALIFORNIA ARE ALL
COMMONLY IDENTIFYING OUTSTANDING
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AS THE TOP
ISSUE AFFECTING THEIR BUSINESS,
EVEN BUSINESSES OFFERING
MANDATED CRITICAL SERVICES TO
THE INDUSTRY, SUCH AS TESTING
LABS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROVIDERS ARE EXPERIENCING THE
PAIN POINTS CAUSED BY NON
PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES THEY
PROVIDE. THIS BALLOONING DEBT
ACROSS THE INDUSTRY OF DIRECTLY
AFFECTS THEIR ABILITY TO PAY
EMPLOYEES MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE
FACILITIES OR IN EXTREME CASES
THREATENS THE ABILITY FOR THESE
BUSINESSES TO CONTINUE
ALTOGETHER. NOW COLLECTIVELY
ESTIMATED TO BE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THE DEBT
BUBBLE ACROSS OUR INDUSTRY ALSO
HAS AN INDIRECT CHILLING EFFECT
ON THE ON CALIFORNIA'S CAPITAL
MARKETS. OVERALL CANNABIS
INVESTORS ALREADY WARY OF
EXTENDING CAPITAL IN A DIFFICULT
MACROECONOMIC CLIMATE, ARE
UNWILLING TO FURTHER INVEST IN A
MARKET AS DEEPLY UNSTABLE AS
CALIFORNIA'S. WE'VE RECENTLY
SEEN PROMINENT BUSINESSES IN THE
STATE LEAVE WITHIN THE LAST 12
MONTHS, LOSING STATE TAX REVENUE
AND PROSPECTIVE ENTREPRENEURS
ARE NOW EVEN MORE RELUCTANT TO
JUMP INTO OUR LEGAL MARKET.
INSTEAD WE'RE SEEING THESE
INVESTORS AND ENTREPRENEURS MOVE
INTO REGULATED CANNABIS THAT
STATES THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED OR
MAINTAINED ROBUST CREDIT LAWS
SUCH AS COLORADO OR NEW YORK.
WITHOUT THE GUARDRAILS
ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS BILL, THE
DEBT ACROSS OUR CONTINUE OUR
SUPPLY CHAIN WILL CONTINUE TO
GROW, FORCING EVEN MORE
OPERATORS OUT OF BUSINESS, MANY
OF WHOM HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS
SINCE THE FIRST DAYS OF CANNABIS
LEGALIZATION THAT ABSOLUTELY THE
SOLUTIONS UNDER THIS BILL WILL
HELP STABILIZE OUR INDUSTRY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOOK FORWARD TO,
UH ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE IN RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN I VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. LET'S GO TO PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION AND
THEN WE'LL GO TO ADD ONS.
EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME JUST
TO MAKE IT EASY. THANK YOU FOR
HEARING THIS BILL REALLY
APPRECIATE THIS TIME. WE'VE BEEN
IN CLOSE COMMUNICATION NOT ONLY
WITH THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL,
BUT ALSO WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD BECAUSE
WE'VE MADE A LOT OF A LOT OF
HEADWAY. I THINK THE PART THAT
NEEDS TO BE SAID IS THERE IS A
DEBT BUBBLE LOOMING IN HERE, AND
IT IS AMONGST MOST MULTIPLE
PEOPLE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. BUT
IT'S ALSO AMONGST THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE ALSO PAYING TAXES. THE TAX
REMITTANCE HAS NOW BEEN MOVED TO
RETAIL RETAILER OF THE SALES.
TAX GROSS RECEIPTS TAX LOCALLY
AND THE EXCISE TAX, AND THEY'RE
ALSO TRYING TO RUN A BUSINESS
THAT IS IN DIRECT COMPETITION
WITH A LOT OF UNDUE FORCES IN
THE UNREGULATED INDUSTRY. NOW IF
WE PUSH TOO MUCH OF THIS OF THIS
AND MOVE INTO A PUNITIVE WAY OF
TREATING THESE TAXPAYERS, WE RUN
THE RISK OF ELIMINATING SOME OF
THESE RETAILERS, AND WE'RE
ALREADY AT A CRITICALLY LOW
NUMBER OF RETAILERS IN THE SPACE
THAT'S HERE. SO THE FACT THAT
WE'VE KIND OF MOVED SOME OF THE
UM SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO
BE LESS PUNITIVE, I THINK IS THE
EXACT WAY WE NEED TO GO. THERE
ARE SOME THINGS WITHIN THE BILL
THAT I THINK NEED TO BE AMENDED.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN AND
WE'RE IN AN OPPOSITION UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION. ONE OF THOSE
POSITIONS IS THERE'S CURRENTLY
PROVISIONS TO SAY THAT THEY CAN
NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 30 DAYS OF
CREDIT. NOW, 30 DAYS OF CREDIT
MAY SEEM LIKE AN INTERESTING
PLACE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO GET
INVOLVED WITH, BUT, UM WE WOULD
RATHER IT BE MORE TOWARDS A
CONTRACT LAW IF THERE IS A 30
60. THE 90 DAY CREDIT THAT'S
BEING OFFERED FROM THE
DISTRIBUTORS TO THE RETAILERS OR
ANYWHERE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN
THAT I FEEL LIKE THE STATE COULD
MAYBE INTERVENE WHEN THAT
CONTRACT LAW IS SUPERSEDED. IT'S
TIME. THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER
PROVISION IN THE LAW THAT SAYS
THAT IF THEY ARE IN, UM IN
VIOLATION OF THIS CREDIT LAW
THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
OBTAIN ANY NEW CREDIT AMONGST
ANY OF THE OTHER SUPPLIERS,
LEAVING RETAILERS OR ANYONE IN
THE SUPPLY CHAIN, THE INABILITY
TO ACCESS ANY NEW CAPITAL. EVERY
SMALL BUSINESS HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GO WHEN THEY RUN
INTO HARD TIMES OR HAVE
UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS. THEY CAN
RUN TO A BANK MAYBE GET A SMALL
BUSINESS LOAN AND THIS
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY WE HAVE NONE
OF THOSE ABILITIES SO TO LIMIT
THE ABILITY FOR SOMEONE TO
ACCESS MORE CREDIT WHEN THEY'RE
GOING INTO DEBT, I THINK ONLY
EXACERBATES THE PROBLEM AND
PUSHES THEM INTO FURTHER AND
FURTHER HARDSHIP THAT THEY WON'T
BE ABLE TO PAY ANY OF THE DEPTH
AND THEN IT'S LIKE WHO'S DEBT
COMES FIRST THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS COME FIRST WITH
EXCISE TAX OR DOES HE ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE? COME FIRST. THESE
ARE THINGS THAT I THINK WE ALL
NEED TO KIND OF LOOK AT. BUT
RESPECT ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE
DONE HERE. WE DO NEED SOME
GUARDRAILS ON THIS INDUSTRY. SO
I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING WE'VE
DONE HERE WITH A SMALL TWEAKS. I
THINK WE'RE ALL IN A GOOD
POSITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S GO TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO
ADD ON LET'S SAY IN SUPPORT
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ADD ON AND
SUPPORTED THE BILL. MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS, RAND MARTIN HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE PARENT COMPANY AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD ON AN
OPPOSITION OR CONCERN. MORNING
MR CHAIR JONATHAN'S VETCO HERE
IN OPPOSITION OPPOSING LESS
AMENDED ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO CANNABIS RETAILERS
ALLIANCE, THE SILICON VALLEY
CANNABIS ASSOCIATION, ANGELES,
EMERALDS SOCIAL EQUITY, LOS
ANGELES, THE CALIFORNIA MINORITY
ALLIANCE, THE COACHELLA VALLEY
CANNABIS ALLIANCE NETWORK AND
THE LONG BEACH CULTIVATED
COLLECTIVE ASSOCIATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH ANY
WANT TO OPEN UP TO COLLEAGUES
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ON ABC, 7
66. SEEING NONE WERE CURRENTLY
WORKING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. SO
WHEN WE GET A QUORUM WILL OPEN
IT UP FOR MOTIONS AND SECONDS
AND VOTES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
SHOULD I LET ME LET ME SAY, UM
BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT. YOU
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND STAKEHOLDERS FOR WORKING
WITH US ON THE ISSUE, AND, UM IT
LIKES BEING DISCUSSED AND I KNOW
THEY'RE ACCEPTED AMENDMENTS. THE
ACCEPTED AMENDMENTS MAY NOT GO
FAR ENOUGH TO ADDRESS ALL THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS, BUT IT
FEELS LIKE THERE'S A GOOD
STARTING POINT. GOOD
CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING SO
OPTIMISTIC AND WHEN THE TIME
COMES, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL TODAY. THANKS. ALRIGHT. I
SEE DOCTOR WOULD UH, WITH. BUILD
SOMEWHERE 7 65. AGENDA. ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN. AND WE ARE JUST
TWO MEMBERS SORT OF A QUORUM. SO
AGAIN IF STAFF IS WATCHING, GO
FIND YOUR MEMBER. DREAM TO 1100
APPRECIATE YOU. THANKS ALWAYS
HAPPY TO FILL IN IF YOU NEED TO
BE MIGHT LITTLE BRINGING THE
RELIEVER. THANK YOU. DOCTOR
WOULD THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. UH FIRST OF
ALL, LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING
THE CHAIR AND CHIEF CONSULTANT
ROBBIE SUMNER FOR WORKING WITH
US TO CLARIFY AND IMPROVE THIS
BILL AND I WITH THAT, EXCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, UM THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS CLARIFY
THAT THE BILL DOES NOT PROHIBIT
THE USE OF THE TERM DOCTOR. TO
THE EXTENT THAT IT IS ALLOWED BY
OTHER PRACTICE ACTS GOVERNING
THE LICENSE. CALIFORNIA SHOULD
TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN THE NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT AND DIVERSE
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS THAT
PRACTICE IN OUR STATE. GIVEN THE
DIVERSITY OF LICENSES IN THE
STATE, AND THE OPTIONS THAT
EXIST FOR PATIENTS AND SEEKING
TREATMENT. I DO BELIEVE THAT IT
IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT
PATIENTS ARE PROVIDED ACCURATE
INFORMATION ON WHO WILL BE
PROVIDING THEM CARE. AND CAN
MAKE THEM FORM DECISIONS
CONCERNING THEIR HEALTH. THIS
BILL DOES NOT LIMIT OR IMPEDE ON
ANY SCOPE OF PRACTICE. IT IS
ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, ACCURACY AND
ENSURING ASSURING THAT PATIENTS
KNOW WHO IS PROVIDING THEIR
CARE. MY PRIMARY INTEREST IN
PURSUING THIS BILL IS TO ENSURE
THAT THE CLARITY AND DISTINCTION
THAT RESIDES WITH PHYSICIANS
REMAINS WITH PHYSICIANS AND IS
NOT BLURRED. SOME OF YOU KNOW,
I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF ALLOWING
PEOPLE TO PRACTICE TO THE FULL
EXTENT OF THEIR EDUCATION AND
TRAINING, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT
HELPS INCREASE PATIENT ACCESS
AND CHOICE. HAVING SAID THAT I
ALSO STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY
BELIEVE THAT IT IS CRITICAL THAT
PATIENTS ARE NOT MISLED ABOUT
SOMEONE'S EDUCATION AND TRAINING
, WHICH MAY OCCUR FROM THE USE
OF CERTAIN PHRASES AND
DESCRIPTIONS COMMONLY USED AND
RECOGNIZED BY THE PUBLIC AS
REFERRING TO PHYSICIANS. THIS
BILL STILL ALLOWS SOMEONE TO SAY
I AM A PEDIATRIC OPTOMETRIST,
WHICH ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZES
THAT THEY'RE AN OPTOMETRIST WHO
SPECIALIZES IN CHILDREN'S. I
CARE. I HEALTHCARE BUT NOT AN
OPTIMA TRICK. PEDIATRICIAN. THIS
MAY SEEM MUCH LIKE A NUANCED
DISTINCTION. IT IS NOT
INSIGNIFICANT. OVER TIME. WE
TEND TO ABBREVIATE AND SHORTENED
TITLES. AND WHILE I'M NOT SAYING
THAT PROVIDERS WOULD
DELIBERATELY MISLEAD THE PUBLIC,
I DO THINK IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE
HOW THAT SITUATION COULD BECOME
JUST A REFERENCE TO A
PEDIATRICIAN WHO SPECIALIZES IN
CHILDREN'S EYE HEALTH. HERE TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
DR ANTONIO CONTE AND
ANESTHESIOLOGIST KAISER
PERMANENTE AND LOS ANGELES AND
DR SHINY FRANCIS, REPRESENTING
THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
DERMATOLOGY. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE GREAT. UM AND
FOLKS WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. I AM ANTONIO HERNANDEZ
CONTI, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST THAT
KAISER PERMANENTLY. LOS ANGELES
AND PRESIDENT ELECT OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS. SIESTA IS
PROUD TO STRONGLY SUPPORT A B
765. IT'S NOT EASY, VERY EASY TO
TELL WHEN I'M WEARING SCRUBS, A
HAT AND A PAPER JACKET, AND I'M
A PHYSICIAN, MY NAME BADGE,
WHICH ABIDES BY EXISTING LAW
THAT DESIGNATES MY TITLE AND
LICENSURE TYPE IS NOT EASILY
VISIBLE BY MY PATIENTS OR ANY OF
YOU. WHEN I INTRODUCED MY
PATIENTS MYSELF AS THEIR
ANESTHESIOLOGIST OR IN SPANISH
AS THEIR HONESTY. COR LOGO. MY
WORDS MATTER WHEN THEY HEAR ME
SAY THIS, THEY KNOW THAT I'M A
PHYSICIAN SPECIALIZING IN
ANESTHESIOLOGY. EXISTING LAW
UNDER BNP CODE 2054 ALREADY
PREVENTS NON PHYSICIAN
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS FROM USING
THE TERM PHYSICIAN. BUT THAT IS
NOT SUFFICIENT BECAUSE THERE ARE
MANY OTHER PHYSICIANS EQUIVALENT
TERMS AND TITLES THAT CAN BE
USED BY INDEPENDENTLY PRACTICING
NON PHYSICIAN HEALTHCARE
PROVIDERS THAT IMPLY THEY ARE A
PHYSICIAN. A B 765 WOULD FIX
THAT PROBLEM BY PROHIBITING NON
PHYSICIANS FROM USING PHYSICIAN
EQUIVALENT TERMS LIKE
ANESTHESIOLOGIST, CARDIOLOGISTS
, DERMATOLOGISTS AND OTHER
SIMILAR COMBINATIONS OF ISHAN
EQUIVALENT TITLES. THAT ARE
MISLEADING THE PUBLIC A B 765
DOES NOT CHANGE THE SCOPE OF
PRACTICE FOR ANY NON PHYSICIAN
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER AND TITLE
PROTECTION IS NOT A TURF WAR
OVER SCOPE OF PRACTICE.
FURTHERMORE THIS BILL DOES
NOTHING TO RESTRICT THE USE OF
THE TERM DOCTOR DESIGNATION OF
DOCTOR BY OTHER HEALTHCARE AND
NON HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS
SUCH AS CHIROPRACTORS, CLINICAL
SOCIAL WORKERS, DENTISTS,
NATURAL, PATHETIC DOCTORS,
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS,
OPTOMETRISTS, ETCETERA.
CONFUSING OR MISLEADING
HEALTHCARE ADVERTISING AND TITLE
COMMUNICATION HAVE THE POTENTIAL
TO PUT PATIENT SAFETY AT RISK,
WHICH MAY LEAD TO UNINTENDED AND
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS
CONSEQUENCES. IT WOULD NEVER BE
ACCEPTABLE FOR SOMEONE TO
IMPERSONATE OR REPRESENT
THEMSELVES TO THE PUBLIC AS A
SWORN PEACE OFFICER WHEN THEY
ARRIVE ON THE SCENE WITHOUT THE
PROPER EDUCATION, TRAINING AND
CREDENTIALS. EVEN IF THEY ARE
WEARING A UNIFORM AND DRIVING A
VEHICLE WITH LIGHTS. TITLES
MATTER WORDS MATTER AND HOW YOU
REPRESENT YOURSELF MATTERS AND A
B 76 5 CERTAINLY MATTERS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND
FOR ALL THESE REASONS WE
STRUGGLING ENCOURAGE YOUR I VOTE
ON A B 765 THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN
BERGMAN AND DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF A B 765
. MY NAME IS DR SHANNON FRANCIS
. I AM A BOARD CERTIFIED
DERMATOLOGIST PRACTICING
INVENTORY COUNTY. I AM HERE
TODAY REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
DERMATOLOGISTS, DERMATOLOGY AND
DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY. WE URGE
YOU TO SUPPORT THE CALIFORNIA
PATIENT PROTECTION, SAFETY
DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY ACT.
THE ENACTMENT OF THIS
LEGISLATION IS A SIGNIFICANT
STEP TOWARDS ENSURING HEALTH
CARE TRANSPARENCY. A B 765 WOULD
PROVIDE CLARITY TO PATIENTS OR
SEEKING CARE FROM A
DERMATOLOGIST OR OTHER
PHYSICIANS BY LIMITING THE USE
OF MEDICAL SPECIALTY TITLES AND
ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE CLINICAL
SETTING. IT IS OFTEN IMPOSSIBLE
FOR PATIENTS TO KNOW WHETHER THE
PERSON PROVIDING THEIR CARE IS A
PHYSICIAN OR NOT, THIS CREATES A
GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION FOR
PATIENTS WHO ARE OFTEN RELUCTANT
TO ASK ABOUT ONE'S TRAINING AND
CERTIFICATION DURING A VISIT.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS A REAL
PROBLEM WITH REAL CONSEQUENCES,
ESPECIALLY IN THE FIELD OF
DERMATOLOGY. I HAVE A COLLEAGUE
WHO DIAGNOSED A VERY LARGE SKIN
CANCER. ABOUT THE SIZE OF A
HAND. THAT HAD GROWN OVER THREE
YEARS UNDER THE CARE OF A
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT, WHICH WE
WILL CALL DOCTOR WHO FROM THE
PATIENT BELIEVED WAS A DOCTOR.
STARTED YOU PRESCRIBED RASH
CREAMS OVER THESE THREE YEARS,
AND EVEN AFTER THE PATIENT
REALIZED THAT DIAGNOSIS, WHICH
WAS DIAGNOSED BY A DERMATOLOGIST
WAS WRONG AND SUFFERED
NEEDLESSLY EXTENSIVE SURGERY.
THE PATIENT STILL REMAIN
CONFUSED ABOUT DOCTOR WHOSE
CREDENTIALS BECAUSE, AS THE
PATIENT SAID EVERYONE IN THE
OFFICE, INCLUDING DOCTOR WHO
REFERRED TO THEMSELVES HIM AS A
DOCTOR. MAINTAINING TRUST IN THE
DOCTOR. PATIENT RELATIONSHIP IS
CRITICAL. PEOPLE DESERVE TO GET
WHAT THEY PAY FOR. WHEN YOU
ORDER A STATE YOU WANT TO STAKE
OUR PATIENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
KNOW THE CREDENTIALS AND THE
LEVEL OF TRAINING OF THE PERSON
MAKING THE IMPORTANT MEDICAL
DIAGNOSIS PROVIDING COMPLEX
TREATMENT, USING A SCALPEL OR
POINTING A LASER AT THEIR BODY
OR FACE MEDICINE IS A TEAM SPORT
AND ALL PLAYERS ARE IMPORTANT
WHEN I PAY PATIENTS HONESTLY
KNOW WHO IS WHO AND WHO IS
TAKING CARE OF THEM. WE ALL WIN.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF A B 765
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND GIVE US
ONE SECOND. YEAH ONE MORE MEMBER
Y'ALL. ONE MORE MEMBER TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM IS ALL WE
NEED. UM ANY, UH WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION OPPOSITION
? UM SO LET'S GO TO PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. UH, GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ELIZABETH BAMBOO. SHEA I'M A
CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE
ANESTHETIST AND NURSE
ANESTHESIOLOGIST. I SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETIST
AND OPPOSITION OF A B 7 65. 87
65 DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE OUR
PRACTICE OR INCREASE SAFETY OR
TRANSPARENCY FOR CALIFORNIANS
SEEKING ANESTHESIA SERVICES.
INSTEAD THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED
CREATES REDUNDANCY AND CURRENT
CALIFORNIA LAW TO REITERATE WHAT
YOU HEARD BEFORE. PER BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL CODE SECTION. 6
80 ALL HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS,
INCLUDING NURSES, ANESTHESIA
PROVIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO
DISCLOSE WHILE WORKING THEIR
LICENSE STATUS ON NAME TAGS AND
AT LEAST 18 POINT TYPE OR
PROMINENTLY. DISPLAY LICENSE IF
THEY'RE IN AN OFFICE SETTING.
SECTION 6 80.5 OF THAT CODE
SIMILARLY REQUIRES HEALTHCARE
PRACTITIONERS TO COMMUNICATE
THEIR NAME AND PRACTITIONER
LICENSED TYPE TO THEIR PATIENTS
. SECTION 2054, AS YOU HEARD,
GOES ON TO PROHIBIT NON
POSITIONS FROM USING TERMS AND
PLAYING THEIR POSITIONS IN ANY
BUSINESS CARD OR ADVERTISEMENT
OF NOTE INCLUSION OF THE WORD
NURSE OR DENTIST BEFORE THE TERM
ANESTHESIOLOGY COMPORTS WITH ALL
OF THESE REQUIREMENTS. WHILE
PROVIDING ANESTHESIA CARE. I
ALWAYS INTRODUCE MYSELF AS A
NURSE ANESTHETIST OR NURSING
ANESTHESIOLOGIST. IT IS
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO THE PATIENT
. THE PROCEDURE IS THE SURGEON
AND MYSELF THAT I HAVE A
FOUNDATIONAL TRAINING AND
NURSING AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL
TRAINING AND BOARD CERTIFICATION
IN ANESTHESIOLOGY. THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS COMPLETELY EXEMPT
DENTIST THAT'S RECOGNIZING THE
NEED FOR DENTAL ANESTHESIOLOGIST
TO DEFINE THEIR PRACTICE IN THE
SAME MANNER. LEADING WITH THEIR
LICENSER DOCTOR WOULD WOULD
CERTAINLY ATTEST TO THE FACT
THAT DENTAL ANESTHESIOLOGISTS
ARE NOT POSITIONS AND IF THEY
SIMPLY STATED THEY WERE
ANESTHESIOLOGIST, THIS MAY BE
MISLEADING OR LACK TRANSPARENCY.
I CALL ON THE COMMITTEE TO ASK
WHY A DENTIST WITH ADDITIONAL
TRAINING WILL BE ALLOWED TO
REFER TO THEMSELVES AS AN
ANESTHESIOLOGIST PER THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, WHILE DR
ORALLY PREPARED AND BOARD
CERTIFIED NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGIST
WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO A
MISDEMEANOR CRIME FOR USING THE
TERM NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGIST, IF
IS IT IF IT IS OKAY TO USE
DENTAL ANESTHESIOLOGIST, IT
SHOULD BE EQUALLY OKAY TO USE
NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGIST. IN
FINALITY ON BEHALF OF CANADA. I
WANT TO THANK DR WOOD FOR HIS
CONTINUED WORK TO ENSURE
TRANSPARENCY AND CARE REMAINS A
TOP PRIORITY IN OUR STATE
NURSING CONTINUES TO BE THE MOST
TRUSTED PROFESSION IN THE WORLD.
AND WITH THIS FOUNDATION IN OUR
TRAINING, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT
WE CAN ADD VALUE TO HIS GOALS.
IF WE WORK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE A
CONSENSUS ON TRANSPARENCY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE'RE JUST
GONNA TAKE A QUICK BREAK TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. AND THEN
WE'LL WE'LL CONTINUE. UM MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BERMAN. FLORA. ELONIS. ALVAREZ
BONTA. CHEN DIXON. GIBSON
GRAYSON. IRWIN. JACKSON. LEE.
AND TALL. MCCARTY. MAKIN ER WHEN
PATERSON. TANG. GREAT. WE HAVE A
QUORUM. THANK YOU. PLEASE
CONTINUE. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS DR ELIZA SURROUND THE
LICENSED NATUROPATHIC DOCTOR AND
FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF
NATUROPATHIC ONCOLOGY. I'M HERE
TODAY AS THE PRESIDENT EMERITUS
AND LEGISLATIVE CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIA NATUROPATHIC DOCTORS
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
OPPOSITION TO A B 765.
NATUROPATHIC DOCTORS ARE
LICENSED PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS
WITH A BROAD, INDEPENDENT SCOPE
OF PRACTICE. IN ADDITION TO
PRIMARY CARE PRACTICE, THERE ARE
CURRENTLY FOUR NATUROPATHIC
SPECIALTY ASSOCIATIONS WITH
BOARD CERTIFICATION, ECOLOGY,
ENDOCRINOLOGY, GASTROENTEROLOGY
AND PEDIATRICS. I PERSONALLY
OBTAINED FELLOWSHIP WITH THE
AMERICAN BOARD OF NATUROPATHIC
ONCOLOGY AFTER COMPLETING
RESIDENCY AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY
OCEAN CENTER FOR CANCER CARE AND
WORKING AS AN ATTENDING POSITION
IN CANCER TREATMENT CENTERS OF
AMERICA. IN BOTH ROLES. I WORKED
IN A TEAM OF MEDICAL, SURGICAL
AND RADIATION ONCOLOGISTS IN A
HOSPITAL SETTING AND PROVIDED
SUPPORTIVE CARE FOR PATIENTS
RECEIVING CONVENTIONAL ONCOLOGY
TREATMENTS. LIKE MY MD INDIO
COLLEAGUES. I WORKED ALONGSIDE
AFTER I MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
AN ACCREDITED RESIDENCY,
ONCOLOGY, PATIENT CASE STUDIES
AND ONCOLOGY RELATED CONTINUING
EDUCATION. I WAS ELIGIBLE TO SIT
FOR THE BOARD CERTIFICATION
EXAM. I'VE CONTINUED MY
PRACTICES NATUROPATHIC
ONCOLOGIST IN CALIFORNIA AND
COMPLETED MY 10 YEAR
RECERTIFICATION THIS LAST MONTH.
LIKE MY FELLOW NATURAL HAVOC
CERTIFIED SPECIALISTS TO TREAT
PATIENTS AND COORDINATE CARE
WITH CONVENTIONAL SPECIALISTS,
SHARE PATIENTS AND CO MANAGED
CARE WITH ONCOLOGY TEAMS AT UC
SAN DIEGO SCRIPTS, KAISER SHARPS
AND OTHER LOCAL PRIVATE ONCOLOGY
PRACTICES. IT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT FOR BOTH PATIENTS AND
CONVENTIONAL ONCOLOGIST TO
UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF
KNOWLEDGE OF NATUROPATHIC
ECOLOGISTS, COMMUNICATION ABOUT
CO TREATMENT AND TO UNDERSTAND
THAT PATIENTS ARE BEING ADVISED
BY A LICENSED DOCTOR WITH
SPECIALTY TRAINING AND BOARD
CERTIFICATION, NOT SIMPLY A
HEALTH COACH OR NUTRITIONIST. AS
DOCTORS. PATIENT SAFETY IS OUR
UTMOST CONCERN AND BEING ABLE TO
ACCURATELY AND TRANSPARENTLY
REFLECT OUR LEVEL OF TRAINING
AND SKILL IS CRUCIAL FOR PATIENT
SAFETY. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
AND NO VOTE ON A B 765. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. NOW. LET'S MOVE ON TO ANY
, UM, FOLKS IN THE ROOM WHO WANT
TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. AND JUST REMIND YOU GIVE
US YOUR NAME ORGANIZATION YOU'RE
WITH IF ANY IN YOUR POSITION ON
THE BILL MORTON WITH STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ORTHOPEDIC
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT OF A B 7
65. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
STAFF CHRISTOPH MAYER WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
IN SUPPORT. GEORGE STORIES WITH
THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
MR CHAIR MEMBERS, BRYCE
DOUGHERTY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AMBULATORY SURGERY
ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS CALIFORNIA
, THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF
FAMILY PHYSICIANS ON SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BRIAN
SPENCER, BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
COLLEGE OF OBEDIENCE AND SUPPORT
, AND WITH THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
TO CALIFORNIA PODIATRIC MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, A NON PHYSICIAN
GROUP IN SPORT AS WELL, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MR CHAIR MEMBERS
TO MADDEN, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY
PHYSICIANS, THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER OF AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
CARDIOLOGY, THE CALIFORNIA
RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE IN THE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF PLASTIC
SURGEONS ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MR CHAIRMAN, MATT, BACK,
REPRESENTING THE OSTEOPATHIC
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M BRIANNA PITTMAN
SPENCER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DENTAL ASSOCIATION. UH, WE DO
NOT HAVE A POSITION ON THE
MEASURE BUT WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
TAKING AMENDMENTS THAT CLARIFY
THAT DENTISTS CAN USE DENTAL
SPECIALTY TERMS. UM, IN THEIR
PRACTICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY WITNESSES WHO WANT TO ADD ON
AN OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING.
REBECCA MITCHELL ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA NATURE EMPATHIC
MEDICINE BOARD AND THE
FEDERATION OF NEUTRAL, PATHETIC
MEDICINE REGULATORY AUTHORITY.
WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A B 7
65 UNLESS AMENDED TO EXCLUDE
NATURE. PUBLIC DOCTORS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHRISTINE
SCHULTZ, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA OPTOMETRIC
ASSOCIATION. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS EFFORTS. UNFORTUNATELY
OPTOMETRISTS ARE UNABLE TO
SPECIALIZE. SO THE AMENDMENTS
DON'T TECHNICALLY ADDRESS OUR
CONCERNS, BUT WE THINK WE CAN
GET THERE AND WE HOPE TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE OFFER
TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
NEIL MILLER. UH, REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA ACUPUNCTURE AND
TRADITIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.
WE ARE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
IF I CAN HAVE ONE MINUTE I'M
SORRY, SIR. BUT THE OPPOSITION
ALREADY HAD TWO MINUTES EACH FOR
TWO WITNESSES. AND THOSE ARE THE
RULES OF THE COMMITTEE. AND WE
HAVE A LOT OF BILLS TODAY, BUT I
APPRECIATE IT AND I KNOW YOU'VE
HANDED OUT STUFF THAT HAVE
ALLOWED FOR THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS TO GET. SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR MR CHAIR. THANK
YOU. SO WITH THAT, LET'S GO TO
COLLEAGUES. QUESTIONS COMMENTS,
MOTION SECONDS. WE HAVE A QUORUM
QUESTION. REMEMBER, NGUYEN?
THANK YOU. UM THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD,
DOCTOR. WHAT I DO HAVE A CONCERN
. MAYBE QUESTION MAYBE
CLARIFICATION. AS THE NURSE
MENTIONED. I SEE THAT IT
EXCLUDES THAT DENTAL
ANESTHESIOLOGIST, AND I'M
WONDERING WHY THE NURSES
ANESTHESIOLOGIST WASN'T INCLUDED
IN THAT EXCLUSION. UM THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, UM, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER DENTAL. IT'S OBVIOUS. UH,
TWO PATIENTS IF THEY ARE GOING
TO A DENTAL ANESTHESIOLOGIST. OR
YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING THERE FOR
SOMEONE TO GIVE YOU ANESTHESIA
FOR DENTAL TREATMENT. IT'S
THAT'S AN OBVIOUS NEXUS THERE.
THAT'S WHY THAT THAT EXISTS, UM
, AS FAR AS NURSE
ANESTHESIOLOGIST, THAT IS NOT A
TERM THAT'S RECOGNIZED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR BY THE
STATE. SO WHATEVER CERTIFICATION
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT A
RECOGNIZED CERTIFICATION.
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS ARE CERTIFIED
THROUGH MEDICAL MD PROGRAMS. UM
AND SO I THINK THE OPPOSITION
WITNESS KIND OF MADE MY POINT.
QUITE FRANKLY. I MEAN, I THINK
IF I YOU'RE RIGHT IF I WAS GOING
TO GO TO A DENTIST, UM I WOULD
GET THE CENTO ANESTHESIOLOGIST
THERE, BUT IF I WAS GOING FOR
SOMETHING ELSE, I WOULDN'T GO TO
THE DENTIST TO GET TREATMENT OR
TO GET MY HEALTH CONCERNS. IF I
WAS ILL OR WHATNOT, I WOULD GO
TO THE DOCTOR TO WHERE I WOULD
SEE THE NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGIST,
IF NEEDED, FOR WHATEVER THE
REASON IS. I JUST I'M NOT QUITE
SURE AND I DON'T KNOW THE FIELD
WELL ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SAY
THIS CERTIFICATION AND WHAT
WEIGHS MORE THAN THE OTHER TO ME
. UM I JUST FEEL LIKE THE
NURSING ANESTHESIOLOGISTS SHOULD
BE A PART OF THIS EXCLUSION. AND
THEN I'M WONDERING BECAUSE WE
HEARD QUITE A FEW OTHER FOLKS
ALSO THAT WANTED TO SEE IF THEY
CAN WORK WITH YOU ON THE
AMENDMENTS, AND I'M HOPING THAT
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN WORK
WITH THEM ON. I'M ALWAYS HAPPY
TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION. I WOULD
JUST REITERATE THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS A NURSE
ANESTHESIOLOGIST. NOT BY LAW
ANYWAY. AND THAT'S THE POINT OF
THE BILL. PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE
USING TERMINOLOGY. THAT IS NOT
APPROPRIATE TO THEIR LICENSE. SO
THAT IS WHY SO A DENTAL
ANESTHESIOLOGIST ONLY DOES THE
DENTAL ANESTHESIOLOGY FOR DENTAL
PROCEDURES. A NURSE.
ANESTHETISTS. IS A IS A TERM IS
USED. I HAD SURGERY THREE YEARS
AGO. UM THE ANESTHESIA WAS
PROVIDED BY A NURSE ANESTHETIST
. IT WAS DISCLOSED UP FRONT. UM
EVERYTHING WAS EVERYTHING.
REALLY? WELL, I APPRECIATED THAT
DISCLOSURE. I KNEW WHAT THE
DIFFERENCE WAS. ALL WE'RE SAYING
HERE IS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW
WHAT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE
LEVEL OF TRAINING AND SO WHEN
PEOPLE ARE USING TERMINOLOGY
THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A HIGHER
DEGREE OF TRAINING. UM THAT IS,
I BELIEVE INAPPROPRIATE, AND
THAT'S WHY WE'RE JUST SIMPLY
ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. SO I'M
JUST I'M SORRY. SO, UH ARE WE
SAYING THAT DINO
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS ARE GOING IN
THERE ALSO, AND THEY'RE ALLOWED
TO SAY THAT THEY'RE THEIR
DOCTORS ARE DOCTORS AND THE
NURSES. ANESTHESIOLOGISTS CAN'T
GO IN THERE AND SEE AND I DON'T
KNOW. ARE THEY SAYING THEIR
DOCTORS BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD
HEAR EARLIER IS THAT SHE'S
SEEING THAT THEY'RE NOT SAYING
THAT I THINK THE IMPLICATION IS
THAT THERE IS A HIGHER LEVEL OF
TRAINING AND THAT'S WE'RE TRYING
TO. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS
AVOID CONFUSION. UM AND YOU
KNOW, DENT. I BELIEVE THE DENTAL
SITUATION IS DIFFERENT, HOWEVER.
UNDER THE IMPLICATION FROM THE
OPPOSITION. IS THAT THE THAT THE
NURSES ANESTHESIOLOGISTS COULD
PROVIDE WHICH IS A TERM THAT
DOESN'T EXIST. I GO BACK TO
THAT, UM IN LAW COULD PROVIDE
ANESTHESIA SERVICES FOR PRETTY
MUCH ANYTHING. DENTISTRY IS
VERY, VERY SPECIFIC. UM AND IT'S
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LICENSE TO
PRACTICE DENTISTRY. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
MOTIONS OR SECONDS. WAITING FOR
OTHER COLLEAGUES TO GET HERE, MR
GRAYSON. UH HAVE EMOTION FROM MR
GRAYSON HAVE A SECOND FROM
MAKIN, ER. UM WITH THAT, UH,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE DOCTOR
WOULD THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS. I
RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A, UM, A
LITTLE BIT OF A ACUTE, UH,
CONFUSING ISSUE, BUT IMAGINE THE
CONSUMER BEING CONFUSED AS WELL
. AND WHAT WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING
TO DO IS CREATE TRANSPARENCY AND
ELIMINATE SOME OF THAT CONFUSION
SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW THE LEVEL OF
TRAINING THAT PERSON IS HAS
UPFRONT. UM, AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU, DOCTOR WOULD AND
THANK YOU TO YOU FOR YOUR WORK
ON THIS BILL AND FOR YOUR
HISTORY OF WORK ON EXPANDING
ACCESS TO CARE, AND, AS YOU
NOTED, I THINK THIS IS A VERY
COMPLEX ISSUE. UM I BELIEVE IT'S
BEEN MADE CLEAR TODAY. THIS BILL
DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANYONE FROM
USING THE TERM DOCTOR WHO IS
CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO USE THAT
TITLE AND COMMITTEE MEN
AMENDMENTS MAKE THAT EVEN
CLEARER. ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS FURTHER CLARIFY THAT
A LICENSEE CAN STILL ACCURATELY
DESCRIBE SERVICES THAT THEY
SPECIALIZE IN THAT ARE WITHIN
THEIR SCOPE OF PRACTICE AS LONG
AS THEY DON'T USE CERTAIN
RESTRICTED TITLES COMMONLY
ASSOCIATED WITH PHYSICIANS, AS
WAS NOTED THESE AMENDMENTS DON'T
FULLY RESOLVE SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS, AND I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE ENGAGING
WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. ON
THIS BILL, AND IN THE MEANTIME,
I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION MOVE FORWARD AND TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AS
AMENDED. MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE VOTE. A B 7 65 WOULD
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN BERMAN I
FLORA FLORA, NOT VOTING
COLONIES. ALVAREZ PONTA CHEN.
CHEN I DIXON. GIBSON. GRAYSON.
GRACE AND I, IRWIN. IRWIN I,
JACKSON JACKSON. I LI LEE, I LOW
AND TALL AND THOUGHT I MCCARTY
MCKENNA. MCKENNA, I WHEN. I'M
GOING TO STAY OFF FOR NOW SO I
CAN SEE THE AMENDMENTS. AH. WHEN
NOT VOTING. PATERSON. TING.
WE'LL KEEP THAT BILL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON AS I
CAN DEVOTE AS THEY COME IN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
SO I SEE SOMETHING MEMBER WICKS
WITH AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9 80 10
21.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
AND COMMITTEE STAFF. MAYBE 10 21
SPECIFIES THAT UPON FDA APPROVAL
AND SUBSEQUENT FDA RESCHEDULING
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
ACTING UNDER ALL APPLICABLE LAWS
AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE
WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE
LEGAL MEDICATIONS AFTER APPROVAL
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
CURRENTLY, CALIFORNIA IS IN THE
MINORITY OF STATES THAT HAVE NOT
NO LAW THAT PERMITS A HEALTH
CARE PROVIDER TO PRESCRIBE A
DRUG WHEN THE FDA HAS APPROVED
IT FOR MEDICAL USE. THIS BILL
DOES NOT LEGALIZE ANY SPECIFIC
SUBSTANCE, NOR DOES IT LEGALIZE
ANY SUBSTANCE FOR NON MEDICALLY
APPROVED USE. THIS BILL IS
SUPPORTED BY KAISER PERMANENTE
AND SPONSORED BY MAPS, PUBLIC
BENEFIT CORPORATION WITH ME TO
TEST FIRE AND SUPPORT HAS BEEN
EVERETTE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS AND
MEDICAL DIRECTOR FOR MAPS. WE
ALSO HAVE. LESLIE BOEHNER, J. D
M B. UH N B, A SENIOR LEGAL
ASSISTANT WITH MAPS FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. REMEMBER WICKS ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
YES. UH IF YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES
TO PRESENT THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS BENJAMIN EVERETTE. I'M A
RESEARCH SCIENTIST AND A MEDICAL
DIRECTOR AT MAPS PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION. I'M HERE IN SUPPORT
OF A B 21 21, WHICH SIMPLY
STATES THAT THE FDA APPROVES A
NEW DRUG AND THE D E A
RESCHEDULES IT CALIFORNIA'S
HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS WILL
BE ABLE TO PRESCRIBE IT AND
PATIENTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO IT.
LIKE ANY OTHER APPROVED
PRESCRIPTION THERAPY. THIS
LEGISLATION DOES NOT CREAM
DECRIMINALIZE OR LEGALIZE ANY
DRUG. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT
CALIFORNIA IS IN THE MINORITY OF
STATES THAT DO NOT DO THIS
ALREADY IN NEW YORK AND COLORADO
, SIMILAR LEGISLATION PASSED
WITH NEARLY UNANIMOUS SUPPORT.
TO CONSIDER WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE
OF NOT ACTING ON THIS
LEGISLATION. DELAYS AND ACCESS
TO NOVEL TREATMENTS FOR
POTENTIALLY LIFE THREATENING
CONDITIONS ONLY ADD TO THE
BURDEN FACED BY PATIENTS, THEIR
FAMILIES AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.
ADDITIONALLY DELAYS PROVED
CONFUSING AND BURDENSOME FOR
PATIENTS AND PRESCRIBERS. THEY
THINK IF THIS THERAPY IS
APPROVED BY THE FDA NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO IT, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, AND HE DIDN'T ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT UM, LESLIE
BOOMER. I'M HERE WITH THE PARENT
COMPANY OF MAPS FOR THE BENEFIT
CORPORATION JUST HERE FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AS NEEDED
GREAT AND LET'S GO TO ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
ADD ON AND SUPPORT YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH IF ANY
IMPOSITION THANK YOU, M. J D S
ON BEHALF OF KAISER PERMANENTE
IN SUPPORT. THANKS SO MUCH ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
, SEEING NONE. ANY WITNESSES
WANT TO ADD ON AN OPPOSITION
SEEING NONE. BRING IT BACK TO
COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS OR SECONDS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CHEN UM,
SOMEONE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL UP TO THIS
COMMITTEE. I DIDN'T QUESTION
UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE MAJOR
ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IS A
SCHEDULING AND THE SCHEDULING
OFFSET BETWEEN THE SEA AND
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IN THE AREA
OF CANNABIS, HOW IT'S
INTERACTIVE LEGALLY WITH STATE
AND FEDERAL STATUTES. DO YOU SEE
ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AS
IT PERTAINS TO THIS BILL AND
UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE
LOOKING AT, UH, AMENDMENTS, UH,
AS PROPOSED BY PERHAPS THE
COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF EXCLUDING
CANNABIS FROM THIS. I JUST WANT
TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
THANK YOU. I WOULD DEFER TO MY
EXPERT WITNESS. IT. IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT AN AMENDMENT
WAS MADE THAT EXCLUDED CANNABIS
FROM THIS. THAT'S CORRECT. YES.
AND YOU DON'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WITH
MAKING SURE THE SCHEDULING IS
MORE IN LINE. I MEAN, HOW DOES
THAT INTERACT WITH IN STATE AND
FEDERAL STATUTE, ESSENTIALLY SO
ONCE A DRUG LIKE LIKE, UH, DRUG
GOES THROUGH AN ENTIRE CLINICAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, THE SPONSOR
OF THE CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM WOULD PREPARE A NEW DRUG
APPLICATION, WHICH GOES IN FRONT
OF THE FDA, THE FDA THEN
RIGOROUSLY THAT THE NEW DRUG
APPLICATION FOR FIRST SAFETY AND
THEN BENEFITS TO ASSURE THAT THE
SAFETY BENEFIT RATIO OR RISK
BENEFIT RATIO IS APPROPRIATE FOR
THAT FOR THAT MEDICATION. IF A
DRUG THAT IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED
ONE LIKE M D M A, FOR EXAMPLE,
OR THC IS APPROVED BY THE FDA IN
THAT MANNER. IT IS THEN BY LAW
NO LONGER APPROPRIATE TO BE
SCHEDULED. ONE SCHEDULE. ONE
INDICATES THAT THERE'S NO
INDICATED MEDICAL VALUE. RIGHT.
SO THE D E A WOULD THEN
RESCHEDULED THE DRUG. SO ALL
THIS DOES IS ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS
CALIFORNIA TO MIRROR EXACTLY
WHAT RESCHEDULING CLASS. THE D A
. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUTS IN
PLACE OF THE D A. THANK YOU, MR
CHEN. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS MOTIONS SECONDS. HAVE
EMOTION. LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
HAVE A SECOND. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, UH, REMEMBER? WHAT WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THIS BILL HAS
NO OPPOSITION. WITH RESPECT. WE
ASK FOR A NIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. REMEMBER THANK YOU FOR
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS TO CARVE CANNABIS OUT
OF THIS BILL TO BE CLEAR IF
FEDERAL ACTION TO LEGALIZE
CANNABIS THAT IS CERTAINLY SOME
IF THERE IS FEDERAL ACTION TO
LEGALIZE CANNABIS, THAT IS
CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE WILL MOVE
TO REFLECT IN CALIFORNIA, BUT
THE AMENDMENT WILL MAKE SURE WE
HAVE TIME TO RECONCILE THAT WITH
OUR CURRENT REGULATORY SCHEME
FOR CANNABIS WITH THAT, I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
VOTE. MAYBE 10 21 WICKS. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
BERMAN BERMAN I FLORA FLORA,
IOWA KNEES ALVAREZ BONTA. CHEN
CHEN I DIXON GIBSON, GRAYSON.
IRWIN. JACKSON. JACKSON. I LI.
LOW AND TALL MCCARTY THINNER
WHEN I PATERSON THING. LEAVE THE
ROLLOUT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I SEE SOMETHING MEMBER
CERVANTES WITH AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER TWO, MAYBE 3 36.
HAVE EMOTION. HAVE A SET
BIPARTISAN MOTION IN SECOND.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 336 TODAY
I WANT TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AS OUTLINED ON PAGE 10 AND 12 OF
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. AS YOU
KNOW, EXISTING LAW REQUIRES
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS TO
PROVIDE WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE TO ITS WORKERS. THE
CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD
, OR C SLB IMPLEMENTS THIS
REQUIREMENT AS PART OF ITS
MISSION TO REGULATE THE LICENSOR
, PRACTICE AND DISCIPLINE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. WHEN
ACQUIRING OR RENEWING THEIR
LICENSE. CONTRACTORS MUST
PROVIDE THE SLB WHAT THEY VALID
CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION, INSURANCE OR
CERTIFICATION OF SELF INSURANCE.
CSL B DOES NOT VERIFY THE LEVEL
OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
INSURANCE THAT EACH CONTRACTOR
PURCHASES IS APPROPRIATE TO THE
WORK THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES
PERFORM. CSL BE CLASSIFIES
CONTRACTORS INTO THREE WORKERS
COMPENSATION CATEGORIES BASED ON
THEIR PAYROLL. THESE COSTS
CLASSIFICATIONS ARE BASED ON THE
CONTRACTORS EMPLOYEES
PERFORMANCE, HOWEVER, UNDER
CURRENT LAW, THE CLASSIFICATION
IS PUBLICIZED. THE ONLY
INFORMATION THE PUBLIC HANDSY IS
THAT A CONTRACTOR HAS A WORKER'S
COMPENSATION POLICY OF SOME
KIND. UNFORTUNATELY THIS LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY LEADS TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF BAD ACTORS.
PURCHASING INAPPROPRIATE LEVELS
OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION THAT DO
NOT MATCH THE TYPE OF
CONSTRUCTION WORK THAT THEIR
EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY PERFORM. THIS
CREATES A SITUATION WHERE THESE
BAD ACTORS PURCHASING
INAPPROPRIATELY LOW LEVELS OF
INSURANCE CAN GAIN A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE OVER CONTRACTORS WHO
PLAYED BY THE RULES. MAYBE 336
WILL REQUIRE CONTRACTORS TO
PROVIDE CSL BE WITH THE WORKER'S
COMPENSATION CODES BASED ON THE
WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE
THAT THEY ACTUALLY PURCHASE. IT
WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THAT CSL BE
POST EACH CONTRACTORS
CLASSIFICATION CODE ON ITS
WEBSITE. THIS INCREASES
TRANSPARENCY, WHICH WILL ALLOW
BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE REST OF
THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. TO
VERIFY THAT THE INSURANCE EACH
CONTRACTOR PROVIDES IS
APPROPRIATE. TO THE KIND OF
CONSTRUCTION WORK THAT THEIR
EMPLOYEES ARE ACTUALLY
PERFORMING. I AM PROUD TO HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DOLLY AS A
JOINT AUTHOR OF THIS BIPARTISAN
BILL. WE BELIEVE THAT A B 336
WELL, UH, AT LEVEL THE PLAYING
FIELD AND BRING AN IMPROVED
SENSE OF SAFETY AND WORK
ENVIRONMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE AND WITH ME TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILLS
ARE SPONSOR KEITH DONE WITH THE
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF IRONWORKERS
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIR
KEITH DONE. DISTRICT COUNCIL
IRONWORKERS. THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WOULD LIKE TO THANK
YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING
WITH US TO MAKE CLARIFICATIONS
THAT CECIL B IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS. I'M
HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
WITH ME. IS MITCHELL BECHTEL
FROM LOCAL 1 18 ARE WORKERS HERE
LOCALLY WILL MAKE A FEW
STATEMENTS. BUT WE APPRECIATE
YOUR STAFF WORKING WITH US.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALTHOUGH HA SO THIS
BILL JUST SEEKS TO CREATE A
GREATER TRANSPARENCY FOR
CONTRACTORS, UM, WE THINK DURING
THIS WHOLE BUDGET CRISIS THAT
CALIFORNIA IS GOING THROUGH THAT
THIS IS A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE
WAY OF SHOWING THAT TRANSPARENCY
FOR CONTRACTORS AND ALLOWING
CONSUMERS AND AWARDING BODIES
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEIR CONTRACTORS AND
PEOPLE BIDDING THEIR WORK
ACTUALLY PAY THE CORRECT
WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION RATES ON
BEHALF OF THEIR WORKERS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY WITNESSES
ANYBODY WANT TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT, A NAME ORGANIZATION
YOU'RE WITH AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS. MY
QUEST ON BEHALF OF THE, UM YOU
GOT IT YOUR TIME. STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
. SORRY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS MATT
CREMINS, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONFERENCE OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS WERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MORNING MR CHAIR SKIPPED ON
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
SUBCONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION.
HUNDREDS OF LARGE SUBCONTRACTORS
AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL FOR ITS
TRANSPARENCY AND FOR CONSUMER
PROTECTION AS WELL. THANK YOU
FOR THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION WHO WANT TO TESTIFY
ON THE BILL. SEEING NONE ANY, UH
, WITNESS OR ANY FOLKS IN THE
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM WHO WANT
TO ADD ON IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A
MOTION IN THE SECOND WANT TO
BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THING
NONE. UH, SUDDENLY MEMBER WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY
ASKED FOR I VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MR FAVORITE CLOTHES. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CERVANTES
WITH THE AMENDMENTS. I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
A B 3 36 CERVANTES. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BERMAN FLORA. LARA IOWA KNEES
ALVAREZ PONTA. CHEN. DIXON.
GIBSON. GRAYSON. IRWIN. JACKSON.
JACKSON. I LI. LOW AND TALL AND
THOUGHT I'M MCCARTY MAKIN ER
WHEN I PATERSON TING. THANK YOU
, SAM. REMEMBER, WE'RE LIGHT ON
ON MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'LL KEEP THE
ROLE OPEN. THANKS. I SEE SOME
MEMBER WALLACE SNUCK IN THE
BACK. IF HE'S READY TO PRESENT
WE'RE READY FROM THE PRESENT. IF
NOT, WE CAN DO SOME OTHER
THINGS. WE'LL DO SOME OTHER
THINGS. CAN I GET A MOTION IN A
SECOND ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
GOT A MOTION IN SECOND ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. BERMAN I,
FLORA LARA I COLONIES ALVAREZ. I
WANT TO CHAN. CHEN I DIXON.
GIBSON GIBSON, GRAYSON, ERWIN
JACKSON. JACKSON. I LI. LOW AND
TALL AND THOUGHT I MCCARTY
MAKIN, ER WHEN I PATERSON THING
, WE'LL KEEP THE ROLE OPEN FOR
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. WE ALSO
HAD ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TING
PRESENT IF HE 7 66 WHEN WE WERE
A SUBCOMMITTEE, CAN I GET A
MOTION OR A SECOND IN A SECOND
AUNT GOT A BIPARTISAN MOTION AND
SECOND ON A B 7 66. AH TING.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
VOTE. A B 76 16. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
BERMAN BERMAN I FLORA. LARA I
ALA NI'S. ALVAREZ. PONTA. CHAN.
CHEN I DIXON GIBSON. GIBSON. I
GRAYSON IRWIN. JACKSON. JACKSON
I, LI LOWENTHAL. I THOUGHT I
MCCARTY MAKIN ER WHEN I PATERSON
THING WE'LL KEEP THAT ROLE OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS AS WELL, UH,
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL AUTHORS TO
PRESENT DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY ON
THE COMMITTEE? NO. SO I WILL
PRESENT MY BILL. I'M GOING TO
HAND OVER THE GAVEL TO THE VICE
CHAIR. UH, STAFF. IF YOU'RE
WATCHING, GO FIND YOUR MEMBER
BRING THEM TO THE COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM. BOTH FOR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND ALSO FOR BILL
PRESENTERS. THANKS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
WE'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING A B
5 37 READY WHEN YOU ARE. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO
BEGIN BY THINKING COMMITTEE
STAFF. FOR EVERYTHING THEY DO.
BUT ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO
THIS BILL FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
BILL. I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING THE
ANALYSIS TO SPECIFY THAT A
CONSUMER MUST SELECT SPECIFIC
DATES AS IT RELATES TO THE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL. MAYBE
5 37 IS A COMMON SENSE CONSUMER
PROTECTION BILL THAT CRACKS DOWN
ON SHORT TERM LODGING, HIDDEN
FEES. WE'VE ALL EXPERIENCED IT.
THE CONSUMER GOES TO A WEBSITE
ENTERS THE DATES OF THEIR STAY.
PICKS A ROOM FOR A CERTAIN PRICE
. AND THEN AT THE LAST MINUTE
FEES SUCH AS RESORT FEES ARE
CLEANING FEES ARE TACKED ON ONCE
MOST CONSUMERS HAVE ALREADY
PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMMITTED TO
THAT PROPERTY. I'VE EVEN SEEN
HOTELS THAT TACKED ON A
DESTINATION FEE. AT THE VERY END
OF THE BOOKING PROCESS. IT'S A
HOTEL. BEING A DESTINATION ISN'T
A SPECIAL ADD ON. IT'S LITERALLY
THE ESSENCE OF A HOTEL. IF YOU
WANT TO CHARGE THAT, JUST PUT IT
IN THE ADVERTISED PRICE.
UNFORTUNATELY THE REALITY IS
THAT CONSUMERS ARE BEING
MANIPULATED INTO THINKING
THEY'RE GETTING A BETTER DEAL
THAN THEY REALLY ARE. AND HIS
MOST RECENT STATE OF THE UNION.
PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLED OUT THESE
FEES FOR HARMING CONSUMERS BY
PREVENTING THEM FROM SEEING THE
TRUE PRICE WHEN THEY PICK OUT A
HOTEL AND BY LIMITING THEIR
ABILITY TO COMPARISON SHOP. THIS
ISN'T A PARTISAN ISSUE.
NEBRASKA'S ATTORNEY ATTORNEY
GENERAL REPUBLICAN FILED SUIT
OVER RESORT FEES. PENNSYLVANIA'S
ATTORNEY GENERAL, A DEMOCRAT,
DID THE SAME THING. IT'S TIME TO
TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS AND TO PUT
AN END TO THIS DECEPTIVE
PRACTICE. MAYBE 5 37 WOULD
PROHIBIT HIDDEN FEES BY ENSURING
THAT THE ADVERTISED OR OFFERED
COST OF THE STAY DISCLOSED IN
THE UP FRONT PRICE, INCLUDING
ALL TAXES AND FEES REQUIRED TO
BOOK OR RESERVE. THE SHORT TERM
LODGING. CALIFORNIANS ARE SICK
AND TIRED OF BEING MISLED. THE
ADVERTISED OR OFFERED PRICE OF
YOUR STAY SHOULD BE THE REAL
PRICE THAT YOU PAY. THIS BILL IS
SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS CONSUMER
ORGANIZATIONS, AND MY OFFICE HAS
BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AS WE RECEIVED
FEEDBACK, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS WITH
EVERYBODY AS THIS BILL, OR IF
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
AND WITH ME TODAY IS ROBERT
HARRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR Ó. AH THANK YOU, MR VICE
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
ROBERT HAROLD, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE
THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL LIKE TO
THANK THE MEMBER BERMAN AND
OTHERS. THIS IS PART OF A SIX
BILL PACKAGE THAT CFC IS EITHER
SPONSORING OR CO SPONSORING TO
DEAL WITH JUNK FEES AND VARIOUS
SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY. THIS ONE
IS INCREDIBLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UM THESE FEES EITHER CALLED JUNK
OR HIDDEN FEES, SOMETIMES CALLED
DRIP PRICING. THEIR PERNICIOUS,
UM 85% OF AMERICANS HAVE
EXPERIENCED THESE IN ONE WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM OR ANOTHER. AS THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, SAID IT IS NOT
A PARTISAN ISSUE. UM IT HAS BEEN
BIPARTISAN FOR THE LAST NUMBER
OF YEARS THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS
HERE. JUST TELL PEOPLE WHAT
YOU'RE GOING TO PAY. IT'S THAT
SIMPLE. I CALL IT FIVE CLICKS
SYNDROME BECAUSE YOU SEE THE
PRICE. AND IT'S JIMMIED UP IN
YOUR SEARCH ENGINE A LITTLE BIT
SO THAT IT LOOKS LOWER AND MOST
CONSUMERS, LET'S BE HONEST THERE
. PRICE AWARE AT A BARE MINIMUM,
IF NOT PRICE DRIVEN, AND THEN
WHEN YOU GET TO THE FOURTH OR
FIFTH CLICK, THEN YOU FIND OUT
THERE'S A RESORT FEE AND BY THE
WAY, IN MANY CASES, IT'S NOT
EVEN PROMINENTLY MENTIONED. SOME
OF THEM EVEN SAY, WELL, YOU HAVE
TO PAY THAT AT THE AT THE
PROPERTY. BUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING
TO PAY RIGHT NOW ON THE WEBSITE
IS THIS BUT IT WON'T INCLUDE THE
DESTINATION FEAR OF THE RESORT
FEE OR WHATEVER. AND SO, UM,
IT'S JUST VERY DISINGENUOUS. UH
SUNSHINE IS THE BEST
DISINFECTANT AND TRANSPARENCY IN
THIS AREA. PROTECTS CONSUMERS.
