GOOD
MORNING, EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO
THIS MORNING'S BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE HEARING.
WE HAVE 14 BILLS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA, INCLUDING JUST ONE BILL
ON CONSENT, WHICH IS AB 2246 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RAMOS. PLEASE
NOTE THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWE
IS UNABLE TO ATTEND TODAY'S
HEARING. AND THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WARD WILL BE REPLACING
HIM FOR THIS HEARING, ONLY FOR
EACH MEASURE BEING PRESENTED
TODAY, WE WILL BE ALLOWING
PRIMARY WITNESSES HERE IN THE
ROOM, HERE IN THE ROOM TODAY TO
SPEAK FOR UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH
WITH UP TO TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES
PER SIDE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE
TWO. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
WILL BE LIMITED TO NAME POSITION
ON THE BILL AND THE ORGANIZATION
THEY REPRESENT. IF ANY. FOR
THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE FURTHER
COMMENTS, WE ARE ACCEPTING
WRITTEN TESTIMONY THROUGH THE
POSITION LETTER PORTAL ON THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. AND WITH
THAT, WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN
TODAY'S HEARING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. AND I SEE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HAYNIE IS HERE FOR AB
2115. READY WHEN YOU ARE.
IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE, MR.
HAYNIE. SAME TO YOU, MR. CHAIR,
THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING, AB
2115 WILL TRANSFORM CALIFORNIA
FROM A STATE WITH THE MOST
RESTRICTIVE METHADONE LAWS INTO
A STATE THAT LEADS IN
ACCESSIBILITY FOR METHADONE
TREATMENT, WHICH CAN SAVE LIVES.
METHADONE IS PROVEN TO BE THE
MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR
PEOPLE WITH OPIOID ADDICTION. IT
HELPS THEM CHANGE THEIR LIVES
AND TRANSITION TO SOBRIETY. IT
WORKS BY EASING THE
DEBILITATING, DEBILITATING
SYMPTOMS OF OPIOID WITHDRAWAL.
FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE QUIT DRUGS
LIKE HEROIN AND FENTANYL, IT
ALSO REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF
DYING FROM AN OPIOID OVERDOSE BY
MORE THAN 50. HOWEVER, FEWER
THAN 1 IN 10 PEOPLE IN THE US
WITH AN OPIOID ADDICTION ARE
CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN TREATMENT,
AND THOUSANDS ARE DYING EACH
YEAR DURING THE COVID 19
PANDEMIC, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
RELAXED MANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS
ON METHADONE. THESE RELAXED
RESTRICTIONS LED TO A HIGHER
RATE OF ENROLLMENT AND INCREASED
PATIENTS ACCESS TO THIS
MEDICATION. IN APRIL OF 2024,
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION,
RECOGNIZING THAT REDUCED
REDUCING TREATMENT BARRIERS
SAVES LIVES, ADOPTED THE COVID
19 RULES AND MADE THEM
PERMANENT. HOWEVER CALIFORNIA
CONTINUES TO HAVE OUTDATED
METHADONE POLICIES THAT ARE MORE
RESTRICTIVE THAN FEDERAL
REGULATIONS. THIS IS LEADING TO
AMBIGUITY FOR PROVIDERS AND
PATIENTS AND ULTIMATELY AND
ULTIMATELY AND ULTIMATELY
RESULTS IN LESS PATIENTS HAVING
ACCESS TO METHADONE, TOO MANY
PEOPLE ARE DYING EACH YEAR
BECAUSE OF THESE UNNECESSARY
LAWS AND BUREAUCRATIC HURDLES.
THE INTENSE REQUIREMENTS LIKE
STANDING IN LINE EVERY DAY TO
RECEIVE A SINGLE DOSE OF
METHADONE, OFTEN DISSUADES
PATIENTS FROM PURSUING CARE.
THEY HAVE TO SPEND FAR TOO MUCH
TIME GETTING ENROLLED AND THEN
STAYING ENROLLED, AND OTHER
ASPECTS OF THEIR RECOVERY, LIKE
FINDING A JOB AND STABLE
HOUSING, ARE OFTEN INTERRUPTED.
IT OFTEN BECOMES EASIER FOR THEM
TO SELF-MEDICATE THEIR SYMPTOMS
BY BUYING DRUGS OFF THE STREET,
AND ADDITIONALLY, DRUG DEALERS
ARE KEENLY AWARE THAT PEOPLE
WITH ADDICTION GATHER EVERY
MORNING AT THESE CLINICS, AND
THEY OFTEN PREY ON THESE
VULNERABLE PEOPLE AS THEY WAIT
IN LINE FOR THE MEDICATION.
CALIFORNIA'S LAWS NEED TO BE
UPDATED SO THAT PATIENTS ARE
ABLE TO ACCESS MEDICATION THAT
CAN SAVE THEM, NOT ILLICIT DRUGS
THAT CAN KILL THEM. AB 2115 WILL
ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT BY MAKING
SURE CALIFORNIA METHADONE
REGULATIONS ARE ALIGNED WITH
FEDERAL LAW AND MAKE SURE
PATIENTS CAN EASILY ACCESS
TREATMENT, REMOVE AMBIGUITY, AND
PREVENT UNNECESSARY DEATHS. WITH
ME TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
IS DOCTOR HUM FROM SF DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND DOCTOR
LESLIE SWAIN, AN ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT UCSF.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. READY WHEN
YOU ARE. GOOD MORNING. OH,
SORRY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS
DOCTOR LESLIE SUN. I AM AN
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
SAN FRANCISCO. I AM HERE TODAY
TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AS
AN ADDICTION MEDICINE PHYSICIAN
AND PRIMARY CARE DOCTOR,
PROVIDING SUBSTANCE USE
TREATMENT AS WELL AS A HEALTH
SERVICES AND POLICY RESEARCHER
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2115. METHADONE
IS OUR NATION'S OLDEST
MEDICATION FOR OPIOID USE
DISORDER, WITH OVER FIVE DECADES
OF EVIDENCE SHOWING ITS
EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING
DEATHS, DRUG USE, CRIME, AND
IMPROVING RATES OF RECOVERY.
METHADONE IS ALSO THE MOST
HIGHLY REGULATED MEDICATION IN
THIS COUNTRY. IN FACT,
CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THE MOST
RESTRICTIVE STATES WHEN IT COMES
TO METHADONE REGULATION. MANY
PATIENTS HAVE NICKNAMED
METHADONE LIQUID HANDCUFFS
BECAUSE OF HOW DISRUPTIVE BEING
ON METHADONE IS TO THEIR DAILY
LIVES. MANY PATIENTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, UNDER CURRENT STATE
REGULATIONS IN CALIFORNIA, HAVE
TO, ATTEND THEIR CLINIC DAILY
FOR MONTHS TO BE OBSERVED WHILE
TAKING THEIR MEDICATION, OFTEN
COMMUTING SEVERAL HOURS EACH DAY
. DURING THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOOSENED
THESE RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW
PATIENTS TO SHELTER IN PLACE AT
HOME. THIS INCLUDED ALLOWING
PATIENTS TO RECEIVE DOSES OF
METHADONE THAT THEY COULD TAKE
HOME, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO COME
TO THE CLINIC EVERY DAY.
RESEARCH IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS
HAS REVEALED THAT WITH LESS
RESTRICTIVE COVID REGULATIONS,
THESE PATIENTS WERE MORE LIKELY
TO BE RETAINED IN TREATMENT AND
REPORTED REPORTED OVERALL
IMPROVED QUALITY OF CARE. THE
FEARED CONSEQUENCES OF
INCREASING DOSES OVERDOSES FROM
METHADONE ALSO DID NOT OCCUR.
BASED ON THESE DATA, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CODIFIED THESE
EXEMPTIONS INTO LAW AS OF THIS
MONTH. HOWEVER WE AS PHYSICIANS
IN CALIFORNIA MUST STILL ABIDE
BY STATE RESTRICTIONS FROM THE
PRE-COVID ERA, PREVENTING OUR
ABILITY TO PROVIDE UP TO DATE
CARE. IF PASSED, AB 2115 WOULD
CODIFY THESE NEW FEDERAL
REGULATIONS INTO CALIFORNIA
STATE LAW ALLOWING SUBSTANCE USE
TREATMENT PROVIDERS TO FOLLOW
FEDERAL GUIDELINES ON METHADONE
TREATMENT AND REDUCE BARRIERS TO
ACCESSING CARE, IMPROVING OUR
ABILITY TO ADDRESS THE OPIOID
EPIDEMIC. INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE
ABLE TO RECEIVE MORE DOSES OF
METHADONE TO TAKE HOME WHEN THEY
ENTER TREATMENT, AVOID
DISRUPTING OTHER PARTS OF THEIR
RECOVERY, LIKE OBTAINING A JOB
OR SECURING HOUSING. AND IF YOU
COULD WRAP UP, THAT'D BE GREAT.
THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
IMPORTANT BILL, AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR BERMAN, VICE
CHAIR LARA, MEMBERS OF THE
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2115. MY NAME IS
JEFFREY HOM, AND I'M A PHYSICIAN
IN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH. THERE I CARE FOR
PATIENTS WITH OPIOID USE
DISORDER, ALSO KNOWN AS OPIOID
ADDICTION, AND HELP LEAD OUR
OVERDOSE PREVENTION EFFORTS. AS
YOU ALL KNOW, WE'RE IN THE MIDST
OF A PROFOUND PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS. MORE THAN 100,000 PEOPLE
DIE OF UNINTENTIONAL DRUG
OVERDOSES EVERY YEAR IN THE
UNITED STATES. DURING THE FIRST
FOUR HOURS OF THIS HEARING
ALONE, FIVE MORE CALIFORNIANS
WILL DIE OF AN OVERDOSE, FOUR OF
THEM WILL LIKELY INVOLVE
FENTANYL, WHILE DEATHS ARE OFTEN
THE MOST VISIBLE MANIFESTATION
OF THE OVERDOSE CRISIS, HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA SUFFER FROM OPIOID
USE DISORDER. BUT OPIOID USE
DISORDER, LIKE OTHER CHRONIC
MEDICAL CONDITIONS, CAN BE
EFFECTIVELY TREATED WITH
MEDICATIONS. METHADONE IS THE
OLDEST AND MOST WELL STUDIED OF
THESE. IT IS OUR GOLD STANDARD
AND REDUCES THE RISK OF DYING BY
50. DESPITE THIS, FEWER THAN 5%
OF THE NEARLY 1 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS WITH OPIOID USE
DISORDER ARE TREATED WITH
METHADONE. WE MUST INCREASE
ACCESS IF WE ARE TO TURN THIS
CRISIS AROUND AND SAVE LIVES. AB
2115 WILL HELP DO THIS. THIS
BILL WILL ALLOW CLINICS TO
PROVIDE 72 HOURS OF METHADONE TO
PATIENTS, WHILE REFERRING THEM
TO AN OPIOID TREATMENT PROGRAM.
IN DOING SO, PATIENTS
EXPERIENCING PAINFUL WITHDRAWAL
SYMPTOMS CAN OBTAIN RELIEF,
WITHOUT WHICH THEY MAY SEEK
FENTANYL TO PALLIATE THEIR
SYMPTOMS AND RISK AND OVERDOSE.
THIS BILL IS PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT FOR THE 21 COUNTIES IN
CALIFORNIA THAT LACK AN OPIOID
TREATMENT PROGRAM, RATHER THAN
RESIDENTS OF THESE COUNTIES,
DRIVING POTENTIALLY HOURS TO
ANOTHER COUNTY WHILE IN
WITHDRAWAL AND POTENTIALLY STILL
MISS THE INTAKE WINDOW. PEOPLE
CAN BEGIN TREATMENT IMMEDIATELY.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AB
2115 SIMPLY ALIGNS CALIFORNIA
LAW WITH FEDERAL LAW, WHICH WAS
RECENTLY UPDATED TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF PEOPLE WITH FENTANYL
USE DISORDER AND THE CLINICIANS
CARING FOR THEM. OTHER
JURISDICTIONS HAVE SAFELY
IMPLEMENTED THIS UPDATED FEDERAL
LAW AND SUCCESSFULLY INCREASED
REFERRALS TO OPIOID TREATMENT
PROGRAMS. AS A PHYSICIAN, I HAVE
SEEN THE DAMAGING HEALTH
CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH
SEVERE OPIOID ADDICTION, AND I
HAVE TALKED WITH FAMILY MEMBERS
WHO HAVE LOST A LOVED ONE TO AN
OVERDOSE. IF YOU COULD WRAP UP,
THAT'D BE GREAT. BUT I HAVE ALSO
SEEN HOW WELL PEOPLE DO WHEN
PROVIDED WITH SOCIAL SUPPORT AND
TREATMENT. RECOVER IS POSSIBLE,
BUT WE MUST ENSURE PEOPLE ACROSS
CALIFORNIA HAVE EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO START THIS LIFE
SAVING MEDICATION. AND SO I ASK
THAT YOU SUPPORT AB 2115. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES YOU
WANT TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? PLEASE JUST PROVIDE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH,
IF ANY, AND POSITION ON THE BILL
. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
JONATHAN CLAY, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, JOSH GAGER, ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. TÂM
MURPHY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG
PROGRAM EXECUTIVES IN SUPPORT
WITH SOME CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU, JOHN DREBINGER WITH
THE STEINBERG INSTITUTE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CRLA
MCGOWAN, ON BEHALF OF SAN MATEO
COUNTY AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
LISA GARDNER WITH THE COUNTY
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ROBERT HARRIS, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
ADDICTION MEDICINE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. PAUL YODER, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
SEEING NONE. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. COME ON UP TO
THE DESK IF YOU'D LIKE, JUST TO
CLARIFY, THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF MAINTENANCE
OPIOID MAINTENANCE PROVIDERS IS
IN HAS A CONCERNS POSITION. WITH
THE CHAIR'S PERMISSION, CAN I
STILL, SURE. THANK YOU. YEAH.
ANY ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? JUST CHECKING THE
ROOM REAL QUICK. NO. GO FOR IT.
YOU'VE GOT TWO MINUTES. THAT'S
GOOD. SO GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN
BERMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, I'M JENNIFER ALI, THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE
CALIFORNIA OPIOID MAINTENANCE
PROVIDER ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA'S
NARCOTIC TREATMENT PROGRAMS,
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS NPS.
COMP HAS BEEN ADVOCATING FOR
IMPROVING ACCESS TO HIGH
QUALITY, EVIDENCE BASED
MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT
USING METHADONE FOR OVER 30
YEARS. AS SUCH, WE FULLY SUPPORT
THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION
TO INCREASE ACCESS TO TREATMENT
FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH OPIOID USE
DISORDER. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A
CONCERNS POSITION ON THE BILL
AND HAVE SUBMITTED AMENDMENTS TO
HELP STRENGTHEN PATIENT AND
PUBLIC PROTECTIONS. SINCE THEN,
WE HAVE MET WITH THE SPONSORS
AND ARE MAKING PROGRESS ON SOME
SAFETY ISSUES AND WE ARE
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATION TO HELP ENSURE
PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS TO
TREATMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH
OPIOID USE DISORDER, DURING OUR
NEXT FEW MEETINGS, WE WILL
CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND
FOCUS ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. A
REFERRAL PROCESS AS MENTIONED,
ENSURING THAT THAT'S
INCORPORATED INTO THE BILL. SO
WHEN SOMEBODY RECEIVES A
TREATMENT, THEY CAN GET INTO
INTO INTO RECOVERY THROUGH AN
NH█P, JUST MAKE SURE THAT
THERE'S A PROCESS TO HELP
PREVENT DOCTOR SHOPPING FOR
INDIVIDUALS ACCESSING METHADONE
TREATMENT, EDUCATION. SO
PATIENTS ARE EDUCATED ON THE
RISKS OF METHADONE AND ITS
UNIQUE PHARMACOLOGICAL
PROPERTIES AND OVERSIGHT. RIGHT.
WHAT TYPE OF CLINICS THEY'RE
GOING TO BE AND DATA COLLECTION
SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S WORKING,
WHAT'S NOT AND CONTINUE TO
IMPROVE ACCESS TO TREATMENT FOR
OPIOID USE DISORDER. SO I WOULD
LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE AND
THE CHAIRMAN FOR ALLOWING ME TO
SPEAK TODAY, AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. GREAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO
WANT TO ADD ON IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? SEEING NONE BRING IT
BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WE'RE
STILL A SUBCOMMITTEE, SO NO
MOTIONS OR SECONDS YET. I DON'T
SEE A LOT OF QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. YOU DID THAT GOOD OF A
JOB WITH YOUR PRESENTATION, OR
STAFF DID THAT GOOD OF A JOB
WITH OUR STAFF. ANALYSIS YES.
COMBINATION OF THE TWO. SUCH A
SUCH A GREAT CHAIR. THAT'S
REALLY GOOD. YEAH YEAH, YOU'RE
VERY GOOD TIMING. VERY GOOD
TIMING. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
MR. ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY? YES.
YOU KNOW, WE. OF COURSE, ARE IN
THE MIDST OF THE WORST DRUG DRUG
OVERDOSE EPIDEMIC THAT OUR STATE
AND OUR COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN.
AND I KNOW WE ARE ALL WORKING IN
VARIOUS WAYS TO CONFRONT THIS
EPIDEMIC. THIS IS A SOLUTION.
THIS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE
TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS. RIGHT NOW,
CALIFORNIA IS THE MOST
RESTRICTIVE STATE IN THE COUNTRY
TO ACCESS THIS THIS MEDICINE
WITH THIS BILL, WE WILL MAKE
HUGE STEPS TO GET MORE PEOPLE
ONTO THE TREATMENT AND WE ARE
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH FOLKS
WHO OPERATE THE CLINICS WHO HAVE
CONCERNS TO ADDRESS THESE
ISSUES, AND THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WE CAN DO THAT WILL HELP,
THAT WILL SAVE LIVES. AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE, WHEN THE TIME COMES. AND
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY. THIS BILL
IS DOUBLE REFERRED TO ASSEMBLY
HEALTH COMMITTEE NEXT. WHERE I
TRUST THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS TO
ENSURE THAT THE BILL STRIKES
THAT RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN
EASING ACCESS TO METHADONE
TREATMENT, BUT ALSO ENSURING
THAT THERE ARE ADEQUATE
SAFEGUARDS, SO THAT THE
ALLOWANCES AND FLEXIBILITY
CREATED BY THIS BILL AREN'T
ABUSED, WHICH I KNOW IS
EVERYONE'S GOAL, SO WITH YOUR
YOUR PLEDGE TO CONTINUE TWEAKING
THE BILL AND WORKING WITH FOLKS,
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT TODAY, ONCE
WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE ON. I SEE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BONTA WHO HAS THE FIRST
TWO BILLS UP AB 1991 AND AB
2051, DEALER'S CHOICE. WHICHEVER
WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO
GO IN NUMERICAL ORDER
.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL AND
GLADLY ACCEPT THE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENT. I AUTHORED THIS BILL
BECAUSE, AS WE ALL KNOW,
CALIFORNIA FACES MORE MAJOR
SHORTAGES OF HEALTH CARE
WORKERS. ISN'T PRODUCING ENOUGH
NEW WORKERS TO MEET FUTURE
NEEDS. AND THE CURRENT HEALTH
CARE WORKFORCE DOES NOT MATCH
THE DIVERSITY OF THE STATE.