WITH THAT I'D ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT? JUST ADD ONS, NAME
AND ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
CARON LING. I'M GIVING THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY
TREASURES AND TAX COLLECTORS AND
STRONG SUPPORT THIS MORNING FOR
THE TAX PROVISIONS, ESPECIALLY
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT OF A B 5
37 C NONE. OPPOSITION OPPOSITION
TO A B 5 37.
THAT NOW LIVE. I'LL JUST OKAY.
THANK YOU. I'M NOT USED TO
HAVING A NICE, MIKE. SO ROBERT
MATURE. THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE. WE ARE REGRETFULLY
OPPOSED. 85 37 AT THE MOMENT. UM
ON THIS MATTER, WE REPRESENT A
RANGE OF HOTELS, ONLINE BOOKINGS
AND SHORT TERM RENTAL BUSINESSES
. UM I FIRST WANT TO COME OUT
AND SAY THAT ABSOLUTELY
UNDERSTAND. ISLAM IS CONCERNED.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BILLS ON
THIS. WE'VE SPOKEN TO HIS STAFF
ON IT, AND I'M NOT HERE IN IN
ANY WAY IN DEFENSE OF THOSE KIND
OF ISSUES ARE CONCERNED. THIS
BILL REALLY STEMS FROM CONCERNS
OVER COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN THE
LANGUAGE, AND THIS COMES IN A
COUPLE OF PLACES AND AGAIN. WE
HAVE SPOKEN TO STAFF ON IT.
WE'RE HOPEFUL WE CAN RESOLVE
THEM. UM FIRST RELATED TO TAXES
AND INCLUSION, AND I APPRECIATE
THE COMMITTEE AMENDS ON THAT
WE'RE ANALYZING THEM. BUT ONE OF
OUR CONCERNS HERE RELATES TO
COMPETITION THAT, UM, I'LL READ
ON THE LANGUAGES THAT WE WERE
BEING REQUIRED IN THE FIRST
ADVERTISED PRICE TO INCLUDE ALL
TAXES, T O T STDS THOSE ISSUES
RIGHT AND WE ARE CONCERNED THAT
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PLACE,
FOR EXAMPLE IN TAHOE CONSUMERS
LOOKING AS YOU SAY CONSUMERS ARE
PRICE SENSITIVE, THEY'RE GOING
TO SEE CALIFORNIA PRICES APPEAR
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE
PRICE IS ANOTHER OPTION BECAUSE
THAT OTHER STATE IS NOT
INCLUDING IT THIS WAY, NOTABLY,
THERE IS FEDERAL LEGISLATION
LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE TO TRY TO
HAVE A, UM, A SOLUTION FOR ALL
STATES. AND IF IT WAS FIXED
THERE, I THINK THAT WOULD FIX
OUR OUR STATE TO STATE
COMPETITION CONCERN. WE HAVE
SOME CONCERNS THAT INCLUDING ALL
TAXES, ANOTHER QUASI
GOVERNMENTAL FEES AT THAT POINT
I WAS GOING TO MAKE CALIFORNIA
LOOKS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN OTHER STATES WHEN
IT'S NOT AT THAT FIRST CLICK
POINT. REALLY, UM UH, THAT'S
REALLY THE ONLY PLACE YOU WANT
TO DRESS GLAD TO TALK TO AUTHOR
STAFF, AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD ON
IT. BUT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE ADDRESS THAT'S
COLLATERAL DAMAGE ISSUES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION JULIE
MALINOWSKI BALL ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOTEL AND LODGING
ASSOCIATION. VERY SIMILARLY. WE
ARE NOT OPPOSED TO WHAT THE
AUTHOR IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
HERE. WE HAVE AN OPPOSING LESS
AMENDED POSITION. WE SUPPORT
WHAT YOU JUST HEARD FROM CAL
CHAMBER ON THE COMPETITIVENESS
ISSUE AND THE INCLUSION OF T O T
S AND T I D S. WE, ADDITIONALLY
WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT A LITTLE
MORE TIME TO COMPLY WOULD BE
VERY HELPFUL CODING AND FEELING
WITH LEGACY SOFTWARE WITH THESE
RESERVATIONS SYSTEMS WOULD BE
HELPFUL. AND WE ALSO THINK THAT
MAYBE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION
THAT ALL PLATFORMS ARE INCLUDED
IN THIS. I THINK THAT'S THE
INTENT. BUT MAYBE WE WANT TO
WIGGLE AROUND THE LANGUAGE, TOO.
SO WITH THAT WE ARE HAPPY TO
WORK WITH THE AUTHOR ON THIS AND
CONTINUE THE BILL FORWARD. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE? SEEN NONE
, BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS FROM
THE COMMITTEE? SEEING NONE. MR.
CHAIR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS RAISED
BY THE OPPOSITION COMMIT TO
CONTINUING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THEM IF THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
MY VOTE, IT'S GONNA GET REAL
AWKWARD IF IT DOESN'T BUT
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAYBE 5 37 BERMAN. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. BERMAN
BERMAN I FLORA FLORA, NOT VOTING
ALL UNEASE. ALVAREZ PONTA. CHEN.
CHINA, NOT VOTING, DIXON. GIBSON
GIBSON I GRAYSON IRWIN IRWIN. I
JACKSON JACKSON. I LI. AND TALL
. AYE MCCARTY MAKIN, ER WHEN I
PATERSON TING. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE'LL LEAVE THAT ROLE OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS THINKS THANK
YOU, MR VICE CHAIR. I SEE SOME
REMEMBER RUBIO. I THINK WAS HERE
FIRST. UH. WITH ASSEMBLY WITH
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13. MAYBE 11
71 READY WHEN YOU ARE. THANKS
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. I AM HERE TO
PRESENT A B 11 71, WHICH WENT
POWER THE LICENSED CANNABIS
MARKET TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST UNLICENSED OPERATORS.
OVER THE YEARS, MANY MEMBERS,
INCLUDING MYSELF, HAS SPONSORED
, SUPPORTED AND ADVOCATED FOR
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT AGAINST
ILLEGAL OPERATORS IN THE
CANNABIS MARKET. UNFORTUNATELY
THE ILLICIT MARKET HAS CONTINUED
TO GROW. DESPITE THE ADDITIONAL
ENFORCEMENT STEPS WE HAVE TAKEN
SINCE PASSAGE OF PROP 64, THERE
ARE SEVERAL CLEAR INDICATORS OF
THE TOLL THIS IS TAKING ON
LICENSED OPERATORS. CURRENTLY
FOUR OUT OF FIVE CANNABIS
PURCHASES MADE IN CALIFORNIA ARE
MADE ON THE ILLICIT MARKET. IN
MAY OF 2022 THERE WERE CLOSE TO
1500 BRANDS IN THE MARKET LESS
THAN A YEAR LATER. ONLY ABOUT
1000 REMAIN. THIS HAS LED TO THE
LARGEST UH, THE LARGEST OF THE
MULTI STATE OPERATORS
CHARACTERIZED CALIFORNIA'S
OPERATING CONDITIONS AS BRUTAL
AND THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE AS
HOSTILE. THIS IN TURN DEVASTATES
THE UNIONIZED WORKFORCE OF
LICENSED OPERATORS AND REDUCES
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORKERS IN
THIS SPACE AS THE LEGAL
BUSINESSES LEAVE THE STATE. AS
SUCH, IT IS CLEAR, UNIQUE STEPS
MUST BE TAKEN TO FURTHER EMPOWER
THE LEGAL MARKET. MAYBE 11 71
PROVIDES THAT UNIQUE SUPPORT BY
SIMPLY EMPOWERING LICENSED
OPERATORS TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF AGAINST NON LICENSED
OPERATORS. I DO NOT TAKE THIS
TYPE OF LEGISLATION LIGHTLY AS
MANY OF YOU KNOW. UM, I'VE
ALWAYS, UH, HAVE ISSUES WITH, UH
, THESE TYPES OF LEGISLATIVE
MOVES EXCEPT FOR IN THE CANNABIS
INDUSTRY. WE HAVE, UH, SEEN A
LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE ARE TRYING
TO ADDRESS. UNFORTUNATELY WE
HAVE TO DO IT PIECEMEAL BILL BY
BILL, AND HOPEFULLY THIS BILL
CAN ADDRESS THE PRESSURE
PRESSURE OR CAN ADDRESS I'M
SORRY, CAN IMPOSE. ADDITIONAL
PRESSURE ON ILLICIT OPERATORS
AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO EITHER
SEEK A LICENSE OR LEAVE THE
MARKET COMPLETELY. MAYBE 11 71
IS A SMART AND TARGETED MEASURES
TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS PROBLEM
UNIQUE TO THE CANNABIS MARKET.
THIS MEASURE IS DOUBLE REFERRED
TO ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY, WHERE WE
WILL WORK TO FURTHER REFINE
QUESTIONS OF THE STANDING AND
PROCESS AS DRAFTED, ENSURING
THIS COMPLAINT. THIS COMPLEMENTS
THE STATES. EXISTING ENFORCEMENT
EFFORTS WHILE ALSO PREVENTING
ABUSE OF NEW ENFORCEMENT
PATHWAYS. HERE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS KIRSTEN HEIDEL BAG
AND ON BEHALF OF UFCW, UH,
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL AND
TIFFANY? DAVID? DAVID? SORRY.
SEVEN ON BEHALF OF MARCH AND
ASH, THE SPONSORS OF THIS
MEASURE WE ADDITIONALLY HAVE
ABOUT ALBERTA TORRICO AVAILABLE
TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I WAS IN
SUPPORT TO THAT. LAST COMMENT
ABOUT FORMER MAJORITY LEADER
TORRICO. WE'VE GOT A MOTION
DEBATED. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW
A STUTTERED A LITTLE BIT EMOTION
IN A SECOND. PLEASE TWO MINUTES
EACH PER WITNESS AND SUPPORT
WHEN YOU'RE READY. GOOD MORNING
, CHAIRMAN BERMAN AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY
TODAY. MY NAME IS TIFFANY DEBIT
, AND I'M ACTUALLY HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL
COUNTIES JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT
CANNABIS COMMITTEE. THE JOINT
LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE IS A
JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN THE UNITED
FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS.
LOCAL 1 35, WHICH REPRESENTS
OVER 13,000 UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES.
AND MARCH AND ASH, WHICH IS A
COMMUNITY ORIENTED CHAIN OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. CANNABIS TO
SPEND SAREES WITH OVER 500
UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES. WE'RE HERE
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
ASSEMBLY BILL 11 71 AND AS THE
BILL SPONSOR FIVE YEARS AFTER
THE PASSAGE OF THE ADULT USE AND
MARIJUANA ACT, WE FIND A LEGAL
MARKET TEETERING ON THE BRINK OF
FAILURE. INCLUDING ITS HIGH
ROAD, EMPLOYERS AND COMMUNITY
ENTREPRENEURS. TODAY GOOD
OPERATORS AND THE LICENSE
CANNABIS INDUSTRY ARE UNDER
SIEGE ON THREE FRONTS WHERE
LOSING SUBSTANTIAL MARKET SHARE
TO THE ILLEGAL CANNABIS
OPERATORS TO LICENSE CANNABIS
OPERATORS. WORKING OUTSIDE THE
REGULATED MARKET, AND COMPANIES
SELLING A HIGH POTENCY SYNTHETIC
THC LIKE PRODUCTS UNDER THE
GUIDES OF HEMP. UNFORTUNATELY
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAD BEEN UNABLE TO KEEP UP WITH
THE GROWING ILLICIT MARKET. NOT
ENOUGH IS BEING DONE TO CURTAIL
THE SALE OF ILLEGAL UNTESTED IN
UNTAXED, INTOXICATING CANNABIS
AND CANNABIS LIKE PRODUCTS
OUTSIDE OF THE REGULATED
FRAMEWORK. THE DEVASTATING
IMPACT OF THIS ILLICIT,
COMPETENT COMPETITION IS SEEN IN
THE FORM OF DRAMATICALLY
DECREASED TAX REVENUE. BETWEEN
THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2021. THE
FOURTH QUARTER OF 2022, THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND
FEES. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
THAT CANNABIS EXCISE TAX REVENUE
HAS DROPPED BY 40. AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER NOTED, THERE'S
NO SIGN THAT THAT DOWNWARD
TRAJECTORY IS SLOWING. ON THE
CONTRARY, WE'RE SEEING MASSIVE
NUMBER OF BUSINESS FAILURES AND
LAYOFFS AMONG LICENSED CANNABIS
OPERATORS, WELL ILLEGAL SHOPS
UPPER RATE OPENLY BRAZENLY RIGHT
DOWN THE STREET FROM US OFFERING
AND TAX FREE CANNABIS PRODUCTS
AT LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE. THE
PERSISTENCE OF THE ILLICIT
CANNABIS MARKET CONTINUES TO PUT
WORKERS' LIVES AT RISK. IT
DEGRADES HER NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENDANGERS COMMUNITY SAFETY
IN IT UNDERMINES THE STABILITY
OF THE STATE'S CANNABIS TAX
REVENUE. IF YOU'RE GONNA WRAP
UP, THAT'D BE GREAT. ILLICIT
CANNABIS BUSINESSES ARE RUBBING
A STATE OF ABOUT TWO BILLION PER
YEAR. MAYBE 11 71 EMPOWERS
OPERATORS LIKE OURSELVES TO SEEK
JUDICIAL RELIEF FOR THE REASONS
SET FORTH ABOVE. WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOU SUPPORT THIS BELT.
THANKS. THANK YOU. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN
BERMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KRISTEN
HUDDLE BACH HERE ON BEHALF OF
UFCW WESTERN STATES COUNCIL. UH
IN SUPPORT OF A B 11 71. I WANT
TO FIRST THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
HER TIRELESS WORK IN TRYING TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL AND
ILLICIT OPERATORS IN THE
CANNABIS INDUSTRY. YOU HAVE CW
HAS PARTNERED WITH HER IN THE
PAST ON THIS ISSUE, AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL WE FIX
THIS ISSUE YOU HAVE CW
REPRESENTS OVER 6000 WORKERS
ACROSS THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY IN
CALIFORNIA THROUGH MODIFIED
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
, AND WE'RE WORKING TO REPRESENT
THOUSANDS MORE. WHO WORKED FOR
EMPLOYERS THAT HAVE SIGNED LABOR
PEACE AGREEMENTS WITH UFC DOPE
UFCW LOCALS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST
CHALLENGES FOR LICENSE.
UNIONIZED CANNABIS. EMPLOYERS IS
THE FACT THAT 60 TO 70% OF
CANNABIS PRODUCTS CAN BE TRACED
TO THE ILLICIT OR UNLICENSED
OPERATORS. UNFORTUNATELY STATE
AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN
UNABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE
GROWING ILLICIT MARKET.
ADDITIONALLY YOU HAVE CW REMAINS
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WORKERS
MUST ENDURE WHILE WORKING FOR
BAD ACTORS. WE UNFORTUNATELY
HAVE FIRSTHAND STORIES OF FOLKS
FALLING INTO GRINDERS. WE HEAR
STORIES, LACK OF PPE ROBBERIES
AND THESE WORKERS THAT ARE
EXPERIENCING THE WORST WORKING
CONDITIONS HAVE LITTLE TO NO
RESOURCES TO SEEK HELP. IN SHORT
MORNINGS TO BE DONE TO CLAMP
DOWN ON THE NEFARIOUS ACTORS.
MAYBE 11 71 WILL EMPOWER
LICENSED OPERATORS TO SEEK
JUDICIAL RELIEF AGAINST THEIR
ILLEGAL COMPETITORS BY GIVING
THEM STANDING IN SUPERIOR COURT
TO SEEK A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST UNLICENSED OPERATORS.
ONE FINAL POINT UFCW DOES NOT
SUPPORT FOR THE CRIMINALIZING
UNLICENSED CANNABIS OPERATORS.
WE SUPPORT 11 71 BECAUSE IT IS
STRICTLY A CIVIL REMEDY, WHICH
IS MUCH NEEDED IN ORDER TO
PROTECT AND BOLSTER THE LICENSED
OPERATORS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
ON BEHALF OF UFCW WESTERN STATES
COUNSEL. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO
WANT TO ADD ON AND SUPPORTED THE
BILL. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS AMY JENKINS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CANNABIS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU. JARED
KYLO, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
CANVAS BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL. SEEING
NONE. ANY FOLKS WHO WANT TO ADD
ON IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
SAYING NINE WE ALREADY HAVE A
BIPARTISAN IF I RECALL MOTION
AND SECOND, MAYBE IT WASN'T
BIPARTISAN, BUT IT'S STILL
MOTION AND SECOND, WE GOT
EMOTION IN A SECOND, ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COLLEAGUES. SEEING NONE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU. AND I
RESPECT RESPECTFULLY ASK WHEN I
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
ALSO WANT TO THINK I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. I AGREE THAT
THE UNLICENSED MARKET IS A
PROBLEM. UH FOR LEGAL CANNABIS.
WHILE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
CONCERNS RAISED IN THE ANALYSIS
, THE MECHANICS OF THOSE
CONCERNS ARE RELATED TO THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THIS BILL IS
DOUBLE REFERRED TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, AND HOPEFULLY THE
CONCERNS CAN BE ADDRESSED THERE.
WITH THAT HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. A B 11 71
BLANCA RUBIO. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY. BERMAN. I FLORA LARA,
NOT VOTING. ALA NI'S. ALVAREZ.
PONTA. CHEN CHEN, I DIXON.
GIBSON GIBSON I GRAYSON IRWIN
IRWIN. I JACKSON JACKSON. I LI
LI I LOWENTHAL AND THOUGHT I'M
MCCARTY MAKIN ER WHEN I PATERSON
TING. WE'LL KEEP THAT ROLE OPEN
FOR, UH, ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. SOME OF THEM ARE
ABOUT BAUER-KAHAN WITH AGENDA
ITEM. 14 13 69. YOU'RE HIGHER UP
ON THE AGENDA. WE DID WE FOLLOW
ORDERS HERE. I THINK EVERYBODY
KNOWS WE FOLLOW ORDERS. IN THE
ASSEMBLY BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE TRYING TO
BE POLITE. EXCEPT FOR THE VICE
CHAIR IS THE CHAIR AND THEN WE
DEFINITELY DON'T FOLLOW ORDERS.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM, HERE TO
PRESENT. YOU GOT A MOTION FROM
THE VICE CHAIR AFTER THAT. THANK
YOU IN IN A SECOND. HE'S A
FRIEND. EVEN WHEN I GIVE HIM A
HARD TIME, UM SO WE'LL BE
PRESENTING A B 13 69, WHICH
RELATES TO REMOTE CARE FOR
TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS WITH UM
, CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE THEM
TO SEEK CARE OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL CAME TO ME
WHEN A DEAR FRIEND OF MINE'S
HUSBAND, UM, WAS VERY SICK WITH
CANCER. HE HAD A VERY, UH UNIQUE
TYPE OF CANCER AND THE ONLY
SPECIALIST THAT COULD SEE HIM
THAT HAD TREATED THE CANCER HE
HAD WAS IN NEW YORK DESPITE HOW
SICK HE WAS WIFE WANTED TO GIVE
HIM THIS FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO
GET THE CARE HE NEEDED, AND THEY
GOT ON A PLANE AND TRAVELED
ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR HIM TO
SEE THE DOCTOR. AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE THE CONDITION HE WAS IN.
HE ENDED UP HOSPITALIZED. AND HE
MADE IT HOME, BUT WHEN THEY SAW
THE DOCTOR AND THE DOCTOR SAID
TO THEM, I WISH YOU WERE IN
ANOTHER STATE. I COULD HAVE
TREATED YOU WITH TELEHEALTH. SHE
CALLED ME AND SHE SAID, HOW IS
THIS POSSIBLE THAT MY HUSBAND
THEY NEEDED THIS CARE WHO IS SO
SICK? WAS FORCED TRAVEL ACROSS
THE COUNTRY TO SEE THIS DOCTOR
DESPITE HIS CONDITION, AND I
THOUGHT, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE,
AND I LOOKED INTO IT AND WE HAVE
NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES
AROUND PROVIDING TELEHEALTH OUT
OF STATE, EVEN FOR PATIENTS WHO
ARE INCREDIBLY SICK OR
TERMINALLY ILL WHO WANT ONE LAST
CHANCE TO SEE A SPECIALIST
SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND SO WE'RE
SEEKING AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO
JUST THAT. THIS BILL IS
INCREDIBLY NARROW, AND IT'S
EXCEPTION. IT IS FOR THE
PATIENTS. WHO TRULY CANNOT OR
MAY DIE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING
TO GET THE CARE THEY NEED OUT OF
STATE AND SO PROVIDING THEM.
THIS LAST OPPORTUNITY THROUGH
TELEHEALTH IS HUMANE. IT'S
SOMETHING WE AS A STATE SHOULD
BE OPEN TO AND LOOK INTO, AND
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THIS
COMMITTEE TO DO. AND SO WITH ME
TODAY, AND SUPPORT IS KELLY
GROSS WITH THE ALS ASSOCIATION
TEST TRANSPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU. CHAIR BERMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS KELLY GOSS AND I'M WITH
THE ALICE ASSOCIATION. I'M
PLEASED TO TESTIFY TODAY AS A
SPONSOR OF HB 13 69, WHICH
CREATES A NARROW EXEMPTION TO
CALIFORNIA LICENSURE
REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW VIRTUAL
CARE FROM OUT OF STATE
PHYSICIANS FOR SMALL AND HIGHLY
VULNERABLE PATIENT GROUPS, SUCH
AS THOSE WITH A L S LS IS A RARE
TERMINAL PROGRESSIVE
NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE IN
WHICH THE MEANS SURVIVAL TIME IS
2 TO 5 YEARS FROM DIAGNOSIS. THE
PROGRESSION RATE RANGE IN ORDER
IN WHICH SYMPTOMS PRESENT VARIES
AMONG PATIENTS. PEOPLE WITH A L
S BECOME INCREASINGLY DEPENDENT
ON THE ROUND THE CLOCK CARE AS
THEIR MUSCLE FUNCTION AND
MOBILITY DECLINE. TRAVEL EVEN TO
A LOCAL A LIST CLINIC FOR CARE
HERE IN CALIFORNIA CAN BE
GRUELING. TELEHEALTH IS AN
EFFECTIVE TOOL TO PROVIDE CARE
WHEN IN PERSON VISITS AREN'T
NECESSARY. IT GREATLY REDUCES
THE PHYSICAL BURDENS AND SAFETY
RISK OF TRAVEL FOR THOSE WHO ARE
IMMUNOCOMPROMISED TERMINALLY ILL
AND ALSO HELPS REDUCE TRAVEL
COSTS TO PATIENTS AND CAREGIVERS
WHO MUST ACCOMPANY THEM. IN
FACT, SOME A LIST CLINICS WITHIN
CALIFORNIA UTILIZED TELECOM
TELECOM HEALTHCARE FOR THESE
REASONS. TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS
MAY SEEK OUT OF STATE CARE FROM
SPECIALISTS OR OPT FOR TREATMENT
THAT IS ONLY AVAILABLE AT A
FINITE NUMBER OF HEALTH CENTERS
THAT ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS IS THE CASE FOR
SOME RARE DISEASES,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN JUST POINTED OUT.
CALIFORNIANS WITH ALS, WHO SEEK
CARE FROM OUTER STATE
SPECIALISTS WOULD GREATLY
BENEFIT HAVING VIRTUAL CARE
ACCESS FOR INITIAL SCREENINGS
PRIOR TO IN PERSON TRAVEL TO
OBTAIN A SECOND OPINION OR TO
MAINTAIN CONTINUITY CARE IN
BETWEEN IN PERSON VISITS.
TELEHEALTH ACCESS FOR TERMINALLY
ILL PATIENTS REDUCES THE
PHYSICAL, FINANCIAL AND
EMOTIONAL HARDSHIP OF HAVING TO
TRAVEL OUT OF STATE FOR EVERY
CONSULT AND CREATES AN EQUITABLE
OPTION FOR THOSE WHOSE FRAGILITY
OR PHYSICAL INABILITY OURS THEM
FROM TRAVELING OUT OF STATE.
THESE PATIENTS SHOULD BE
ENTITLED TO THE SAME ACCESS OF
CARE FROM OUT OF STATE PROVIDERS
AS THOSE WHO PHYSICALLY AND CAN
PHYSICALLY TRAVEL OUT OF STATE.
REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE
SPECIALIST WHO TREATS THE ONLY A
FEW PATIENTS PER YEAR BUT
PERHAPS SEVERAL PATIENTS ACROSS
MULTIPLE STATES TO OBTAIN A
CALIFORNIA LICENSE IS ONEROUS
AND IMPRACTICAL. THE TIME DELAY
FOR OUT OF STATE SPECIALISTS TO
OBTAIN THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
LICENSES YET ANOTHER
DISADVANTAGE IMPOSED ON UPON THE
TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT AND ONE
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY COST THE
PATIENT THEIR LIFE WHILE WAITING
FOR ACCESS TO VIRTUAL CARE. IN
CLOSING A B 13 69. NARROWLY
TAILORED TO HELP TERMINALLY ILL
PATIENTS WHO HAVE LIMITED TIME
AND PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS THAT
IMPEDE THEIR ABILITY TO TRAVEL
THE SAME RIGHT TO SEEK CARE FROM
SPECIALISTS OUT OF STATE TO TRY
AND EXTEND OUR IMPROVED THEIR
QUALITY OF LIFE WHILE THEY'RE
STILL LIVING. ON BEHALF OF THE
ALS ASSOCIATION AND THE FAMILIES
IMPACTED BY L S. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOU TO SUPPORT A B 13
69. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WANT TO ADD
ON AND SUPPORT SEEING NONE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. SEEING NONE ANY, UH
, FOLKS IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING
ROOM WHO WANT TO ADD ON AN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? SEEING
NONE. WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A
SECOND. BRING IT BACK TO
COLLEAGUES, QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. I'VE GOT FIRST
REMEMBER IRWIN, AND THEN IT'S ON
THE NUMBER. LOWENTHAL. UH THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIR. I THINK
THIS IS A GREAT IDEA, AND I'M
SURPRISED THAT WE'RE NOT DOING
IT ALREADY. MY ONE CONCERN IS
HOW DO YOU HOLD DOCTORS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR LET'S SAY
MALPRACTICE WHEN THEY'RE OUT OF
STATE. THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. IT'S A GREAT
QUESTION. I MEAN, ONE CIVIL
SUITS ARE OBVIOUSLY STILL
AVAILABLE. THE QUESTION THAT'S
RAISED IN THE ANALYSIS, WHICH IS
A GOOD ONE IS AROUND LICENSURE.
MOST STATES THINK ALL STATES
THAT DO THIS RIGHT NOW HAVE
COMPACTS THAT ALLOW THIS AND IN
THE COMPACT, THEY DICTATE HOW
LICENSE YOU WILL BE DEALT WITH.
IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT
AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WITHOUT
THE COMPACT HOW WE WILL DO THAT.
BUT WE'RE COMMITTED TO MAKING
SURE THESE PATIENTS HAVE, UM,
THE ABILITY TO BRING A COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE LICENSE OF A
PHYSICIAN WHO MISTREATS THEM
AGAIN. THE BILL IS INCREDIBLY
NARROW AND DEALS WITH PEOPLE AT
END OF LIFE. SO WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THEY HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY,
BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY
DESERVE THE SAME QUALITY OF CARE
THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE GOING TO WORK
TO FIGURE THAT OUT. THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS BILL
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT IT, AND
I JUST WANT TO, UM, YOU KNOW,
REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE
AREAS OF CALIFORNIA THAT RELY ON
TELEHEALTH TELEMEDICINE BECAUSE
THERE ARE NO HOSPITALS. THERE'S
NO CARE NEARBY IN MY DISTRICT,
ACTUALLY CATALINA ISLAND, WE
HAVE A POPULATION OF PEOPLE THAT
DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACCESS
HEALTHCARE ON THE ISLAND PER SE
, AND CERTAINLY THEY HAVE LIFE
THREATENING ILLNESSES. UH, IT'S
AN HOUR. VERY RIDE IN EITHER
DIRECTION TO GET BACK AND FORTH
TO THE ISLAND. THERE ARE
THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS THERE.
AND WHETHER PRECLUDES THEM FROM
BEING ABLE TO LEAVE. AND SO YOU
KNOW, ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE CARE
IS CERTAINLY IMPORTANT. UM,
YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ME TALK ABOUT
THAT ISSUE AND THAT ISLAND AT
EVERY OPPORTUNITY I CAN'T. SO
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BRINGING
THIS UP. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
REMEMBER? THANK YOU ANY. YEAH,
THAT'S YOUR FLOOR. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING US FOR I ACTUALLY THINK
THIS IS LONG OVERDUE, AND I
THINK THERE'S ANOTHER UNIQUE
ASPECT OF THIS ON THE MENTAL
HEALTH. WE TALK A LOT ABOUT
MENTAL HEALTH IN CALIFORNIA. AND
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME THAT IF
A CALIFORNIAN IS TRAVELING, AND
THEY HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS
THAT THEY CAN'T CALL THE
PROVIDER, SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS
THEIR ISSUES SO THAT THEY HAVE
WORKED WITH IN THE PAST. SO I
THINK THIS IS A GREAT FIRST
STEP. BUT THERE'S ALSO A FEW
OTHER PLACES. I'D LIKE TO SEE
THIS EXPANDED TO, SO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. YOU MR
VICE CHAIR. SOME MEMBER. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF
YOUR COMMENTS, AND I COULDN'T
AGREE WITH YOU MORE, MR VICE
CHAIR. I THINK THERE ARE MANY
WAYS THAT WE NEED TO REALLY
THINK ABOUT RESTRICTIONS,
ALTHOUGH I THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S NGUYEN BRINGS
UP A GOOD POINT, WHICH IS WE DO
NEED TO PROTECT CALIFORNIANS. SO
HOW DO WE DO BOTH AT THE SAME
TIME, AND I THINK WE CAN, AND I
THINK THIS IS A IMPORTANT FIRST
STEP. UM AND MY FRIEND DAVID IS
NO LONGER WITH US, AND HE UM YOU
KNOW HE GOT THE CARE HE NEEDED
DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT TOOK
TRAVELING IN THE HARM THAT THAT
CAME IN HIS LAST MONTHS OF LIFE,
BUT I KNOW THAT IN HIS MEMORY,
WE'RE DOING SOMETHING TO MAKE.
THE END OF LIFE BETTER FOR
OTHERS. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT WITH THAT OUT.
RESPECTFULLY. ASPIRIN I VOTE
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AND
THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS BEFORE
WORD, WHICH CLEARLY SEEKS TO
MEET A COMPELLING NEED FOR SOME
PATIENTS WITH LIFE THREATENING
CONDITIONS. I REMEMBER YOU, UH,
TALKING TO ME ABOUT THIS ISSUE
WHEN YOUR FRIEND DAVID WAS WHEN
IT WAS HAPPENING, SO I'M GLAD
THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE FOLLOWING
UP WITH LEGISLATION SO THAT
OTHER FOLKS WON'T HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THAT IN THE FUTURE. THE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT SOME POLICY
ISSUES, AS DID SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS OF TODAY THAT STILL
NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THOSE I KNOW YOU WILL,
UH AND WITH THAT, I'M MORE THAN
HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
A B 13 69 BAUER-KAHAN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
BERMAN BERMAN. I FLORA FLORA I
COLONIES ALVAREZ. PONTA. CHEN
CHEN, I DIXON. GIBSON GIBSON,
GRAYSON IRWIN IRWIN. I JACKSON
JACKSON. I LI LI I LOWENTHAL AND
THOUGHT I'M MCCARTY MAKIN ER
WHEN I PATERSON PATERSON
FIGHTING. CONGRATS THAT IS THE
FIRST BILL TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT
OUT OF COMMITTEE SO FAR TODAY.
AND WITH SO MANY COLLEAGUES
HITTING THE EXITS, IT MIGHT BE
THE LAST BILL FOR A WHILE TO
MAKE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE.
CONGRATS WILL KEEP THE ROLE OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. UH WITH THAT
FAMILY MEMBER WALLACE WITH
AGENDA ITEM 16. OH EXCUSE ME. I
DIDN'T SEE. I APOLOGIZE, MR
WALLACE. I DIDN'T SEE MR LOWE.
MR LOWE IS HIGHER UP ON THE
AGENDA. AND AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, WE FOLLOW THE RULES TO
SOMETHING OVER BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS. AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER
10, MAYBE 10 70 ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOW BILL. GOT A BIPARTISAN
MOTION IN THE SECOND, MR LOWE.
DO ME A FAVOR. MR LOWE JUST HIT
THE MIC BEFORE YOU'RE SOUNDING
VERY QUICK PRESENTATION. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN
COLLEAGUES ALLOW ME TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 10 70, WHICH
ALLOWS FOR INCREASED ACCESS FOR
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OUR VOTE
WHEN THE APPROPRIATE TIME IS
BEFORE US. MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY AND
CONSIDERING OUR REQUEST TO
MODIFY THE SUPERVISION OF
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANCE BY A
PHYSICIAN WHEN THE P A IS
PERFORMING SPECIFIC SERVICES
THAT DO NOT INVOLVE RENDERING
TREATMENT OR PRESCRIBING
MEDICATIONS. MY NAME IS DANA
STRAUSS AND I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR
MEDICARE POLICY AT SIGNIFY
HEALTH. ADDITIONALLY I HOLD A
DPT. I'M A LICENSED PHYSICAL
THERAPIST. I PRACTICED FOR 20
YEARS BEFORE MOVING INTO VALUE
BASED CARE PAYMENT PROGRAMS. IN
2022 ARE LICENSED CLINICIANS
CONDUCTED MORE THAN 2.3 MILLION
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE, OR MEDICAID
CEO IN HOME EVALUATIONS FOR SOME
OF THE MOST VULNERABLE AND OR
AGING AMERICANS ACROSS ALL 50
STATES FROM INNER CITIES TOO
DEEPLY RURAL AREAS. NEARLY
24,000 OF THOSE EVALUATIONS WERE
CONDUCTED IN CALIFORNIA. SIGNIFY
CLINICIANS SPEND AN AVERAGE OF
CLOSE TO 50 MINUTES, SITTING
FACE TO FACE WITH THE
BENEFICIARY TO REVIEW CURRENT
AND PAST HEALTH CONDITIONS.
REFORM DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WHEN
APPROPRIATE AND IDENTIFY SOCIAL
FUNCTIONAL OR SAFETY CONCERNS.
43% OF THOSE WE SEE HAVE A
SOCIAL RISK FACTOR THAT MAY
AFFECT THEIR OVERALL HEALTH. WE
PARTNER WITH PLANS TO RESOLVE
THE SOCIAL NEEDS, FOR INSTANCE,
ARRANGING FOR MEAL DELIVERY
THROUGH MEALS ON WHEELS OR
TRANSPORTATION TO DOCTOR'S
APPOINTMENTS. THE CLINICIAN DOES
NOT PROVIDE ANY TREATMENT OR
ISSUE ANY PRESCRIPTIONS DURING
THE VISIT. AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE
THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC HAD A
PROFOUND IMPACT ON WORKFORCE
AVAILABILITY THAT REMAINS A
CHALLENGE TODAY. HIGHLY TRAINED
AND CREDENTIAL. PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANTS ARE WELL QUALIFIED TO
PERFORM THESE IN HOME
EVALUATIONS. THAT WE PROVIDE AND
THE LIMITED SCOPE OF SERVICES WE
RENDER IS WELL WITHIN THEIR
CLINICAL KNOWLEDGE AND
CAPABILITIES. CURRENTLY
CALIFORNIA ALLOWS THE PHYSICIAN
TO OVERSEE FOUR PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANTS THAT PROVIDE IN HOME
EVALUATIONS. OUR ABILITY TO
DELIVER THESE VALUABLE SERVICES
TO A GREATER NUMBER OF AGENT
CALIFORNIANS IS CONSTRAINED BY
OUR ABILITY TO QUALITY TO WORK
WITH QUALIFIED PROVIDERS. FOR
ALL OF THESE REASONS WE FULLY
SUPPORT SM LOWS A B 10 70
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? SEEING NONE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION YOU WANT TO ADD ON
SEEING THAT WE'VE GOT A
BIPARTISAN MOTION AND SECOND
COLLEAGUES ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. SITTING DOWN IS
SOMETHING NUMBER LOW. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR OUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH
US ON THIS BILL. I THINK THE
LIMITED EXEMPTION MAKES SENSE,
AND WE BELIEVE THE AMENDMENTS
WILL HELP ADDRESS CONCERNS THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT
SUPERVISION. AH! WE JUST REMIND
ME. YES LET ME JUST REFERENCE TO
NUMBER ONE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THE
HARD WORKING COMMITTEE STAFF ARE
PARTNERED WITH OUR OFFICE AND
BEING AS PROACTIVE AS POSSIBLE
AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
COMMITTEE AMENDS, IT NOTED IN
THE ANALYSIS IS GREAT. THE GREAT
PERFECT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SOME MEMBER WITH THAT HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
A B 10 70 LOW. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN BERMAN
I, FLORA LARA AYALON EASE.
ALVAREZ PONTA. CHEN. CHEN I
DIXON GIBSON. GRAYSON. IRWIN.
IRWIN I JACKSON. JACKSON ISLAY.
LEE I, LOWENTHAL. LOW AND
THOUGHT I MCCARTY MAKIN, ER WHEN
I PATERSON PATERSON WRITING.
WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH
, AND SOMEONE MEMBER WALLACE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
WE'RE READY FOR YOU. AGENDA
ITEM. 16 80 14 48. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS I
HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY ASSEMBLY
BILL 14 48 80 14 48 WILL ENHANCE
LOCAL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR
UNLICENSED CANNABIS ACTIVITIES
SINCE CALIFORNIA VOTERS MADE
RECREATIONAL CANNABIS LEGAL IN
2016 WITH PROPOSITION 64, THE
LEGISLATURE AS WELL AS STATE AND
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS HAVE
STRUGGLED TO DRIVE UNLAWFUL
OPERATORS OUT OF THE CANNABIS
MARKET. RURAL COMMUNITIES HAVE
BEEN INUNDATED WITH UNLICENSED
AND UNREGULATED CANNABIS
ACTIVITY THAT IS UNDERMINING THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS
AND IRREPARABLY HARMING ARE
REGULATED CANNABIS BUSINESSES.
ILLICIT CANNABIS OPERATIONS ARE
HIGHLY PROFITABLE ENDEAVORS THAT
FREQUENTLY ENGAGED AND WORKER
EXPLOITATION. WATER THEFT,
ILLEGAL PESTICIDE USE,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND
TAX EVASION. UNDER STATE LAW,
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CAN IMPOSE
PENALTIES FOR COMMERCIAL
CANNABIS VIOLATIONS THROUGH THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS, BUT ANY NET
RECOVERY GOES TO THE STATE,
MAKING THIS MECHANISM
UNATTRACTIVE FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. COUNTIES AND CITIES
OFTEN USE CODE ENFORCEMENT WHEN
DEALING WITH UNLICENSED CANNABIS
ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY
STRUCTURE IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED
FOR ORDINARY ZONING AND BUILDING
VIOLATIONS. THIS IS NOT ALWAYS
WELL SUITED TO DETER LARGE SCALE
ILLEGAL COMMERCIAL CANNABIS
OPERATIONS. MAYBE 14 48 DOES TWO
THINGS. FIRST IT ENCOURAGES
LOCALITIES TO USE THE STATUTORY
PENALTIES UNDER BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE 26 OF 38 BY
ALLOWING A 50 50 STATE LOCAL
SPLIT OF THE STATUTORY PENALTIES
RECOVERED BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
, AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED BY THE
LEGISLATURE IN THE MEDICAL
CANNABIS REGULATION SAFETY ACT.
THE BILL WOULD ALLOW THE PENALTY
RECOVERY THROUGH LOCAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES PROCESS
RATHER THAN REQUIRING A COURT
PROCESS. REVENUES FROM THESE
ACTIONS WILL PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED
RESOURCE OF FUNDS TO REINVEST IN
ELIZABETH ILLICIT CANNABIS
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SECOND
SECTION OF THE BILL WILL PROVIDE
A STREAMLINED CANNABIS CODE
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS TO AUTHORIZE
THE RECOVERY OF PENALTIES
THROUGH LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESSES. SPECIFICALLY A B 14
48 ALLOWS LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY REGARDING
PENALTY PROCESS AND AMOUNTS. IT
STREAMLINES APPEALS AND JUDICIAL
REVIEW. AND IT FACILITATES
COLLECTION OF FINAL PENALTY
AMOUNTS THROUGH JUDGMENT AND
LEAN MECHANISMS SIMILAR TO THOSE
USED FOR PESTICIDE VIOLATIONS
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT ABATEMENT.
HIS LAST PIECE IS WHAT THE
OPPOSITION IS CONCERNED ABOUT.
AND I'M COMMITTED TO WORKING OUT
THE ISSUES AS THIS BILL MOVES TO
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, ASSUMING
YOU LOOK UPON THE BILL FAVORABLY
TODAY. FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
YOUR HARD WORK ON THE ANALYSIS
AND WILL ACCEPT THOUGHTFUL
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY
THAT THE BILL APPLIES TO
UNLICENSED CANDIDATES ACTIVITY
ONLY, AND TO ESTABLISH PENALTY
LIMITS THAT NEAR THE EXISTING
CIVIL PENALTIES FOR UNLICENSED
CANNABIS ACTIVITIES. WITH THAT.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY
WITNESS. SORRY DUQUETTE, POLICY
ADVOCATE FOR THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVE OF CALIFORNIA,
THE SPONSOR OF HB 14, 48. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WE HAVE
EMOTION. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THE
CAT ON BEHALF OF THE RURAL
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIAN STRONG SUPPORT OF 80
14, 48, COUNTIES AND CITIES ARE
BEING INUNDATED WITH UNLICENSED
CAN OF ACTIVITIES. YOU'VE
PROBABLY SEEN A LOT OF ARTICLES,
WHETHER IT'S THE L A TIMES
TALKING ABOUT THE INCREASED
ACTIVITY AS WELL AS CAL MATTERS
ABOUT WATER THEFT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND HOW
IT'S PROLIFIC THROUGHOUT THE
WHOLE ENTIRE STATE. MANY LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS HAVE DECIDED TO
USE CODE ENFORCEMENT AS A TOOL
TO GO AFTER THESE TYPE OF
ILLICIT ACTIVITIES. WE'VE
CREATED CODE ENFORCEMENT UNITS,
BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE
HAVE IS TRADITIONAL CODE
ENFORCEMENT REALLY WASN'T MEANT
TO DEAL WITH THIS TYPE OF
LUCRATIVE LARGE SCALE BUSINESS
SO OFTEN TIMES WHEN WE GO
THROUGH A NORMAL CODE
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, MAYBE IT'S
AN UNLINED UNPERMITTED BUILDING.
IT CAN OFTEN TAKE MANY MONTHS.
AND DURING THAT TIME WITH THE
CANNABIS ACTIVITY, YOU'LL HAVE
OPERATORS THAT ARE HARVESTING AS
WELL AS CONTINUING TO
MANUFACTURER OR OPERATE ILLEGAL
RETAIL. SO WE NEED TO STREAMLINE
QUICK APPROACH SO WE CAN IN THE
ACTIVITY, UM AND HOPEFULLY SEE A
STOP RIGHT THERE. SO THAT THIS
ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE
SPILL IN SECTION TO REALLY FOCUS
ON THAT IT'S A STREAMLINED
APPROACH THAT WE CAN MOVE
SWIFTLY TO DISMANTLE THESE
ILLICIT ACTIVITIES, WHICH WILL
ALSO BENEFIT THE LEGAL MARKET,
WHICH IS STRUGGLING AS WELL. THE
SECOND PART OF THE BILL TALKS
ABOUT THE STATUTORY PENALTIES.
CURRENTLY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
ARE NOT USING IT. WE REALLY
MOVED TO LOCAL CODE ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
PROCESSES, AND RIGHT NOW WE
CAN'T USE THAT PROCESS TO
COLLECT THE STATUTORY PENALTIES
AND WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO
THROUGH THE COURT PROCESS. UM IT
WOULD BE A DUPLICATION OF EFFORT
AND WORK. IN ADDITION, THERE WAS
A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKARSKA
AND WHAT WAS IN PROPOSITION 64
IN TERMS OF THE SPLIT. SO FOR
LOCAL JURISDICTION BEFORE WORD
AND MAKE URSA 50% OF THOSE
PROCEEDS WOULD STAY WITH THE
LOCAL JURISDICTION. 50% WOULD GO
BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND
THAT CHANGED FOR 64 WITH 100%
GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND
WITH THOSE PROVISIONS. IT JUST
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO COLLECT ON
THOSE STATUTORY PENALTIES. SO
THIS CHANGE WOULD INCENTIVIZE
INCENTIVIZE US TO GO AHEAD AND
DO THAT. AND FINALLY, THERE IS
SOME PROVISIONS AROUND SUPER
PRIORITY LEANS, WHICH WE THINK
WILL BE VERY HELPFUL, BUT WE
UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE
OPPOSITION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THEM TO HOPEFULLY
MITIGATE THEIR CONCERNS. MOVING
FORWARD AND JUDICIARY. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
UM YOU WANT TO ADD ON AND
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? MR CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS AMY JENKINS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CANNABIS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
AND CANNABIS COMPANIES CAN A
CRAFT AND MARCH AND ASH AND
SUPPORT. HELLO ADA WELDER WITH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. LET'S MOVE TO PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION YOU
EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ANTHONY HILTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE
ASSOCIATION. WHILE WE APPRECIATE
THE GOAL OF A B 14 48, WE ARE
OPPOSED TO ITS USE OF SUPER
PRIORITY LEANS, WHICH WE THINK
WILL HAVE NEGATIVE
RAMIFICATIONS. FOR THE
AFFORDABILITY OF REAL PROPERTY
AND JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO THE
BILL. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE PROPERTIES THAT THIS
BILL IS CURRENTLY TARGETING ARE
OFTEN OWNED OUTRIGHT, MEANING
THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR SUPER
PRIORITY LEAN SINCE THERE IS NO
MORTGAGE IN FRONT OF WHICH TO
JUMP. IN ADDITION, A SUPER
PRIORITY LEAN WOULD ALLOW BAD
ACTORS TO SHIELD THEMSELVES BY
CONDUCTING THEIR ILLEGAL
ACTIVITIES ON RENTED PROPERTY OR
PROPERTY TO WHICH THEY HAVE NO
OCCUPANCY RIGHTS AT ALL, AND
AVOID FINANCIAL REPERCUSSIONS
ALTOGETHER. WE HAVE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD REPLACE
THE SUPER PRIORITY LEAN WITH ONE
THAT HAS THE FORCE EFFECT AND
PRIORITY OF A JUDGMENT LIEN,
WHICH WOULD AVOID THE
AFOREMENTIONED ISSUES AND WHICH
HAS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF
EXPANDING THE REACH OF ANY
PENALTIES OR FINES BROUGHT UNDER
THIS BILL BY ATTACHING TO ALL
PROPERTY IN A BAD ACTORS, NAME
AND A GIVEN COUNTY. WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS AND
SPONSORS WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE
WITH US ON THIS ISSUE AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS IN ORDER TO FIND A
WORKABLE SOLUTION. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, MIKE BELODEAU
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ESCROW ASSOCIATION MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION AND UNITED TRUSTEES
ASSOCIATIONS. VERY BRIEFLY. IT
WAS A GOOD ANALYSIS LAID OUT THE
ISSUES ARE ONLY ISSUE IS THE
SUPER PRIORITY OF THE LIEN AND
THERE'S A VERY SOUND PUBLIC
POLICY. WHY UH, THEY FOREVER
CALIFORNIA LAW HAS BEEN FIRST IN
TIME, FIRST AND RIGHT IN TERMS
OF THE PRIORITY OF LEANS, AND IT
ISN'T ALWAYS A ARGUMENT BETWEEN
THE BANK AND SOMEONE ELSE IN
THEIR ARLENE'S OF RECORD THAT
HAVE VERY SOCIALLY WORTHWHILE
PURPOSES. CHILD SUPPORT LEANS
OTHER JUDGMENT LEANS, SO OUR
REQUEST IS VERY SIMPLE. THIS
SHOULD BE A LEAN LIKE ANY OTHER
FIRST IN TIME, FIRST AND RIGHT,
THAT IS BEEN CALIFORNIA LAW
FOREVER, AND WE WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASKED THAT THE
AUTHOR CONSIDER THAT AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES WANT TO ADD ON AN
OPPOSITION. HE'S PROVIDING YOUR
NAME ORGANIZATION WITH OF ANY
IMPOSITION ON THE BILL. JENNIFER
SPEC ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS IN
OPPOSING LESS MINUTE POSITION
FOR THE REASONS ALREADY STATED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. SHERRY MCCUE,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
CREDIT UNION LEAGUE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL UNLESS IT IS AMENDED TO
ADDRESS THE SUPER PRIORITY. LEAN
ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AH
WITH THAT. LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COLLEAGUES. I BELIEVE WE HAVE
A MOTION. LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
WAS THAT A SECOND? GOT A SECOND
FROM SOMETHING FORTUNE. UM ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COLLEAGUES? SOME OF THEM
RENEWING. UM THE OPPOSITION
TALKED ABOUT THE LANE AND I KNOW
YOU MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
IT AS WELL, TOO. IS THERE ANY
WAY THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO
WORK TOGETHER TO FIGURE IT OUT?
SO THAT WAY WE CAN COME TO SOME
TYPE OF A CONSENSUS? BECAUSE I
DO AGREE THAT YOU KNOW, SOME OF
THESE LINES ARE VERY SIMILAR.
AND I KNOW YOU SPOKE A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT IT. BUT YOU KNOW, I'M
NOT SURE IF YOU CAN RESPOND TO
THAT OR NOT. SO PART OF THE
REASON WE HAVE A SUPER PRIORITY
LEAN AS WE ALREADY COLLECT THAT
FOR CERTAIN OTHER PROVISIONS FOR
ABATEMENT, AS WELL AS PESTICIDES
AND THE ACTUAL CLEANUP COSTS OF
THESE PROPERTIES. THE REASON WE
HAVE A SUPER PRIORITY LEAN HERE
IS OFTEN TIME THESE PROPERTIES
ARE OWNED OUTRIGHT. CANNABIS IS
USUALLY NOT THE ONLY VIOLATION.
IT WAS THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS
AS WELL AS JUDGMENT SO OFTEN
TIMES THE AMOUNT OF JUDGMENTS
AND LIENS ON THE PROPERTY
OUTWEIGH THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY. SO ONE OF OUR CONCERNS
IS THAT WE'RE TRULY ABLE TO
COLLECT ALONG WITH THE CLEANUP
COSTS AND WE ARE WORKING ON
GUARD ROUNDS FOR THE SUPER
PRIORITY LEANS AND AREAS TO
ADDRESS. UM ANY CONCERNS IN
TERMS OF THE HOUSING MARKET, BUT
I DO THINK THAT WE CAN COME TO A
CONSISTENT CONSENSUS IN
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS
THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN, WHICH IS
JUST WITH THAT BEING SAID WE'RE
VERY COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE OPPOSITION ON THANK YOU. HMM
THANK YOU ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'VE GOT
A MOTION IN SECOND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? JUST THANK YOU. THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AND I VOTE
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS
FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS BILL
. THE ACCEPTED AMENDMENTS HELP
ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY AND LIMITS
ON THE USE OF THE NEW PENALTIES
. AND WHILE THERE ARE SOME
CONCERNS AROUND THE SPECIAL
PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
EXPRESSED TODAY, I THINK THOSE
ISSUES ARE BEST ADDRESSED IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SO I'M
HAPPY TO UH, SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY, NOTWITHSTANDING SOME OPEN
ISSUES THAT I'M SURE WILL BE
WORKED OUT. MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. A B 14 48
WALLACE. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY. BERMAN BERMAN. I'VE
FLORA COLONIES. ALVAREZ I BONTA
CHEN. CHEN I DIXON. GIBSON
GRAYSON. IRWIN. FOR WHEN I
JACKSON. JACKSON. I LI. THE EYE
LOWENTHAL AND THOUGHT I'M
MCCARTY. MAKIN, ER WHEN? WHEN I
PATERSON PATERSON, I TING. WE'LL
KEEP THAT ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. AND LET ME JUST CHECK.
SOMEONE MEMBER OF SALLY, YOU'RE
YOU'RE UP NEXT YEAR HIGH UP ON
THE AGENDA. I APOLOGIZE, BUT I
HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT. WITH THE
RULES. I HAVE. DON'T APOLOGIZE
TO YOU. I APOLOGIZE TO SOME OF
THE PELLERIN THAT I HAVE TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES. COME
ON.
AND DO IT JUST HIT THAT BUTTON.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR. LET ME
FIRST START OFF BY SAYING I
REALLY WANT TO THANK AND COMMEND
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS BILL. UM
I KNOW THAT, UH, THIS BILL WAS
THE RESULT OF A LOT OF ATTENTION
AND WORK AND I COULD SEE THE
WORK THAT WENT INTO IT. AND
THERE WERE SOME REALLY
SUBSTANTIVE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
. UM ALL CATEGORIZE THEM AS A
COMPROMISE, AND WE WERE HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THEM IN GOOD FAITH WITH
THE COMMITTEE, SO I REALLY WANT
TO JUST START OFF BY SENDING MY
APPRECIATION. UH MR CHAIR. WE
ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE EVERY
ADOPTABLE PET DESERVES THE
CHANCE TO FIND A LOVING HOME.
UNFORTUNATELY FAR TOO OFTEN
PERFECTLY HEALTHY, LOVING
ANIMALS ARE EUTHANIZED BEFORE
THEY HAVE A FAIR NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ADOPTED IN
NOVEMBER. IN NOVEMBER OF LAST
YEAR, A PUPPY NAMED BOWIE. WAS
WRONGFULLY EUTHANIZED WITHOUT
NOTICE AT THE L. A COUNTY ANIMAL
SHELTER AFTER HE HAD ALREADY
BEEN FLAGGED FOR RESCUE BY
UNDERDOG HEROES. WHAT HAPPENED
TO BOWIE WAS WRONG. THERE'S NO
EXCUSE FOR IT, AND IT WAS
COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE. THE BILL
I'M PRESENTING TODAY WOULD HAVE
SAID BOWIE'S LIFE. THE LAW IS
SIMPLE. IT JUST SAYS TO REQUIRE
72 HOUR PUBLIC NOTICE BEFORE AN
ADOPTABLE DOG CAT OR RABBIT IS
EUTHANIZED. THAT'S THE OVERALL
INTENT OF THE BILL. SOME
SHELTERS CURRENTLY PROVIDE, UM,
NOTICE PLENTY OF NOTICE. SOME
GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF NOTICE, AND
SOME SHELTERS DON'T GIVE ANY
NOTICE AT ALL. LOL WILL END THIS
INCONSISTENCY, UM, AND HAVE A
STANDARDIZED PRACTICE. BOWIE'S
LAW WILL REQUIRE SHELTERS TO
POST ON THEIR WEBSITE, A LIST OF
ANIMALS THAT ARE SCHEDULED OR AT
RISK OF BEING EUTHANIZED,
ENSURING THE PUBLIC AND RESCUE
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE A FAIR
OPPORTUNITY TO STEP IN.
INTERVENE AND SAVE THEIR LIFE.
UH MANY SHELTERS ALREADY POST
ANIMAL INFORMATION ON THEIR
WEBSITE AND MANY PUBLISHED
WHAT'S CALLED A RED LIST, WHICH
HIGHLIGHTS PETS THAT WOULD BE
PUT DOWN SOON. IF NOT ADOPTED,
AND YOU'LL HEAR TODAY THOSE
LISTS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE RESCUES AND PEOPLE IN
THE PUBLIC, USE THOSE TO NETWORK
AND GET THE WORD OUT SO PEOPLE
CAN FOSTER OR ADOPT A PET BEFORE
THEY'RE EUTHANIZED. ALWAYS LAW
WILL ALSO COMMISSIONED A
STATEWIDE STUDY TO GET DATA AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
OVERCROWDING ISSUE AT OUR
SHELTERS AND HOW WE CAN ADDRESS
IT. WE RECOGNIZE SHELTERS ARE
UNDER A LOT OF STRESS AND
PRESSURE AND IT'S NOT THEIR
FAULT. THEY'RE BEING INUNDATED
WITH ANIMALS ON THE STREET AND
PEOPLE SURRENDERING ON THAT
SURRENDERING THEM. SO WE WANT TO
BE A GOOD PARTNER WITH OUR
SHELTER, SHELTER GROUPS AND SO
THIS STUDY WILL LOOK AT WAYS
THAT WE CAN PROVIDE SUPPORT,
ASSISTANCE AND RESOURCES. TO OUR
SHELTERS AND EVENTUALLY GET TO
OUR GOAL, WHICH IS A NO KILL
STATE FOR ALL OUR ANIMALS. THE
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WOULD
ACHIEVE THE LAWS PROPOSED TWIN
GOALS, ONE TO INCREASE
GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS
RESCUES. IN FACT, THIS
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND
PROPOSING WAS JUST ADOPTED BY
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY. UM
ANIMAL SHELTER, THE STATE'S
LARGEST SHELTER. THE NEW POLICY
REQUIRES STAFF TO NOTIFY RESCUES
THREE TIMES EVERY 24 HOURS FOR
72 HOURS. BOWIE'S LAW ONLY
REQUIRES ONE NOTIFICATION. THE
DIRECTOR INDICATED THAT THE
POLICY WAS BEING IMPLEMENTED
PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WERE
UNDERSTAFFED AND OVERCROWDED,
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE POLICY
CHANGES DESIGNED TO REDUCE
ANIMALS, UH TO THE CARE FOR AND
SUBSEQUENT SORRY TO REDUCE
ANIMALS CARED FOR AND SUBSEQUENT
KILLINGS OF THOSE ANIMALS. AND
IF THEY CAN DO IT, TAKING IN
OVER 90,000 ANIMALS A YEAR. I
THINK EVERY SHELTER, UM CAN ALSO
DO IT. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT NOTE
THAT THIS VERY THIS IS THE VERY
SHELTER THAT WRONGFULLY
EUTHANIZED BOWIE PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTING THIS POLICY. UM
HAVE SOME BRIEF REMARKS ALL SAFE
FOR CLOSING, BUT I JUST WANNA
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS
ATTENTION TO THIS. I WANT TO
THANK THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
SOME OF THE MEMBERS ON THIS
COMMITTEE HAVE ALSO SUPPORTED
THE BILL. I JUST THINK IN AN ERA
WHERE WE'RE SO DIVIDED AS
AMERICANS IN CALIFORNIA IS AT
LEAST WE CAN UNITE BEHIND OUR
FURRY FRIENDS. SO WITH THAT,
I'LL INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES. UH,
NICHOLAS SACKETT FROM SOCIAL
COMPASSION AND LEGISLATION AND
AMBER LANCASTER, WHO IS A STRONG
ADVOCATE AND SPEAKING ON BEHALF
OF THE NO KILL ADVOCACY CENTER.