THESE WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND
DIVERSITY PROBLEMS HAVE A MAJOR
IMPACT ON HEALTH, ACCESS,
QUALITY AND EQUITY. IN ORDER TO
ADDRESS WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND
DIVERSITY ISSUES, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED VARIOUS
SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN FORGIVENESS
PROGRAMS THAT ENCOURAGE HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS TO WORK IN
UNDERSERVED AREAS IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OR
LOAN FORGIVENESS THAT THEY
RECEIVE. HOWEVER, WE CURRENTLY
DO NOT HAVE DATA ON HOW LONG
THEY CONTINUE TO WORK IN
UNDERSERVED AREAS AFTER THE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ENDS, WHICH
STYMIES OUR ABILITY TO BUILD THE
ROBUST WORKFORCE PIPELINE THAT
WE SO DESPERATELY NEED. THIS
BILL SIMPLY REQUIRES HEALING
ARTS BOARDS THAT REGULATE HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS TO REQUIRE,
RATHER THAN REQUEST, CERTAIN
PROVIDED DATA. CERTAIN PROVIDER
DATA MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEIR
NATIONAL PROVIDER IDENTIFIER
NUMBER. THIS INFORMATION WILL
PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
ACCESS AND INFORMATION, WHICH
OVERSEES THE LOAN PROGRAMS WITH
THE DATA NECESSARY TO ASSESS THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THESE PROGRAMS
ARE WORKING AS INTENDED.
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT IS RONALD
KOEMAN, BSA, WITH THE PAN ETHNIC
HEALTH NETWORK. GOOD MORNING.
RONALD COLMAN, BSA MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF POLICY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PAN ETHNIC HEALTH
NETWORK. C-PEN HAPPY TO BE HERE
TODAY TO OFFER TESTIMONY IN
SUPPORT OF AB 1991, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE CERTAIN BOARDS
REGULATING HEALTH, HEALING,
HEALING ARTS LICENSEES OR
REGISTRANTS TO PROVIDE THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE ACCESS
AND INFORMATION HØI WITH THE
DATA NECESSARY TO ASSESS WHETHER
LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS ARE
WORKING AS INTENDED. HCCI
ADMINISTERS SEVERAL LOAN
REPAYMENT PROGRAMS IN OUR STATE
THAT WERE ESTABLISHED TO
INCREASE DIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH
CARE WORKFORCE AND TO ENCOURAGE
WORKERS TO WORK IN UNDERSERVED
AREAS. HOWEVER, CALIFORNIA
CONTINUES TO FACE WORKER HEALTH
CARE SHORTAGES, NOT PRODUCING
ENOUGH HEALTH CARE WORKERS TO
MEET FUTURE NEEDS. ADDITIONALLY,
THE CURRENT WORKFORCE DOES NOT
MATCH THE STATE'S DIVERSITY, AND
THIS CERTAINLY IMPACTS THE CARE
THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS CAN
PROVIDE. OUR COMMUNITIES REPORTS
HAVE FOUND THAT LATINO AND BLACK
WORKERS ARE UNDERREPRESENTED IN
EXISTING HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE
IN CALIFORNIA. AB 1991 WOULD
HELP SUPPORT WORKFORCE SUPPLY
AND DIVERSITY PROGRAMS TO HELP
IMPROVE THE IMPACTS OF HEALTH
CARE ACCESS, QUALITY AND EQUITY
IN OUR MOST UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. FOR ALL OF THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE AND THANK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BONTA FOR HER LEADERSHIP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL?
SEEING NONE, ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? OH, COME ON UP. YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. YEAH. COME ON UP.
YOU WHATEVER YOUR PREFERENCE,
YOU CAN EITHER COME TO THE TO
THE TABLE OR YOU CAN SPEAK FROM
THERE, WHICHEVER YOU PREFER.
RIGHT. THERE YOU GO. YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. GOOD MORNING, MY
NAME IS DOCTOR RENEE DUMET, AND
I AM THE CHAIR OF THE CTE
PROGRAM AT THE CALIFORNIA
INSTITUTE OF INTEGRAL STUDIES.
MY INTENT IS TO POINT, I BELIEVE
YOU WANT TO TESTIFY ON THE NEXT
BILL. OH, YEAH. SO WE'LL. NO,
THIS WAS THERE ARE TWO BONTA
BILLS, A.B. 1991 AND AB 2051.
AND I BELIEVE YOU WANT TO
TESTIFY ON 2051. YEAH. SO WE'LL
GET TO THAT ONE NEXT, IN THE
MEANTIME, ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO
WHO WANTS TO ADD ON IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 1991, SEEING
NONE BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES
FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON
THE BILL, SEEING NONE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU, THIS BILL IS FAIRLY
STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE ABSOLUTELY
NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE
INFORMATION TO ASSESS WHETHER OR
NOT OUR LOAN FORGIVENESS AND
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS ARE
ACTUALLY INCREASING ACCESS IN
THE LONG TERME IN UNDERSERVED
AREAS, OR WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED
TO MAKE CHANGES. OUR WORKFORCE
NEEDS ARE TOO DRASTIC TO NOT DO
THIS. THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. I WANT TO
THANK, SOME ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
BONTA, FOR ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND FOR ALL
OF YOUR WORK AS HEALTH CHAIR TO
PROMOTE DIVERSITY IN OUR STATE'S
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL
WORKFORCE, THIS IS A PRIORITY
THAT I STRONGLY SHARE AS CHAIR
OF THIS COMMITTEE. AND I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL. AND WHEN
THE TIME IS RIGHT, WE'LL GET
MOTIONS AND SECONDS AND DO ALL
THE VOTING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND IN THE, MEANTIME,
DO YOU WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT BILL? YES, PLEASE. GREAT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB 2051.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I WANT TO
START OFF BY THANKING THE CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS FOR
THEIR VERY HARD WORK ON THIS
COMPLEX PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, AND I HOPE THAT THIS
BILL MARKS THE START OF A
SERIOUS AND CONTINUED
CONVERSATION ON WORKFORCE
SHORTAGES AND OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSURE COMPACTS. OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSURE COMPACTS ALLOW STATES
TO ADOPT POLICIES THAT IMPROVE
THE TRANSFERABILITY OF
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES THROUGH
LICENSURE COMPACTS. STATES
ESTABLISH AND AGREE UPON UNIFORM
STANDARDS THAT ENABLE MULTIPLE
MULTI-STATE PRACTICE SITES. THE
PSYCHOLOGY INTERJURISDICTIONAL
COMPACT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2014
BY THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND
PROVINCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BOARDS, IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. IN
THE PAST TEN YEARS, CIPPEC
MEMBERSHIP HAS GROWN TO INCLUDE
41 STATES AND TERRITORIES. SCI
PACT ENABLES LICENSED
PSYCHOLOGISTS ACROSS THESE 41
PARTICIPATING STATES AND
TERRITORIES TO ADMINISTER TELE
PSYCHOLOGY OR TEMPORARY
IN-PERSON PSYCHOLOGY ACROSS
STATE LINES. IN 2020, DUE TO
COVID 19, PSYCHOLOGISTS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY QUICKLY SHIFTED TO
ONLINE THERAPY BECAUSE OF COVID
19. OFFICE CLOSURES AND THE
LIKE. THE NUMBER OF
PSYCHOLOGISTS USING TELEHEALTH
GREW FROM 33% IN 2020 TO 50% IN
2021. ALSO DURING THE PANDEMIC,
MANY COLLEGE STUDENTS RETURNED
HOME AND FAMILIES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY MOVED OR TEMPORARILY
RELOCATED, AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
WERE PRESENTED WITH ANOTHER
CHALLENGE FOR CONTINUING CARE
PROVISION. MANY PRACTITIONERS
WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO PROVIDE
SERVICES TO THEIR PATIENTS
BECAUSE THEY HAD MOVED OUTSIDE
THEIR STATE OF LICENSURE.
BETWEEN 2021 AND 2022, 22 STATES
JOINED CPAC TO BE ABLE TO BETTER
SERVE THE MENTAL HEALTH CARE
NEEDS OF THEIR CONSTITUENT
CGRTS. CALIFORNIA WAS NOT ONE OF
THEM. IN CALIFORNIA, MENTAL
HEALTH AFFECTS 1 IN 6 PEOPLE.
YET ACCORDING TO A 2018 POLL,
MORE THAN HALF OF CALIFORNIANS
53% SURVEYED REPORTED THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ACCESS
NEEDED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES,
ACCORDING TO THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE. CALIFORNIA WILL NEED
TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 30,000
PSYCHOLOGIST S TO CALIFORNIA'S
WORKFORCE OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS IN ORDER TO MEET THE
GROWING NEED FOR BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH SERVICES. WITH
APPROXIMATELY 24 LICENSED
PSYCHOLOGISTS IN CALIFORNIA
TODAY, THE STATE WILL NEED TO
MORE THAN DOUBLE ITS WORKFORCE
OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS TO GIVE
CALIFORNIANS THE MENTAL HEALTH
CARE THEY DESPERATELY NEED. THIS
CANNOT BE DONE THROUGH WORKFORCE
PIPELINE PROGRAMS ALONE OR
INVESTMENTS. AB 2051 WILL EXPAND
CALIFORNIA'S PSYCHOLOGY
WORKFORCE BY INCREASING PATIENT
ACCESS TO PSYCHOLOGISTS ACROSS
41 OTHER COMPACT STATES AND
TERRITORIES, AND ALLOW FOR
CONTINUITY OF CARE WHEN PATIENTS
TRAVEL OR RELOCATE. BY NOT
LEVERAGING THE BENEFITS OF
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE, COMPACTS
LIKE SCI PACT CALIFORNIA IS
MISSING OUT ON THE TELEHEALTH
ADVANTAGES THAT FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND OTHER STATES ARE
ACTUALLY UTILIZING RIGHT NOW.
I'LL TURN IT OVER NOW TO OUR
BILL. SPONSORS TARA GAMBOA
EASTMAN FROM STEINBERG INSTITUTE
AND DANNY TH¤U FROM MENTAL
HEALTH AMERICA. GREAT. AND YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, TARA
GAMBOA EASTMAN WITH THE
STEINBERG INSTITUTE, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF AB 2051.
CALIFORNIA FACES A CRISIS
SUBSTANCE USE RATES HAVE
SKYROCKETED. TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING WITH
ADDICTION AND MENTAL ILLNESS,
AND OUR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
WORKFORCE IS OVERWHELMED AND
UNDERSTAFFED. CALIFORNIA IS
ALREADY UNABLE TO MEET THE
GROWING DEMAND FOR BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH SERVICES DUE TO THE
WORKFORCE SHORTAGE. HOWEVER
ATTRITION ACROSS THE INDUSTRY IS
GOING TO EXACERBATE THIS
SHORTAGE IN THE YEARS TO COME.
PROFESSION CHANGES. WORKERS
MOVING OUT OF STATE AND
RETIREMENT ARE ALL CONTRIBUTING
TO THE EVER GROWING SHORTAGE OF
PROFESSIONALS ABLE TO SERVE
PEOPLE. TO GET A HANDLE ON THIS
ISSUE, THE STEINBERG INSTITUTE
RECENTLY DEVELOPED A TOOL THAT
ESTIMATES A TEN YEAR ESTIMATE OF
HIRING NEEDS FOR THE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH WORKFORCE IN CALIFORNIA,
LEVERAGING FEDERAL BUREAU OF
LABOR STATISTICS DATA AT THE
COUNTY LEVEL, THIS TOOL ALLOWS
CALIFORNIA TO LOOK AT OCCUPATION
SPECIFIC NEEDS BECAUSE OF GROWTH
AND DEMAND AND ATTRITION RATES.
BASED ON OUR ESTIMATE,
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO ADD
APPROXIMATELY 375,000 BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO MEET
DEMAND OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
SPECIFICALLY, CALIFORNIA WILL
NEED TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 30,000
PSYCHOLOGISTS TO CALIFORNIA'S
WORKFORCE OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
FOR REFERENCE, ARE CURRENTLY
ONLY AROUND 24,000 LICENSED
PSYCHOLOGISTS IN CALIFORNIA. VÀ.
WE MUST LOOK FOR INNOVATIVE
SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE GAP IN
AVAILABLE PROVIDERS. SCI PACT IS
ONE SUCH SOLUTION. TO DATE, 41
STATES HAVE ENACTED LEGISLATION
JOINING THE INTERSTATE
PSYCHOLOGY COMPACT BY PROVIDING
A MEANS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS TO
PRACTICE ACROSS STATE LINES. SCI
PACT INCREASES ACCESS BY
EXPANDING THE POOL OF PROVIDERS
AVAILABLE TO CALIFORNIANS IN
NEED. CALIFORNIA CAN'T AFFORD
NOT TO JOIN SCI PACT. WE MUST
USE ALL TOOLS AT OUR DISPOSAL TO
ADDRESS OUR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
WORKFORCE SHORTAGE. RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
DANNY TH¤U WITH THE CALIFORNIA
YOUTH EMPOWERMENT NETWORK AND
BEALL CO-SPONSORS, MENTAL HEALTH
AMERICA OF CALIFORNIA. I'D LIKE
TO BEGIN MY TESTIMONY BY SHARING
A SHORT STORY ABOUT SOMEONE
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH. WE'VE
CHANGED THEIR NAME TO PROTECT
THEIR IDENTITY. JANE WAS BORN
AND RAISED HERE IN CALIFORNIA
AND HAS EXPERIENCED MENTAL
HEALTH CHALLENGES SINCE SHE WAS
A CHILD. SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK
WITH A THERAPIST, THOUGH
CONTINUOUSLY, FOR SIX PLUS
YEARS, AND SAW SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENTS IN HER RECOVERY.
BUT WHEN JANE WAS 25, SHE
DECIDED TO MOVE ACROSS THE
COUNTRY TO ATTEND GRADUATE
SCHOOL. IN CONVERSATION WITH HER
THERAPIST ABOUT HER IMPENDING
MOVE, JANE FOUND OUT THAT SHE
WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SEE
HER THERAPIST WHEN SHE HAD LEFT
THE STATE. THE MOVE AND ADDED
STRESS LED JANE TO EXPERIENCE
EXASPERATED MENTAL HEALTH
CHALLENGES, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS
REFERRED TO A PSYCHOLOGIST
LOCATED NEAR HER APARTMENT. JANE
SPENT WEEKS AND HUNDREDS OF
DOLLARS IN THE INTAKE PROCESS,
GETTING TO KNOW HER PSYCHOLOGIST
BEFORE SHE COULD ACTUALLY BEGIN
THERAPY. DESPITE THESE BARRIERS,
JANE MADE REAL PROGRESS WITH HER
PSYCHOLOGIST, AND ONCE SHE HAD
FINISHED GRADUATE SCHOOL, SHE
GOT AN AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO
COME BACK TO CALIFORNIA. BUT
ONCE AGAIN, SHE FOUND HERSELF IN
THE EXACT SAME POSITION SHE DID
WHEN SHE MOVED OUT OF STATE. I
SHARED THIS STORY WITH YOU TO
EMPHASIZE HOW IMPORTANT
CONTINUITY OF CARE AND
MAINTAINING ACCESS TO A TRUSTED
PROVIDER IS FOR PEOPLE
UNDERGOING MENTAL HEALTH THERAPY
. CALIFORNIA'S PSYCHOLOGY LAWS
WOULD PREVENT JANE FROM
CONTINUING TO SEE HER PROVIDER
ONCE AGAIN. HER STORY IS NOT
UNCOMMON, AND IS JUST ONE
EXAMPLE OF HOW CURRENT STATE
LAWS SURROUNDING TELE PSYCHOLOGY
AND TELEHEALTH AREN'T WORKING
FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH
CHALLENGES. THESE LAWS DON'T
PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY OUR
MODERN LIFESTYLES, ESPECIALLY
POST COVID 19, REQUIRE. IF THE
LEGISLATURE DOESN'T ACT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, PEOPLE
WILL MISS OUT ON THE CARE THAT
THEY WANT AND NEED. SO TODAY, I
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT AB 2051 TO
HELP CALIFORNIA'S LIKE JANE
ACCESS MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
WHEN AND WHERE THEY NEED THEM.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO
WANT TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. I THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. RYAN
PERRINE, ON BEHALF OF ATA ACTION
AND PROUD SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. TYLER. AND ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, WE
HAVE AN IN-BETWEEN POSITION. WE
HAVE A SUPPORTIVE AMENDED.
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR
TO DATE. AND OUR CONCERN IS TO
ADDRESS THAT 34% OF CALIFORNIA'S
LICENSED PSYCHOLOGISTS CANNOT
PARTICIPATE IN SIP ACT UNDER
THEIR CURRENT RULES AND LOOK
FORWARD TO FURTHER CONVERSATIONS
. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? PLEASE COME ON UP.
TWO OF YOU AND YOU'VE GOT TWO
MINUTES EACH. COME ON. COME ON
UP TO THE TABLE
.
OKAY. THANK Tê BEGINNING AGAIN,
MY NAME IS DOCTOR RENEE DUMAIS,
AND I'M CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT
AT CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
INTEGRAL STUDIES. MY INTENT IS
TO POINT OUT THE DEVASTATING
IMPACT THAT BILL AB 2051 WOULD
HAVE ON REGIONALLY ACCREDITED
SCHOOLS WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN SIP ACT, AND
THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIA
LICENSEES AS WELL. ACCORDING TO
THE BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, 34% OF
ALL REGISTERED PSYCHOLOGIST S IN
THE STATE ARE FROM REGIONALLY
ACCREDITED SCHOOLS. AT SIS, WE
BELIEVE THAT THE ADOPTION OF
SEPAK WOULD PLACE OUR STUDENTS
AT A SEVERE DISADVANTAGE WITHIN
THE PSYCHO PSYCHOLOGY
MARKETPLACE, AND THEIR CLIENTS,
WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED AND
UNDERSERVED, AND MOST OF OUR
STUDENTS WORK IN COMMUNITY
MENTAL HEALTH SETTINGS WITH
SOCIOECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
INDIVIDUALS, MINORITY
COMMUNITIES, AND MARGINALIZED
GROUPS. OUR SCHOOLS, OUR
DEPARTMENT, AND OUR CLINICIANS
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT THE
FOREFRONT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN
PSYCHOLOGICAL EDUCATION AND
PRACTICE. THESE TYPES OF CLIENTS
SEEK TO HAVE CLINICIANS WHO ARE
SIMILAR IN RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS WHO
UNDERSTAND THEIR UNIQUE
CHALLENGES OF DISCRIMINATION,
OPPRESSION, SYSTEMIC RACISM, AND
CLASSISM. FOR MANY OF THESE
CLIENTS, THEY HAVE NEEDS TO BE
MIRRORED TO HAVE A MODEL THAT
CAN BE IDEALIZED AND SOMEONE
THEY FEEL SIMILAR TO. THESE ARE
CRUCIAL THERAPEUTIC ELEMENTS IN
THEIR GROWTH AND HEALING. ALL
REGIONAL ACCREDITED UNIVERSITIES
AND COLLEGES WILL ALSO BE DEEPLY
IMPACTED BY THIS IMPLEMENTATION.
TOGETHER, WE HAVE PRODUCED
HUNDREDS OF GRADUATES EVERY YEAR
AND PROVIDE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
CLINICAL HOURS IN CALIFORNIANS
CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE PUBLIC
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM, CIPAC
WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE THESE
CLINICIANS AND THEIR CLIENTS AT
A SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE AND
RESTRICT THE PRACTICE OF TELE
THERAPY TO THOSE WHO ARE FROM
APA APPROVED SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT
SUPPORT COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH
CLINICS THAT ARE THE MOST IN
NEED OF QUALIFIED CLINICIANS.
THANK YOU. AND IF YOU CAN WRAP
UP, THAT'D BE GREAT. THAT'S OVER
30 MINUTES LASTING. FINALLY, WE
BELIEVE THE PUBLIC IS BEST
SERVED THROUGH MULTIPLE VOICES,
DIVERSE APPROACHES, AND
CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE
INTERVENTIONS. ANYTHING THAT
RESTRICTS THE PRACTICE. THANK
YOU. THAT'S THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT OKAY. WE GOT A
LONG HEARING TODAY OKAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WITNESS.
CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOHN
BURKE, AND I'M THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY.
THE BOARD OPPOSES AB 2051, THE
PROMULGATION OF RULES AND LAWS
BY SIPC'S COMMISSION, WHICH
WOULD HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW IN
CALIFORNIA IS A IS A CONCERN.
THIS DELEGATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
AUTHORITY TO AN ENTITY LOCATED
IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND
DOMINATED IN LARGE PART BY
SMALLER STATES, MANY OF WHICH DO
NOT SHARE SOME OF THE
CONTEMPORARY CORE VALUES OF
CALIFORNIA, IS PROBLEMATIC. FOR
INSTANCE, MANY OF THE
NONRESIDENT PSYCHOLOGISTS WHO
PRACTICE TELEHEALTH WITH
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS WILL NOT BE
FROM JURISDICTION THAT SHARE THE
SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUING
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND DIVERSITY,
EQUITY AND INCLUSION. FURTHER,
SOME STATES IN WHICH OUT OF
STATE PRACTITIONERS RESIDE STILL
ALLOW PRACTICES SUCH AS
CONVERSION THERAPY FOR LGBT
YOUTH OR MANDATORY COUNSELING
FOR WOMEN SEEKING TO TERMINATE A
PREGNANCY. ANOTHER SERIOUS
CONCERN WITH THIS BILL IS THE
REQUIREMENT THAT PSYCHOLOGISTS
MUST GRADUATE FROM AN APA
ACCREDITED PROGRAM TO OBTAIN THE
E-PASSPORT. CURRENT LAW ALLOWS
FOR FLEXIBILITY FOR APPROVAL OF
APA ACCREDITATION. APPROVAL OF
THIS BILL WOULD CONSTRICT THIS
FLEXIBILITY. THE EXCLUSION OF
LICENSEES DUE TO THE APA
ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENT WOULD
HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON
HISTORICALLY UNDERREPRESENTED
GROUPS. THIS IS A PARTICULAR
CONCERN DUE TO ITS INEQUITY,
VARIABLE IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS, AND THE EXCLUSION OF
A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF OUR
LICENSEES. FURTHER, IT MAY
IMPACT THE VIABILITY OF GRADUATE
PROGRAMS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A
BROADER THEORETICAL AND
PHILOSOPHICAL DIVERSITY IN THE
DELIVERY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
SERVICES. THERE IS ALSO A FISCAL
CONCERN. THERE IS NO FUNDING FOR
CALIFORNIA TO BECOME A COMPACT
STATE, AS ALL FEES ARE PAID TO
ASP AND THE COMMISSION. HOWEVER,
THE BOARD WILL BE TAKING ON
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL DUTIES,
WHICH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE THE
HIRING OF AN ADDITIONAL STAFF
MEMBER TO DISCHARGE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF A COMPACT
STATE WITHOUT A CONCOMITANT
SOURCE OF FUNDING. ALL OF THIS
DESPITE A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE
OF OUR LICENSEES NOT BEING
ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN SIP
ACT. IF YOU COULD WRAP UP,
THAT'D BE GREAT. THANKS, I HAVE
ADDITIONAL, WORK NODE AND
NECESSITY CONCERNS, BUT THESE
WERE, VERY WELL REFLECTED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. SO THANK YOU
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL SEEING
NONE, I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK
TO COLLEAGUES FOR ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. THEY HAVE SOME
MEMBER PELLERIN, I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. IT'S SO CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT TO, ADD INCREASE MORE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FOLKS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. AND I PERSONALLY
HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH
OUT OF STATE FOLKS. I'M JUST
WONDERING WHAT OTHER PROTECTIONS
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE PRACTICING OUT OF
STATE MEET OUR LAWS AND OUR
REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSING.
WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. THANK
YOU FOR THE QUESTION, WANTED TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE GENERAL
OPPOSITION COMMENTS, FIRST, THE
AMENDMENT THAT THE COMMITTEE,
ENCOURAGED US TO TAKE AND WE SO
WILLINGLY DID ACTUALLY ENSURES
THAT THE BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY HAS
TO APPROVE OF, OF, BECOMING A
PART OF SIP, ACT AS A PART, AS A
SAFEGUARD TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A
CALIFORNIA JOIN THE JOIN THE
JOIN THE JOINT SIP ACT. SO, AND
IT COSTS $6,000 ANNUALLY TO DO
SO, THE ISSUES RELATED TO
ENSURING THAT WE HAVE REGIONALLY
ACCREDITED, INSTITUTE OPTIONS
CONSIDERED. I DEFINITELY
APPRECIATE THE NEED TO HAVE
DIVERSITY IN OUR IN OUR
PSYCHOLOGY, IN OUR
PSYCHOLOGISTS. RIGHT NOW, 78% OF
THE PSYCHOLOGISTS IN CALIFORNIA
ARE WHITE. SO I THINK ENSURING
THAT WE HAVE A POOL TO BE ABLE
TO PULL FROM THAT FAR GOES
BEYOND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
WILL, FURTHER ACTUALLY ENSURE
ISSUES AND AREAS RELATED TO
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY,
DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THAT
NUMBER, SCI PACT DOES NOT THE
CALIFORNIA THE BOARD OF THE
BOARD WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME
LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT DOES NOT CHANGE,
AND ALSO AS IT RELATES TO MAKING
SURE THAT THINGS THAT ARE
UNIQUELY UNFORTUNATE, UNIQUELY
OR CERTAINLY IMPORTANT ISSUES OF
CONCERN FROM A VALUES
PERSPECTIVE, WHETHER OR NOT WE
HAVE, PRACTITIONERS, SUPPORTING
THINGS LIKE CONVERSION THERAPY
OR CONSIDERING THAT, YOU KNOW,
WANTING TO COUNSEL AGAINST
ABORTION ACCESS THINGS THAT
CALIFORNIA FERVENTLY BELIEVES
IN, AND IS A PART OF PSYCHOLOGY,
PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE RIGHT NOW TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT
RUNNING AFOUL OF THOSE VALUES
WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE. A
PSYCHOLOGIST PRACTICING TELE
PSYCHOLOGY OR TEMPORARY
IN-PERSON PSYCHOLOGY IN
CALIFORNIA WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE AND LAWS
OF CALIFORNIA. IF THESE LAWS ARE
VIOLATED, THE BOARD OF
PSYCHOLOGY CAN INITIATE AND
INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION AND
TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION. SO OUR
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS, AND PEOPLE
WHO ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF
THIS WILL BE PROTECTED UNDER
THESE UNDER UNDER THE SCOPE OF
ALREADY EXISTING STATUTE. ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
? SEEING NONE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, YES, I
WANT TO. FIRST AND FOREMOST,
THANK MY FELLOW NATALIE PITA
SITTING HERE, WHO, HAS A
BACKGROUND IN PUBLIC HEALTH, WHO
PRESENTED THIS BILL FOR OUR
TEAM'S CONSIDERATION IN THE
DEPTH OF HER UNDERSTANDING OF
THIS, LEGISLATION HAS INTRODUCED
A WHOLE NEW WORLD OF IMPORTANT
PRACTICE TO ME. AND THEREFORE,
IN OUR OFFICE AND THEREFORE TO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND SO
I WANT TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
IT'S VERY RARE THAT WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO DO SO
FOR OUR FELLOW IS I WILL SAY
THAT THIS IS AN AREA OF
CERTAINLY A LOT OF DEBATE THAT
WE WILL SEE OVER THE COURSE OF
THE COMING MONTHS. AND YEARS IN
THE LEGISLATURE. BUT I WANT TO
HARKEN BACK TO MY OPENING
COMMENTS AND THE COMMENTS OF,
OF, OF OUR EXPERTS WHO PRESENTED
WE CANNOT AFFORD AS A STATE TO
ALLOW FOR MORE THAN HALF OF
CALIFORNIANS TO NOT HAVE THE
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND
PROVISIONS THAT THEY NEED. WE
CAN'T AFFORD TO GO BACK AND
PROVIDING AND MAKING ACCESSIBLE
TELETHERAPY TELE THERAPY AS A
VERY VIABLE, IMPORTANT,
IMPACTFUL SOURCE TO BE ABLE TO
RELIEVE THE NEED FOR MENTAL
HEALTH SUPPORTS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND WE HAVE CRAFTED
THIS BILL AS IT'S AS SUCH RIGHT
NOW TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA IS ABLE TO ENTER INTO
THIS COMPACT ON ITS OWN TERMS
BASED ON THE, EXPERTISE AND
JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD OF
PSYCHOLOGY. THERE ARE A LOT OF,
COMPACT BILLS OUT THERE. THIS
ONE IS FOCUSED SPECIFICALLY ON
TELEHEALTH, SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE THE AND TEMPORARY SERVICES,
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT,
THAT DISTINGUISHES IT FROM OTHER
KINDS OF COMPACTS AS WELL, WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR AYE VOTE AND VERY THANKFUL
TO THE COMMITTEE FOR MOVING THIS
BILL FOR HEARING THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BONTA AND I, TOO, WAS
GOING TO, COMMEND YOUR FELLOW
BECAUSE I HEAR SHE DID A
FANTASTIC JOB IN REPRESENTING
YOU, AND ADVOCATING FOR THE BILL
TO MY STAFF, AND I'VE BEEN LUCKY
TO HAVE, FELLOWS FOR, FOR MOST
OF MY YEARS IN THE ASSEMBLY AND
MY CHIEF, MY ALLEGED DIRECTOR
AND ONE LEGEND WERE ALL FELLOWS.
IT'S A WONDERFUL PROGRAM AND
AWESOME TO SEE FELLOWS DIVE INTO
THE DEEP END, RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
SO CONGRATS, I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL, AND, AND YOUR EFFORTS TO
ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIANS HAVE
ADEQUATE ACCESS TO PSYCHOLOGISTS
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, I'M ALSO
WARY OF CEDING AUTHORITY TO A
MULTI-STATE COMPACT COMMISSION
TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR OUT OF STATE
PSYCHOLOGISTS TO PROVIDE
PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES TO
CALIFORNIANS, AMONG SOME OTHER
CONCERNS, BUT REALLY APPRECIATE
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO MAKE THE
BILL'S ENACTMENT CONTINGENT UPON
THE BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY'S
APPROVAL. APPRECIATE THAT THIS
BY NO MEANS WILL BE THE LAST
CONVERSATION ON THIS ISSUE, AND
WITH THE AMENDMENT, I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY, WHEN WE
HAVE A MOTION, WHEN WE HAVE A
QUORUM, WHICH WE STILL DON'T
HAVE PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
TO, MEMBERS OF THE OF THE
COMMITTEE. COME ON DOWN, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. YOU AND ME BOTH,
CHAIR. YOU AND ME BOTH. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. SO
WE NEED MEMBERS, AND WE NEED
AUTHORS, BUT WE'VE GOT AUTHORS
ON THE COMMITTEE, SO, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FLORA, YOUR YOUR FIRST.
SO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TEN, AB
2578.
AND READY WHEN YOU ARE
.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, TODAY I PRESENT AB 2578
THAT WOULD ALLOW CALIFORNIA
NURSING STUDENTS TO ENROLL IN
ALT, WHO ENROLL IN OUT-OF-STATE
NURSING PROGRAMS TO COMPLETE
THEIR CLINICAL TRAINING HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. CURRENTLY, THESE
STUDENTS ARE BARRED FROM DOING
SO, AND WE NEED TO FIND A WAY
FOR THOSE NURSING STUDENTS TO
COMPLETE THEIR CLINICAL TRAINING
IN OTHER STATES, AND THEY END UP
STAYING IN THOSE STATES. AB 2578
AIMS TO SUPPORT THE EDUCATIONAL
NEEDS OF THESE STUDENTS WHILE
ADDRESSING THE STATE'S NURSING
SHORTAGE. THERE CURRENTLY IS NO
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE VOTE
WHEN THE TIME COMES AND I'VE GOT
A COUPLE OF WITNESSES TO SHARE
THEIR STORY. GREAT. AND WHEN IT
SAYS YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY NAME IS
LAURA RICHETELLI AND I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AB 2578. I'M
A SINGLE MOTHER AND AIR FORCE
VETERAN WHO PROUDLY SERVED AS A
LICENSED VOCATIONAL NURSE IN THE
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE DURING
DESERT STORM DESERT SHIELD. AS
COVID 19 SWEPT THROUGH THE
WORLD, I WATCHED THE NURSING
WORKFORCE GET DECIMATED. I KNEW
I HAD TO MOBILIZE, AND I DECIDED
TO RETURN TO NURSING SCHOOL IN
THE NURSING PROFESSION BY
PURSUING MY BSN, RN DEGREE.
UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS FACED WITH
MULTIPLE BARRIERS. AS I WAS TOLD
OVER AND OVER, I'D HAVE TO SIT
ON WAITING LISTS THAT RANGE FROM
3 TO 7 YEARS ONLINE NURSING
SCHOOL ENABLES ME THE IMMEDIATE
ACCESS TO THE EDUCATION I
DESIRED TO SUPPORT NOT ONLY MY
FAMILY, BUT SERVE MY NURSING
COMMUNITY AND THE PATIENTS WHO
DESPERATELY NEEDED ME. HOWEVER,
EVERY SEMESTER I HAVE TO LEAVE
CALIFORNIA TO ATTEND CLINICALS
IN STATES SUCH AS KANSAS AND
WYOMING, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL
EXPENSE OF 3000 PLUS DOLLARS IN
EXTRA TRAVEL EXPENSES AND LOST
WAGES, PLUS THE ADDITIONAL
STRESS ON MY FAMILY AND MY
SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD. I THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND ALL OF YOU WHO
SUPPORT THIS BILL AND MAKING
THIS HAPPEN. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WITNESS, MY
NAME IS JULIE HEATH. THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR TAKING THE TIME TO
HEAR US TODAY, I AM A CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA BSN STUDENT, I CHOSE
TO DO DISTANCE LEARNING BECAUSE
THE PROGRAMS IN THIS AREA ARE
VERY IMPACTED AND DON'T ALLOW ME
TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT I
NEED. AS A MOM OF FIVE AND A
WIFE OF A EXCUSE ME, OF A
HUSBAND WHO HAS MEDICAL ISSUES
AS. CðC, I NEEDED THE
FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO BE
PRESENT FOR MY FAMILY. SO I
CHOSE DISTANCE LEARNING AS A AS
THE OPTION, WHICH ALLOWS ME THAT
FLEXIBILITY TO BE PRESENT FOR MY
FAMILY AND GET MY DEGREE. THE
DOWNSIDE OF THIS IS THAT WE HAVE
TO TRAVEL, AS LAURA WAS SAYING,
AND THAT COSTS QUITE A BIT OF
MONEY COMING OUT OF POCKET. AND
SO IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT I
WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS
BILL. AND I'M ASKING YOU TO DO
THE SAME. IT IS NOT ONLY GOING
TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO STAY
CLOSE TO OUR FAMILIES, BUT IT
WILL ALSO HELP THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND, BRING MORE
ECONOMY TO THIS AREA. AND
SUPPORT THE STATE. SO I ASK THAT
YOU SAY AYE ON THIS BILL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES WHO WANT TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? PLEASE COME
ON UP. WRITE YOUR NAME.
ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH, IF
ANY, AND POSITION ON THE BILL.
HI, MY NAME IS ASHLEY JONES. I'M
GENERATIONS HEALTH CARE OUTREACH
AND RECRUITMENT MANAGER AND I'M
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MIKHAIL SCHNEIDER
CEO, NIGHTINGALE EDUCATION GROUP
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. JUSTIN FANZO, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGISTS AND
DAVITA, BOTH IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS BLAKE HALLIDAY,
REGISTERED NURSE. I SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. GINA CARSON,
RESIDENT OF SAN FRANCISCO. I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS MIRANDA CISNEROS. I'M A
NURSING STUDENT FROM SACRAMENTO,
AND I SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS TANYA GOMEZ
ESQUIVEL. I'M A NURSING STUDENT
AND I'M FROM SACRAMENTO. I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS MARIBEL DURAN ESQUIVEL.
I AM A NURSING STUDENT IN
SACRAMENTO AND I SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
MONICA AKKARI. I'M A STUDENT IN
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS DOLLY MATTHEW. I'M LIVE
IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? SEEING
NONE. ANY WITNESSES YOU WANT TO
ADD ON IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL
? SEEING NONE. BRING IT BACK TO
COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. WE STILL ARE ONE SHY
OF A QUORUM, ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? VICE
CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU
FOR CONTINUING TO WORK WITH US
ON THIS BILL, THE AUTHOR ALREADY
INCLUDED OUR RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENTS TO THE PRIOR VERSION
OF THE BILL, WHICH WE WERE WHICH
WERE INTENDED TO REDUCE
COMPETITION WITHIN STATE
STUDENTS FOR CLINICAL
PLACEMENTS. AND SO WITH THAT,
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL
AGAIN TODAY, AND WE'LL VOTE ON
IT WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM. LET'S
GET A QUORUM. IF YOU'RE STAFFED
A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, GO
FIND YOUR BOSS, DRAG THEM ON
DOWN ROOM 1100. WE'LL BE HERE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WILSON. WITH,
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE, AB
2566. READY WHEN YOU ARE
.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF
PAUSE TO ESTABLISH QUORUM. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BERMAN HERE. LARA ALANIS BANES
HERE. JUAN CARRILLO HERE. CHEN
DIXON. GRAYSON GRAYSON, IRWIN.