THANKS IN EACH WINNER SAYS TWO
MINUTES PER WITNESS. THANKS GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS NICHOLAS
SOCKET, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS FOR SOCIAL COMPASSION IN
LEGISLATION OR SKILL. SKILL WAS
FOUNDED IN 2007. AND SINCE THAT
TIME WE HAVE SPONSORED, UH, 60
BILLS WITH 23 BEING SIGNED INTO
LAW, INCLUDING MANY OF THOSE
BILLS PERTAINING TO SHELTERS,
INCLUDING ESTABLISHING THE PET
LOVERS LICENSE PLATE, WHICH IS
NOW GENERATED OVER $1.5 MILLION
FOR LOW COST SPAY AND NEUTER. WE
ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF 595. WE
RECOGNIZE THAT ALL PARTIES
INVOLVED ARE WORKING FOR THE
BETTERMENT OF ANIMALS. WITH THAT
SAID, AS CALIFORNIA'S ANIMAL
SHELTERS CONTINUE TO REMAIN FULL
OF ADOPTABLE ANIMALS, THE NEED
FOR PREDICTABLE SYSTEMATIC
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE
SHELTERS AND THE PUBLIC,
INCLUDING RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS
IS IMPERATIVE. CALIFORNIA'S
ANIMAL SHELTERS ARE THE HUB OF
OUR STATE'S ROBUST DOG AND CAT
RESCUE COMMUNITY. WE KNOW THAT
THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, BUT
WE BELIEVE THAT THE BILL WITH
TODAY'S AMENDMENTS IS A WORKABLE
SOLUTION TO BETTER
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SHELTERS
AND THE PUBLIC. AND WILL HELP
SAVE MORE ANIMALS LIVES. SO WITH
THAT, AS FOR YOUR VOTE YOUR YOUR
I VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
AMBER LANCASTER FAST. FOR THE
LAST 15 YEARS. I'VE BEEN A CAST
MEMBER ON A LITTLE GAME SHOW
CALLED THE PRICE IS RIGHT WHERE
FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, WE ASK
SIX MILLION PEOPLE EVERY DAY TO
SPAY AND NEUTER THEIR PETS. UM
I'M A SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCER. I
HAVE A PLATFORM OF NEARLY HALF A
MILLION FOLLOWERS. I'M ALSO A
VOLUNTEER WITH WITH NUMEROUS
ANIMAL RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS SUCH
AS HANK'S LEGACY FOUNDATION, THE
ANIMAL PAD SAVINGS STERLING AND
JUST FOR JACK'S ANIMAL
SANCTUARY. I'M A PROUD MOM OF
ONE HUMAN BABY AND TO RESCUE FOR
BABIES MYSELF. I'M ALSO HERE
TODAY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE
NO KILL ADVOCACY CENTER IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF BOWIE'S LAW.
85 95, WHICH WILL UNDOUBTEDLY
SAVED COUNTLESS ANIMALS LIVES.
OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS. I'VE
EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND THE CRISIS
IN OUR SHELTERS, HEALTHY
ADOPTABLE ANIMALS. SOME JUST
BABIES LIKE BOWIE ARE BEING
KILLED EVERY SINGLE DAY WITHOUT
ANY NOTICE, WITH THE DEATH TOLL
UPWARDS OF 300 DOGS PER MONTH,
AND THAT IS JUST IN ONE SHELTER
ALONE. WE MUST DO BETTER. THIS
IS NOT ONLY UNFAIR TO THESE
ANIMALS AND RESCUE GROUPS, BUT
IT HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
SOCIETAL RAMIFICATIONS IF
SOMETHING ISN'T DONE. INSTANCES
SUCH AS BOWIE'S AND MANY OTHERS
. I'VE PERSONALLY HELPED NETWORK
ON MY PLATFORM ALL HAD
SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST,
WHETHER IT WAS A RESCUE GROUP OR
PRIVATE ADOPTER, BUT THEY WERE
NEVER EVEN GIVEN A CHANCE AT
LIFE. THEY WERE ALL RED LISTED
AND EUTHANIZED IN THE SAME DAY.
IN THE MOST. IN MOST CASES, THEY
WERE ONLY IN THE SHELTER FOR
UNDER A MONTHS AND AS LITTLE AS
TWO WEEKS. JUST TO GIVE YOU ONE
EXAMPLE. LAST MONTH THERE WAS A
PUPPY NAMED STERLING, AND HE WAS
TURNED INTO THE SHELTER BY NO
FAULT OF HIS OWN, BUT BECAUSE
HIS FAMILY HAD A BABY ON THE
WAY. HE GOT OVER 50,000 VIEWS
AND HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS ON
SOCIAL MEDIA PEOPLE INTERESTED
IN ADOPTING WITHIN 72 HOURS, NOT
WITH THE 72 HOURS NOTICE HE
WOULD HAVE EASILY BEEN ADOPTED
AN UNHAPPY HOME TODAY BUT WITH
ONLY A FEW HOURS NOTICE AND THE
SHELTER UNRESPONSIVE TO EMAILS
AND PHONE CALLS. HE WAS KILLED
THAT DAY. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
THE RESCUE GROUPS I WORK WITH
ARE ALL NON PROFIT DONATION
BASED. FIVE OH ONE C THREE. THEY
ARE RUN BY PRIVATE CITIZENS WITH
OTHER JOBS AND LIVES THERE ALL
FOSTER CARE BASED, MEANING THEY
CAN'T PULL AN ANIMAL FROM THE
SHELTER WITHOUT A FOSTER IN
PLACE TO CARE FOR THE ANIMAL
FIRST. IT TRULY TAKES AN ARMY TO
MOBILIZE AND RESCUE JUST ONE
ANIMAL MOST TIMES, TAKING AT
LEAST A DAY TO FORMULATE A PLAN,
AND MAYBE 595 WOULD GIVE THESE
RESCUE GROUPS AND THE PUBLIC 72
HOURS NOTICE OF ANIMALS FACING
EUTHANASIA AT OUR SHELTERS AND
GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO BE
SAVED. WE GET THE RESCUE GROUPS
WITH THE SHELTERS HEAVILY RELY
ON THE ABILITY TO PRIORITIZE
THESE RED LISTED ANIMALS AND
TIME TO MOBILIZE TO FORM A PLAN
, WHICH INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM
HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE TRAVEL
TO THE SHELTER TO PULL AN ANIMAL
ARRANGING OUT OF STATE
TRANSPORTATION. SPECIAL NEEDS
BETTER CARE NETWORKING TO FIND A
FOSTER POSTING ON SOCIAL MEDIA
TO RAISE INTEREST AND FUNDS TO
SAVE EACH ANIMAL. GIVEN THE
VALUE THESE RESCUE GROUPS HAVE
TO OUR SHELTER SYSTEM AND THE
INTERCONNECTED ONLINE ERA WE
LIVE IN. IT IS ASTONISHING THAT
IT IS THAT IF OUR PRIORITY IS
SAVING AS MANY LIVES AS WE CAN,
THAT THE 72 HOUR NOTICE IS NOT
ALREADY BEING DONE VOLUNTARILY.
THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD WRAP UP,
THAT'D BE GREAT. I'M ALMOST DO
YOU WANT ME TO FINISH YOUR NO
SUGGESTION? OKAY YES. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMAN. LSE FOR
OFFERING BOWIE'S LÀ. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
ADD ON AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH, IF ANY
IN POSITION ON THE BILL. MY NAME
IS NEIL MILLER. I'M JUST
REPRESENTING MYSELF ON THIS
ISSUE. TODAY'S NATIONAL PET DAY
. I THOUGHT THAT THE COMMITTEE
OUGHT TO KNOW THAT AS YOU TAKE I
VOTE ON THIS BILL, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND HE AND HE
WITNESSES ANY PRIMARY ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. SAYING NO IN ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, KARIN LANG ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ANIMAL
WELFARE ASSOCIATION. I REPRESENT
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
ANIMAL SHELTERS IN NEW YORK IN
YOUR DISTRICTS. BEFORE I JUMPED
INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR
OPPOSITION. I JUST WANT TO BE
VERY CLEAR THAT I WOULD NOT BE
WORKING FOR THEM IF THEY WOKE UP
HAPPY TO EUTHANIZE ANIMALS AT
THEIR SHELTERS. I JUST NEED TO
BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. DUE TO
THE CHARACTERIZATIONS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE ABOUT HER OPPOSITION
ON THE INTERNET. THAT IS NOT
WHERE THEY ARE, AND THAT IS NOT
WHO I WORK FOR. THERE ARE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO MAYBE
5 95. SHELTER STAFF STATEWIDE
ARE LIVING THE DAY TO DAY
NIGHTMARE OF SEVERE OVERCROWDING
, SLOW ADOPTIONS AND HUNDREDS OF
PEOPLE WAITING TO SURRENDER
THEIR PETS. THIS IS HAPPENING
NATIONWIDE DUE TO INFLATION, JOB
AND HOUSING, INSTABILITY AND THE
INABILITY TO ACCESS THE
VETERINARY CARE. THIS BILL DOES
NOTHING TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
THESE SHELTERS ARE DOING
EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO GET
ANIMALS OUT, INCLUDING DAILY
OUTREACH TO HUNDREDS OF RESCUE
PARTNERS. THEY HAVE ADOPTION
PROMOTIONS, MEDIA OUTREACH AND
MORE. YOU THINK EUTHANIZING
ANIMALS FOR SPACE IS THE
ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT. THERE'S
ONLY DONE WHEN ALL OTHER OPTIONS
HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. WHILE THIS
BILL SOUNDS LIKE IT REQUIRES A
SIMPLE NOTIFICATION, THE PROCESS
RAMIFICATIONS FROM THAT ARE FAR
FROM SIMPLE. THE 72 HOUR NOTICE
CONSTITUTES A HOLDING PERIOD ON
THOSE ANIMALS, REMOVING THE
SHELTERS FLEXIBILITY ON DECISION
MAKING, AND THE ABILITY TO PIVOT
QUICKLY TO ACCOMMODATE
UNEXPECTED INTAKES. FOR EXAMPLE
, IF YOU HOARD ANIMALS AND 200
ARE TAKEN FROM YOU, AND THEY ARE
BROUGHT INTO THE SHELTER, YOU
HAVE TO TAKE THEM IN THEIR
SOMEONE'S PROPERTY UNTIL A JUDGE
SAYS THEY ARE NOT. YOU HAVE TO
MAKE ROOM FOR THEM. THE SHELTER
WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUOUSLY ON A
72 HOUR BASIS, MAKE SURE THAT
THEY HAVE ROOM FOR THAT HORRIFIC
INEVITABILITY ABOUT
INEVITABILITY TO OCCUR. WHICH
MEANS THAT THIS BILL EVEN WITH
THE AMENDMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO
CREATE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY
WILL HAVE TO EUTHANIZE MORE
ANIMALS AND NOT LESS ANIMALS
BECAUSE THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO
MANAGE FOR THE SPACE THAT IS
REQUIRED IN THIS BILL. THE
BILLS. MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE
AMENDMENTS DON'T QUIT CLEAR A
PATHWAY THAT WILL REDUCE THAT
NEGATIVE, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE
, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HIGHER
EUTHANASIA RATES TO ENSURE SPACE
IS AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE
ANIMALS THAT THEY ARE LEGALLY
OBLIGATED TO TAKE IN REMAIN. THE
PRIMARY CONCERNS THE CHANGES
AROUND DANGEROUS DOGS THAT ARE
IN THE BILL EVEN WITH THE
AMENDMENTS ARE A PROBLEM. WE
NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS
THAT THE BILL IS GOING TO MOVE
FORWARD BECAUSE THE SHELTER
STAFF ARE THE ONES INTERACTING
WITH THE ANIMALS THAT COULD
CREATE BITE HAZARDS OR CREATE
DANGER TO THE EMPLOYEES WORKING
IN THE SHELTERS AND THE EVEN
WITH THE AMENDMENTS, THAT
PRESENCE IS STILL A PROBLEM. WE
FIND IT VERY ALARMING THAT THE
BILL WOULD BE ADVANCED AFTER
HEARING FROM THE SHELTER AND
ANIMAL PROFESSIONAL STATEWIDE.
THIS THIS BILL WILL INCREASE
EUTHANASIA THEY WILL HAVE TO
MANAGE FOR SPACE PERSPECTIVELY
GOING FORWARD ON A 72 HOUR BASIS
. THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE
ROOM WHICH MEANS THEY WILL
ALWAYS HAVE TO EUTHANIZE MORE
ANIMALS TO MAKE SPACE FOR THEM.
AND IF YOU COULD WRAP UP, THAT'D
BE GREAT. THANK YOU. THE ONLY
ALTERNATIVE TO ADDITIONAL HOLD
IS TO PLACE EVERY ANIMAL ON A
EUTHANASIA LIST AT INTAKE. THE
RIGHT. THE RED LIST WILL GROW.
THIS SERVES NO PURPOSE AND WILL
CAUSE PUBLIC HARM AND CONFUSION
. MOST OF THE 99% OF THE TIME.
WE URGE YOUR STRONG NO VOTE ON
THIS BILL, PLEASE DO NOT ADVANCE
LEGISLATION THAT WILL HARM
SHELTER PETS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES WHO WANT TO ADD ON AN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, PLEASE
PROVIDE YOUR NAME ORGANIZATION
YOU'RE WITH IF ANY IMPOSITION ON
THE BILL HELLO, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS WELDER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, ROSS
BUCKLEY ON BEHALF OF THE SAME
SACRAMENTO POST. THANK YOU.
HELLO TERRY SAVAGE WITH THE
ASSOCIATION OF PREVENTION OF
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES WHO WANT TO ADD ON AN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. ONE
COMING. CERTIFICATE ON BEHALF OF
THE RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES
OF CALIFORNIA AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO
BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR MOTIONS
OR SECONDS. REMEMBER, LOWENTHAL.
AH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FIRST OF ALL
, THANK YOU FOR BUILDING
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. UM
MY PLAN IS TO SUPPORT THE BILL.
BUT I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS.
I'D LIKE TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU
TODAY AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL
BRING THEM FORWARD. I RESERVE
THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THAT
OPINION, OF COURSE ON THE FLOOR,
MAKING IT TO THE FLOOR. UM I
ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU, MISS
LANCASTER FOR BEING HERE USING
YOUR CELEBRITY AS A PLATFORM FOR
SUCH A VERY IMPORTANT CAUSE. AND
WHAT I HEAR TODAY IS THAT
EVERYONE AGREES. EVERYONE AGREES
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LESS
EUTHANASIA AND EVERYONE IS GOING
TOWARDS THAT GOAL. BUT THERE ARE
SOME COMPONENTS OF THIS BILL.
THAT TO ME ARE UNTESTED. THEY'RE
NOT DATA DRIVEN ACTUALLY ON BOTH
SIDES NOW THAT I HEAR WHY 72
HOURS. WHAT IS THE MAGIC NUMBER
AROUND 72 HOURS. WHY DO WE KNOW
THAT 72 HOURS ACTUALLY BRINGS US
LESS EUTHANASIA OVER OTHERS? UM
. TO THE SAME AT THE SAME POINT
ON THE OTHER SIDE. WHY IS IT
THAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW? THAT IF
WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THIS BECAUSE
OF A CROWDING SITUATION OR A
SPATIAL THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY
RESULT IN MORE EUTHANASIA. SO
WHAT I HEAR TODAY IS THAT THINGS
AREN'T TESTED AND IF WE'RE ALL
GOING TOWARDS THE SAME GOAL, WHY
WOULDN'T WE CONSIDER A PILOT
PROGRAM ASSOCIATED WITH THIS?
WHERE THERE ARE VARIOUS SHELTERS
THAT WOULD ENGAGE IN THE PILOT
CHANGE THEIR OPERATIONS TO TEST
IT IN CERTAIN WAYS, MAXIMIZE THE
LACK OF EUTHANASIA. AND AT THE
SAME TIME MEETING MEETING THE
GOALS OF SPACE AND OTHERWISE I
ALSO HAVE DEEP CONCERNS AS IT
RELATES TO THE CRIMINAL
PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
THOSE ARE THOSE ARE ALREADY OUT
. PART OF THE AMENDMENTS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN UP, OKAY? AND SO,
UM, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HERE IS
THE LACK OF DATA HERE. WE'RE
MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSUMING
THAT THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE
OUR GOALS IF WE IF WE WANT THE
SAME GOALS WE NEED TO HAVE DATA
. WE NEED TO BE DATA DRIVEN IN
THIS. WE NEED TO TRY. LET'S SEE
WHAT HAPPENS, NOT IMPLEMENTS.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR
SOME MEMBER IN NGUYEN. THANK
YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD AND, UM YOU KNOW
WHEN A ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
HAPPEN TO KNOW WITH OUR LOCAL
ANIMAL SHELTERS, AND I DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S STATEWIDE OR NOT,
BUT THEY STARTED A PROGRAM OF
FOSTER PROGRAM. AND I'VE LEARNED
THAT THE FOSTER PROGRAM IS VERY
SUCCESSFUL IN THE SENSE OF NOT
ONLY DOES THE FAMILY END UP
FALLING IN LOVE WITH THIS VERY
FRIEND AND THEN KEEPING IT, BUT
THEY FALL IN LOVE WITH IT SO
MUCH THAT WHEN THEY CAN'T KEEP
THE ANIMAL THEY TRY REAL HARD TO
FIND A FAMILY TO BE ABLE TO
ADOPT THEIR FURRY FRIEND, AND
I'M HOPING THAT, UM, THIS ISN'T
SOMETHING WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE
TO POST IT BECAUSE HOW
HEARTBREAKING WOULD IT BE IF A
FAMILY TOOK IN AN ANIMAL? VERY
FRIENDLY ANIMAL AND FELL IN LOVE
WITH IT AND HAD KIDS AND WANTED
TO ADOPT IT. BUT THEN IT WAS
POSTED. THEY HAD TO GIVE IT UP,
GIVE IT AWAY OR GIVE IT UP. SO
I'M HOPING THAT THAT'S NOT GOING
TO IN ANY WAY JEOPARDIZE THE
FOSTER PROGRAM THAT IS ALREADY
IN PLACE BECAUSE I THINK THE
GREAT WAY TO GET THE COMMUNITY
INVOLVED AND GET THESE ANIMALS
SAID, UM AND A LOT OF WHAT MY
COLLEAGUE MENTIONED EARLIER AS
WELL TO, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS AGO.
AH AH! I RESCUED THE DOG. AND UM
, I FOUND OUT IT WAS ON THE LIST
AND I TOOK THAT DOG HOME. UM,
BUT I ALSO HEAR WHAT THE
OPPOSITION IS SEEING, AND IT'S
GOING TO INCREASE RIGHT AND I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
DOESN'T HAPPEN. AND SO WE CAN
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION ON
THAT, THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SEPTEMBER
PATTERSON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
SIMILAR MEMBER OF SALIH, UH, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S VERY FEW BILLS
THAT REALLY SPARKED THE EMOTION
OF PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA. MORE
THAN, UH, BILLS AROUND PETS. UM
SO I'M HAPPY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW,
I'VE BEEN A CO AUTHOR OF THIS
BILL SINCE DAY ONE. AND UH, YOU
KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
DISCUSSION ON THIS BILL. AND A
LOT OF, UM I THINK THIS MIGHT BE
THE NUMBER ONE BILL PEOPLE HAVE
REACHED OUT TO ME ON AH, WHICH
HAS BEEN INTERESTING. UM I USED
TO ACTUALLY SIT ON A NONPROFIT
BOARD THAT TOOK ANIMALS FROM A
SHELTER AND RESCUED THEM AND
WOULD GIVE THEM THE MEDICAL
TREATMENT THAT THEY NEEDED TO
SAVE THEIR LIVES. AND SO YOU
KNOW, AND I THINK WE REALIZED
THAT SHELTERS ARE OVERBURDENED
AND SO ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THAT
ARE NEEDED. UM BUT I DON'T THINK
THERE'S ANYBODY THAT CAN
CONVINCE ME. UM THAT, UH, THAT
PROVIDING A DATE THAT A DOG IS
GOING TO BE EUTHANIZED OR
UNHEALTHY ANIMALS GOING TO BE
EUTHANIZED IS A BAD THING. UM I
GET IT. PEOPLE WORKING IN
SHELTERS. I MEAN, I'VE MET THEM.
WE HAVE THEM. UM YOU KNOW, ON
THE ON THE CITY THAT I USED TO
SERVE ON THE COUNCIL AND I'VE
MET WITH PEOPLE WITHIN OUR OWN
COUNTY. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO
LOVE ANIMALS. THEY DON'T WANT TO
EUTHANIZE HIM. AND I KNOW THAT
YOU KNOW, I SEE THE AMOUNT OF
CATS THAT ARE LEFT, YOU KNOW, IN
SHOE BOXES ALL OVER THE PLACE.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS A BIG
PROBLEM. BUT WE HAVE TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GIVE PEOPLE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT THESE
ANIMALS. UM I WANT TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE BILLS, OPPONENTS
COMMENTS AND APOLOGIZE BECAUSE
SHE CAME IN TO MY OFFICE AND
TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. AND I
KIND OF JUST WENT ON A TIRADE
ABOUT THIS BILL. UM BUT I THINK
INHERENTLY, WE KNOW THAT WHEN A
ANIMAL GOES INTO A SHELTER THAT
IF THERE ARE NOT ADOPTED
RELATIVELY EXPEDITIOUSLY THAT
THEY WILL BE EUTHANIZED. I'VE
NEVER ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT AN
ANIMAL IS GOING TO GO INTO A
SHELTER, AND IF THEY'RE NOT
ADOPTED, YOU KNOW, IN SOME SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO BE EUTHANIZED, SO THEY
, UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF TIMES
ANIMALS THAT GO UP MOST OF THE
TIME. ANIMALS THAT GO INTO
SHELTERS ALREADY ARE ON A KILL
LIST AND IT'S SAD AND I
UNDERSTAND IT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE
RESOURCES, BUT I'VE ALREADY HAD
THAT EXPECTATION. AND NOW WE
HAVE 72 HOURS NOTICE THAT PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO SAY HEY, PUBLIC
HERE 72 HOURS NOTICE BOWIE IS
GOING TO BE PUT TO SLEEP. COME
ADOPT BOWIE. AND I THINK THAT'S
A GOOD THING. SO I'M I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT PROHIBITS
HEALTHY ANIMALS FROM BEING
EUTHANIZED WITHOUT ALRIGHT
WITHOUT THAT PROPER
NOTIFICATION, SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S VICE CHAIR,
FLORA. THANK YOU. CHAIR
NECESSARILY. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD AND
THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS I WANT
TO JUST ADDRESS ON THIS ISSUE,
AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE
OVERCROWDING ISSUE. THE
OPPOSITION HAD, UM MY HOPE FOR
THIS. IS THIS WILL ENCOURAGE ALL
OF US TO REALLY FOCUS ON THE
ADOPTION, WORKING WITH THE
SHELTERS TO GET THESE PUPPIES
GET THESE ANIMALS ADOPTED AS
QUICK AS POSSIBLE. TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S ONLY ONE OF
US ELECTED OUR COLLEAGUE FROM
BAKERSFIELD. MR FONG HOSTS AN
ADOPTION DAY. WHERE IT'S ALL
PURPOSE IS TO ADOPT ANIMALS FROM
SHELTERS. I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING WE USED. WE SHOULD
LOOK AT. IF WE REALLY CARE ABOUT
ANIMALS, LET'S HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION. UM I'M WITH MY
COLLEAGUE. MR PATTERSON, LIKE
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND
WHY GIVING THE PUBLIC 72 HOURS
IS A NEGATIVE THING. I GET IT.
IT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT OF A
CHALLENGE. BUT WHEN YOU SEE, UH
A DOG GET ADOPTED, AND I
APPRECIATE THE MOTION. UM AS A
DOG, I IT'S YOU SEE HIS PUPPIES
LIKE THERE'S ONE LITTLE PICTURE
ONLINE WHERE THE PUPPIES JUST
LIKE HANGING OVER THE FENCE,
JUST WAITING TO BE PICKED RIGHT?
DO THESE DOGS? THEY NEED HOMES,
AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO
EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE GIVE THEM EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE. AND THERE'S
A LOT OF GOOD FAMILIES OUT THERE
A LOT OF GOOD I MEAN, I KNOW A
LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T GO TO
SHELTERS BECAUSE THEY COME IN
WITH EVERY ONE OF THEM IF THEY
COULD MEAN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF
EMOTION BEHIND THIS, SO I
APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK ON THIS. I KNOW
THIS WAS NOT AN EASY BILL. AND
HONESTLY, I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR. YOU TOOK A LOT OF HEAT
ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME. AND
YOUR TENACITY UM AS NOTED, AND I
ALSO THINK TO THE OPPOSITION, UM
I DIDN'T HEAR ANY SOLUTIONS,
EITHER. UM ALL I'VE HEARD WAS
OPPOSITION, AND I PERSONALLY
REACHED OUT TO OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL AND ASK WHAT IS THE
SOLUTION? AND GOT ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING BACK FROM THEM. SO I
JUST APPRECIATE YOU MOVING
FORWARD THIS BILL AND STICKING
IT OUT AND THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALLOWING TO
MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, MR
CRUSHER. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS NEED A MOTION AND A
SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. SOME OF THEM. BRASILIA
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? VERY
BRIEFLY. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM
AND JUST TO ADDRESS. UH SIMILAR
LOWENTHAL. I HEAR YOU LOUD AND
CLEAR, AND I'M COMMITTED TO
WORKING, UM, WITH THE OPPOSITION
ARE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND UM AND
I JUST WANT TO SAY THE 72 HOURS
IS SORT OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARD
. THE SHELTERS ARE CURRENTLY
REQUIRED TO HOLD THEM FOR A
MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS. SO THIS
NOTICE COULD BE PARALLEL WITH
THAT WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS
SO IT DOESN'T IMPOSE ANY
ADDITIONAL WHOLE TIME. THEY'RE
ALREADY REQUIRED TO HOLD AT
LEAST 72 HOURS. AND AS MR
ASSEMBLYMAN PATTERSON NOTED, THE
SHELTERS NO QUICKLY WHICH ONES
ARE GOING TO GET ADOPTED? VERSUS
NOT SO THIS 72 HOURS A MINIMUM,
THEY COULD HAVE THEM ON THE LIST
LONGER, SO THEY JUST HAVE TO
PLAN AHEAD. WHAT WE DON'T WANT
IS JUST SUDDEN INSTANT DEATH. UM
WHERE THE RESCUES DON'T HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE AND
HELP SO I REALIZED PROBABLY 90%
OF SHELTERS. UM ARE EXCELLENT.
THEY PROBABLY DOING THIS ANYWAY,
BUT WE HAVE TO PROTECT EVERY
ANIMAL IN EVERY SHELTER
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY ARE.
AND I SPOKE WITH YOUR SHELTER IN
LONG BEACH. THEY SEEM LIKE AN
EXCELLENT SHELTER. THEY HAVEN'T
EUTHANIZED ANY PET IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS. THEY TOLD ME SO THIS
LAW WOULDN'T EVEN AFFECT THEM.
SO UM, I HEAR THAT LOUD AND
CLEAR AND THE FOSTER PROGRAM IS
UNAFFECTED BY THIS AND ALSO TO
ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION. THERE IS
A SAFETY VALVE BUILT INTO THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS SHOULD
THERE BE A HOARDING CASE OR
SOMETHING? SO THE COMMITTEE'S
MADE SOME REALLY THOUGHTFUL, UM
, ADDITIONS TO THE BILL, AND
ALSO TO YOUR POINT ON DATA. THE
SECOND PART OF THE BILL IS
CALLING FOR A STUDY BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND I
EXPECT SOME SUBSTANTIVE DATA AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE HELP
OUR SHELTER PARTNERS. ONE OF THE
THINGS I HEARD IS THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VETS TO DO
SPAIN NEUTERS, YOU KNOW, WE ONLY
HAVE TO VET SCHOOLS IN THE WHOLE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WOEFULLY
UNDER WHAT WE NEED. SO MAYBE WE
NEED VET TECH PROGRAMS FOR SPAY
AND NEUTER OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. SO I WANNA MAKE SURE
THAT'S THAT'S IN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, I SEE MR.
YOU'RE ALL GOOD GOING SO WITH
THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS
. I'LL WORK WITH ALL OF YOU AND
THE OPPOSITION TO DO WHAT'S BEST
FOR THESE ANIMALS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I VOTE AND
WE CAN CHAT ANYTIME. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS
PRESENTATION TODAY, AS WELL AS
ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE
WEIGHED IN ON THIS BILL, AND
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS
THAT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AND THE
FIRST THING THAT'S VERY CLEAR IS
THAT EVERYONE THAT WE'VE HEARD
FROM ON THIS BILL AND SUPPORTED
THE BILL IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL WITH CONCERN ABOUT THE BILL
CARES DEEPLY ABOUT THE WELFARE
OF ANIMALS. AND REGARDLESS OF
WHERE FOLKS ARE ON THIS BILL,
EVERYONE SHARES THE GOAL OF
REDUCING THE UNNECESSARY
EUTHANASIA. UH AND INCREASING
THE, UH, RATE OF ADOPTION. OF
PETS IN SHELTERS. THERE'S
CLEARLY DISAGREEMENT HOW TO MEET
THAT GOAL, AND THAT'S WHY I
BELIEVE THE STUDY. IN THIS BILL,
AS THE AUTHOR JUST SPOKE TO IS
SO IMPORTANT, SO WE HAVE ACCESS
TO MORE RELIABLE INFORMATION ON
HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF
OVERCROWDING. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
SALIA, THE AUTHOR, AND I HAVE
SPOKEN AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS BILL
, AND I APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH ME ON
THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING
TAKEN TODAY. I RECOGNIZE THAT
THESE AMENDMENTS DON'T FULLY
ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS. SO IT'S MY HOPE THAT
THE AUTHOR WILL CONTINUE TO
ENGAGE IN RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION
WITH THOSE STAKEHOLDERS. UM AND
JUST ON THAT NOTE. I HAVE SO
MUCH APPRECIATION AND RESPECT
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN
SHELTERS. UH AND I KNOW THAT ALL
OF MY COLLEAGUES DO AS WELL, UH
AND WE NEED TO GET PAST THIS, UH
, KIND OF ADVERSARIAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PEOPLE
WHO WORK IN SHELTERS AND RESCUE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE POURING
THEIR HEARTS AND SOULS AND
RESOURCES INTO ADOPTING PETS,
AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT HAPPENING
WITH ANYBODY. UM YOU KNOW WHO'S
PRESENTED TODAY, BUT I'VE SEEN
IT TOO MUCH ONLINE. YOU KNOW,
EVERYBODY IS PEOPLE WHO GO TO
WORK FOR SHELTERS. YOU KNOW THE
CARE MORE DEEPLY ABOUT ANIMALS
IN ANYBODY I KNOW. UM BUT BUT
THE BLAME FALLS ON SOCIETY. THE
BLAME DOESN'T FALL ON THE
SHELTERS. THE BLAME DOESN'T FALL
ON THE RESCUE WARDS. THE BLAME
DOESN'T THE BLAME FALLS ON
SOCIETY FOR ABUSING ANIMALS FOR
NOT SPAYING AND NEUTERING. THEIR
ANIMALS IN LOVE WITH THE PRICE
OF IS RIGHT HAS DONE FOR DECADES
ON THAT. UH I SAW SOMETHING ON
TWITTER YESTERDAY AND AGAIN. YOU
CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE
ON TWITTER. SO I WANT TO PUT A
CAVEAT ON THAT. UM BUT BUT ABOUT
SOMEBODY WHO WAS GOING ON
VACATION FOR A MONTH AND DIDN'T
WANT TO PAY FOR LIKE A DOG
SITTER AND TOOK THEIR DOG TO THE
LOCAL SHELTER, AND THAT DOG IS
AT RISK OF BEING EUTHANIZED.
IT'S US THAT ARE THE PROBLEM.
AND SO WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, ALL
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND WORK
TOGETHER. TO TRY TO ADDRESS
HELPING OUT OUR FURRY FRIENDS.
YOU KNOW, THE FIRST DOG WE EVER
HAD. GROWING UP WAS A SHELTER
DOG. WHEN I MET MY THEN
GIRLFRIEND NOW WIFE, SHE JUST
ADOPTED A HALF BLIND GERIATRIC
CAT, UH, FROM THE S P. C. A IN
SAN FRANCISCO. THAT CAT DID NOT
LIKE ME. UM LUCKILY, THE CAT'S
OWNER DID, UM, SO LET'S LET'S
REALLY KIND OF ALL TRY TO WORK
TOGETHER ON THESE ISSUES. BUT
FOR PURPOSES OF TODAY, THE
AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL WILL
ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT
ADOPTABLE ANIMALS THAT ARE
SUBJECT TO EUTHANASIA, WHILE
GIVING SHELTER IS MORE
FLEXIBILITY TO ACT IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE ALL THE ANIMALS
UNDER THEIR CARE. SO WITH THOSE
AMENDMENTS RECOMMEND, AND I VOTE
ON TODAY'S BILL, MADAM SECRETARY
, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. MAYBE 5
95 OF SALIH. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN BERMAN
I FLORA FLORA ELONIS. ALVAREZ I
BONTA. CHEN. DIXON GIBSON.
GIBSON. I GRAYSON. GRACE AND I,
IRWIN. IRWIN. I JACKSON JACKSON.
I LI LOW AND TALL AND THOUGHT,
I'M MCCARTY MAKIN, ER MCKENNA, I
WHEN I PATERSON PATERSON. I
TING. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN. PERHAPS
SOME MEMBERS. THANK YOU. SOMEONE
OVER PELLERIN. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR PATIENCE. UH YOU HAVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 THAT WORKED OUT
WELL, AGENDA ITEM 11 FOR A B 11
11. YEAH. THAT'S KIND OF A TRIP.
HERE. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'LL START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. AND A B 11 11 WOULD
PROVIDE SMALL AND EQUITY
CULTIVATORS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY
TO APPLY FOR A DEPARTMENT OF
CANNABIS CONTROL LICENSE THAT
WOULD AUTHORIZE THEM TO THEN
THEIR PRODUCTS AT LICENSED STATE
TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENTS. UNDER
EXISTING STATE LAW. THESE EVENTS
MUST BE ORGANIZED BY A CANNABIS
EVENT ORGANIZER LICENSED THROUGH
THE DCC. AND EACH INDIVIDUAL
EVENT MUST RECEIVE AUTHORIZATION
FROM BOTH STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, ENSURING LOCAL
CONTROL. THESE EVENTS ARE
SUBJECT TO EXTENSIVE REGULATION
, INCLUDING REGULATIONS ON
PACKAGING AND LABELING, TRACK
AND TRACE AND PROHIBITIONS ON
UNDERAGE SALES. ADDITIONALLY
EACH OF THESE EVENTS MUST BE
AUTHORIZED BY THE DCC AT LEAST
60 DAYS BEFORE THE EVENT IS
SCHEDULED TO BE HELD. WHILE A B
11 11 WHEN MOST DIRECTLY IMPACT
SMALL AND EQUITY EQUITY CANNABIS
PRODUCERS, ITS POSITIVE EFFECTS
WOULD EXTEND TO THE LEGAL
CANNABIS MARKET AS A WHOLE SALES
BY CRAFT PRODUCERS THAT CANNABIS
EVENTS WILL DRIVE ADDITIONAL
SALES THROUGH LICENSED
DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL OUTLETS
AND CRAFT PRODUCERS SELLING AT
CANNABIS EVENTS WILL HAVE A
STRONG INCENTIVE. TO DIRECT
CUSTOMERS TO LEGAL RETAILERS
WHERE MORE OF THEIR PRODUCTS CAN
BE PURCHASED WITH ME TO TESTIFY
AND SUPPORT TODAY IS ROSS GORDON
, CHAIR POLICY CHAIR OF ORIGINS
COUNCIL AND MADISON SHOCKLEY,
PRESIDENT OF CANNABIS EQUITY
POLICY COUNCIL AND A SOCIAL
EQUITY RETAILER. THANK YOU EACH
OF YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. GOOD
MORNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
STAFF. MY NAME IS ROSS GORDON. I
SERVICE POLICY CHAIR WITH
ORIGINS COUNCIL AND POLICY
DIRECTOR WITH THE HUMBLE COUNTY
GROWS ALLIANCE ORIGINS COUNCILS,
A STATEWIDE ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING 800
MEMBERS ACROSS THE FULL CANNABIS
SUPPLY CHAIN. MOST OF THEM ARE
SMALL AND INDEPENDENT LEGACY.
LICENSED CANNABIS CULTIVATORS,
CALIFORNIA SMALL CANNABIS
FARMERS ARE WORLD RENOWNED FOR
PRODUCING THE WORLD'S HIGHEST
QUALITY CRAFT CANNABIS. HOWEVER
SMALL AND EQUITY FARMERS
CURRENTLY FACE SEVERE CHALLENGES
AND LEGAL CANNABIS MARKET DUE TO
COLLAPSING WHOLESALE PRICES,
HIGH COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND MARKET
ACCESS IN OTHER SECTORS OF
SPECIALTY AGRICULTURE, SUCH AS
WINE, BEER AND COFFEE, STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIRECT TO
CONSUMER SALES AND A VARIETY OF
FAMILIAR FORMS. THESE INCLUDE
MICROBREWERIES, WINE TASTINGS
AND FARMERS MARKET SALES. FOR
SMALL OPERATORS WHO LIKE ACCESS
TO VERTICAL INTEGRATION,
MARKETING BUDGETS AND SALES
TEAMS. THESE ALLOWANCES ARE
CRITICAL TO THEIR SUCCESS. MAYBE
11 11 WOULD CONCEPTUALLY MIRROR
THESE APPROACHES, BUT ONLY
WITHIN THE SPECIFIC, LIMITED AND
HIGHLY CONTROLLED CANNABIS
EVENTS FRAMEWORK THAT HAS BEEN
WELL ESTABLISHED WITHIN
CALIFORNIA LAW SINCE 2018. EACH
STATE LICENSED CANNABIS EVENT
MUST RECEIVE BOTH AN INDIVIDUAL
STATE LICENSE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL
AS WELL AS AUTHORIZATION FROM
THE LOCAL JURISDICTION IN ORDER
TO OPERATE. WE BELIEVE IT IS
CRITICAL TO GROUND THIS
CONVERSATION WITHIN THE ACTUALLY
EXISTING SCOPE OF THESE EVENTS,
ACCORDING TO A JANUARY 24TH PR A
REQUEST TO THE DCC BETWEEN 2018
AND 2022. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF
65 CANNABIS EVENTS HELD IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA HELD IN 16
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS. NONE OF
THESE CANNABIS EVENTS WERE HELD
IN THE COUNTIES OF LOS ANGELES
OR ORANGE. MAYBE 11 11 WERE NOT
CHANGE ANYTHING REGARDING HOW
THESE EVENTS ARE REGULATED AND
WOULD NOT AFFECT THE ABSOLUTE
LOCAL CONTROL. THE JURISDICTIONS
HAVE TO AUTHORIZE AND REGULATE
EVENTS. INSTEAD MAYBE 11 11
WOULD SIMPLY PROVIDE SMALL AND
EQUITY CULTIVATORS WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THESE EVENTS ALONGSIDE NEARLY
2000 RETAIL DELIVERY AND MICRO
BUSINESS LICENSEES WHO ALREADY
HOLD THIS ELIGIBILITY. WE ARE
PROUD OF THE BROAD COALITION IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL, WHICH
INCLUDES MORE THAN 35 DIVERSE
ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING SMALL
PRODUCERS, EQUITY BUSINESSES,
PATIENT AND CONSUMER ADVOCATES,
VETERANS GROUPS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND RETAILERS AND
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY TO
PROVIDE EQUITABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
CALIFORNIA'S WORLD RENOWNED
CRAFT. CANNABIS PRODUCERS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI MY
NAME IS MADISON. SHOCKLEY. THE
THIRD I'M A SOCIAL EQUITY RETAIL
LICENSEE FROM LOS ANGELES, AND I
SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
CANNABIS EQUITY POLICY COUNCIL,
WHICH REPRESENTS OVER 400 EQUITY
ENTREPRENEURS AND ADVOCATES FROM
ACROSS THE STATE. UH LIKE SMALL
CANNABIS FARMERS. MOST EQUITY
LICENSES ARE SMALL BUSINESSES
THAT LACK THE SCALE AND
RESOURCES OF LARGE VENTURE
CAPITAL BACKED CORPORATIONS.
JUST LIKE MANY SMALL FARMERS, WE
STRUGGLE TO GET ACCESS TO THE
MARKET. AND IF WE ARE SO LUCKY
TO GET INTO THE MARKET, THE
STRUGGLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS IN
THE CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS IS
TREMENDOUS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
SEEING MOST BUSINESSES HANGING
ON BY A THREAD OR COLLAPSING
UNDER THE PRESSURE. LARGE
CORPORATIONS ARE RUNNING LAPS
AROUND US WHILE WE STRUGGLE YEAR
AFTER YEAR WITH THE COST OF RED
TAPE AND OPERATING COMPLIANT,
LEE FOR SOCIAL EQUITY FARMERS,
BOTH URBAN AND RURAL. THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE THEIR
BRAND AT THESE FARMERS MARKET
EVENTS AND SELL DIRECTLY TO
CONSUMERS CAN MEAN THE
DIFFERENCE IN MAKING PAYROLL
THAT MONTH. THE STATE NEEDS TO
DO EVERYTHING IT CAN TO HELP
THESE BUSINESSES SUCCEED, AND
THIS BILL IS ONE OF THOSE
SOLUTIONS THAT WILL MAKE A
DIFFERENCE ON THE GROUND. I
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED EQUITY
DEFINITION AMENDMENTS AS WELL TO
THIS BILL BECAUSE SOCIAL EQUITY
CAN LOOK DIFFERENT FROM
COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY. THE
ORIGINAL EQUITY DEFINITION FROM
SENATOR BRADFORD'S SP 12 94
STATES THAT LOCAL EQUITY
LICENSEE MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS
OBTAINED A LICENSE FROM A LOCAL
JURISDICTION TO ENGAGE IN
COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY
WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARIES OF THAT JURISDICTION
AND WHO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THAT JURISDICTIONS LOCAL
EQUITY PROGRAM. THE DEFINITION
IS THE BEST OPTION, UH, THAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE IN LEGISLATION.
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. WE HAVE
WATCHED AS ESTABLISHED CANNABIS
COMPANIES HAVE OPPOSED BILLS
THAT WOULD HELP SMALLER
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES BE MORE
COMPETITIVE. THEY'VE BEEN ANTI
COMP COMPETITION. THIS IS
ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
FEARMONGERING ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS BILL TO
EQUITY ENTREPRENEURS. SOME WILL
TELL YOU THAT THIS BILL WOULD
UNDERMINE HUNDREDS OF EQUITY
ENTREPRENEURS. BUT THE LION'S
SHARE OF THOSE EQUITY
ENTREPRENEURS ARE IN LOS ANGELES
, WHERE THE CITY CURRENTLY
DOESN'T ALLOW CANNABIS EVENTS AT
ALL. AND AS A SMALL EQUITY
BUSINESS. I'M PROUD TO STAND BY
THE SMALL FARMERS AND ADVOCATE
FOR AN A B 11 11 IN HOPES THAT
IT WILL EXTEND A LIFELINE TO OUR
SOCIAL EQUITY FARMERS AND SMALL
OUTDOOR FARMERS WHOSE LEGACY WE
STAND ON TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT WHO WANT TO
ADD ONTO THE BILL? SO GLAD THIS
IS NOT AN ANIMAL SHELTER BILL
KARIN LANG ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS IN THE
COUNTIES OF HUMBOLDT AND
MENDOCINO, AND SUPPORT THIS
MORNING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ME TOO. AMY JENKINS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, AND STRONG SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU KID ON BEHALF OF THE RURAL
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND A WELDER ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
PAMELA LOPEZ WITH K STREET
CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA. NORMAL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JERRY
MEMBERS, RAND MARTIN ON BEHALF
OF THEIR PARENT COMPANY, ONE OF
THE LARGEST CANNABIS COMPANIES
IN THE STATE, IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF THE BILL THAT WOULD BENEFIT
SMALL GROWERS AND EQUITY
BUSINESSES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. UH TURNED THE PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. GOOD
MORNING. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MINORITY ALLIANCE,
FOUNDED BY VIRGIL GRANTS THE
PRESIDENT AND FOUNDING FATHER OF
THE SOCIAL EQUITY MOVEMENTS. A
VICTIM OF THE WAR AGAINST
CANNABIS RESULTED IN YEARS OF
IMPRISONMENT. AND FINALLY TODAY
, A LICENSED CANNABIS RETAILER
IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AS
WELL AS THE LICENSED CANNABIS
CULTIVATOR IN HUMBLE I WISH TO
EXPRESS OUR DEEPEST OBJECTIONS
TO THIS BILL. IT IS MORALLY
OBJECTIONABLE AND DEEPLY
INSULTING TO HUNDREDS OF SOCIAL
EQUITY RETAIL APPLICANTS THAT
CONTINUE TO WAIT FOR MANY YEARS
TO HAVE THEIR APPLICATIONS
APPROVED TO OPEN THEIR MOM AND
POP RETAIL BUSINESSES. MEANWHILE
BURNING THROUGH LIMITED CAPITAL
HOLDING ONTO EXPENSIVE PROPERTY
IN HOPES OF REALIZING THEIR
DREAMS AND DESERVED OPPORTUNITY
TO BECOME A RETAILER. IN
ADDITION TO CREATING UNFAIR
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AGAINST
THE STRUGGLING CALIFORNIA
LICENSED CANNABIS RETAILERS, 11
11 SEEKS TO UNFAIRLY ALLOW
THOUSANDS OF CULTIVATORS TO
BECOME RETAILER SKIPPING THE
LINE AHEAD OF HUNDREDS OF SOCIAL
EQUITY APPLICANTS PATIENTLY
WAITING FOR THEIR RETAIL
APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THE
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL HAVE
ATTEMPTED TO PUSH THIS
LEGISLATION FORWARD WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY ADDRESSING THE
CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO
UNDERMINING ALL THE TIME AND
INVESTMENT BY RETAIL APPLICANTS
WHO HAVE ABIDED BY THE LICENSOR
PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY THE
VOTERS OF PROP 64. A B 11 11
HARMS LEGAL CANNABIS RETAILERS
AND ONLY DILUTES EXISTING
MARKETS WHERE CANNABIS IS
ALREADY ABLE TO BE SOLD. THE
STATE HAS ALREADY ALLOWED
CULTIVATORS THAT RIGHT TO
DISPLAY AND MARKET THEIR
PRODUCTS DIRECT TO THE CONSUMERS
AT EVENTS WHERE THEY ARE ABLE TO
PARTNER WITH A RETAILER TO SELL
THEIR PRODUCTS, ULTIMATELY
SUPPORTING THE VIABILITY OF THE
ENTIRE SUPPLY CHAIN. WE HAVE
SEEN EXAMPLES OF CULTIVATORS
OBTAINING DELIVERY LICENSES TO
BE ABLE TO SELL DIRECTLY TO
CONSUMERS AS WELL AS PARTNER
WITH RETAILERS TO HOST A DIRECT
TO CONSUMER MARKETS AS RECENTLY
REPORTED AND CELEBRATING THE
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
CULTIVATORS WANT TO BE RETAILERS
. THEY HAVE NUMEROUS OPTIONS TO
DO SO WITHIN THE CURRENT
LICENSURE STRUCTURE AND WITHOUT
UNDERMINING AND UNFAIRLY JUMPING
THE LINE AHEAD OF SOCIAL EQUITY
RETAIL APPLICANTS. HARMING ONE
LICENSE TYPE TO SUPPORT ANOTHER
IS NOT A SOLUTION. AS A LICENSED
CULTIVATOR AND A RETAILER. WE
REMAIN OPPOSED TO THE BILL UNTIL
THE SPONSORS AND THE AUTHOR
ADDRESS THE SERIOUS CONCERNS
THAT STILL REMAIN AFTER NUMEROUS
PREVIOUS FAILED ATTEMPTS TO
ALLOW THIS LEGISLATION TO PASS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU AND YOU GET
THE AWARD FOR BEING CLOSEST TO
TWO MINUTES SO FAR OF ANYBODY.
PLEASE JARED KYLO, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED CANADA'S BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF
COACHELLA VALLEY CANVAS,
ALLIANCE, LONG BEACH COLLECTIVE
ASSOCIATIONS, SO CALLED SOCIAL
EQUITY. LOS ANGELES SAN
FRANCISCO CANNABIS RETAILERS
ALLIANCE, SILICON VALLEY
CANNABIS ALLIANCE AND ANGELS.
EMERALDS THIS IS MY 19TH YEAR,
IS A LICENSED CANNABIS RETAILER
AND PRESIDENT OF A RETAIL
CENTRIC TRADE ORGANIZATION. I
CAN TELL YOU AS AN ECONOMIST AS
A LONGTIME STAKEHOLDER AND
SOMEONE WHO COMMUNICATES WITH MY
RETAIL MEMBERS. I'M QUALIFIED TO
SAY THAT THIS WILL BE HARMFUL TO
THE RETAIL SECTOR OF CANNABIS.
LET'S BE CLEAR. ONE ACRE OF
CANNABIS, WHICH IS CONSIDERED A
SMALL FARM IS £1500 OF
PRODUCTION. THAT WOULD NOW BE,
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID THAT
THEY'D BE ABLE TO SELL A FEW
POUNDS OF THESE FARMERS MARKETS
BE ABLE TO CAPTURE MARKET SHARE,
BUT THERE'S STILL 90 TO 95% OF
THEIR PRODUCT IS STILL NEEDS TO
BE SOLD THROUGH A RETAILER, SO A
RELATIONSHIP WITH RETAILERS IS
VERY IMPORTANT. SO I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS BECOME
SO. UM, I GUESS CONFLICTING UM,
THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING
COMPETITION. I HAVE 100 AND 45
LISTED ADVERTISED CANVAS
BUSINESSES IN SHERMAN OAKS
WITHIN A TWO MILE RADIUS OF MY
RETAIL SHOP. THESE ARE ALL LEGAL
BRICK AND MORTAR DELIVERY
COMPANIES THAT SERVICE THE AREA.
THIS IS NOT ONLY THIS IS NOT THE
ONLY COMPETITION I HAVE. I ALSO
HAVE COMPETITION WITH ILLEGAL
OPERATORS AND INTOXICATING HEMP
PRODUCTS THAT ARE ALSO DILUTING
MY MARKET SHARE. SO TO HEAR THAT
2000 CULTIVATORS WILL CONTRIBUTE
TO THE DELUSION OF THE MARKET
SHARE. I DON'T HAVE A LINE
OUTSIDE MY DOOR. I'M NOT A
PROFITABLE BUSINESS. I'M
CONSTANTLY IN DEBT AND
CONSTANTLY TRYING TO FIND A WAY
TO SURVIVE IN THIS CANVAS MARKET
AND TO ADD MORE DELUSION TO A
CURRENTLY EXISTING PROBLEM
DOESN'T REALLY SEEM LIKE THE
SOLUTION WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE
CAN POSE THIS AS AS LARGE
COMPANIES, BUT I'LL TELL YOU
RIGHT NOW, IF MY 165 MEMBERS,
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US OWNS MORE
THAN TWO DISPENSARIES, SO HERE
WE ARE IN A PLACE WHERE WE GOT
MOM AND POP RETAILERS WHO WE'RE
ALSO TRYING TO SURVIVE. SO WHAT
IF I SAID THIS? I'M A RETAILER
IN LOS ANGELES. I DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO HAVE ANY OUTDOOR
CULTIVATION BECAUSE MY COMMUNITY
DOES NOT ALLOW IT. AND THERE IS
NO ZONING ALLOWED FOR IT. SO I'D
LIKE MY CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO
GIVE ME A LOCAL AUTHORIZATION TO
GO TO ANOTHER COUNTY AND MAYBE
SET UP A CULTIVATION. MAYBE IN
MAYBE IN MENDOCINO COUNTY, WHERE
I CAN NOW GO AND JUST BE A PART
TIME TEMPORARY CULTIVATOR FOR A
SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME AND MAYBE
JUMP IN FRONT OF LINE OF THE
OTHER 600 APPLICANTS WHO ARE
ALSO IN MENDOCINO COUNTY, TRYING
TO BE CULTIVATORS. THIS IS
EXACTLY WHAT I'M HEARING. I
REALIZE IT MAY SOUND A LITTLE
BIT, YOU KNOW, GRANDIOSE, BUT
THE FACT IS, THIS IS MY LICENSE
TYPE. I'VE TRIED EVERYTHING I
CAN TO PRESERVE IT. AND NOW
SOMEONE IS TRYING TO JUMP IN
LINE OF MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE OTHER
ATTEMPTS OF TO OPEN RETAIL. SO
AND EVERYONE ACTS LIKE THIS IS
SO EASY TO COLLECT TAXES, EXCISE
TAX, GROSS RECEIPTS, TAX SALES,
TAX METRIC TRACK AND TRACE POINT
OF SALE SYSTEMS. PURCHASE ORDERS
. DO WE REALLY THINK IT'S THAT
EASY IF YOU COULD WRAP UP?
THAT'D BE GREAT. WE'VE OFFERED
THIS. WE'VE OFFERED THEM THIS.
THIS COALITION 10 AMENDMENTS AND
NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN
ACCEPTED TO THE STATE. SO I
WOULD LIKE US TO AT LEAST
CONSIDER SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS
TO THIS BILL SO THAT WE CAN SEE
THAT THERE'S NOT UNDUE
COMPETITION AND DILUTION OF THIS
MARKET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO
WANT TO ADD ON IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. SEEING NONE. I WANT TO
BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR MOTION.
SECONDS. UH, SOME OF THE
PATERSON YEAH. THANK YOU, UM.
CAN YOU HELP ME? UH THERE WAS A
SIMILAR BILL. WELL NOT SIMILAR.
THERE WAS ANOTHER BILL IN THE
AND I DON'T KNOW. ONE OF THE
BRAZILIAN COMMITTEES I'M SITTING
ON MIGHT BE THIS ONE. UM THAT
ALLOWED, UM, YOU KNOW A RETAILER
TO COME INTO A YOU KNOW, LIKE A
WEDDING SPECIAL EVENTS LIKE THAT
. AND YOU ARE THE PROPONENT OF
THAT ABOUT NO ONE IN THAT, BUT
DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES AGAIN
WITH THIS BILL. THIS IS TALKING
ABOUT NOT WEDDINGS OR WHATEVER
THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THESE
FARMERS, MARKETS AND THINGS LIKE
THAT. IT WOULD BE A SPECIAL
EVENT THAT THE STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE
, AND THERE'S A LIMIT ON THE
NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT COULD BE
HELD EVERY YEAR. AND IT WOULD BE
FOR THIS PURPOSE FOR THESE SMALL
FARMERS TO BE ABLE TO SELL
DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS. OKAY AND
OKAY, AND, UM SURE, GO AHEAD.
THEY'RE MY EXPERTS SO. HAPPY TO
EXPAND A BIT, SO I BELIEVE THAT
BILL 84 71 CREATED A NEW
FRAMEWORK FOR CANNABIS CATERING
SOMETHING WHICH DOESN'T
CURRENTLY EXIST. THIS BILL A B
11 11 OPERATES WITHIN AN
EXISTING FRAMEWORK FOR TEMPORARY
CANNABIS EVENTS, WHICH HAS
EXISTED SINCE 2018 REQUIRES A
DCC PERMIT REQUIRES LOCAL
AUTHORIZATION, UM AND WOULD
SIMPLY EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR
PARTICIPATION, TOO SMALL
CULTIVATORS I'D ALSO HAD I KNOW
THERE WAS CONVERSATION ON 84 71.
ABOUT THE MIXING OF CANNABIS AND
ALCOHOL. AT THESE EVENTS, MAYBE
11 11 WOULD OPERATE WITHIN
EVENTS FRAMEWORK THAT PROHIBITS
THAT INTER MIXING THANK YOU. AH
UM AND TO THE OPPOSITION, UH,
YOU KNOW, YOU GAVE ME A LOT OF
REASONS WHY BUSINESS IS HARD,
AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT'S PART
OF THE PROBLEMS. YOU KNOW, I
THINK THAT EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO
SOLVE WITH THE LEGALIZATION OF
THIS, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT
TYPICALLY TRYING TO, UM YOU
KNOW, MAKE. HMM YOU KNOW, I MEAN
COMPETITION IN THE MARKETS.
TYPICALLY A GOOD THING. UM YOU
KNOW, I NOTE THAT MAYBE EXISTING
EVERYBODY, IF ANYWHERE,
EVERYBODY IN EVERY EXISTING, UM
, YOU KNOW, MARKET CAN SAY, HEY,
I ONLY WANT TO HAVE MY BUSINESS
OR LIMITED BUSINESSES THAN
EVERYBODY WOULD SIGN UP FOR
THAT. UM BUT I AM A BELIEVER IN
, UM YOU KNOW, IN MOST CASES. AH
UM, YOU KNOW, GIVING PEOPLE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SURVIVE AND ALSO
CREATING COMPETITION. USUALLY I
THINK THAT'S BETTER FOR THE
MARKET. BUT I'M STILL KIND OF
YOU KNOW, I'M INTERESTED IN THE
DISCUSSION IS IT GOES ON AND
WHEN THEY CALL MY NAME. I'LL
MAKE A VOTE AND MAKE A DECISION
AT THAT TIME, SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
REMEMBER GIBSON. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL, UM.
LEAST OPEN UP THE DIALOGUE I'VE
HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF THE
RETAIL CANNABIS GROWERS. I MEAN,
CANNABIS RETAILERS IN MY
DISTRICT, AND MY CONCERN WOULD
BE, UM BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD
THE MOM AND POP THOSE IN LOS
ANGELES WHO HAVE RETAIL LICENSES
, AND THEN YOU BRING IN OTHERS
FROM OUTSIDE OF LOS ANGELES, OR
L. A COUNTY TO COME IN EVEN GET
A TEMPORARY LICENSE FOR THAT DAY
, BUT IT DISENFRANCHISES THOSE
WHO BRICK AND MORTAR WHO ARE
PAYING EMPLOYEES. UM AND THEY'RE
NEEDING THAT BUSINESS BECAUSE
WHAT I CONTINUE TO HEAR DAY IN
DAY OUT WHEN I READ WHEN I SPEAK
TO CANNABIS. ANY PERSON THAT
THAT EMBELLISH THEMSELVES INTO
THIS SPACE. UM WE CANNOT SURVIVE
BECAUSE THE ILLEGAL MARKET IS
DROWNING US. THEY'RE NOT PAYING
THEIR FAIR SHARES. THEY'RE NOT
PAYING TAXES LIKE WE ARE AS
LEGAL OPERATORS IN OUR COMMUNITY
. WE'RE EMPLOYING INDIVIDUALS.