JACKSON. WARD LOWENTHAL.
MCKENNA. GWEN PELLERIN. SANCHEZ.
SORIA SABER. GREAT. WE HAVE A
QUORUM. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. WILSON.
READY WHEN YOU ARE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS GOOD MORNING.
I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT A B 2566.
IT'S A BILL THAT AIMS TO ADD THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO THE
INTERSTATE COUNSELING COMPACT. I
WOULD LIKE TO START BY THANKING
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL, AND SAY THAT
I AM ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. THE BROAD GOAL OF
THE COUNSELOR COMPACT IS TO
ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO PRACTICE
FOR LICENSED COUNSELORS AND
BARRIERS TO TREATMENTS FOR
CLIENTS BY ENSURING KHÎI
OPERATION AMONGST MEMBER STATES
AND REGULATING THE COUNSELING
PROFESSION. THE COUNSELOR
COMPACT PROVIDES GREATER ACCESS
TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE, AND
CALIFORNIA REMOVES BARRIERS TO
PRACTICE WITHOUT SACRIFICING
PUBLIC PROTECTION. HELPS ADDRESS
HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE SHORTAGES,
AND ALLOWS CALIFORNIA'S LPCS TO
PROVIDE GREATER CONTINUITY OF
CARE TO PATIENTS WHO TRAVEL OR
RELOCATE. IF PASSED, AB 2566
PROVIDES SEAMLESS ABILITY FOR
MILITARY PERSONNEL AND SPOUSES
WHO RELOCATE TO PRACTICE WHILE
PRESERVING THE REGULATORY
OVERSIGHT OF THE BOARD OF
BEHAVIORAL SERVICES. I'M SORRY
SCIENCES. THE COMPACT DOES NOT
IMPACT THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE IN
ANY STATE. LICENSED COUNSELORS
PRACTICING UNDER THE COMPACT IN
ANOTHER STATE MUST COMPLY WITH
THE COUNSELING LAWS AND
STANDARDS IN THAT STATE IN WHICH
THEY ARE PRACTICING THE COMPACT
DOES NOT AFFECT THE BHB'S
AUTHORITY TO PROTECT PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY OR REGULATE
THE LPC PROFESSION. THE
COUNSELING COMPACT IS OVERSEEN
BY A PUBLIC COMMISSION COMPRISED
OF DELEGATES FROM EACH MEMBER
STATE. THE COMMISSION ISSUES
APPROPRIATE RULES TO ENSURE A
RESPONSIVE, ADAPTIVE AND
SUSTAINABLE COMPACT, PROVIDING A
LONG TERME SOLUTION TO
INTERSTATE LICENSE PORTABILITY.
I HAVE TWO WITNESSES WITH ME
HERE TODAY, DOCTOR ANTHONY
RIVAS, A KALPIC BOARD MEMBER,
AND ALSO, GV AIRES REPRESENTING
THE SPONSOR, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION FOR LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL
COUNSELORS. GREAT. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS GV AYERS. I AM THE
LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL
COUNSELORS. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR ANALYSIS, AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS
BILL. I'M HERE MAINLY FOR
QUESTIONS. I WANT TO INTRODUCE
DOCTOR ANTHONY RIVAS TO MY RIGHT
HERE AND HE IS OUR TESTIFY,
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE BILL
. GREAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I WANT TO START OFF BY
THANKING YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TESTIFY TODAY IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2566. I'M DOCTOR ANTHONY
RIVAS, AND I AM ALSO A
COUNSELOR, EDUCATOR HERE IN
SACRAMENTO, AND I AM DULY
LICENSED, AND AS GV SAID, I AM A
MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA BOARD
MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION FOR LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL
COUNSELORS, OR CALPAC, AND
CALPAC IS THE SPONSOR OF THIS
BILL, AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON, FOR
OFFERING THIS IMPORTANT BILL FOR
COUNSELORS AS AB 2566 WILL TAKE
GREAT STRIDES IN PROVIDING
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE TO
THOSE IN NEED IN CALIFORNIA. IT
PROVIDES AN EFFICIENT PATHWAY
FOR QUALIFIED, LICENSED
COUNSELORS TO PROVIDE COUNSELING
SERVICES IN THE STATE. WE
INCREASE THE MENTAL HEALTH
WORKFORCE AND ALLOW MORE PEOPLE
TO GET INTO THE COUNSELING
SERVICES THAT THEY SO
DESPERATELY NEED. AND WE DO KNOW
WE ARE IN A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS
IN OUR COUNTRY, ADDING MORE
LICENSED COUNSELORS TO THE
WORKFORCE DOES NOT REPLACE OR
NOR DIMINISH THE EXISTING
COUNSELORS IN THE STATE.
INSTEAD, IT SUPPLEMENTS AND
AUGMENTS THE WORKFORCE AND
STRENGTHENS CALIFORNIA'S ABILITY
TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON ITS
COMMITMENT TO MEET THE MENTAL
HEALTH CHALLENGES THAT WE SEE
CURRENTLY IN OUR COMMUNITIES. IT
ALSO ALLOWS LPCS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, THE VAST MAJORITY OF
WHOM WORK IN PRIVATE PRACTICE TO
SUPPLEMENT THEIR INCOME IN
THROUGH TELETHERAPY IN MEMBER
STATES, AB 2566 ALSO RECOGNIZES
THE MOBILITY LIFESTYLE OF
TODAY'S SOCIETY AND ALLOWS
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
TO SEAMLESSLY PROVIDE THEIR
SERVICES IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
WHEN MEMBERS ARE CLIENTS, MOVE,
GO ON VACATION, OR TEMPORARILY
RELOCATE DUE TO THEIR WORK
REQUIREMENTS. IT ALLOWS
CALIFORNIA LPCS TO PROVIDE A
GREATER CONTINUITY OF CARE,
WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT ONCE YOU
ESTABLISH THAT THERAPEUTIC
RELATIONSHIP, WHEN THERE, AS I
SAID, THERE PATIENTS OR CLIENTS
MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE OR
TEMPORARILY RELOCATE. THE
COUNSELING COMPACT MAKES IT
EASIER FOR COUNSELORS WHO COME
TO CALIFORNIA OR CALIFORNIA
COUNSELORS WHO MAY RELOCATE TO
ANOTHER STATE TO BECOME
LICENSED. I MYSELF AM ONE OF
THOSE COUNSELORS WHO RELOCATED
TO CALIFORNIA AND IT, WHEN YOU
RELOCATE A LICENSE IS NOT THE
FUN PART TO HAVE TO TRANSFER
OVER. AND IF YOU COULD WRAP UP,
THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU, THE
COMPACT DOES NOT IMPACT THE
SCOPE OF PRACTICE FOR LPCS, AND
IT PRESERVES AND STRENGTHENS THE
ABILITIES OF THE BOARD OF
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES TO LICENSE
AND ENFORCE THE LAW REGARDING
LPCS, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON
THIS IMPORTANT BILL, AND WE
REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
WITNESSES YOU WANT TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? GOOD
MORNING, MDS, ON BEHALF OF
KAISER PERMANENTE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. CHRIS MICHELI, ON BEHALF
OF THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND CAL
SCHIRM IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? SEEING NONE ANY WITNESSES
WHO WANT TO ADD ON IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. SEEING NONE. BRING
IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR MOTIONS
OR SECONDS. NOW. GOT A MOTION IN
A SECOND AND A QUESTION. SO,
MEMBER GRAYSON. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK
AND ESPECIALLY THE INTENT WITH
THE MUCH NEED, GREAT NEED THAT'S
OUT THERE FOR, THERAPISTS AND
COUNSELORS, AS WE ALL KNOW WHAT
IT TAKES TO BECOME CERTIFIED, AS
A COUNSELOR OR A THERAPIST IN
CALIFORNIA IS MUCH DIFFERENT
THAN WHAT IT WOULD BE TO, DO
THAT SAME PRACTICE IN MANY OTHER
STATES. ARE WE SETTING THE BAR
FOR THOSE THAT BECOME A PART OF
THIS COMPACT? ARE WE SETTING THE
BAR, THE BASELINE BAR AT THE
CALIFORNIA STANDARD SO THAT WHEN
THEY COME INTO CALIFORNIA,
THEY'RE ACTUALLY OPERATING UNDER
OUR, CERTIFICATION POLICIES OR
OR WILL THERE BE AN OCCASION
WHERE SOMEONE COULD ACTUALLY
COME INTO CALIFORNIA WITH LESSER
QUALIFICATIONS AND STILL BE ABLE
TO OPERATE EQUIVALENT IN AN
EQUIVALENT CAPACITY TO SOMEONE
WHO WENT THROUGH THE AS WAS
TESTIFIED BY A WITNESS, THE
ARDUOUS, PROCESS OF BEING
LICENSED HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
I'LL GIVE IT OVER TO THE
WITNESS, OUR WITNESS, BUT IT
DOESN'T IMPACT, YOU KNOW, THE
SCOPE OF PRACTICE IN ANY STATE.
THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE LAWS
AND STANDARDS IN THE STATE WHERE
THE CLIENT IS RECEIVING THE
SERVICES. AND SO IT DOES REQUIRE
YOU A JURISPRUDENCE EXAM, BUT
WANTED TO SEE IF MR. AYRES WOULD
LIKE DOCTOR AYRES WOULD LIKE TO
EXPAND. RIGHT. NOT DOCTOR AYRES,
BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU. I WAS
HAPPY TO GIVE THE UPGRADE. I'M
NOT GOING TO TAKE THE PROMOTION.
NO WHAT THE COMPACT DOES IS
ESSENTIALLY, THEY'RE ALL 50
STATES LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
COUNSELORS. THEY CALL THEM A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THINGS HERE
IN CALIFORNIA. WE CALL THEM
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL
COUNSELORS. CALIFORNIA WAS THE
50TH STATE, THE LAST STATE TO
GET THE LICENSE. AND WE HAVE,
THROUGHOUT THE STATES,
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, THERE ARE
EQUIVALENT THERE CONSIDERED TO
BE EQUIVALENT STANDARDS TO
LICENSE ALL THE COUNSELORS
EQUIVALENT, ESSENTIALLY THE
EQUIVALENT, NUMBER OF HOURS,
SUPERVISED EXPERIENCE. ONCE THE
EDUCATION IS ALL, THERE ARE
SOME, MINOR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
THEM. BUT IT'S ON THE, ON THE
BASIC ON THE BASIC PICTURE, IT
IS CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT EVEN BY
, EVEN BY THE BOARD OF
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AS WELL. I
APPRECIATE THAT, HOWEVER, THERE
ARE SOME THINGS THAT AREN'T
EQUIVALENT. AND SO I CAN
UNDERSTAND WHERE SOMEONE
PRACTICING IN NEW YORK, MAY
ALREADY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE. AND
ALREADY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CALIFORNIA, I WOULD HAVE
ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT
KIND OF A, INDIVIDUAL COMING
INTO CALIFORNIA AND PRACTICING
BECAUSE THEY MEET CALIFORNIA'S
MINIMUM STANDARDS. BUT IN
CALIFORNIA, NHÀ, YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO SPEND 3000 HOURS
SUPERVISED BEFORE YOU CAN BECOME
LICENSED. AND IN OTHER STATES,
THEY ONLY REQUIRE LESS THAN HALF
OF THAT. SO I WOULD JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT IN THE BILL,
INDIVIDUALS IN OTHER STATES THAT
ARE COMING INTO CALIFORNIA HAVE
MET CALIFORNIA'S MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS. AND I KNOW THOSE
PEOPLE EXIST BECAUSE THERE ARE
SOME THAT HAVE MOVED OUT OF
CALIFORNIA, THAT COULD COME BACK
AND PRACTICE IN THIS STATE, YOU
KNOW, AS WELL AS OTHERS THAT
HAVE WORKED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DIMINISHING
THE VERY HARD WORK THAT CLINICAL
, COUNSELORS AND THERAPISTS HAVE
DONE HERE IN THIS STATE TO
BECOME LICENSED AND THEN ALLOW
SOMEONE ELSE TO COME IN WITH A
LESSER STANDARD AND PRACTICE
RIGHT ALONGSIDE IN AN
EQUIVALENT, SCENARIO. RIGHT, NO.
WE AGREE, WE AGREE. AND IT DOES
NOT SAY SIMPLY BLANKET. IF YOU
HAVE A LICENSE, YOU GET TO DO
THIS. IT'S IF YOU HAVE THE
LICENSE AND MEET THE CRITERIA,
THAT THANK YOU FOR THAT, THAT
YOU GET TO DO IT. I APPRECIATE
THE ASSURANCE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AUTHOR. AND ONE OF, THANK
YOU SO MUCH, I APPRECIATE THE
RECOGNITION OF THE INTENT AND
MAKING SURE THAT THE STANDARDS
ARE THE SAME. BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
TO ME AS IT RELATES TO THIS
BEING A MILITARY FAMILY, YOU
KNOW, WIFE AND MOTHER, IS THE
SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT
ALLOWS A MILITARY MEMBER WHO HAS
A LICENSE TO COME IN AND
PRACTICE IN OUR STATE WHILE
THEY'RE ACTIVE DUTY, BUT IF THEY
WERE TO RETIRE IN OUR STATE,
THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO
PRACTICE. THEY WOULD THEY WOULD
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE
PROCESS AGAIN. IT WOULD
COMPLETELY GO AWAY. A COMPACT
LIKE THIS ALLOWS THAT PERSON TO
RETIRE IN OUR STATE AND STILL
CONTINUE TO PRACTICE. THANK YOU
FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THANK
YOU, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTIONS, I APPRECIATE THE
SUPPORT. THANK YOU TO MY
WITNESSES. THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. I JUST I'M, YOU KNOW,
SITTING IN PUBLIC SAFETY RIGHT
NOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION AND JUST
THE LACK OF COUNSELORS EVEN BE
ABLE TO PROPERLY RECOGNIZE, THE
FACT THAT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE IN
OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT
NEED MENTAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES
. SO BILLS LIKE THIS, HELP
ALLEVIATE ISSUES THAT WE'RE
SEEING EVEN IN OTHER COMMITTEES.
AND SO WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, I WANT TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. AS I
MENTIONED, IN REGARDS TO A
SIMILAR BILL, I THINK TWO BILLS
AGO, I RECOGNIZE AND APPRECIATE
THE SERIOUSNESS OF CALIFORNIA'S
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH WORKFORCE
SHORTAGE. AND I THANK YOU FOR
ENDEAVORING TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT, FOR THE REASONS THAT I
STATED EARLIER, AMONG OTHERS, I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE STATE
ENTERING INTO ANY COMPACT, BUT I
GREATLY APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
WILLINGNESS TO AMEND THE BILL TO
MAKE ITS ENACTMENT CONTINGENT
UPON THE BOARD OF BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCES APPROVAL. AND WITH
THAT, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY, AND I THINK WE HAVE
A MOTION IN A SECOND, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE
ON AB 2566. WILSON, THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
BERMAN BERMAN I FLORA. FLORA I
ALANIS BAYNES. BAYNES I JUAN.
CARRILLO. JUAN. CARRILLO I CHEN.
CHEN I DIXON. GRAYSON GRAYSON. I
IRWIN. JACKSON. JACKSON I WARD.
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. I MCKENNA,
JUAN. PELLERIN. PELLERIN I
SANCHEZ. SORIA. ZUBER. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT BILL ON CALL, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL, DOCTOR BANES? YEAH
READY? WHEN ALL ELSE. YEAH.
PERFECT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11,
AB 2651.
I KEEP FORGETTING I'LL GET IT
ONE OF THESE DAYS. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, AB 2651
CREATES THE LICENSE. ALCOHOL
DRUG COUNSELOR BOARD AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
WHICH WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS FOR ISSUING LICENSES
TO QUALIFIED ALCOHOL DRUG
COUNSELORS, LICENSED LICENSING,
ALCOHOL DRUG COUNSELORS WOULD
HELP TO ADDRESS CRITICAL ACCESS
TO HEALTH CARE ISSUES AND THE
LACK OF SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
SERVICES BY ENABLING LICENSED
COUNSELORS TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL
COUNSELING TO PERSONS SEEKING
HELP WITH ADDICTION. AT ITS
EARLIEST STAGES IN A PRIVATE
PRACTICE SETTING. WHILE THERE
ARE ALWAYS CHALLENGES THAT NEED
TO BE OVERCOME WHEN WE LOOK TO
ESTABLISH A NEW PROFESSIONAL
LICENSE, IT IS CRITICALLY,
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THE REAL LIFE
BARRIERS TO CARE THAT PATIENTS
FACE. UNDER OUR CURRENT SYSTEM,
THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAVE SPENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO CARE,
INCLUDING EXPANDING MEDI-CAL
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THOSE ON
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,
EXCHANGES AND EXPANDED
ELIGIBILITY UNDER MEDI-CAL.
HOWEVER WHAT OUR REFORMS OFTEN
OVERLOOK IS THAT INSURANCE
COVERAGE IS ONLY AS VALUABLE AS
A PATIENT'S ABILITY TO USE IT.
IF YOU CANNOT GET INTO SEE A
PROVIDER WHO ACCEPTS YOUR
INSURANCE, THEN WE HAVE DONE
NOTHING TO INCREASE YOUR ACCESS
TO CARE. THIS DYNAMIC IS
ESPECIALLY PREVALENT WHEN WE
LOOK AT THE OPTIONS PATIENTS
HAVE TO GET TREATMENT FOR
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER. IF YOU
HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE AND YOU
HAVE SEVERE SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER, THAT REQUIRES
INTENSIVE OUTPATIENT PARTIAL
HOSPITALIZATION OR AN INPATIENT
LEVEL OF CARE, THEN THE SYSTEM
MOST WORKS FOR YOU. YOU CAN SEE
A SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
SPECIALIST AND YOUR INSURANCE
WILL GENERALLY PAY FOR THAT CARE
. BUT THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS
ARE DESIGNED FOR TRULY SEVERE
CASES AND ARE OFTEN NOT
APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY FOR
MILD TO MODERATE CASES THAT
WOULD BE BETTER TREATED IN A
NORMAL OFFICE ENVIRONMENT. IT IS
IN THESE MILD TO MODERATE CASES
WHERE WE SEE SOME OF THE BIGGEST
BARRIERS TO CARE. IF A PATIENT
WITH INSURANCE WOULD BE BEST
TREATED BY A SUBSTANCE USE
COUNSELOR IN A TYPICAL OFFICE
ENVIRONMENT, IN MOST CASES,
THEIR INSURANCE WILL NOT COVER
THE COST OF THAT VISIT. THAT
MEANS THE ONLY PATIENTS YOU ARE
PERMITTED TO SEE, THE ONLY
PATIENTS THAT ARE WHO ARE
PERMITTED TO SEE A SUBSTANCE USE
COUNSELOR IN AN OFFICE
ENVIRONMENT ARE THOSE WHO CAN
AFFORD CASH PAY, WHICH RAISES
SIGNIFICANT EQUITY ISSUES AND
EXCLUDES MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIA'S CALIFORNIANS FROM
RECEIVING CARE BECAUSE OF
INABILITY TO PAY OUR HEALTH
SYSTEMS SO OFTEN REFUSES TO HELP
PEOPLE UNTIL THEY HAVE A CRISIS.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE
WITH SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER,
ALLOWING PATIENTS TO USE THEIR
INSURANCE COVERAGE WITH LICENSED
ALCOHOL AND DRUG COUNSELORS IN
AN OFFICE SETTING WOULD ENABLE
THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD CASH PAY
TO RECEIVE CARE BEFORE THEIR
DISORDER PROGRESSES IN SEVERITY.