UM, WE HAVE TO. THERE'S A
WAITING LIST. LOS ANGELES FOR
THOSE TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED
GETTING PERMITS GETTING
LICENSES. UM AND THEN WE HAVE
THROUGH THIS BILL. WHAT I'VE
HEARD IS THAT BRINGING IN EVEN
FOR ONE DAY OR A COUPLE OF DAYS
, UM, TO PARTICIPATE IN FARMERS
MARKETS WHEN YOU CAN HAVE A JUST
A RETAIL RIGHT DOWN THE STREET
FROM THIS FARMERS MARKET? UM AND
SO I DON'T SEE THE FAIRNESS. UM
AND I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING
THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND AS A
RESULT OF THAT OF THESE DYNAMICS
, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M A FIRM
BELIEVER. I CAN'T FEED MY
NEIGHBOR'S KIDS OF MY OWN KIDS
GOING HUNGRY. I JUST SAID
SOMETHING. AND SO IT IS
IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I'M NOT OR
WERE NOT. OR I CANNOT SUPPORT.
UM IF WE'RE DISENFRANCHISING
THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE RULES
PAYING THEIR TAXES, UM, WHO ARE
THERE AND MAKING SIGNIFICANT
INVESTMENTS TO BE A RETAILER? UM
IN COMMUNITIES, UM AND THEN WE
HAVE YOU KNOW, GROWERS OR OTHERS
COMING AND ABSOLUTELY, UM, BEING
ABLE TO SET UP A SHOP OR EVEN
FOR TEMPORARY SHOP AND TAKING
THAT BUSINESS AWAY FROM THAT
RETAILER, AND SO, UM, I'M GONNA
ASK YOU TO RESPOND. I'LL BE
LAYING OFF ON ON THIS BILL TODAY
, AND IF IT GETS OUT, LOOK
FORWARD TO OTHER DIALOGUE, BUT
PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD
HAVE TO SAY TO THAT IS THAT IN
LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTY,
SINCE THIS HAS BEEN, UM, STARTED
IN 2018. THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY
SPECIAL EVENTS IN THAT AREA. SO
THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPETITION
THEN THEY COULD CONTINUE TO DO
THAT. BECAUSE IT WHAT DOES
REQUIRE LOCAL ACCEPTANCE AND
CONTROL. IT ALLOWS THEM TO SAY
WHETHER THESE EVENTS ARE ALLOWED
OR NOT. YEAH, SO IT'S YEAH. MORE
TO SAY ON THAT, OR LIKE. I WOULD
JUST SECOND THAT THAT'S THAT'S
THE FEAR OF MONITORING THAT.
THERE'S THIS COMPETITION WHEN
LOS ANGELES DOESN'T EVEN ALLOW
THESE SPECIAL EVENTS. AND SO
IT'S HYPOTHETICAL, UH, AT BEST,
AND I VIEW THIS AS MORE OF A
LARGE CANNABIS VERSUS SMALL
CANNABIS. IF YOU'RE A LARGE,
MONEYED COMPANY, YOU HAVE THE
ABILITY TO GO DIRECT TO CONSUMER
ALREADY. IT'S THE SMALL FARMERS
IN RURAL PLACES THAT ARE LOOKING
FOR AN OPPORTUNITY JUST TO
SURVIVE BECAUSE MANY LARGE
CANNABIS COMPANIES AREN'T BUYING
THEIR PRODUCT AND SO THEY'RE NOT
GETTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE IN
THIS UP SUPPLY CHAIN. UH AT ALL,
SO IT'S AS AN EQUITY RETAILER. I
CAN RELATE. UH TO ANTI
COMPETITION. MANY OF THESE
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE PREVENTED
EQUITY BUSINESSES FROM HAVING
THE POLICIES THAT WOULD HELP US
GET INTO THE MARKET AND TO
THRIVE BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED THE
COMPETITION OF NEW PEOPLE
ENTERING THE MARKET, AND WE'RE
THE SMALL, NON ESTABLISHED FOLKS
. AND SO THIS BILL IS FOR SMALL.
UH FLEDGLING SMALL FARMERS AND
SMALL EQUITY FARMERS, AND THAT'S
WHAT WOULD HELP. SO THANK YOU.
HMM. GOD I THINK WE'RE JUST MAKE
A COMMENT. THIS IS NOT AN ANTI
COMPETITION. WHAT THIS IS
THERE'S BEEN SYSTEMS SET UP
LOCALLY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO APPLY
FOR LICENSES. SOME OF THEM HAVE
SAT AND ON PROPERTIES FOR 23
YEARS, WAITING TO OPEN AND TO
ALLOW 2000 CULTIVATORS TO JUMP
IN FRONT OF THAT LINE DUE TO THE
LOCAL CONTROL. THAT IS WHAT I
HAVE ISSUE WITH AND THAT IS
WHERE IT'S UNDUE COMPETITION
BECAUSE WE HAVE SET UP A SYSTEM
TO ALLOW THESE OPERATORS TO COME
IN TO COMPLY. SCIENCE AND TO
START OPERATING, AND NOW WE'RE
GOING TO LET 6 2000 CULTIVATORS
JUMP IN FRONT OF THEM. I THINK
THAT IS UNFAIR. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DIXON. THANK
YOU. CHAIR UM, I CAME IN LATE,
BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION
WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION CAN APPROVE UP TO
32 EVENTS PER YEARS AT PER SMALL
CULTIVATOR OR TOTAL FOR THAT
COMMUNITY. SO THE SPECIFIC
LIMITATION IN THE BILL IS 32
DAYS OF EVENTS PER CULTIVATOR
PER YEAR, WHO APPLIES FOR THIS
LICENSE TYPE REITERATES
STATEWIDE. THERE'S ONLY BEEN 65
OF THESE EVENTS TOTAL SINCE 2018
. THERE WERE 25 HELD IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAST YEAR.
THEY'RE NOT FORMALLY LIMITED BUT
THE REGULATORY LICENSING AND FEE
REQUIREMENTS AROUND THE EVENTS
MEANS THAT THE EVENTS ARE
NATURALLY LIMITED IN ADDITION TO
LOCAL CONTROL, SAYS THIS WOULD
NOT LISTEN WOULD NOT REQUIRE A
RETAIL LICENSE, SO I'M NOT CLEAR
ON THE DATA YOU'RE CITING
BECAUSE THIS WILL REALLY OPEN
UP. POTENTIALLY THE FLOODGATES
FRANKLY, SO LET ME GO BACK TO MY
ORIGINAL QUESTION. SO EVER,
THERE COULD BE 100 SMALL
CULTIVATORS EACH WOULD COULD BE
APPROVED FOR 32. SEPARATE
EVENTS. SO YOU CAN HAVE HUNDREDS
. POTENTIALLY THAT'S CORRECT,
BUT THERE IS A LIMITING FACTOR
OF THE EVENTS THEMSELVES. WHERE
DID YOU COME UP WITH THE NUMBER
32. WHY IS THAT? THE NUMBER IN
THE BILL IS THAT LAST YEAR, THE
COMMITTEE MADE AMENDMENTS TO
LIMIT TO EIGHT EVENTS PER YEAR
PER CULTIVATOR. EACH OF THOSE
EVENTS AUTHORIZED UP TO FOUR
DAYS OF SALES. UM AND SO WE
MULTIPLIED EIGHT BY FOUR TO GET
32 DAYS
ARE STRUGGLING TO
OPERATE IN THE LEGAL MARKET, SO
I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE NEED FOR
THIS BILL. AT THE SAME TIME, I
THINK IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE
SO THAT EFFORTS TO SUPPORT SMALL
GAME CANNABIS CULTIVATORS DO NOT
UNDULY DISADVANTAGED RETAILERS.
WITH THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. I
THINK THAT MOVES US CLOSER TO
STRIKING THAT BALANCE. I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS, YOU
KNOW, INTERESTING WILLINGNESS
AND CONTINUING TO WORK WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS, UM, TO CONTINUE TO
CREATE BALANCE IN THE BILL, AND
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY. YEAH, I MEANT TO SAY THAT
WILL WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION TO
WORK ON THE AMENDMENTS. WE JUST
GOT THEM LAST WEEK, SO I
APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT. THANK
YOU. MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE VOTE. HE BE 11 11
PELLERIN. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN BERMAN I
FLORA FOR IOWA KNEES, COLONIES.
I ALVAREZ. BANTA. CHEN. CHEN I
DICKSON DICKSON. I GIBSON
GRAYSON GRAYSON IRWIN. IRWIN NOT
VOTING, JACKSON. LEE. LOWENTHAL.
HØI MCCARTY. MAKIN, ER I WIN.
WHEN I PATERSON PATERSON
KNIGHTING. THAT BILL IS OUT WITH
THE VOTE APP EITHER ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
CONGRATS. UM AND, UH, SOME
REMEMBER, CARILLO, UH, AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2080 17 OH,
THREE. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HANEY FOR YOUR
PATIENTS.
READY WHEN YOU ARE. HMM CHECK 12
. OKAY THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AND AGAIN. THANK YOU TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HANEY FOR
ALLOWING ME TO GO BEFORE HIM
DIFFICULT TO BE IN TWO PLACES AT
THE SAME TIME, RIGHT? I'M PROUD
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 17 OH,
THREE, WHICH WILL RETURN THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ATHLETIC
COMMISSION BACK TO FIRM
FINANCIAL FOOTING AND THANK YOU
AGAIN TO THE COMMITTEE STAFF AND
CONSULTANTS FOR WORKING WITH MY
TEAM. WE ARE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FOR THOSE
WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ATHLETIC
COMMISSION IT OVERSEAS FIGHTING
SPORTS IN OUR STATE, THE
COMMISSION PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE
IN ENSURING THE SAFETY AND
WELFARE OF ATHLETES. ENFORCING
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR EVENTS
AND INVESTIGATING THE DECISION.
THE DISCIPLINING OF ANY
VIOLATIONS OF THOSE RULES. THE
COMMISSION IS FACING SIGNIFICANT
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND FACES
INSOLVENCY. THE COMMISSION IS
FUNDED BY A PORTION OF REVENUE
FROM EVENTS UNDER ITS
JURISDICTION AND HAD TO TURN TO
ITS RESERVES DURING THE PANDEMIC
. THE COMMISSION'S REVENUES HAVE
RETURNED TO PRE PANDEMIC LEVELS.
BUT DUE TO PROJECTED ONE TIME
COSTS AND DEPLETED RESERVES,
THIS AMOUNT IS INSUFFICIENT TO
PREVENT INSOLVENCY. THIS BILL
WOULD MODESTLY INCREASED THE CAP
ADGATE REVENUE FEES OF GATE
REVENUE FEES THAT CAN BE
COLLECTED, RAISING IT FOR THE
FIRST TIME SINCE THE YEAR 2000
DURING Y TWO K. THIS WILL ENSURE
THE COMMISSION'S CONTINUED
OPERATION WITH NO NEED FOR
INTERVENTION INTERVENTION WITH
TEXT TAXPAYER DOLLARS HERE TO
SPEAK MORE ON THE BILL AND TO
ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. PETER RHEE EGAS,
CHAIR OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ATHLETIC COMMISSION, AND ANDY
FOSTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ATHLETIC
COMMISSION. THANK YOU MY
PARTISAN MOTION IN SECOND TWO
MINUTES EACH MEMBER CARILLO FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONS. CODE ONE. ANY 8
TO 4. A TWO ALLOWS THE
COMMISSION TO COLLECT A FEE OF
5. OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR A
MISSION TO CONTESTS AND
EXHIBITIONS. THE 5% FEE IS
CAPPED AT A MAX OF $100,000. THE
COMMISSION ONLY CONNECT,
COLLECTS THE MAX FEE OF $100,000
WHEN THE CONTEST OR EXHIBITION
REACHES OR EXCEED $2 MILLION IN
GROSS SALES TAX. THE LAST TIME
THE COMMISSION INCREASED THE
CAP. OF 100,000 WAS IN YEAR.
2000 SO 23 YEARS AGO WAS THE
LAST TIME WE ADDRESSED THIS. THE
MAX FEE OF $100,000 IS PAID TO
THE COMMISSION 1 TO 3 TIMES PER
YEAR BY ITS LARGEST PROMOTERS.
THOSE EVENTS GENERALLY EXCEED $2
MILLION IN GROSS TAX SALES.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION IS NOT
ABLE TO COLLECT MORE THAN THE
$100,000 THE COMMISSION.
ESTIMATES THE INCREASE OF THE
CAT WILL BRING AN ADDITIONAL
$300,000 A YEAR A YEAR IN
REVENUE. INCREASING THE CAP TO
$200,000 WILL NOT IMPACT SMALL
PROMOTERS WHO HOLD EVENTS ALL
OVER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THE INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL NOT
IMPACT THE ATHLETES, MANAGERS OR
OTHER LICENSES TYPES. AS A 5%
FEE IS PAID BY PROMOTERS. THE
COMMISSION'S LARGEST SOURCE OF
FUNDING COMES FROM THE PEACE
COLLECTED ON THE COST OF
ADMISSION TO THE CONTEST OR
EVENTS, THE COST OF THE EMISSION
TO CONTEST OR EVENTS HAVE
INCREASED OVER THE YEARS.
HOWEVER THE AMOUNT THAT THE
COMMISSION COLLECTS HAS NOT
INCREASED. THE COMMISSION IS NOT
REQUESTED AN INCREASE OF 5% FEE
BE ASSESSED AS THAT WOULD AFFECT
ALL PROMOTERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND COULD NEGATIVELY
IMPACT THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF
CALIFORNIA AS A VENUE. THE
REVENUE THAT A B 1703 WILL BRING
IN WILL ASSIST THE COMMISSION
AND PAYING FOR RESOURCES FOR
STAFFING SAFETY MATERIALS.
HEALTH EXAMINATIONS AS SUCH IN
THE CALIFORNIA ATHLETIC
COMMISSION HOPES THAT THE
COMMITTEE WILL VOTE TO APPROVE
THE CAP. INCREASE AT HIS VITAL
TO THE COMMISSION'S FUND.
INCREASING THE CAP IS THE BEST
WAY FOR THE COMMISSION TO
INCREASE ITS REVENUE TO ENSURE
THAT THE COMMISSION REMAINS
SOLVENT WITHOUT IMPACTING VERY
MANY OF ITS LICENSEES. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION
REGARDING THIS BILL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT. YOU DON'T
NEED TO. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.
GOODBYE. YOU GOOD. GOOD ALL
RIGHT. YOU GOT A BIPARTISAN
MOTION IN SECOND. I FEEL
CONFIDENT ABOUT THE FATE. OF THE
BILL. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
WHO WANT TO ADD ON AND SUPPORT
IN THE AUDIENCE. SEEING NONE ANY
ADDITIONAL ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE. AND
HE WITNESSES IN THE AUDIENCE WHO
WANT TO ADD ON AN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE, BRINGING BACK THE
COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. EMOTIONS ARE SECONDS.
OH I'M SORRY. WE HAVE A MOTION
IN SECOND. APOLOGIZE MR ALLEN IS
DID YOU HAVE NO, YOU'RE GOOD AT
MAKIN ER. PERFECT. YES I JUST
WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I JUST
APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE LOOKING
OUT FOR THE BOXERS PENSION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
REMEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE APPRECIATE THE BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTS AND I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU REMEMBER CARILLO FOR
BRINGING THIS BOTH FORWARD? UH,
AND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION
FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS
BILL. I AGREE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
THE COMMISSION TO BE PROPERLY
FUNDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF
BOXERS AND MARTIAL ARTISTS WITH
THE ACCEPTED AMENDMENT, KEEPING
THE CURRENT THRESHOLD FOR THE
BOXING PENSION. I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. UM MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
E B 17 OH, THREE WENDY CARILLO.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN BERMAN I
FLORA FLORA ELONIS. COLONIES I
ALVAREZ PONTA CHEN CHEN. I DIXON
I GIBSON GRAYSON. GRACE AND I,
IRWIN. JACKSON. LI LI I
LOWENTHAL. MCCARTY. WIENER.
MCKENNA I WIN WHEN I PATERSON
TING. TOO MANY COLLEAGUES OR IN
OTHER PLACES, BUT I'M SURE WHEN
THEY GET BACK, IT WILL GET THE
VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. SO NEXT,
WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO AGENDA ITEMS
THREE AND SIX BY SOME OF THE
MOROSINI. WHICHEVER ORDER YOU
PREFER SER.
3 74 1ST IF THAT'S OKAY, MR
CHAIR THAT IS GREAT. READY WHEN
YOU ARE ALRIGHT, SO THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I WANT TO
START BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
TODAY AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF ARE WORKING WITH
US ON THE LANGUAGE. A B 3 74 IS
A PRO SMALL BUSINESS BILL. UH IT
IS A PRO TOURISM AND
HOSPITALITY. BILL IT IS A BILL
THAT WILL HELP OUR STATE CREATE
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REVENUE AND
JOBS. AND IT'S ALSO A LOCAL
CONTROL BILL. UH IT WILL
LEGALIZE CANNABIS CAFES BY
ALLOWING THE SALE OF NON
CANNABIS FOODS AND NON ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AT LICENSED CANNABIS
RETAILERS. THE SITUATION WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW DOES NOT MAKE ANY
SENSE. WE ALLOW LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO AUTHORIZE
CANNABIS RETAILERS AND ALSO
AUTHORIZED, UH, CANNABIS LOUNGES
, PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN
CONSUME CANNABIS IN PERSON, BUT
WHAT WE DON'T DO IS ALLOW THEM
TO SELL ANYTHING ELSE. THEY'RE
NOT ALLOWED TO SELL A NON
PREPACKAGED FOODS. THEY'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO SELL A MUFFIN.
THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL
COFFEE. AND THE RESULT OF THIS
IS THAT WE ARE TYING THEIR HANDS
IN A WAY THAT IS PUTTING THEM AT
AN EXTREME DISADVANTAGE AS IT
RELATES TO THE ILLICIT MARKET.
WE'RE SEEING THE ILLICIT MARKET
GROW, AND WE'RE SEEING THE LEGAL
MARKET. WHAT WE DID HERE IS A
STATE THAT PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA
DID TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A
LEGAL CANNABIS MARKET. WE ARE
TYING THEIR HANDS AND PUTTING
THEM IN EXTREME DISADVANTAGE
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO
DO SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS
SELLING A MUFFIN OR A CUP OF
TEA. WE KNOW FROM PLACES AROUND
THE WORLD LIKE AMSTERDAM THAT
THIS WORKS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO
CONSUME CANNABIS SAFELY LEGALLY
, SOCIALLY WITH THEIR FRIENDS IN
A LEGAL SETTING, UM, AND THAT
THERE'S A HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR
OUR OUR LEGAL CANNABIS RETAILERS
TO DO THAT. THIS IS ALSO A LOCAL
CONTROL BILL. IT'S ONLY FOR
CITIES OR AREAS THAT WANT TO DO
THIS PLACES THAT SAY, HEY, WE
HAVE CANNABIS LOUNGES ALREADY.
WE WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO SELL
COFFEE FOOD. THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY. IT'S A WAY TO PUSH
BACK AT THE ILLEGAL MARKET
SUPPORT OUR CANNABIS RETAILERS
WHO ARE STRUGGLING, SUPPORT OUR
OUR TOURISM INDUSTRY BECAUSE WE
KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO CONSUME CANNABIS
LEGALLY SAFELY AND SOCIALLY.
HERE TO TESTIFY WITH ME AND
SUPPORT TODAY IS BEN LYMAN FROM
THE CALIFORNIA NIGHT LIFE
ASSOCIATION AND JARED KYLO FROM
THE UNITED CANNABIS BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION. SORRY READY WHEN
YOU ARE TWO MINUTES PER WITNESS,
PLEASE, THANKS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MY NAME IS BEN. BLIND MAN.
I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
CALIFORNIA NIGHTLIFE
ASSOCIATION, ALSO KNOWN AS CAL.
NIGHT MORE STATEWIDE NIGHTLIFE
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE
MEMBERS ALL THE WAY FROM SAN
DIEGO UP TO SACRAMENTO.
EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN, AND WE'RE
REALLY EXCITED ABOUT 83 74. 1ST
OF ALL. I JUST WANT TO GIVE A
QUICK NOTE ABOUT WHY CANNABIS
LOUNGES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT
WHEN WE ENSHRINED IN STATE LAW,
ADULT USE CANNABIS. WE ALSO
NEEDED A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO
LEGALLY CONSUME IT. AND RIGHT
NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SAN
FRANCISCO, WHERE I AM THE ONLY
PLACE YOU CAN LEGALLY CONSUME
OUTSIDE OF A LOUNGE IS IN A HOME
THAT YOU PERSONALLY OWN. SO
WE'RE MISSING AN INCREDIBLE
AMOUNT OF PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO
CONSUME, SO WE WANT THEM TO
CONSUME IT IN A SAFE PLACE AWAY
FROM CHILDREN AWAY FROM AT RISK
INDIVIDUALS AND PLACED WITH
STATE OF THE ART VENTILATION,
WHICH IS ALL PART OF THE CODE.
UM WE KNOW THAT IN THE PAST
ENFORCEMENT ON ILLEGAL
CONSUMPTION HAS BEEN WEIGHED
VERY HEAVILY AGAINST AT RISK
COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR. AND SO LOUNGES ARE
REALLY, REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT
AS A LEGAL PLACE TO CONSUME.
UNFORTUNATELY DISPENSARIES AND
LOUNGES ARE NOT DOING OKAY RIGHT
NOW, UM THERE, FRANKLY ON
DEATH'S DOORSTEP IN MANY CASES,
UM AND THIS IS BECAUSE OF HUGE
FEDERAL TAX BURDENS. IN A
BALLOONING BLACK MARKET, WHICH
UNDERCUTS US AND AT EVERY, UH,
EVERY CHANCE THAT THEY HAVE, UM
AND THIS WOULD GIVE US A CRUCIAL
LIFELINE. UM TO ADD TO THE
LOUNGES, AND IT WOULD ALLOW US
TO SELL THINGS LIKE COFFEE AND
PASTRIES AND ALLOW FOR
PERFORMERS AND ARTISTS TO CHARGE
A COVER TO PAY FOR THEIR
SERVICES TO PERFORM, WHICH OFFER
ANOTHER AVENUE FOR NIGHTLIFE AND
PERFORMANCE, WHICH WE'RE EXCITED
ABOUT. UM IS THIS GOING TO SAVE
ALL OF THE RETAILER'S PROBLEMS?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND WE KNOW
THAT, BUT WILL IT HELP THEM A
LOT, DEFINITELY. AND THERE'S A
REASON THAT THIS BILL HAS GOTTEN
SO MUCH ATTENTION IN THE STATE
AND INTERNATIONAL PRESS. AND
THERE'S A REASON THAT CAL NIGHT
IS SO MUCH BEHIND IT. IT'S
BECAUSE IT'S AWESOME. SO SIMPLY
PUT, WE HOPE YOU SUPPORTED AND
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOW THIRDS
OF CHARM HERE TODAY. THANK YOU
FOR HEARING ME OUT. ALL THESE
TIMES. I WAS GOING TO SAY IT IF
YOU DIDN'T SO I'M GLAD WE GOT
YOU ON SUPPORT CANNABIS CENTRIC
HERE TODAY AND BNP. THIS IS
MOSTLY ABOUT TOURISM. I MEAN,
WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE NICE, UM
NEW ECONOMIES THAT ARE KIND OF
POPPING UP AROUND CANNABIS.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO SEE WHERE
PEOPLE TRAVELING FROM AND WHY
ARE THEY COMING TO CALIFORNIA
AND IF THEY ARE COMING TO
CALIFORNIA TO EXPERIENCE SOME
FORM OF LEGAL CANNABIS HERE,
SINCE WE ARE KIND OF THE WORLD
PREMIERE OF THE BEST CANNABIS IN
THE WORLD, THEY WANT TO COME
HERE AND THEY WANT TO BE A PART
OF THE COMMUNITY. AND IF THEY'RE
SHUTTLED TO CORNERS AND BEHIND
PLACES TO, LIKE, SMOKE OR
CONSUME STUFF, WE'RE REALLY JUST
SHUNNING THEM AND NOT REALLY
LETTING THEM BE A PART OF THE
CULTURE. THE CULTURE OF CANNABIS
HAS BEEN VERY COMMUNAL. UM
THERE'S A REASON WHY WE SIT
AROUND AND EAT AND DRINK WHILE
WE SMOKE. IT'S PRETTY MUCH
ALMOST A SIDE EFFECT OF SMOKING,
SO TO LIMIT THE ABILITY FOR THEM
TO CONSUME PRODUCTS, UM, RIGHT
NEXT TO THE CONSUMPTION OF
CANNABIS REALLY JUST LIMITS
THEIR ABILITIES TO ENJOY EACH
OTHER'S COMPANY, AND IT ALSO
LIMITS THE TOURISM TO COME IN
AND BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
ADD TAX DOLLARS TO THIS, UM AND
ALSO BE A PLACE TO EAT AND
DRINK. I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT
WHERE WE GO WHEN WE LOOK TO KIND
OF HANG OUT, WE LOOK AT
STARBUCKS LIKE LOOK, WE DON'T
JUST GO THERE JUST BECAUSE THEY
HAVE FREE WIFI BECAUSE THEY DO
HAVE FOOD AND BEVERAGES, AND IT
IS A PLACE THAT WE CAN COMMUNE
AND I THINK IF WE IF WE LIMIT
THAT COMMUNAL KIND OF SPACE, WE
LIMIT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
BRAND OF CALIFORNIA CANNABIS TO
BE AN INTERNATIONAL BRAND AND
FOR PEOPLE TO COME HERE AND
SPEND THEIR TAX DOLLARS HERE OR
SPEND THEIR THEIR TOURISM
DOLLARS HERE. I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT AS A RETAILER.
I CAN'T EVEN SELL A BOTTLE OF
WATER, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK
THAT THE RESTRICTIVE NATURE OF
HOW WE ARE NOT ALLOWING ANY
OTHER PRODUCTS TO BE SOLD
DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE FROM
ANY RETAILER STANDPOINT, SO IF
WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A
HUB FOR MULTIPLE PURCHASES, I
THINK THIS DOES A GOOD SERVICE
TO ALLOW CONSUMERS TO FEEL LIKE
THEY'RE INTEGRATED IN THE
CANNABIS CULTURE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND FOR
WHAT IT'S WORTH ONE FOR THREE
WOULD GET YOU IN THE STARTING
LINEUP FOR THE GIANTS RIGHT NOW.
I'M IN DODGERS, YOU'D BE ON THE
BENCH. UM ANY I'M A GIANTS FAN
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. I WANT TO
ADD ON AMY JENKINS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. PAMELA LOPEZ WITH K STREET
CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA. NORMAL AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. BRAND MARTIN ON
BEHALF OF THE PARENT COMPANY AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION HIT THE MIC
BUTTON. MY NAME IS TIM GIBBS
WITH THE AMERICAN LUNG
ASSOCIATION. I WANTED TO
APOLOGIZE TO THE CHAIR AND THE
AUTHOR FOR REGISTERING LATE
OPPOSITION AND THAT SPIRIT. I'LL
KEEP THESE COMMENTS VERY BRIEF
BUT OUR OPPOSITION, THIS BILL IS
DUE TO CONCERN THAT WILL
UNDERMINE THE STATE'S SMOKE FREE
WORKPLACE LAW BILL HAS A
POTENTIAL TO PROLIFERATE THE
TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT WOULD
EXPOSE WORKERS TO SECONDHAND
CANNABIS SPOKE, WHICH CONTAINS
MANY OF THE SAME RISKS AS
SECONDHAND TOBACCO SMOKE
EXPOSURE, AND SO FOR THOSE
REASONS WE ARE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
ADD ON AN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. SEEING NONE WANT TO BRING
IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTION
SECONDS. GOT EMOTION. GOT A
SECOND. I'M SORRY. REMEMBER,
DIXON, DO YOU HAVE A YEAH, YOU
HAVE A QUESTION. PLEASE DO MR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HANEY. YOU
MENTIONED AMSTERDAM. UH BEEN A
MEMBER FOR MANY TIMES, SO I KIND
OF PICKED MY INTEREST BECAUSE I
REMEMBER READING RECENTLY THAT
AMSTERDAM CITY COUNCIL IS AND IT
IS CHAOS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY
FEEL THAT TOURISTS WHO COME TO
THESE CANNABIS COFFEE SHOPS ARE
OVERRUNNING THE CITY. AND TO
YOUR POINT IT MAY NOT BE
NECESSARILY A GOOD THING. ALL
THOSE SAN FRANCISCO PROBABLY MAY
NEED MORE TOURISTS MAKE POSITIVE
REASONS, BUT IT'S A CONCERN. SO
AMSTERDAM IS THE RESIDENTS ARE
VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO BECAUSE OF
THE INFLUX OF TOURISM AND THE
KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT PERHAPS
GOES ALONG WITH THIS, SO, UM THE
LOCAL CONTROL ASPECT REALLY
IMPORTANT TO ME. SO COULD YOU
JUST RESTATE WHAT THE LOCAL
CONTROL MEASURE WOULD BE? SURE
SO THIS JUST ALLOWS LOCALITIES
TO AUTHORIZE THIS IF THEY WANT
WITH THEIR OWN PROCESS WITH
THEIR OWN WAY OF GIVING OUT
THOSE PERMITS, IT DOESN'T
AUTOMATICALLY ALLOW ANYONE TO DO
ANYTHING SO EXISTING CANNIBAL
CANNABIS RETAILERS IF THIS
PASSES WOULDN'T IMMEDIATELY BE
ABLE TO SELL FOOD AND HOLD
EVENTS, THE LOCALITY WOULD HAVE
TO PASS. LEGISLATION TO HAVE A
WAY TO REGULATE IT, INCLUDING
ELIMINATING YOU KNOW SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN
PROBLEMS IN AMSTERDAM, LIKE THE
CONCENTRATION LIKE THE LACK OF
REGULATION RIGHT NOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE
CANNABIS LOUNGES, THE LOCAL
LOCALITY WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE
HOW TO REGULATE THEM NOW BEING
ABLE TO SELL FOOD, BUT RIGHT NOW
, UNDER STATE LAW, IT'S ENTIRELY
PROHIBITED. SO IF A LOCALITY
WANTS TO OFFER THIS AH TO THEIR
RETAILERS. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED
TO. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE
LIFTING WITH THIS BILL. OKAY?