BY CREATING A LICENSE FOR
ALCOHOL DRUG COUNSELORS AB 2651
AND ENSURES LICENSED COUNSELORS
ARE ELIGIBLE FOR INSURANCE
REIMBURSEMENT WHEN SEEING
PATIENTS. THIS BILL REQUIRES
LICENSEES TO COMPLETE A MASTER'S
DEGREE, SUPERVISED PRACTICUM
FROM AN APPROVED EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION, ACHIEVE A
SUCCESSFUL SCORE, AND ON A
NATIONAL LICENSING EXAM, AND
RECEIVE EITHER CERTIFICATION OR
COMPLETION OF 2000 HOURS OF POST
GRADUATE SUPERVISED WORK
EXPERIENCE. THE BILL ALSO
CREATES TITLE PROTECTION BY
LIMITING THE TITLE LICENSED
ALCOHOL DRUG COUNSELOR TO
PERSONS LICENSED BY THE BOARD TO
ENSURE CONSUMERS CAN HAVE
CONFIDENCE IN THEIR PROVIDER
SELECTION IN SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER WAS ALREADY A CRISIS
BEFORE COVID HIT, BUT THE
PANDEMIC CAUSED A SIGNIFICANT
SPIKE IN CASES, WITH MORE THAN
40 STATES REPORTING AN INCREASE
IN OPIOID RELATED MORTALITIES
AND AN 18% INCREASE IN OVERDOSES
NATIONWIDE. AND AB 2651
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE NEED TO
COMMIT TO ESTABLISHING A ROBUST
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
WORKFORCE, AND WE CAN PROVIDE
CARE FOR PATIENTS BEFORE THEIR
ADDICTION REACHES CRISIS LEVELS.
AB 2651 IS SUPPORTED BY A ROBUST
COALITION OF SUPPORTERS FROM
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND WITH
ME TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT,
I HAVE MICHAEL PRITCHARD AND
PATTY VARGAS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. DOCTOR BAYNES. YOU EACH
HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR. AND JUST HIT
THE MIC BUTTON REAL QUICK. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS I'VE
BEEN A SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
COUNSELOR FOR 13 YEARS AND HAVE
A MASTER'S DEGREE IN ADDICTION
COUNSELING. EVEN WITH MY DEGREE
IN TEACHING AT THE COLLEGE
LEVEL, TRAINING, HELPING
PROFESSIONALS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE AND MORE THAN A DECADE OF
EXPERIENCE, THERE IS CURRENTLY
NO PATHWAY FOR ME OR ANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO OBTAIN LICENSE IN
SUD COUNSELING IN CALIFORNIA.
THIS IMPACTS PROFESSIONALS LIKE
ME, BUT HAS A LARGER IMPLICATION
FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY,
ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE HIGH
RATES OF OVERDOSE THAT WE ARE
SEEING. NOT ONLY IS THERE AN
INCREASE IN SUD, BUT THE POTENCY
AND PURITY OF AVAILABLE
SUBSTANCES HAS INCREASED,
RESULTING IN HIGH FREQUENCY OF
OVERDOSE DEATHS FOR THE PUBLIC
GOOD, WE CAN NO LONGER NEGLECT
AVENUES OF ACCESS TO CARE AND
WORKFORCE EXPANSION. LICENSURE
FOR SUD COUNSELORS WOULD OPEN
MORE AVENUES FOR PEOPLE SEEKING
COUNSELING SERVICES SPECIFIC TO
ADDICTION. DUE TO THE STIGMA
SURROUNDING ADDICTION, MANY
PEOPLE IN THE EARLY PHASES OF
SUD ARE HESITANT TO APPROACH A
TREATMENT PROGRAM, BUT WOULD BE
WILLING TO SEE A LICENSE. SUD
COUNSELOR IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. I
KNOW THIS BECAUSE I REGULARLY
RECEIVE PHONE CALLS FROM THE
PUBLIC ASKING IF I CAN PROVIDE
SERVICES. UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE
TO TELL THEM NO BECAUSE AS A
CERTIFIED SUD COUNSELOR, I CAN'T
DIAGNOSE SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER,
NOR CAN I RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT
THROUGH MEDI-CAL OR MOST PRIVATE
INSURANCE. IF I DID PRIVATE
PRACTICE, I COULD ONLY SEE THOSE
WHO COULD PAY OUT OF POCKET. IN
ADDITION TO ACCESS BARRIERS THAT
CREATE INEQUITY ALONG INCOME
LEVELS, THE CURRENT SUD
WORKFORCE FACES CRITICAL
SHORTAGES AND HAS FOR DECADES.
LACK OF LICENSURE IS A BARRIER
TO WORKFORCE RETENTION AND
ATTRACTION TO THE PROFESSION, AS
THERE IS NO UPWARD MOBILITY
TOWARD INDEPENDENT PRACTICE AND
HIGHER LEVEL POSITIONS WITHIN
INTEGRATED TEAMS. THERE IS ALSO
NO INCENTIVE FOR COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES TO CREATE GRADUATE
LEVEL DEGREE PROGRAMS. THIS
REDUCES CALIFORNIA'S EFFICACY IN
TREATING THE DISEASE. THE
INCREASING COMPLEX K¾T OF
TREATING SUD, COUPLED WITH THE
ADVANCED RESEARCH AVAILABLE IN
THE ADDICTION TREATMENT
PROFESSION, NECESSITATES THAT A
HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF ADDICTION
COUNSELORS BE EDUCATED IN
ADDICTION STUDIES AT THE
GRADUATE LEVEL. TO CONCLUDE,
LICENSURE WILL GROW THE
WORKFORCE AND GIVE CALIFORNIANS
ADDITIONAL AVENUES OF CARE,
ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY PHASES
OF THE DISEASE, WHEN THEY ARE
STILL EMPLOYED, INSURED, AND
STILL HAVE SUPPORTIVE NETWORK OF
FAMILY AND FRIENDS. I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. TWO OF MY THREE
CHILDREN STRUGGLED WITH
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER. WE LOST
MY SON JOEL TO HIS DISEASE IN
2017. THANKFULLY, MY DAUGHTER
BECCA HAS BEEN IN RECOVERY FOR
THREE YEARS NOW. BETWEEN THE TWO
OF THEM, WE INTERACTED WITH
APPROXIMATELY TWO DOZEN
TREATMENT FACILITIES WITH
EXPERIENCES RANGING FROM A
LOCKED DOWN WAREHOUSING
SITUATION WITH LITTLE SERVICES
TO WHAT WE CALLED THE GOLD
PLATED SOLUTION THAT REQUIRED A
SECOND MORTGAGE ON OUR HOME TO A
PROGRAM CONSISTING OF TERRIFYING
PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE
MODELED AFTER THE SYNANON
PROTOCOL. EARLY ON, IN OUR
EXPERIENCE, WE HAD NO POINT OF
REFERENCE TO KNOW WHAT TO
EXPECT. EXPECT WHAT TREATMENT
SHOULD LOOK LIKE, AND WE JUST
ASSUMED THAT THE PEOPLE WORKING
IN THE PROGRAMS WERE QUALIFIED
EXPERTS, PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS
AND ALCOHOL DON'T LOOK ALIKE,
ACT ALIKE, OR HAVE THE EXACT
SAME NEEDS. SO A ONE SIZE FITS
ALL TREATMENT MODEL DOESN'T
SUPPORT THE GOAL OF GETTING
PEOPLE WELL. SOME FOLKS CAN'T
AFFORD TO GO AWAY FOR A MONTH
BECAUSE THEY'LL LOSE THEIR JOB.
SOME FEAR A PAINFUL WITHDRAWAL
STILL OTHERS HAVE BEEN ABUSED BY
A SYSTEM THAT'S FOCUSED MORE ON
THEIR TREATMENT METHOD AND LESS
ON RECOVERY. SO THEY HAVE NO
CONFIDENCE IN A GOOD OUTCOME.
THERE IS MUCH REFORM NEEDED IN
THIS SPACE, AND IMPORTANT STEP
FORWARD IS ACCESS TO REGULATED
LICENSED COUNSELORS, ALONG WITH
PEER SERVICES, BOTH INPATIENT
AND OUTPATIENT. IN ONE PROGRAM,
MY DAUGHTER WENT THROUGH THREE
DIFFERENT COUNSELORS DURING A 45
DAY STAY. THE TURNOVER IS
EXTREMELY HIGH AND IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH
CONSISTENCY AND TRUST WITH A
REVOLVING DOOR OF COUNSELORS.
IT'S TIME FOR A CONTINUUM
APPROACH ON LEADING PEOPLE INTO
SUSTAINED RECOVERY. EDUCATE OUR
YOUTH EARLY ON ABOUT ADDICTION
SO THEY DON'T NEED TO WAIT UNTIL
THEY'RE EXTREMELY ILL OR COURT
ORDERED INTO TREATMENT SERVICES.
THEY SHOULD TREAT THE WHOLE
PERSON WHERE THEY ARE AND ENSURE
A SEAMLESS EXPERIENCE THAT
INTEGRATES RECOVERY AND OVERDOSE
PREVENTION THÀNH INTO A WAY OF
BEING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH AND I'M VERY SORRY FOR YOUR
LOSS. THANK YOU, ANY WITNESSES
WHO WANT TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL PROVIDE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH, IF
ANY, AND POSITION ON THE BILL.
JOHN DREBINGER WITH THE
STEINBERG INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOT A MOTION AND A
SECOND. ANY. YEP. ONE MORE.
SORRY. I WALKED THE WRONG LONG
WAY. ROBERT HARRIS, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
ADDICTION MEDICINE, IN STRONG,
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS LONG
OVERDUE MEASURE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANY WITNESSES, ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? COME ON UP. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES.
MIKE'S ON. THANK YOU. CHAIR
BERMAN, VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
TRENT MURPHY. I'M A POLICY
ANALYST FOR THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG
PROGRAM EXECUTIVES. OUR
ASSOCIATION CONSISTS OF MEMBERS
WHO PROVIDE SUD SERVICES AT OVER
400 SITES THROUGHOUT THE STATE
AND MAKE UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE
OF THE STATE'S PUBLICLY FUNDED
SUD TREATMENT NETWORK. OUR
MEMBERS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL AS INTRODUCED, AND WE HAVE
BEEN IN TALKS WITH THE SPONSORS
WHO HAVE ADDRESSED MANY OF THOSE
CONCERNS, AS THERE ARE STILL ONE
MAJOR ISSUE WHERE OUR MEMBERS
ARE OPPOSED REGARDING THE
PLACEMENT OF THIS NEW LICENSING
BOARD. WHILE WE DO SUPPORT A
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE FOR SUD
COUNSELORS, WE BELIEVE THE BOARD
OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES IS
ALREADY SET UP TO HANDLE THESE
RESPONSIBILITIES AS THEY ALREADY
LICENSE MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELORS
BY INCLUDING THIS LICENSURE INTO
THE BBS, WE WOULD AND CONTINUE
THE WORK OF ENSURING SUD AND
MENTAL HEALTH ACHIEVE PARITY
WITHIN OUR SYSTEMS OF
GOVERNMENT. SUD NEEDS THIS TYPE
OF POLICY DISCUSSION, AND WE
VALUE THE BILL'S DIRECTION. AND
ADDITIONALLY, WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THEM TO DISCUSS OUR
CONCERNS IN MORE DETAIL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? SEEING
NONE, BRING IT BACK TO
COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. WE ALREADY HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND SEEING NO
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. DOCTOR
BANES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO POINT
OUT THAT THIS IS A CRITICALLY
LONG OVERDUE BILL, REALLY
APPRECIATE ALL THE SUPPORT THAT
I'VE RECEIVED. WE ARE IN ONGOING
TALKS MAKING SURE THAT
EVERYBODY'S, CONCERNS ARE
ADDRESSED, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU,
DOCTOR BANES AND I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS FOR
WORKING WITH US ON THIS BILL. I
ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT ADDICTION
IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE, THAT WE
MUST DO MORE TO ADDRESS,
HOWEVER, THE NEED FOR A NEW
LICENSING BOARD IS NOT YET AS
CLEAR. AND SO I WANT TO URGE THE
AUTHOR TO CONTINUE EXPLORING A
LOWER LEVEL OF REGULATION THÀNH
AS OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS. I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF PILOTING TITLE
PROTECTION OR OTHER ALTERNATIVES
TO LICENSURE AND THEN INCREASING
REGULATION IF PROBLEMS PERSIST,
BUT WITH THAT CAVEAT, I WANT TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY TO ALLOW
THE CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE.
AND I'M HAPPY TO RECOMMEND AN
AYE VOTE. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON AB 2651
BANES. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
BERMAN. AYE. BERMAN. AYE. FLORA
LARA. AYE. ALANIZ. BAINES.
BAINES AYE. JUAN. CARRILLO.
JUAN. CARRILLO. AYE. CHEN. CHEN
AYE. DIXON. GRAYSON. GRAYSON
AYE. IRWIN. JACKSON. JACKSON.
AYE WARD. LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL.
AYE MCKENNA. HIÆN. PELLERIN
PELLERIN. AYE. SANCHEZ. SORIA
ZUBER. OH. SORRY. SORIA. I
ZIPPER. ZIPPER. I THAT BILL IS
OUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
NEXT UP IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBER
WITH AB 2918. AGENDA ITEM 13.
GOT A. BIPARTISAN MOTION. SECOND
AND THIRD. THANK YOU. I ALSO
WANT TO THANK, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GIBSON FOR LETTING ME JUMP LINE,
WAS VERY GRACIOUS. I OWE HIM
ONE. IT'S ON THE RECORD, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS, I'M PROUD TO
PRESENT AB 2918, WHICH ENHANCES
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
WITHIN THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FOR THE BOARD OF BARBERING AND
COSMETOLOGY. CURRENT LAW
REQUIRES THE BOARD TO UPDATE ITS
REGISTRATION RECORDS WHEN A
LICENSEE NOTIFIES THEM OF A
CHANGE IN ADDRESS WITHIN 30
DAYS. HOWEVER, THERE'S NO
PROVISION MANDATING THE UPDATE
OF THE LICENSEES PUBLIC PROFILE
ON THE BOARD'S WEBSITE WITHOUT
SUCH A REQUIREMENT, THERE MAY BE
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE
BOARD INTERNALLY AND WHAT'S
ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO AB
2918 THEREFORE MAKES TECHNICAL
CHANGES BY REQUIRING THE BOARD
TO UPDATE ITS LICENSING
INFORMATION NOT ONLY TO ITS
INTERNAL RECORDS, BUT ALSO
PUBLICLY ON THE WEBSITE. I ASK
FOR THE COMMITTEE'S AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO YOU HAVE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? NO. SEEING NONE. ANY
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL, SEEING
NONE, ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? SEEING
NONE. ANY PEOPLE WANT TO ADD ON
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL?
SEEING NONE. BRING IT BACK TO
COLLEAGUES. WE HAVE A
TRIPARTISAN MOTION IN SECOND AND
THIRD. WE GET I USED TO BE ABLE
TO SAY THAT WHEN CHAD MAYES WAS
AROUND, SEEING NO QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, SOME MEMBER WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON AB 2918
ZABIR. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN. AYE.
BERMAN. AYE. FLORA. LARA AYE.
AL-ENEZI. BAINES. BAINES. AYE.
JUAN. CARRILLO JUAN. CARRILLO.
JUAN. CARRILLO. AYE CHEN. CHEN.
AYE. DIXON. GRAYSON GRAYSON.
AYE. ERWIN. JACKSON. ERWIN AYE.
JACKSON. JACKSON. AYE. WARD.
LOWENTHAL LOWENTHAL. AYE.
MCKENNA. WHEN WHEN? AYE.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. AYE SANCHEZ.
SORIA. SORIA. AYE BURR I SABER.
AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. GIBSON THREE. YOU GOT
THREE BILLS. THREE BILLS. I'M
GUESSING YOU'RE GOING WITH THE
TOP ONE FIRST. SB 2231.
BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS, THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 2231, WHICH SEEKS
TO PROPOSE A MANDATE CONTINUING
EDUCATION FOR PAWNBROKERS IN
CALIFORNIA. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
HARD WORK ON THIS BILL WORKING
WITH US. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE
I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
THIS BILL IN SHORTS, FROM THE
PAWNBROKERS, IMPOSE THEMSELVES
ON CONTINUOUS EDUCATION, AND TO
HAVE AN INDUSTRY HAS BEEN AROUND
FOR A LONG TIME TO PROPOSE, YOU
KNOW, CONTINUOUS EDUCATION, I
THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL THING,
AND HERE WITH ME AGAIN TO
RESPECTFULLY ASK WHEN I VOTE, I
WOULD, FORMER, FAMILIAR FACE,
SENATOR, FORMER STATE SENATOR
KATHLEEN GALGIANI, WHO WILL BE
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY
BILL 2231. SENATOR, IT IS AN
HONOR. WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU
SO VERY MUCH. IT'S AN HONOR TO
BE HERE. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THE WONDERFUL REVIEW
ON THE ANALYSIS. AND OF COURSE,
I THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON
FOR CARRYING THE BILL. I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PAWNBROKERS ASSOCIATION, THIS
BILL REQUESTS ONE THING AND ONE
THING ONLY, AND THAT IS FOR THE
PAWNBROKERS TO BECOME A
EDUCATION ACCREDITOR THROUGH THE
COUNCIL. YOU HAVE SEEN OTHER
MODELS BEFORE YOU. THIS HAS A
DISTINCT DIFFERENCE IN THAT THE
PAWNBROKERS ARE ALREADY, THEY
ALREADY HAVE OVERSIGHT FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS IN
REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY FALL
UNDER UNDER THE FINANCIAL CODE
WITH PAWNBROKERS. DÍAS THE STATE
HAS REQUIREMENTS WITH REGARD TO
THE LOAN AMOUNTS THAT THEY CAN
CHARGE THE FEES THAT THEY CAN
CHARGE, WHEN AND HOW, PROPERTY
CAN BE SOLD IF IT IS NOT
RETURNED. AND IN ADDITION, THEY
HAVE TO HAVE DAILY REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE. AGAIN, THIS BILL
SEEKS TO DO ONE THING, AND THAT
IS TO ALLOW PAWNBROKERS TO
EDUCATE OTHER PAWNBROKERS. THEY
BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BETTER
ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE ADVICE AND
COUNSEL TO THEIR CLIENTS, AND IT
WILL ALSO ENABLE THEM TO STAY IN
BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY WILL BE
ABLE TO EDUCATE ONE ANOTHER ON
BEST PRACTICES. DETERMINING
COUNTERFEIT ITEMS, DETERMINING
THE APPROPRIATE VALUE OF
ASSESSED ITEMS, AND SO FORTH.
UNDER THIS BILL, THE COUNCIL
WILL HAVE NO ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITY THAT WILL BE LEFT TO
THE LOCAL LICENSING LAW
ENFORCEMENT ENTITY THAT
CURRENTLY HAS AUTHORITY TO
LICENSE UNDER THIS BILL, WE ARE
ACTUALLY GOING TO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS THAT CLARIFY THAT THE
COUNCIL IS NOT INTENDED TO SERVE
AS A LICENSING BODY, BUT THAT
RESPONSIBILITY REMAINS SOLELY
THAT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE
DOJ. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL? SEEING NONE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? SEEING NONE. IT'S
ALWAYS WHEN PEOPLE GET UP WHEN
YOU SAY PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION, BUT THEY DON'T
REALLY OPPOSE THE BILL, THEY'RE
JUST TALKING TO SOMEBODY. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
ADD ON IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? SEEING NONE, BRING IT BACK
TO COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. SEEING NONE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK WHEN I VOTE, IT
IS RESPECTFULLY GIVEN. I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY WITH
THE AUTHOR'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
THANK YOU. ON AB 2231, GIBSON.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN I BERMAN
I FLORA FLORA I ALANIS BAINES.
BAINES I JUAN CARRILLO, JUAN
CARRILLO I CHEN. CHEN I DIXON.
GRAYSON GRAYSON I, IRWIN.
JACKSON. JACKSON I WARD.
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL I MCKENNA.
HIÆN PELLERIN. PELLERIN I
SANCHEZ. SORIA. ZUBER. THE BAD
NEWS IS EVERYONE HAS LEFT TO GO
ELSEWHERE, THE GOOD NEWS IS
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. AND, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE ON TO YOUR NEXT
BILL? YES. IF I COULD ASK THE
CHAIR TO TAKE, ASSEMBLY BILL
2869 FIRST. SURE. WHATEVER YOU
PREFER. 2869, FILE ITEM NUMBER
2862. OR WE MIGHT HAVE IT WRONG.
AGENDA ITEM 12 2862. PERFECT.
YOU'RE IN. APOLOGIES. LET'S DO
IT. DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE
RANDOM BILL. YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE
IT AGAIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. AND COMMITTEES,
FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 2862, WHICH SEEKS
TO REQUIRE LICENSING BOARDS TO
PRIORITIZE AFRICAN AMERICAN
APPLICANTS SEEKING OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSE, ESPECIALLY, THOSE WHO
ARE DESCENDANTS FROM PEOPLE OF
ENSLAVED, ENSLAVED IN THE UNITED
STATES, FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE ON THEIR
HARD WORK IN HELPING STRENGTHEN
THIS BILL. I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE'S, PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. THIS BILL IS PART OF
THE CULMINATION OF THOUSANDS OF
HOURS, THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF
RESEARCH AS PART OF THE
CALIFORNIA REPARATION TASK FORCE
REPORT. THIS BILL PRESENTS
EVIDENCE OF DESCENDANTS OF
AFRICAN AMERICANS AND ARE
FACING, ARE FACING IN THE
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL SECTOR
, THIS BILL ADDITIONALLY, A
PRIORITY BILL FOR THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS AS A
MEASURE THAT WILL HELP BRING
PARITY TO OUR COMMUNITIES THAT
HAVE BEEN LEFT BEHIND BY
ALLOWING THESE POPULATIONS TO
HAVE EXPEDITED LICENSURES, WE
CAN BEGIN TO CLOSE THE GAP
BETWEEN THE EARNINGS OF AFRICAN
AMERICANS IN CALIFORNIA AND
THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS IN,
CALIFORNIA, AFRICAN AMERICANS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE SEVERELY
UNDERREPRESENTED IN HIGH SKILL
PROFESSIONS, INCLUDING
TECHNOLOGY, BUSINESS,
ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING.
CURRENTLY, BLACK CALIFORNIANS
MAKE 72% $0.72 TO EVERY DOLLAR
THAT THEIR WHITE COUNTERPART
MAKES IN CALIFORNIA.
ADDITIONALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT
THE LEVELS OF PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYMENT AT 61.4% ARE WHITE
AND ONLY 12.8% ARE AFRICAN
AMERICANS. IN IN, THE NATION.
AND LASTLY, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT
ANNUALLY ANNUAL SALARY GAP FOR
AFRICAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES IS
NEARLY $220 BILLION. WITH ME TO
SUPPLY AND GIVE AND OFFER
SUPPORTING TESTIMONY AS MR.
DARRYL LUCIAN REPRESENTING THE
40 ACRES CONSERVATION LEAGUE WHO
WILL SELF INTRODUCE AND ALSO
GIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. GREAT. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS. DARRYL LUCIAN
HERE, REPRESENTING, 40 ACRE
CONSERVATION LEAGUE. WE WANT TO
THANK MR. GIBSON. WE WANT TO
THANK THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE
BLACK CAUCUS FOR ALL OF THEIR
EFFORTS TO REALLY MOVE FORWARD,
EQUITY AND REALLY ADVANCE THESE
CONVERSATIONS, WE APPRECIATE
THIS MEASURE, AND WHAT IT AIMS
TO DO, BECAUSE WHAT, MY CLIENT
HAS REPORTED TO ME IS, AS THEY
ARE OUT IN THE FIELD AND THEY
ARE LOOKING TO NOT ONLY DO, ANY
NUMBER OR UNDERTAKE ANY NUMBER
OF PROJECTS THAT ARE ORIENTED
TOWARD, REDUCING WILDFIRE RISK,
MITIGATING, GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, CLIMATE CHANGE, THE
LIKE, AND ALSO DO RIGHT BY, BY
PROFESSIONALS IN THESE SPACES
THAT DON'T ALWAYS GET, THE
OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY SHOULD,
WHAT THEY FIND IS THAT IS JUST
FRANKLY, A CHALLENGE. AND SO WE
APPRECIATE ANY AND ALL EFFORTS
TO REALLY DIVERSIFY, THE
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE, THE
CONSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL
LICENSEES IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE
IT'S REALLY GOING TO TAKE US ALL
TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THAT
THIS STATE, THIS NATION, THIS
WORLD FACE. AND SO WE WANT TO
OFFER A SUPPORTIVE TESTIMONY ON
BEHALF OF THE 40 ACRE
CONSERVATION LEAGUE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOT A
MOTION? GOT A SECOND. ANY
WITNESSES WANT TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? HI THERE.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA JOHNSON. ON
BEHALF OF THE GREATER SACRAMENTO
URBAN LEAGUE AND THE CALIFORNIA
AFRICAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? COME ON UP.
YOU'VE GOT TWO MINUTES.
CHAIRMAN BERMAN AND HONORABLE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS
CALEB TROTTER, AND I'M AN
ATTORNEY AT PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION, WHICH IS THE
NATION'S LEADING PUBLIC INTEREST
LAW FIRM ADVOCATING FOR EQUALITY
AND OPPORTUNITY. I SHARE
CONCERNS THAT CALIFORNIA'S
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING REGIME
CREATES VERY REAL BURDENS ON THE
ABILITY TO ENTER A PROFESSION OR
TRADE. AS THE LITTLE HOOVER
COMMISSION REPORTED IN 2016,
MORE THAN 1 IN 5 CALIFORNIANS
MUST OBTAIN A GOVERNMENT LICENSE
BEFORE PURSUING THEIR CHOSEN
OCCUPATION. THAT PROCESS SERVES
AS A SERIOUS BARRIER TO UPWARD
MOBILITY. AB 2862, HOWEVER,
WOULD DISADVANTAGE CERTAIN
CALIFORNIANS IN OBTAINING
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES BASED
SOLELY ON THEIR RACE AND
ANCESTRY, AND SHOULD NOT BECOME
LAW FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST,
PRIORITIZE PRIORITIZING
INDIVIDUAL NEEDS BASED ON RACE
AND ANCESTRY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
. SECOND, THERE ARE RACE NEUTRAL
ALTERNATIVES THAT THIS COMMITTEE
SHOULD CONSIDER INSTEAD. AB 2862
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES.
INDIVIDUALS BASED ON RACE. THE
BILL SEEKS TO GIVE AFRICAN
AMERICAN LICENSEES PRIORITY,
WHILE DENYING PRIORITY TO
MEMBERS OF ALL OTHER RACES. THIS
IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. THE
UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE CITIZENS
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. THE
GOVERNMENT CANNOT, THEREFORE
TREAT CALIFORNIANS DIFFERENTLY
BASED ON THEIR RACE OR ANCESTRY.
GIVEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION LAST SUMMER AND
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS VÆ
HARVARD AB 2862 WOULD UNLIKELY
WITHSTAND A LEGAL CHALLENGE. THE
GOVERNMENT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT
PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS BASED ON
RACE. THERE ARE ALSO RACE
NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVES TO AB 2862
TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN
TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS, TO THE
EXTENT THAT REFORMS ARE NEEDED
TO PERMIT THOSE WITH CRIMINAL
RECORDS TO OBTAIN OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSES. FOR EXAMPLE, REFORMS
SHOULD FOCUS ON CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND AND NOT RACE. INDEED,
THE REPARATIONS TASK FORCE
REPORT RECOMMENDS ADDRESSING THE
AMOUNT OF TIME IN WHICH CERTAIN
PRIOR CONVICTIONS CAN BE HELD
AGAINST LICENSE APPLICANTS.
ULTIMATELY THE STATE SHOULD GO
AFTER THE ROOT CAUSES OF CURRENT
DISPARITIES IN LICENSING WITHOUT
DISADVANTAGING WORKERS BASED ON
RACE. THE STATE SHOULD FOCUS ON
REDUCING ECONOMIC BARRIERS FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS, REGARDLESS OF
SKIN COLOR AND ANCESTRY. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? SEEING NONE, GOING TO
BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE
ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. DOCTOR JACKSON, I WANT
TO THANK, MEMBER FOR CARSON FOR,
TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS BLACK
CAUCUS, PRIORITY, REPARATIONS
LEGISLATION, THERE IS NO DOUBT
THAT THE REPARATIONS REPORT WAS
CLEAR, THAT, THE MAJORITY OF
CALIFORNIA'S EXISTENCE CREATED
WINNERS AND LOSERS AND PEOPLE OF
AFRICAN DESCENT WERE ON THE
LOSER LIST FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS
. FOR THE MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA
, WHICH MEANS THAT CALIFORNIA
HAS SOME WORK TO REPAIRING THAT
HARM. AND IT IS ONLY, THE MORAL
THING TO DO, THAT WE ARE WE NEED
TO CONTINUE TO REJECT THIS
FAILED. EXPERIMENT ON A
COLORBLIND SOCIETY BECAUSE IT
HARMED AFRICAN-AMERICANS, EVEN
MORE. IT HARMED ALL PEOPLE OF
COLOR, EVEN MORE. AND IF WE'RE
GOING TO REPAIR THE HARM, IF
THEY WERE, IF THIS STATE WAS
GOING TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS
DIRECTLY TO ENSURE THAT HARM WAS
DONE TO BLACK PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA MUST
DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY FOCUS
ON REPAIRING THE HARM THAT WAS
DONE TO BLACK PEOPLE IN THIS
STATE, AND SO I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ALONG
THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. DOCTOR
JACKSON. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWENTHAL, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE
FROM CARSON FOR BRINGING FORWARD
SUCH SIGNIFICANT, IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. I WOULD JUST LIKE
TO ECHO THAT WHICH MY COLLEAGUE
FROM MORENO VALLEY JUST POINTED
OUT. AND TO THE GENTLEMAN WHO
ELUCIDATED SO WELL ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS ISSUE,
I WOULD REMIND HIM AND EVERYONE
THAT THE VERY SAME
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WERE
IN PLACE DURING UNBELIEVABLE,
DISPROPORTIONATE SYSTEMIC RACISM
THAT LED US TO THE EMPIRICAL
OUTCOMES THAT WE HAVE TODAY. AND
IT'S VERY MUCH IMPORTANT THAT WE
RIGHT THOSE WRONGS. AND AS A
LEGISLATIVE BODY, WE SHOULDN'T
BE AFRAID OF STANDING UP TO
LEGAL SCRUTINY ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT. IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
WE SHOULD BE PUSHING THE
ENVELOPE TOWARDS JUSTICE, THAT'S
OUR RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOWENTHAL, ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? OH, PLEASE. I'M GOING
TO START WITH ASSEMBLYMEMBER
CARILLO AND THEN DOCTOR BANES.
THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS UP,
AND I FULLY SUPPORT THIS MEASURE
. NOT UNTIL YOU REALLY
EXPERIENCE WHAT IT'S LIKE NOT TO
BE TREATED THE SAME AS OTHER,
AMERICANS. IT'S WHEN YOU REALLY
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS. AND I
WANT TO SHARE A STORY WITH YOU
THAT HAPPENED TO ME IN THE
CLASSROOM. I WANTED TO BE AN
ARCHITECT. I WENT TO COLLEGE OF
THE DESERT AND ENROLLED IN THE
ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM DURING THE
FIRST CLASS OF THE, PROGRAM, A
WHITE MALE PROFESSOR CAME TO MY
DESK, ASKED ME TO GO TO HIS
OFFICE WITHOUT TELLING ME
ANYTHING. HE MADE A PHONE CALL.
HE WAS TALKING TO A FRIEND THAT
HAD A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. HE
WAS GETTING ME A JOB TO GET ME
OUT OF THE CLASSROOM BECAUSE OF
THE COLOR OF MY SKIN, BECAUSE OF
MY ACCENT. AND AGAIN, HONESTLY,
YOU EXPERIENCED THAT, THAT THERE
IS NO EQUALITY Kò THAT THE
OPPOSITION TALKED ABOUT. I AGREE
WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT
WHEN IT'S NOT DONE EQUALLY, AND
WHEN YOU EXPERIENCE THAT TYPE OF
SYSTEMIC RACISM IS WHEN YOU HAVE
TO STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR IT. I
WENT TO GET AN EDUCATION AND
THIS PROFESSOR WAS GETTING ME A
JOB IN CONSTRUCTION. APPARENTLY
THAT'S WHAT I BELONGED. I DIDN'T
SAY ANYTHING. I SAID, THANK YOU
FOR MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO
GET ME A CONSTRUCTION SITE. AND
I SHOWED UP TO THE NEXT CLASS
YEARS LATER, HERE I AM. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON, FOR
HAVING THE COURAGE. THANK YOU
FOR THE COMMENTS. AND NOT UNTIL
WE FIND EQUALITY IS WE WILL STOP
FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
DOCTOR BAINS. WELL SAID. SAU
MEMBER CARILLO I JUST WANTED TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THIS BILL,
SO YOU GUYS STOLE THE WORDS
RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH ON EVERY
SINGLE THING, SO THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS, YOU
KNOW, IT'S A LONG TIME COMING TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ACTIONS THAT
WE HAVE DONE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION. SO THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? Ó. I FAIL TO ASK THE
AUTHOR IF HE WOULD CONSIDER ME
TO BE A COAUTHOR ON THIS BILL.
I'LL BE HONORED. THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES, I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE, AND THE
CHAIR FOR ONE, ALLOWING ME TO
HEAR TO HEAR THIS BILL AND
PRESENT THIS BILL. AND I WANT TO
ALIGN MY COMMENTS FOR THOSE WHO
HAVE BOLDLY, WEIGHED IN ON THIS
CONVERSATION, WE BELIEVE WE'RE
GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY
MUCH AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, SOME ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
GIBSON, FOR ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS AND FOR
THE WORK YOU AND THE LEGISLATIVE
BLACK CAUCUS ARE DOING TO
ADDRESS CALIFORNIA'S HISTORIC
INEQUITIES, WHILE THERE ARE SOME
OUTSTANDING ISSUES RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL, I'M
CONFIDENT THOSE ISSUES WILL BE
FURTHER DISCUSSED IN JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. AND FOR, OUR
PURPOSES, I'M HAPPY TO RECOMMEND
AN AYE VOTE TODAY. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE
ON AB 2862. GIBSON, THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. BERMAN A
BERMAN. AYE. FLORA ALANIS.
BAINES. BAINES. AYE. JUAN
CARRILLO. JUAN. CARRILLO. AYE.
CHEN. DIXON GRAYSON. GRAYSON.
AYE. IRWIN. IRWIN AYE. JACKSON.
JACKSON. AYE. WARD. WARD AYE.
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. AYE.
MCKENNA HIÆN. PELLERIN. PELLERIN
AYE. SANCHEZ. SORIA SORIA. AYE.
ZIPPER THAT BILL IS OUT,
CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND TRY TO GO. THREE FOR
THREE. GOT ONE MORE BILL. ONE
MORE BILL. AND AS THEY ARE
APPROACHING, I'LL JUST BEGIN.
MR. CHAIR, AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG
MORNING THUS FAR. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY
BILL 2526, WHICH AIMS TO ADDRESS
CRITICAL GAPS IN DENTAL
ANESTHESIA SERVICES AND EXPAND
ACCESS TO SAFE AND EFFECTIVE
DENTAL CARE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS
. I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR DILIGENCE AND
WORKING ON THIS BILL WITH ME AND
MY TEAM, AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING
, THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
GENERAL ANESTHESIA PLAYS A
CRITICAL ROLE IN DENTAL CARE,
ESPECIALLY FOR PEDIATRIC
PATIENTS AND THOSE WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.
THESE THESE PATIENTS OFTEN FACE
CHALLENGES IN RECEIVING TIMELY
TREATMENT, AND CONSEQUENTLY,
MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS
REQUIRE INTENSIVE, RESTORATIVE
PROCEDURES UNDER DEEP SEDATION
OR GENERAL ANESTHESIA ACCESS.