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMENTS
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SOME MEMBER HANEY, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU SO MUCH
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR IPHONE.
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS AS AMENDED. I BELIEVE
THIS BILL WILL STILL ALLOW FOR
THE AMSTERDAM TYPE
ESTABLISHMENTS THAT THAT WE WERE
DISCUSSED TODAY THAT YOU'RE
INTENDING TO LEGALIZE. INTENDING
TO LEGALIZE SUBJECT AS WAS
DISCUSSED TO THAT LOCAL CONTROL
WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. A B 3 74
HANEY. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.
BERMAN BERMAN I FLORA LARA, IOWA
KNEES, COLONIES. I ALVAREZ.
PONTA CHEN CHEN, I DIXON. SIX
AND NO GIBSON GRAYSON. GRACE AND
I, ERWIN JACKSON. JACKSON ISLAY.
WE I, LOWENTHAL MCCARTY.
MCKENNA. MAKIN HER I WHEN. WHEN
I PATERSON TING. WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE ON TO YOUR NEXT
BILL? A B 6 63? YES THANK THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS AND
EMOTION GOT A SECOND WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TODAY AND
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US ON
THIS LANGUAGE. WE HAVE TO GET A
LOT MORE PEOPLE INTO TREATMENT.
WE HAVE TO MAKE TREATMENT MORE
ACCESSIBLE WHERE PEOPLE ARE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO TO
CONFRONT THE FENTANYL, AN OPIOID
EPIDEMIC. 86 63 WOULD ALLOW
MOBILE PHARMACIES TO DISPENSE
MEDICATIONS FOR OPIOID ADDICTION
TREATMENT. THIS CHANGE WOULD
EXPAND LOCAL EFFORTS TO PREVENT
OVERDOSE DEATHS AND IMPROVE
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR SOME
OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS. STUDIES HAVE SHOWED
THAT THE MOBILE PHARMACIES CAN
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE OUTCOMES
FOR PEOPLE THAT THEY SERVE UNDER
LOCAL LAW AND ARE UNDER CURRENT
LAW. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN
OPERATE MOBILE PHARMACIES IF
THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. HOWEVER
THESE PHARMACIES ARE CURRENTLY
RESTRICTED FROM PROVIDING
MEDICATIONS FOR OPIOID ADDICTION
. THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE THAT
ALLOWING MOBILE PHARMACIES TO
CARRY MEDICATIONS FOR OPIOID
ADDICTION TO HELP TO REDUCE
OVERDOSE DEATHS AND INCREASE
ACCESS TO TREATMENT. I WILL
DIRECTLY BENEFIT MANY PEOPLE IN
OUR STATE AND COUNTIES THAT ARE
PREPARED TO DEPLOY THESE MOBILE
PHARMACIES. HERE TO TESTIFY AND
SUPPORT TODAY IS DR HARM FROM
THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH, WHO WILL BE
SPEAKING FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO. GREAT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH EVERY TWO MINUTES.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR. BERMAN
VICE CHAIR FLORA MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF A B 6 63. MY NAME IS
JEFFREY HOME. I'M A PRIMARY CARE
DOCTOR AND DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF
POPULATION BEHAVIORAL HEALTH IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH. THERE I LIED,
STAFF AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES TO ADDRESS
SUBSTANCE USE AND OVERDOSE
PREVENTION. WELL THAT'S UH, AS
YOU ALL KNOW, WE'RE IN THE MIDST
OF A PROFOUND PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS. 7175 PEOPLE DIED FROM
OPIOID OVERDOSES IN CALIFORNIA
IN 2021, 83% OF WHICH INVOLVED
FENTANYL. WELL DEATHS ARE OFTEN
THE MOST VISIBLE MANIFESTATION
OF THE OVERDOSE CRISIS. HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA SUFFERED FROM OPIOID
USE DISORDER OFTEN REFERRED TO
AS OPIOID ADDICTION. THIS
ILLNESS IS OFTEN DEFINED BY
WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS, CRAVINGS
AND RISKY BEHAVIORS THAT CAN PUT
ONE'S HEALTH AND SAFETY AT RISK.
BUT OPIOID USE DISORDER, LIKE
OTHER CHRONICLE CHRONIC MEDICAL
CONDITIONS CAN BE EFFECTIVELY
TREATED. THERE ARE THREE FDA
APPROVED MEDICATIONS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF OPIOID USE
DISORDER, METHADONE,
BUPRENORPHINE AND NALTREXONE.
METHADONE CAN ONLY BE DISPENSED
IN SPECIALIZED TREATMENT
PROGRAMS FOR THE TREATMENT OF
OPIOID USE DISORDER, BUT BOTH
PEOPLE AND ORPHAN AND NALTREXONE
AGAIN BE PRESCRIBED IN
OUTPATIENT CLINICS AND DISPENSED
BY RETAIL PHARMACIES. ALTHOUGH
ACCESS TO THESE TREATMENTS HAS
IMPROVED, THERE CONTINUED TO BE
SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS. ONE IS THE
DIFFICULTY FOR PEOPLE,
ESPECIALLY UNDERSERVED
POPULATIONS TO GET TO A
PHARMACY. A SECOND. IS THAT NOT
ALL PHARMACIES STOCK AT THESE
MEDICATIONS? THIS BILL ADDRESSES
BOTH OF THESE BARRIERS.
CALIFORNIA LAW PERMITS
PHARMACIES TO OPERATE IN MOBILE
UNITS AS AN EXTENSION OF THEIR
BRICK AND MORTAR PHARMACY
LICENSE, BUT THEY CANNOT
DISPENSE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
THIS RESTRICTION INCLUDES PUPILS
ORPHAN, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST
EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS FOR OPIOID
USE DISORDER. LIKE METHADONE, IT
CAN REDUCE THE RISK OF DEATH BY
40 TO 50. IT SAVES LIVES. SINCE
THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, ONE
OF OUR PHARMACISTS IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH HAS BEEN DELIVERING
BUPRENORPHINE TO SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING UNITS AND IN UNDERSERVED
NEIGHBORHOODS. HE CURRENTLY
REACHES ABOUT 70 PEOPLE WALKING
UP TO 19,000 STEPS A DAY SEEING
PATIENTS AND PROVIDING THEM
THEIR MEDICATIONS. ONE GENTLEMAN
WHO'S BEEN OFF AND ON OPIOIDS
FOR 15 FOR 15 YEARS, RECENTLY
TOLD OUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER THAT
QUOTE THE BUPRENORPHINE
DELIVERIES FREE HIM UP TO FOCUS
ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT, LIKE HIS 10
YEAR OLD SON, AND ALSO THE
LESSON LESSEN THE CHANCE OF HIM
MISSING A DOSE AND RELAPSING END
QUOTE. WE BELIEVE HAVING A
MOBILE PHARMACY CAPABLE OF
DISPENSING BUPRENORPHINE WOULD
MULTIPLY THIS IMPACT, HELPING US
REACH MANY MORE OF OUR ISOLATED
CITY RESIDENTS AND SAVE LIVES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION. I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
ADD ON AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
TIÂU TIFFANY MATTHEWS ON BEHALF
OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
JEAN HURST HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF THE COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AFTERNOON MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MEGAN MURRAY WITH THE VITAMIN
GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF HEALTH
SYSTEM. PHARMACISTS INSTRUCT
SUPPORT. THANKS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, ELIZABETH BEN BOUCHER
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF NURSE
ANESTHETISTS. WE SUPPORT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIR MEMBERS
BRACE DOUGHERTY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF FAMILY
PHYSICIANS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES WHO WANT TO ADD ON AND
SUPPORT. SEEING NONE ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. SEEING NONE. ANY WITNESSES
WHO WANT TO ADD ON AN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. SEEING NONE. WE
HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND ONE
TO BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. NO SOME
OF THEM. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? HOPEFULLY ESCRIVA. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AND I APOLOGIZE.
CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM FOR ME THAT
YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITMENTS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH
. THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I
THINK THAT THE NEED FOR
EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS
OPIOID USE DISORDER IS
ABSOLUTELY A PRIORITY THAT WE
CAN ALL AGREE ON WITH THE
AUTHOR'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
MAYBE 6 63 HANEY. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
VERMIN. I FLORA. FLORA AYALON
EASE ELONIS. AYE ALVAREZ PONTA.
CHEN. DIXON DIXON I GIBSON
GRAYSON. GRACE AND I, ERWIN
JACKSON. JACKSON. I LI THE EYE.
LOWENTHAL. MCCARTY. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA, I WIN. WHEN I PATERSON
TING. SO CLOSE TO MANY ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HEINI BELIEVE
THAT ROLE OPEN FOR MR CHAIR
MEMBERS APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU. AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PACHECO. A B 17
OH, SEVEN ITEM, 21.
READY WHEN YOU ARE. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY
VOICE. AH BUT I THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I WANT TO
START BY THANKING COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK ON
THIS BILL. AND WE'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. I AM PLEASED TODAY
TO PRESENT A B 17 OH, SEVEN,
WHICH WOULD ENSURE THAT ALL
PROVIDERS UNDER THE HEALING ARTS
LICENSE ARE PROTECTED FROM
HOSTILE LAWS. IN OTHER STATES
WITH REGARD TO THE LICENSOR. AND
PROTECTS PROVIDERS STAFF
PRIVILEGING IN THE HOSPITAL
SETTING. ABORTION PROVIDERS AND
THOSE WHO SEEK ABORTION ARE
UNDER ATTACK. WE KNOW OTHERS
SERVICE IS ARE BEING ATTACKED,
LIKE GENDER AFFIRMING CARE. ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE
CAN DO TO ENSURE THAT THESE
SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. IS TO ENSURE THAT
THE PROVIDERS OFFERING THIS CARE
CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITHOUT
FEAR. WITH ME TODAY IN SUPPORT
IS DOCTOR, MY FLAMING, A FAMILY
PHYSICIAN PRACTICING AT SAN
FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL AND
MOLLY ROBSON. VP OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES, CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR BERMAN
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DR MY
FLEMING AND MY FAMILY PHYSICIAN
, SAID FRANCISCO GENERAL
HOSPITAL AND I PROVIDE ABORTION
CARE ACROSS STATE LINES. I
TRAVELED TO PROVIDE CARE IN
KANSAS AND ACROSS MULTIPLE OTHER
STATES VIA TELEHEALTH TO
PATIENTS WHO HAVE TRAVELED
HUNDREDS OF MILES TO SEE ME.
PRIOR TO THE DOBBS DECISION. I
HAD BEEN PRACTICING IN TEXAS,
WHERE MY HEALTHCARE PROVISION IS
NOW DEEMED A FELONY. ALSO A
GENDER AFFIRMING CARE PROVIDER,
PRESCRIBING HORMONES VIA
TELEHEALTH TO TRANSGENDER, NON
BINARY AND GENDER DIVERSE
PATIENTS WHO HAVE OFTEN BEEN
UNSUCCESSFUL OR EVEN FACED OVER
DISCRIMINATION AND THEIR ATTEMPT
TO ACCESS CARE IN THEIR OWN
COMMUNITIES. THEIR LIVES ARE THE
NEWEST TARGET OF AN ATTEMPT TO
CONTROL BODILY AUTONOMY AND
CRIMINALIZED PROVIDERS FOR
PROVIDING COMPASSIONATE LIFE
SAVING CARE. I'M HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 17 OH,
SEVEN, WHICH WILL PROTECT
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS IN
CALIFORNIA LIKE ME FROM HOSTILE
LAWS AND OTHER STATES. WE ARE
FORTUNATE THAT PROVIDING THIS
ESSENTIAL CARE IS LEGAL HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, THE NATIONWIDE
IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN ATTACKS ON
EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE
THREATENS THE ABILITIES OF
PROVIDERS LIKE ME TO CONTINUE TO
PRACTICE BY PUTTING US AT RISK
OF HAVING OUR LICENSES SUSPENDED
IN OUR PRIVILEGES REVOKED. I
PERSONALLY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
TARGETED BY EMBOLDENED ANTI
ABORTION GROUPS IN MICHIGAN, WHO
FILED A MERITLESS FORMAL
COMPLAINT AGAINST MY LICENSE,
LEADING TO A LENGTHY FORMAL
INVESTIGATION BY THE MEDICAL
BOARD THERE. I'VE HAD TO REPORT
THIS TO EVERY LICENSING, BODY
AND APPLICATIONS SINCE
THREATENING MY CREDENTIALING AND
PRIVILEGING AS A TEXAS LICENSED
PHYSICIAN AS WELL. I'M AT RISK
OF AN OVERZEALOUS CRIMINAL OR
CIVIL ACTION FOR PROVIDING LEGAL
ABORTION CARE TO TEXANS WHO
TRAVEL TO CARE FOR ME. BUT
SURRENDERING MY TEXAS LICENSE TO
PROTECT MYSELF WOULD NOT SERVE
MY GENDER AFFIRMING CARE
PATIENTS THERE WAS ALREADY
FORCED TO ABANDON THE
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NEEDS OF MY
TEXAS PATIENTS, AND I REFUSED TO
ALSO ABANDONED PATIENTS WHO FACE
HIGHER RISK OF SUICIDE WITHOUT
ACCESS TO THE CARE THAT I
PROVIDE. WE ARE AMID AN
UNFOLDING HUMAN CHRIST HUMAN
RIGHTS CRISIS AS VAST SWATHS OF
THE COUNTRY CAN'T ACCESS
REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE THE FEAR OF
LOSING OUR ABILITY TO PRACTICE
FOR SERVING OUR PATIENTS
THREATENS OUR ABILITY TO MEET
THAT NEED. WE NEED TO TAKE
ACTION NOW TO PROTECT PROVIDERS
AND I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT A B 17 OH SEVEN TODAY SO
THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO SAFELY DO
MY JOB JUST PROVIDING CARE TO
PATIENTS. THANK YOU. VERY, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR AND MEMBERS MOLLY ROBSON
WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA. WE
REPRESENT THE SEVEN PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES IN THE
STATE WHO OPERATE OVER 100
HEALTH CENTERS AND PROVIDE OVER
1.3 MILLION PATIENT VISITS
ANNUALLY. WE'RE PROUD TO BE
SPONSORING THIS BILL TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIA'S PROVIDERS FROM OUT
OF STATE LAWS ATTACKING
COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE SINCE
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION
OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE LAST
YEAR, ABORTION PROVIDERS AND
THEIR PATIENTS HAVE FACED AN
ONSLAUGHT OF NEW AND
UNPRECEDENTED ATTACKS ON
ABORTION AND OTHER SERVICES,
INCLUDING CRIMINALIZING THE SAFE
AND EFFECTIVE HEALTHCARE
PROCEDURE. TODAY 13 STATES HAVE
BANS ON ABORTION AT ALL STAGES
OF PREGNANCY AND FIVE STATES
HAVE IMPLEMENTED PRE VIABILITY
BANS WITH THE EVER CHANGING
LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND UNCERTAINTY
. ONE THING IS CLEAR. CALIFORNIA
MUST PROTECT PROVIDERS IN OUR
STATE THAT CAN CONTINUE TO OFFER
THIS CARE LEGALLY, UM
COMPASSIONATELY AND PROVIDE
COMPREHENSIVE CARE TO PATIENTS.
AS YOU HEARD FROM DR FLEMING.
THERE ARE VERY REAL CONSEQUENCES
THAT IS BEING EXPERIENCED BY
PROVIDERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHO
ARE LEGALLY PROVIDING CARE
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND CARE
THAT'S UM, STILL ALLOWED IN
CALIFORNIA. A B 17. OH, SEVEN.
INSURANCE PROVIDERS ARE NOT
PUNISHED BY BEING STRIPPED OF
THEIR LICENSURE OR THEIR STAFF
PRIVILEGES FOR PROVIDING CARE TO
PATIENTS IN LINE WITH THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE STATE
, AND ULTIMATELY, IT PROTECTS
PATIENTS ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE
CARE FROM TRUSTED PROVIDERS WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
WANT TO ADD ON AND SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR
NAME ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH IF
ANY IN POSITION THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS TO MADDEN,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE
OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. ALEXIS
RODRIGUEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. NEIL MILLER,
CALIFORNIA ACUPUNCTURE,
TRADITIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UH ANY WITNESSES ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. SEEING NONE. ANY WITNESSES
WHO WANT TO ADD ON AN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. SEEING NONE WANT TO
BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTION
SECONDS. SOME OF THEM ARE
KILLER. YES EXCUSE MY VOICE AS
WELL. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MY, THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND IT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT THAT WE NOT ONLY, UM,
PROTECT OUR PATIENTS AND OUR OUR
CITIZENS THAT WANT TO CHOOSE TO
HAVE AN ABORTION BUT TO PROTECT
OUR DOCTORS, AND SO I THANK YOU.
THIS IS THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT BILL FOR US OUT HERE
AND ALSO, THANK YOU, DOCTOR FOR
WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND, UM, I
CALL THE MOTION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WHEN DID YOU GOOD. UH ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
ON THE BILL? SOMETHING PACHECO
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU AGAIN, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU TO YOU AND TO ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE BEEN
ENGAGED IN PROTECTING ACCESS TO
CRITICAL HEALTHCARE IN
CALIFORNIA AS THAT CARE HAS BEEN
UNDER ATTACK. IN OTHER STATES.
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FINE
TUNE THE BILL THROUGH ITS INTENT
AND ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WON'T BE
PUNISHED FOR PROVIDING ABORTION
, GENDER AFFIRMING CARE AND
OTHER SENSITIVE SERVICES. UH I'M
VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY AS AMENDED. THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
VOTE. A B 17 OH, SEVEN PACHECO.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY. BERMAN BERMAN. I
FLORA. LARA NO COLONIES COLONIES
II. ALVAREZ. PONTA. CHEN. CHINA
NOT VOTING. DIXON NOT VOTING,
NOT VOTING. GIBSON GRAYSON.
GRACE AND I, IRWIN. JACKSON
JACKSON, I LI LEE I. LOWENTHAL
MCCARTY. MCKENNA. MCKENNA, I
WIN. WHEN I PATERSON THING.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS WHO ARE PROBABLY
ALL THAT CAUCUS RIGHT NOW.
HOPEFULLY THEY COME VOTE ON
BILLS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE IT. SO WITH THAT
WE'VE RUN THROUGH THE AGENDA.
WHAT WE'LL GO BACK OVER THE
BILLS. I'M GOING TO ASK EVERYONE
TO BE PATIENT BECAUSE FOLKS WERE
RUNNING IN AND OUT ALL DAY,
WHICH IS CAUSES. CHAOS FOR THE
COMMITTEE SECRETARY. IF YOU WANT
TO START GOING THROUGH THE BILLS
FROM THE TOP, THAT'D BE GREAT.
ON CONSENT. AH COLONIES. ELONIS?
AYE, ALVAREZ. PONTA. AH SORRY.
DICKSON DICKSON. I GRAYSON GRACE
AND I IRWIN. LI LI I BACARDI
MAKIN ER MAKIN HER I PATERSON
KING. THE CONTENT CALENDARS OUT.
DO WE HAVE MR GIBSON ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. OKAY, PERFECT.
OH, UM MAYBE 3 36 CERVANTES
COLONIES. I ALVAREZ. PONTA.
CHEN. CHEN I DICKSON DICKSON. I
GIBSON GIBSON. I GRAYSON GRACE
AND I IRWIN LEE DIÆN CARDI.
WIENER. HER I PATERSON TING. THE
BILLS OUT. ON A B 3 74 HANEY.
ALVAREZ. PONTA. IRWIN. HELLO AND
TALL. MCCARTY. PATERSON. TING.
ON A B 5 37 BERMAN LARA. OH
EXCUSE ME. SORRY AH LINEAS, NO
SNOW. ALVAREZ. PONTA. DIXON.
DIXON KNOW GRAYSON. GRACE AND I
LI WE? I MCCARTY. MCKENNA. ER I
PATERSON TING. GO ON, GO ON.
OUT. NO. OKAY MY BILL IS STILL
NOT OUT. UM. MAYBE 595 DAILY
COLONIES. I. SAIPAN TO CHAN.
CHEN I DIXON. DIXON. I LI. LEAN
UP VOTING, BUT MCCARTY TING.
HEY, B 6 63 HANEY. ALVAREZ.
PONTA. CHEN. CHEN AYE. GIBSON I
IRWIN. 663 IRWIN. AYE. MENTAL
THOUGHT I MCCARTHY PATERSON.
TING. THE BILL IS OUT. A B 7 65
WOULD COLONIES. AYE. COLONIES. I
ALVAREZ I WANT TO DIXON. DIXON.
I GIBSON. GIBSON? YES. MCCARTY.
PATERSON. TING. THE BILLS OUT. A
B 7 60 16. COLONIES. COLONIES. I
ALVAREZ PONTA. DIXON. DIXON. I
GRAYSON. RECENT I IRWIN. IRWIN
NOT VOTING, LEE LEE I MCCARTY
MAKIN, ER IN HER EYE. PATERSON
TING. BILLS OUT. PATERSON. AYE.
THE BILLS OUT. MAYBE. 10 21
WEEKS. COLONIES. MELANIE SNOW
ALVAREZ. PONTA. NIXON. FIXING,
NOT VOTING, GIBSON SORRY, A B 10
21 WEEKS. GIBSON. I GRAYSON.
GRACE AND I, IRWIN. IRWIN NOT
VOTING, LEE LEE I MCCARTY MAKIN,
ER MAKIN HER I PATERSON
PATERSON, NOT VOTING. TING. A B
10 70 LOW COLONIES. COLONIES. I
ALVAREZ BONTA. DIXON. DIXON. I
GIBSON GIBSON. I GRAYSON GRACE
AND I MCCARTY. MAKIN, ER HØI
TING. BILLS OUT. A B 11 11
PELLERIN. ALVAREZ. PONTA. GIBSON
GIBSON, NOT VOTING, JACKSON.
JACKSON. I LI LI. I MCCARTY.
TING. MAYBE 11 71 BLANCA RUBIO.
COLONIES. HOW MANY I ALVAREZ
PONTA. DIXON. DIXON KNOW
GRAYSON. GRACE AND I BACARDI.
MAKIN, ER MCKENNA. I. PATERSON A
B 11 71. NO, PATERSON. NO.
CHENG. A B 13 SECONDS THAT
BUILDS OUT WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. GO
AHEAD. MAYBE 13 69 BAUER-KAHAN.
COLONIES. COLONIES. I ALVAREZ
PONTA. DIXON. DIXON. I GRAYSON.
GRACE AND I MCCARTY. MAKIN, ER
HØI AND THING. MAYBE 14 48
WALLACE. FLORA. LARA IOWA KNEES
, COLONIES. I BONTA. DIXON.
DIXON I GIBSON GIBSON. I GRAYSON
GRACE AND I MCCARTY MAKIN, ER
MAKIN HER I TING. THAT BUILDS
OUT WELL THE OTHER ROLE OF THEM
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. A B 17 OH,
THREE. WENDY CARILLO ALVAREZ
ALVAREZ, I BONTA. GIBSON GIBSON,
IRWIN. IRWIN I, JACKSON JACKSON.
I LOWENTHAL. I THOUGHT I MCCARTY
PATERSON. PATERSON. I THING THAT
BUILDS OUT. A B 17 OH, SEVEN.
PACHECO. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ, I
BONTA. GIBSON I IRWIN. PACHECO.
IRWIN I BLOW AND TALL THOUGHT
MCCARTY. PATERSON. PATERSON,
NOTING LEVELS OUT. YES. SO WE'RE
GONNA GO AHEAD AND. START FROM
THE TOP AGAIN. JUST MAKE A RUN
THROUGH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ON CONSENT. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ. I
WANT. TO IRWIN IRWIN. I MCCARTY
. YEAH. SORRY I HEARD A NO, SIR
. I DON'T KNOW. SO YEAH, I JUST
TEXTED MCCARTHY. WHERE ARE YOU
STILL ON CONSENT, PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. YES, TING. UM A B 3
30 OR MAYBE 3 36 CERVANTES
ALVAREZ ALVAREZ, I BEGAN TO
IRWIN. IRWIN I. MCCARTY
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. YES, TING.
YEAH OKAY. MAYBE 3 74 ALVAREZ
ALVAREZ, I BONTA GIBSON. OH,
SORRY. UM A B 3 74 HANEY.
GIBSON. I IRWIN. IRWIN, NOT
VOTING. LOW AND THOUGHT I
MCCARTY PATTERSON. PATERSON. NO
THING. THAT GOES OUT. A B 5 37
BERMAN. ALVAREZ. ALVAREZ, I
BONTA. MCCARTY, PATTERSON.
PATERSON NOTING THAT BILL IS
FINALLY OUT. A B 595 DAILY
BONTA. MM MCCARTY TING. A B 6 63
ALVAREZ. I'M SORRY, MAYBE 63
HANEY. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ? AYE.
PONTA. MCCARTY, PATTERSON. I
KNOW THIS IS HANEY A B 6 63.
PATERSON. I THINK. A B 7 65
WOULD ALVAREZ ALVAREZ I BONTA?
MCCARTY. PATERSON. PATERSON. I
THING. A B 7 66 10. ALVAREZ.
ALVAREZ. AYE. BANTER MCCARTY
PATTERSON. PATERSON. I THING.
MAYBE 10 21 WEEKS. ALVAREZ
ALVAREZ. I WANT. TO BACARDI.
PRESENTING. OKAY, SORRY. A B 10
70 LOW ALVAREZ. ALVAREZ. AYE.
PONTA MCCARTY. THANK YOU.
MAYBE 10 21 IS OUT.
A B 11 11 PELLERIN. ALVAREZ.
ALBERT'S AYE BONTA. MCCARTY
THING. THAT WAS ALREADY OUT. A B
11 71 BLANCA RUBIO. ALVAREZ
ALVAREZ. AYE. BONTA MCCARTY
TANK. A B 13 69 BAUER-KAHAN. UM
ALVAREZ. ALBERTA'S AYE. PONTA
MCCARTHY TEAM. A B 14 48
WALLACE. MHM UM BONTA MCCARTHY
TING.
UH OH.
SO PLEASE GO BACK THROUGH THE
ROLE OR REMEMBER KING.
ON CONSENT. UM TING. THING I A B
3 36 CERVANTES TING TING. AYE. A
B 3 74 HANEY THING? TING? AYE. A
B 5 37 BERMAN TING TING? AYE. A
B 5 95 ASSAIL EATING. I THINK I
MAYBE 6 63 HANEY, TINK. I THINK
I. A B 7 65 1 THING. I KING. I A
B 7 66 TEEN TING? AYE. MAYBE 10
21 WICKS TING TING I A B 10 70
LO TING TING AYE. A B 11 11
PELLERIN TING TING? AYE. HEY B
11! 71 BLANCA RUBIO! TINK TINK.
AYE. A B 13 69 BAUER-KAHAN TING.
I THINK I A B 14 48 WALLACE
TINK. TING? AYE. A B 17 Ó. UM.
UM A B 17 OH, THREE. WENDY
CARILLO TING. I THINK I. A B 17
OH, SEVEN. PACHECO TING. I THINK
I.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. BONTA I
WANT TO I MCCARTY MCCARTHY AYE.
ON A B 3 36 CERVANTES BONTA. I
WANT TO I MCCARTY MCCARTY? AYE.
ON A B 3 74 HANEY. I WANT TO BAN
TÔI. MCCARTY MCCARTY AYE. A B 5
37 BERMAN BONTA. I WANT TO I
MCCARTY MCCARTY AYE. A B 5 95
SLE BONTA NOT VOTING, NOT VOTING
. MCCARTY MCCARTY AYE. A B 6 63
HANEY UM BANTA BOND, TÔI
MCCARTHY MCCARTHY. AYE. A B 7 65
WOULD BONTA I WANT AND I MCCARTY
BACARDI. AYE. A B 7 60 16 PONTA.
AYE. BOND TÚI MCCARTHY MCCARTHY.
AYE. MAYBE 10 21 WEEKS, BONTA.
NOT VOTING, NOT VOTING. MCCARTY
MCCARTY AYE. MAYBE 10 70 LOW,
BONTA. I WANT TO I MCCARTY
MCCARTY AYE. A B 11 11 PELLERIN
BONTA, I MCCARTY MCCARTY AYE.
MAYBE 11 71 BLANCA RUBIO BONTA.
I WANT TO I MCCARTY BACARDI.
AYE. A B 13 69 BAUER-KAHAN BONTA
. I WANT TO I MCCARTY MCCARTY
AYE. A B 14 48 WALLACE BONTA. I
WANT TO I MCCARTY MCCARTHY AYE.
A B 17 OH, THREE. WENDY CARILLO
PONTA. I WANT TO I MCCARTY
CARDI. AYE. A B 17 OH, SEVEN.
PACHECO. PONTA HIÆN TÚI MCCARTY
MCCARTY AYE. WITHOUT THE
HEARINGS ADJOURNED.