DEEP SEDATION CARE CAN BE
PROBLEMATIC DUE TO A SHORTAGE OF
PROVIDERS, OFTEN OR OFFERING
THESE SERVICES AND LÀ. Þ STUDY
HIGHLIGHTS THE ISSUE, REVEALING
LONG WAIT LISTS FOR UP TO THREE
YEARS. IN SOME CASES AT
HOSPITALS AND ORAL SURGERY
CENTERS. CONSEQUENTLY, CHILDREN
AND PATIENTS WITH DISABILITIES,
OFTEN DURING ORAL ORAL PAIN FOR
EXTENSIVE PERIODS OF TIME TO
ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES. THIS
BILL SEEKS TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS
ANESTHESIA PROVIDERS AVAILABLE
TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. THIS
BILL WOULD ALLOW THE CRNAS TO
OBTAIN A GENERAL ANESTHESIA
PERMIT FROM THE DENTAL BOARD OF
CALIFORNIA, AND ALLOW THEM TO
ORDER ANESTHESIA MEDICATION, TO
ADMINISTER IN THE DENTAL OFFICE.
THIS WOULD ENABLE MORE DENTISTS
TO OFFER IN OFFICE ANESTHESIA
SERVICE PROVIDED BY A LICENSE
ANESTHESIA PROVIDER, WHILE THE
DENTIST FOCUS ON PROVIDING HIGH
QUALITY DENTAL CARE WITH ME TO
PROVIDE SUPPORTING TESTIMONY. WE
HAVE SANDRA BODIE, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
NURSING ANESTHESIOLOGISTS, AND
MONICA MILLER. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. FIRST WITNESS TWO MINUTES
APIECE, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING,
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS MONICA
MILLER REPRESENT REPRESENTING
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGY, TODAY, I
WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR
WITNESS, SANDRA BORDI, WHO IS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF NURSE ANESTHESIOLOGY. SHE'S
OUR PRESIDENT. BUT BEFORE I DO
THAT, BRIEFLY, I REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR, AND THE VICE
CHAIR AND YOUR STAFF FOR ALL OF
THE WORK. IN THE TIME THAT YOU
HAVE GIVEN US ON THIS
LEGISLATION, WE'VE WORKED
DILIGENTLY WITH ALL INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTIES. AND AS
A REMINDER, THIS HAS BEEN AN
ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
ON FOR OVER TEN YEARS NOW. AND
REALLY WANT TO, AS WE SEE THE
ACCESS CONTINUE TO ERODE FOR
PATIENTS THAT CRITICALLY NEED
THESE SERVICES, WE REALLY WANT
TO TRY AND ADDRESS TO ENSURE
THAT THESE PATIENTS CAN GET
ACCESS TO THE DENTAL ANESTHESIA,
PARTICULARLY IN OUR SPECIAL
NEEDS POPULATIONS, SO THEY HAVE
THE ABILITY TO GET THE CARE THAT
THEY NEED, AND I AM AVAILABLE
FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, BUT
WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO OUR
PRESIDENT. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH
. AND THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR ALL
OF YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
SANDRA BORDI. I AM A CERTIFIED
REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETIST. I
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NURSE
ANESTHESIOLOGY, PROUDLY
SUPPORTING AB 2526. FIRST OF
ALL, I DO WANT TO TAKE THE TIME
TO THANK CHAIR BERMAN, THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT AND THE
STAFF WHO HAVE PUT IN A LOT OF
WORK HERE TO REALLY RESOLVE
ISSUES THAT AFFECT ACCESS TO
CARE FOR CALIFORNIANS. SO THANK
YOU. WE ALSO APPRECIATE THE
CONTINUED EFFORTS AND THE
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS THAT
WE'VE HAD WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION,
THEIR WILLINGNESS TO MEET WITH
US OVER THESE PAST TEN YEARS HAS
BEEN VERY VALUABLE. AND AND,
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE WORKING MORE
AND HAVING MORE COMMUNICATIONS
AND MEETING THOSE NEEDS OF THOSE
DENTAL PATIENTS WHO NEED
ANESTHESIA CARE. SO AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE DIALOG
WITH THE CALIFORNIA DENTAL
ASSOCIATION. SO UNDER CURRENT
LAW, CRNAS ADMINISTER ANESTHESIA
IN A DENTAL OFFICE. WHEN THE
DENTIST HAS A PERMIT FROM THE
DENTAL BOARD. CURRENTLY ONLY
DENTISTS AND PHYSICIANS CAN
APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN THIS
GENERAL ANESTHESIA PERMIT. THIS
CREATES ANTICOMPETITIVE
DISINCENTIVES TO WORK WITH CRNAS
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, REDUCES
ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE. SINCE
2021, THERE'S BEEN A PROGRESSIVE
INCREASE IN DELINQUENT AND
CANCELED GENERAL ANESTHESIA
PERMITS. THIS TREND REFLECTS AN
INCREASED NEED FOR ANESTHESIA
PROVIDERS FOR DENTAL PROCEDURES,
SO THIS BILL WOULD REALLY ENSURE
ACCESS TO CARE FOR THOSE
PATIENTS. CGRTS CRNAS ARE
EXPERTS IN ANESTHESIOLOGY AND
SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR AND
OBTAIN A GENERAL ANESTHESIA
DENTAL PERMIT IN THE SAME WAY AS
DENTISTS AND PHYSICIANS
CURRENTLY DO. ALL CURRENT
REGULATIONS, SAFETY PROTOCOLS,
ON SITE INSPECTIONS AND
OVERSIGHT FOR THE DENTAL OFFICE
WOULD REMAIN INTACT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. WE'LL HAVE YOU WRAP UP
YOUR THOUGHT, PLEASE. OKAY.
THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, CRNAS ARE
EXPERTS IN ANESTHESIA CARE, AND
WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. GREAT. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES YOU WANT TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? PLEASE
PROVIDE YOUR NAME ORGANIZATION
YOU'RE WITH IF ANY AND STILL
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. ROXANNE
GOULD REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
NURSES ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
IN STRONG SUPPORT. AND I WISH I
HAD AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST RIGHT
NOW. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BRIANNA PITMAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING 27,000 DENTISTS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, ARE
ACTUALLY HERE WITH A LITTLE BIT
OF A TWEENER POSITION. WE HAD A
SUPPORT, IF AMENDED POSITION ON
THE BILL IN PRINT, AND ARE STILL
REVIEWING AND LOOKING AT THE
AMENDMENTS. REALLY WANT TO THANK
VINCE AND THE CHAIR AND
EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN ENGAGED ON
THIS DISCUSSION FOR TRYING TO
BALANCE, THE INTERESTS OF MANY,
MANY STAKEHOLDERS, YOU KNOW, I
THINK OUR MAIN CONCERN IS THAT
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
TREATING DENTIST, WHO IS NOT
OTHERWISE TRAINED IN ANESTHESIA,
SHOULD BE ORDERING, AT THIS
POINT, STATE LAW STILL REQUIRES
THE NURSE TO ADMINISTER UNDER
THE ORDER. SO I THINK THAT THE
AMENDMENTS STILL TRY TO DO THAT
BY USING THE WORD REQUEST. SO I
KNOW WE'VE TALKED WITH VINCE
ABOUT NEEDING TO CLARIFY THAT.
SO LOOKING FORWARD TO FUTURE
DISCUSSIONS. I WOULD ALSO JUST
SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ACCESS
HERE. AND WHILE WE DO BELIEVE
AND WANT TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE
WE CAN EXPAND THE NUMBER OF
PROVIDERS, THE REAL ISSUE WITH
ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE,
PARTICULARLY ANESTHESIA, IS
COVERAGE. IT'S A LACK OF
COVERAGE. HEALTH CARE DOESN'T
COVER. HEALTH INSURANCE DOESN'T
COVER IT. DENTAL INSURANCE
DOESN'T COVER IT. MEDI-CAL RATES
ARE ABYSMAL, THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF POLICY SOLUTIONS THAT WE HAVE
WORKED ON IN THE PAST AND WOULD
WOULD APPRECIATE CONSIDERATION
OF TO INCREASE COVERAGE, BECAUSE
THAT REALLY IS THE MAJOR BARRIER
THERE. AND I BELIEVE THE NURSE
ANESTHETIST WOULD AGREE WITH ME
THERE, THERE'S ALSO A GROWING
AWARENESS OF OPTIONS FOR
ALTERNATIVES TO ANESTHESIA,
INCLUDING BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
AND DESENSITIZATION. AND THOSE
SHOULD REALLY BE ENCOURAGED. WE
HAVE A BUDGET PROPOSAL THAT
WOULD, BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE
FOR $50 MILLION TO BUILD
SPECIALTY DENTAL CLINICS.
THEY'RE SHOVEL READY PROJECTS.
WE HAVE FOUR TIMES AS MANY
APPLICANTS AS WE THOUGHT WE
MIGHT GET. THAT MONEY IS AT RISK
OF BEING DELAYED. SO THERE IS A
LOT OF WORK THAT'S NEEDED HERE
IN ADDITION TO JUST MORE
PROVIDERS. AND SO, STAND READY
TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR, SPONSOR
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS BILL,
BUT ALSO ON OTHER, POLICIES TO
IMPROVE DENTAL ACCESS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? COME ON UP. YOU'VE
GOT TWO MINUTES EACH.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. I'M DOCTOR BRIAN HUANG,
PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
SOCIETY OF DENTIST
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS, AND WE ARE
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ABA 2526
THE CDA IS COMPOSED OF DENTISTS
WHO HAVE COMPLETED SPECIALIZED
THREE YEAR RESIDENCY IN
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS FOR BOTH
MEDICAL AND DENTAL PROCEDURES.
THIS TRAINING REQUIRES ROTATIONS
IN OFFICE BASED ANESTHESIA, AND
WE ARE CONSIDERED EXPERTS IN
PROVIDING SAFE ANESTHESIA CARE
TO PATIENTS IN A DENTAL OFFICE.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
PATIENT SAFETY OF THIS BILL
PASSES. WE APPRECIATE THE
SCHOOLING CRNA RECEIVED IN
ANESTHESIA AND THE VALUABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS THEY MAKE TO THE
ANESTHESIA CARE TEAM. WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT NURSE ANESTHETISTS
HAVE THE APPROPRIATE TRAINING TO
PROVIDE ANESTHESIA IN A DENTAL
OFFICE. ANESTHESIA IN A DENTAL
OFFICE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN
ANESTHESIA IN AN ACCREDITED
SURGERY CENTER OR HOSPITAL
OPERATING ROOM. NOT ALL PATIENTS
ARE APPROPRIATE FOR ANESTHESIA
IN A DENTAL OFFICE SETTING. AS
WITH NURSE ANESTHETISTS, MOST
DENTISTS ARE NOT TRAINED IN
MAKING THIS EVALUATION. THE
MANAGEMENT OF EMERGENCIES AND
EMERGENCIES THAT CAN BE CAN BE
QUITE DIFFERENT AS WELL. THE
ANESTHESIA PROVIDER MUST PLAN
FOR EVERY CONTINGENCY AS A
PROVIDER WITHOUT THE SAME
SUPPORT IN THE SURGERY CENTER.
THE BILL ALSO DOES NOT REQUIRE
ANY IN-OFFICE ANESTHESIA
TRAINING FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS,
AND ALLOWS NURSE ANESTHETISTS TO
BE EVALUATED BY OTHER NURSE
ANESTHETISTS THAT DO NOT HAVE A
GENERAL ANESTHESIA PERMIT
ISSUED. ISSUED BY THE DENTAL
BOARD. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY
ASKING FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO
EXPERIENCE IN DENTAL OFFICE
ANESTHESIA TO EVALUATE SOMEONE
ELSE. EVEN MORE TROUBLING, MANY
OF THESE CHILDREN RECEIVING
ANESTHESIA IN DENTAL OFFICES
HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS OR DISABILITY
, REQUIRING EVEN A HIGHER LEVEL
OF INTERVENTION THAN TYPICAL
PATIENTS IN THE DENTAL OFFICE.
FOR ALL THE REASONS THE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS STRONGLY URGES
YOUR NO VOTE ON AB 2526 TO HELP
ENSURE PATIENT SAFETY IN DENTAL
OFFICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT ONE IS. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MR. VICE
CHAIR GARY COOPER, REPRESENTING
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS.
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. FIRST OF
ALL, WE DON'T WANT TO MALIGN THE
QUALITY AND THE CARE AND THE
TALENT AND THE EDUCATION OF THE
CRNAS BECAUSE MANY OF OUR ORAL
SURGEONS USE THEM FREQUENTLY,
THEY RETAIN THEM TO DO THE WORK
IN THE OFFICE. AS LONG AS THERE
IS EITHER A DENTAL
ANESTHESIOLOGIST IN ATTENDANCE
OR A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER THAT
HAS IS TRAINED IN PEDIATRIC
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT OR
ADVANCED CARE CARDIAC LIFE
SUPPORT. RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE
PROBABLY AWARE THAT SB 501
THAT'S PASSED IN 2018 AND THE
REGULATIONS ARE BEING
IMPLEMENTED RIGHT NOW, WAS
BROUGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE
BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, A YOUNG
BOY PASSED AWAY IN AN ORAL
SURGEON'S OFFICE. THAT WAS
MALPRACTICE. AND IT HAPPENED IN
2016. SO THERE WERE MULTIPLE
MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE HEARINGS ON
THIS ISSUE. AND WE WERE TOGETHER
WITH THE DENTAL
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS. WE WERE
TOGETHER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGY. WE
WERE TOGETHER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION
AND ULTIMATELY SB 501 BY SENATOR
GLAZER PASSED AND THE REGULATION
ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED RIGHT NOW.
THE TWO WORDS I WANT TO LEAVE
YOU WITH ARE PREPAREDNESS AND
SAFETY. WHEN YOU'VE GOT A CHILD
GOING UNDER ANESTHESIA, YOU WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE
THREE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM THE
SURGEON WHO'S WORKING OR THE
DENTIST WHO'S WORKING AT THE
AIRWAY, AT THE MOUTH. YOU WANT
TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S
MONITORING THE ANESTHESIA, AND
YOU HAVE WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY
WHO'S THERE TO TAKE CARE OF A
SITUATION THAT COULD ARISE. AND
FREQUENTLY THEY DO. NOW, I WOULD
JUST READ SOMETHING IN THE
ANALYSIS, AND I DON'T WANT TO
QUOTE WHO SAID IT, BUT IT SAID,
WHY DO WE NEED THREE PEOPLE? NO
ONE HAS DIED LATELY. WELL, NO
ONE HAS DIED LATELY BECAUSE SB
501 AND BILLS LIKE THAT HAVE
BEEN PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE
AND THE ORAL SURGEONS. THAT IS
HOW THEY PRACTICE WITH A TEAM
ANESTHESIA DELIVERY MODEL. SO
WHILE WE'RE VERY, VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF CRNAS AND WE WANT
TO CONTINUE USING THEM IN OUR
OFFICES, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY ARE FULLY EMPLOYED AND
FULLY ACCESSIBLE. OUR CONCERNS
ARE, AGAIN, SAFETY. THE ONE
THING I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH,
AND I KNOW IT'S KIND OF A
TAGLINE, BUT LET ME LEAVE YOU
WITH THIS. THE SECRET TO GOOD
ANESTHESIA. THERE'S NO SECRET TO
PUTTING PEOPLE TO SLEEP. THE
SECRET IS MAKING SURE THAT THEY
AWAKE SAFELY. FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE OPPOSE. AB 2526. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES YOU WANT TO
ADD ON IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? MORNING. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. BRYCE
DAUGHERTY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF
ANESTHESIOLOGISTS, STRONGLY
OPPOSED, FOR ALL THE REASONS
STATED AND THEN SOME. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, GEORGE SAUREZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED, POSITION.
REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE WORK
FROM THE COMMITTEE STAFF,
AUTHORS, STAKEHOLDERS AND
EVERYONE. WE WANT TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON THE COMPONENTS ABOUT,
REGARDING NURSE ANESTHETISTS AND
INDEPENDENT PRESCRIBING. SO
WE'LL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE ON
THAT. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE TIME
TODAY. THANK YOU. BRING IT BACK
TO COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS OR SECONDS.
DOCTOR BANES. YES, I OF COURSE
WANT TO, YOU KNOW, ECHO THE
COMMENTS ABOUT APPRECIATE THE
WORK THAT OUR CRNAS DO, THEY DO
A LOT OF GREAT WORK IN THIS
SPACE. HOWEVER, I ALSO HAVE
VERY, VERY BIG CONCERNS,
SPECIFICALLY AS AN ADVOCATE FOR
COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY
POPULATIONS WITH INTELLECTUAL
AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
WHEN IT COMES TO OUR PEDIATRIC
CASES. OFTENTIMES A LOT OF THE
ONES THAT REQUIRE ANESTHESIA,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO
DENTISTRY, IS OUR POPULATION
WITH INTELLECTUAL AND
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. AND
THOSE HAVE CHRONIC UNDERLYING
ILLNESSES. OFTENTIMES THEY CAN
BE THOSE CASES THAT CAN GO
SIDEWAYS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE
DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT
THE POPULATION. I HAVE BEEN ON
THE DDS TASK FORCE AS A PERSON
ADVOCATING, FOR PEOPLE WITH
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES. I'VE BEEN THE
BOARD PRESIDENT FOR MY OWN KERN
REGIONAL CENTER. SO THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT I AM VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT, MAKING SURE
THAT OUR KIDS ARE PROTECTED AND
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE IN
THE ROOM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
THEY WAKE UP AT THE END OF THAT
ANESTHESIA, FOR THOSE REASONS, I
WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
TODAY. I THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
THEIR INITIATIVES IN THIS
WORKFORCE IS AN ISSUE AS THE
PAST COMMISSIONER FOR THE
HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE POLICY
COMMISSION, I ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF THE CALIFORNIA DENTAL
ASSOCIATION ON MEDI-CAL.
REIMBURSEMENTS ARE ABYSMAL, AND
THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT WE SHOULD
BE WORKING ON TO ADDRESS HEALTH
CARE ACCESS. THANK YOU, DOCTOR
BENZ MEMBER GRAYSON. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FOR HER COMMENTS. AND
TO THE AUTHOR FOR WHAT YOU'RE
INTENDING ON ON DOING HERE. I
JUST WANT TO STATE, WITHOUT
OPINING, I JUST WANT TO STATE
THAT, THE CONCERNS OF OPPOSITION
ARE LEGIT. THIS MAY BE ONE OF
THOSE TIMES. IT'S APPROPRIATE TO
SAY, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR
FROM A LENS OF LIABILITY. AND SO
WITH THAT, I THINK IT'S WORTHY
TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON
A COMMITTEE LEVEL. AND SO I'LL
SUPPORT THAT TO KEEP THAT
HAPPENING TODAY. HOWEVER IT'D BE
VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO MAKE
SURE THOSE ARE RESOLVED BEFORE
REACHES THE FLOOR IN ORDER TO
CONTINUE MY SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD. GREAT
THANK YOU FOR, INTRODUCING THIS
BILL AND, TRYING TO IMPROVE ON
THE, THE SITUATIONS THAT WE FIND
WITH THESE BOTTLENECKS. AND I
GUESS I'M WONDERING EITHER TO
BOTH SUPPORT AND TO OPPOSITION.
SO IF THE, EXPERIENCE THAT THAT
THAT WE ARE HAVING ARE THESE
BOTTLENECKS OR DELAYED WAIT
TIMES TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THE
TREATMENT THAT WE ARE, AND I
KNOW THAT LEO HAS STUDIED THIS
AS WELL. HOW MUCH OF THAT IS,
SAY, SOLELY, A RESULT OF THIS,
THIS, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR
PINCH POINT, THE ABILITY THAT A
NURSE WHO OTHERWISE MIGHT CNRA
MIGHT BE QUALIFIED TO BE ABLE TO
PERFORM THIS WORK TO ORDER, THE
MEDICATIONS ARE AS OPPOSED TO
ANY OTHER, PROVIDER OR, OR OR
OPERATION THAT'S NECESSARY IN
THE COMPLEMENT OF SERVICES
PROVIDED. IN OTHER WORDS.
WHOOPS. SORRY. I WAS GOING TO
HAVE, MISS MILLER OR LIKE, IS
THIS THE PINCH POINT OR IS THERE
A BROADER ISSUE HERE FOR US TO
BE ABLE TO HELP REDUCE WAIT
TIMES? YEAH. SO I'M SO I'LL
START AND THEN I'LL HAVE CINDY
BOARD ADD ON WITH THE WITH THE
OKAY OF THE CHAIR OF COURSE. WHO
THE CHAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU, SO
THANK YOU ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR
THE QUESTION. IT'S A GOOD
QUESTION. SO ULTIMATELY AND WE
APPRECIATE WHAT CDA IS SAYING
ABOUT THE MEDI-CAL REIMBURSEMENT
RATES AS WELL AS DOCTOR BANES,
YOU ARE CORRECT. SO DENTI-CAL
AND MEDI-CAL, THE RATES ARE
ABYSMAL. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT
THIS BILL ADDRESSES TODAY. AND
QUITE FRANKLY, THERE ARE A LOT
OF DENTISTS WHO HAVE ACCESS TO
DENTAL CAL. BUT BECAUSE, BECAUSE
AND SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY
CANNOT USE A CRNA, THEY CHOOSE
TO GO THE MEDI-CAL RATE BECAUSE
THEY CAN UTILIZE THAT RATE. THE
DENTI-CAL RATE IS A HIGHER
REIMBURSEMENT, BUT THEY WOULD
PREFER TO PAY OUT OF POCKET
BECAUSE THEY PREFER THE SERVICES
THAT WE PROVIDE AND THAT WE ARE
MORE ACCESSIBLE. SO FOR US TO BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT AT A LATER
DATE AND WHILE WE ARE SUPPORTIVE
OF THE $50 MILLION THAT THEY ARE
TRYING TO PROTECT, AND WE'RE
SUPPORTIVE LAST YEAR OF THOSE
EFFORTS TO GET OUR TWO YEARS
AGO, I BELIEVE IT WAS TO GET THE
THOSE DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. BUT THAT'S
NOT WHAT THIS BILL DOES TODAY.
SO IN TERMS OF ACCESS, THE
BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT,
DENTISTS ARE NOT ABLE TO, UNLESS
THEY HAVE THE FULL GENERAL
ANESTHESIA PERMIT, THEY ARE NOT
ABLE TO UTILIZE OUR SERVICES.
AND THAT'S WHY, THIS WOULD BE AN
APPROPRIATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION
TO ADDRESS WHAT YOU REFER TO AS
THE PINCH POINT OF ENSURING THAT
THERE IS MORE ACCESS TO CARE.
IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY
THAT IS, THE RIGHT QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUAL TO BE ABLE TO
FACILITATE THIS FUNCTION. AT THE
MOMENT, THIS IS COMING DOWN TO
BUDGET. ISSUES. SO IT'S NOT IN
OUR FROM THE STUDIES THAT WE
HAVE SEEN AND YES, THE, THE
MEDI-CAL ISSUE IS AN ISSUE
AGAIN, TO BE ADDRESSED LATER ON
THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE. BUT THE
BOTTOM LINE FROM THE DENTISTS
THAT WE WORK WITH AND THAT WE
AND THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE WORKED
ON FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS, PLUS
IN ORDER TO TRY AND ADDRESS
THIS, IS HAVING ACCESS TO BE
ABLE TO BRING THAT CRNA IN. BUT
THE DENTIST DOESN'T WANT TO
PROVIDE THE ANESTHESIA BECAUSE
THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE TRAINED
IN. JUST LIKE THEY WOULDN'T ASK
A CRNA TO PUT A CROWN ON SO THEY
OR FILL A CAVITY, THEY WOULD
PREFER TO HAVE AN ANESTHESIA
PROVIDER IN THE ROOM TO PROVIDE
THAT PHYSICIAN ANESTHESIOLOGIST,
QUITE FRANKLY, JUST AREN'T
MEETING THAT NEED, WHEREAS CRNAS
ARE MEETING THAT NEED. AND AS I
MENTIONED, PHYSICIAN
ANESTHESIOLOGY, MAY BE COVERED
UNDER DENTI-CAL, BUT CRNAS ARE
NOT. BUT QUITE FRANKLY, DENTISTS
PREFER TO USE CRNAS IS WHAT
WE'RE TOLD BY THE DENTAL
COMMUNITY THAT WE WORK WITH. AND
WITH THAT, LET'S LET, BRIANNA,
FROM THE CDA JUST CHIME IN
BRIEFLY ON THIS. THANK YOU. MY
FAVORITE SUBJECT, DENTAL
ANESTHESIA. SO I DO THINK THAT
THIS WILL HELP. I MEAN, I JUST
WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR, I, WE
K¾T BELIEVES AND HAS BEEN
WORKING ON THIS FOR DECADES.
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER
PRESSURE POINTS, HEALTH
INSURANCE ONLY COVERS ANESTHESIA
FOR KIDS UNDER SEVEN AND
PATIENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN
HOSPITAL SETTINGS, NOT IN OTHER
DENTAL SETTINGS. HOSPITALS ARE
VERY EXPENSIVE. THERE'S A WHOLE
LOT OF THINGS THAT GO WITH THAT.
WE'VE WE'VE IN THE PAST TRIED TO
GET COVERAGE IN OTHER DENTAL
SETTINGS. DENTAL INSURANCE,
WHILE SOMETIMES MAY COVER IT,
HAS CAPS ON IT ANNUALLY, YOU
KNOW, 1500, 2000, 3000. BY THE
TIME YOU GET TO ANESTHESIA,
YOU'VE USED IT UP AND YOUR
DENTAL INSURANCE IS PROBABLY
ONLY EVER GOING TO COVER 50% OF
IT ANYWAYS. THE MEDI-CAL RATES
THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED,
SETTING IS AN ISSUE, AGAIN,
HOSPITALS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AND
COMPLICATED PLACES TO DO DENTAL
ANESTHESIA, AND SO AND PATIENTS
WITH SPECIAL NEEDS OFTEN NEED
EVEN THINGS JUST LIKE A SENSORY
APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. SO OUR
$50 MILLION GRANT IS TRYING TO
DO THAT. WE ASKED $5,050
MILLION. WE THOUGHT WE'D GET 10
TO 20 SETTINGS. THIS WAS TWO
YEARS AGO. YOU ALL APPROVED THIS
, THE APPLICATION PERIOD JUST
ENDED. WE HAD 107 APPLICANTS,
101 APPLICANTS FOR $207 MILLION.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DENTISTS WHO
WANT TO SERVE THIS POPULATION,
MANY OF THEM MAY DECIDE TO USE
CRNAS, BUT THEY MAY USE OTHER
LEVELS OF SEDATION. THEY MAY USE
PHYSICIAN ANESTHESIOLOGISTS,
THEY MAY BE ORAL SURGEONS,
THERE'S A LOT OF PIECES HERE.
THIS IS, I WOULD SAY, ONE SMALL
PIECE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
PERCENTAGE IS, BUT I WOULD VERY
MUCH ENCOURAGE, LOOKING AT SOME
OF THESE OTHER PIECES AS WELL,
BECAUSE THE WORKFORCE IS A IS
PIECE BUT A SMALL PIECE. OKAY. A
LOT TO THINK THROUGH ON ANOTHER
TIME, WITH THE BROADER ISSUES,
THAT, THAT, THAT ARE BEING
DISCUSSED HERE. BUT ON, ON THIS
I GUESS MOVING FORWARD TO EXPAND
PERMISSION FOR A CNAS WHO
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW CAN
ADMINISTER OUR RIGHT UNDER UNDER
ORDER OR UNDER UNDER IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH A DENTIST, WHEN
THE DENTIST HOLDS THE GENERAL
ANESTHESIA PERMIT. YES, THEY CAN
GIVE GENERAL ANESTHESIA, BUT
THIS WOULD BE IN A SITUATION
WHERE THAT IS THE PERMIT IS NOT
HELD THERE BY THE DENTAL OFFICE,
BUT THAT IS CORRECT FOR THE
PERMIT. SO WITH RECENT LAWS,
THEY'VE CHANGED THOSE PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS FOR GA PERMITS FOR
DENTISTS, SO THERE'S FEWER
DENTISTS MEETING THE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THEIR PERMIT.
OKAY. THEY'RE JUST NOT RENEWING
THEM OR IT'S BURDENSOME TO RENEW
A LOT OF EFFORT. AND I GUESS
WHAT IS OF INTEREST TO ME IS,
YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT CHILDREN, THAT
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY
PARENT TO, KNOW THAT SOMEBODY IS
GOING TO BE ABLE TO WAKE UP FROM
THIS, THIS, PROCEDURE, WHAT WHAT
THERE'S A REDUNDANCY HERE THAT'S
ALREADY IN PLACE. RIGHT? YOU'RE
THERE TO BACK UP AND MAYBE
DOUBLE CHECK THE WORK OF THE
DENTIST. AS AS THINGS ARE
HAPPENING IN, IN THE SURGERY
AREA, IF A CNA IS THE ONLY
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL NOW AS A
PART OF A TEAM THAT'S WORKING ON
THIS PATIENT RIGHT NOW, HOW DO
HOW DO WE GUARANTEE THE
REDUNDANCY THERE AS WELL FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE PATIENT SERIES
MEET AND EXCEED THE SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE DENTAL
BOARD? OKAY. SO WE'RE ALL PALS.
ACLS CERTIFIED, SAFETY IS
PARAMOUNT TO OUR PRACTICE. WE
HAVE A PROVEN SAFETY RECORD.
THERE'S LITERATURE, STATING THAT
DENTAL CARE OR ANESTHESIA CARE
GIVEN BY CRNA AS COMPARED TO A
PHYSICIAN ANESTHESIOLOGIST.
THERE IS NO CHANGE OR ISSUES
WITH SAFETY, WE'VE BEEN IN THE
DENTAL OFFICE SETTING GIVING
ANESTHESIA FOR THE PAST 40
YEARS. YEAH, I DON'T DOUBT THAT
AT ALL, MR. CHAIR, JUST IF I
COULD, WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE DENTAL ASSOCIATION
AGAIN, HOW MIGHT YOU RESPOND TO
THAT AS WELL? HOW MR. WARD, HOW
WOULD, HOW WOULD HOW WOULD WE
ENSURE THAT, THAT THE DENTIST
WHO IS ON HAND AS WELL, IS ABLE
TO SORT OF DOUBLE CHECK THE
WORK, I MEAN, I THINK THAT GETS
TO KIND OF OUR POINT IS THAT THE
TREATING DENTIST WHO'S NOT
TRAINED IN ANESTHESIA IS THERE
ARE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE DUE TO
SB 501, WHERE THEY WOULD NEED TO
HAVE SOME OF THAT RESCUE,
RESPONSIBILITY AND ABILITY TO
SUPPORT THE CRNA IN DOING THE
RESCUE, WE WANT TO BE REALLY
CLEAR THAT WHEN THE TREATING
DENTIST WHO DOESN'T HAVE THAT
ANESTHESIA TRAINING IS WORKING
WITH THE CRNA, THAT THAT CRNA
SORT OF HAS THE APPROPRIATE
ABILITY AND RESOURCES, AND WE
DON'T WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY
DON'T, IT'S SORT OF A
RESPONSIBILITY. LIABILITY. AND
THERE ARE OTHER STAFF WHO WOULD
BE THERE, DEPENDING ON THE EXACT
SETUP AND WHETHER YOU'VE GOT AN
ORAL SURGEON OR AN
ANESTHESIOLOGIST OR CRNA WHO
WOULD WHO WOULD SUPPORT. AND
AGAIN, WE DO BELIEVE THAT DENTAL
ANESTHESIA AND DENTAL OFFICES IS
SAFE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND OUT OF FAIRNESS, I WANT
TO GIVE THE OPPOSITION A MINUTE
TO BRIEFLY AS BRIEFLY AS
POSSIBLE RESPOND. THANK YOU, I
HAVE SOME INSIGHT ON WHY THERE'S
A HUGE WAITING LIST AT THE
OPERATING ROOM. SO I'M A FACULTY
AT UCLA. I TEACH AT THE HOSPITAL
OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT AT. AND,
PART OF THE REASON WHY THERE'S
SUCH A LONG WAIT LIST IS BECAUSE
A LOT OF THESE PATIENTS CANNOT
BE SEEN IN A DENTAL OFFICE. SO
THEIR LAST CHANCE OF BEING SEEN
IS IN A HOSPITAL BASED SETTING.
AND THE OPERATING ROOM AND THESE
TYPE OF PATIENTS ARE WOULD BE
VERY DANGEROUS TO BE PUT UNDER
ANESTHESIA IN A DENTAL OFFICE.
AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S SUCH A
LONG WAIT LIST. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, ANY ANY, ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COLLEAGUES SEEING NONE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GIBSON, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, LET ME ASSURE THIS, THIS
BODY AND THIS COMMITTEE AND MY
COLLEAGUES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK, DILIGENTLY IN THIS SPACE
AND WORK WITH OPPOSITION, TO TRY
TO CLOSE ANY GAPS OF
MISUNDERSTANDING AND GET TO A
NEUTRAL POSITION. THOSE WHO
EXPRESS SUCH, WE THINK THIS IS
VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, THIS IS AN
ACCESS TO CARE ISSUE. THIS BILL
WOULD INCREASE ACCESS TO CARE
FOR SOME OF CALIFORNIA'S MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS WHILE
MAINTAINING STRENGTHENING SAFETY
STANDARDS, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
WAS ASKED A FEW MOMENTS AGO,
ABOUT SENATE BILL 501, THESE,
SEE, AND SEE. I'M SORRY. CRNAS
WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY THERE. AND
SO THAT EXISTING LAW IS IN PLACE
RIGHT NOW, AND THEY HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE LAW, I KNOW THIS IS A
TOUGH BILL, BUT I THINK IT'S THE
APPROPRIATE BILL FOR WHERE WE
ARE RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT'S TIME
FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT. AND I
BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL CREATES
SUCH A SHIFT IN OUR CULTURE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. SO WE NEED A MOTION AND A
SECOND. GOT A MOTION? GOT A
SECOND? I WANT TO THANK, I WANT
TO CONGRATULATE YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GIBSON, ON HAVING
ONE OF THE MOST COMPLICATED
BILLS OF THE YEAR, AND I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR, THE SPONSORS,
AND ALL STAKEHOLDERS FOR WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THIS BILL.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF EXPANDING
ACCESS TO DENTAL ANESTHESIA FOR
THOSE WHO NEED IT, BUT BUT ALSO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE VERY
SERIOUS SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
THAT MUST BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION. WHILE THE
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS ATTEMPT
TO ADD ADDITIONAL GUARDRAILS AND
SIMPLIFY THE BILL, THE COMMITTEE
ASKS THAT THE AUTHOR CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION AND
OTHER CONCERNED STAKEHOLDERS TO
ENSURE PATIENT SAFETY, I'M
CONFIDENT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP
OF MANY CONVERSATIONS ON THIS
ISSUE, IF FOR THE BILL TO BE
SUCCESSFUL IN THE END, WITH THE
ACCEPTED AMENDMENTS, I'M
SUPPORTING THE BILL TO ALLOW
THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO CONTINUE,
HAPPY TO, RECOMMEND AN AYE VOTE.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
VOTE ON AB 2526. GIBSON. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN I.
BERMAN. AYE. FLORA LARA. AYE.
ALANIZ BAINES. BAINES. NO. JUAN.
CARRILLO, JUAN. CARRILLO. AYE.
CHEN. CHEN. AYE. DIXON DIXON.
NO. GRAYSON. GRAYSON AYE. IRWIN.
JACKSON. JACKSON AYE. WARD.
WARD. AYE. LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL
AYE. MCKENNA. HUAN. WEN. AYE
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NO. SORIA ZUBER
. WE'LL LEAVE THAT. WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS NINE.
AYE AND I TAKE THAT BACK. THE
BILL IS OUT, AND WE'LL. AND
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I SEE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOOVER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE, LET'S START WITH AB
3176, YOUR BILL ON PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYORS GOT A MOTION AND
A SECOND. AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE
CURIOUS, WE ARE GOING TO FINISH
THIS COMMITTEE HEARING BEFORE
ANYBODY LEAVES FOR CAUCUS. SO
THAT'S HAPPENING. WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE IT HAPPEN. I'LL BE QUICK.
ALL RIGHT. JUST HIT THE MIC
BUTTON, PLEASE, SIR. OH, YES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT, AB 3176 TODAY, WANT TO
LET YOU KNOW WE ARE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU TO THE STAFF FOR ALL THEIR
WORK ON THAT, THANK YOU AS WELL
TO THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS AND
GEOLOGISTS FOR THEIR
COLLABORATION ON THIS BILL. THIS
BILL WILL EXPAND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A LAND
SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER MUST
RECONSTRUCT OR REHABILITATE LAND
SURVEYING MONUMENTS, COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS PROPERTY MAKERS,
LAND SURVEYING MONUMENTS DEFINE
THE LOCATION OF PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC PROPERTY. PROPERTY LINES.
WITH ME TODAY IS MIKE BOEHLERT,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LAND
SURVEYORS ASSOCIATION, TO SHARE
A LITTLE MORE. I WON'T TAKE THAT
MIKE PILOT ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LAND SURVEYORS
ASSOCIATION, THESE THESE
MONUMENTS ARE OUT THERE, HIDDEN
SOMETIMES IN PLAIN SIGHT. BUT
WHEN THEY'RE DISTURBED AND
DAMAGED, THEY CAN BE HARD TO
FIND TO RECREATE BOUNDARY
MARKERS. SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
THEY BE REHABILITATED WHEN
THEY'RE IN POOR CONDITION. MAKES
A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT CHANGE.
WE WANT TO THANK YOUR NEWEST
CONSULTANT, MR. FRANCO, FOR HIS
HARD WORK ON UNDERSTANDING THE
SUBTLETIES OF LAND SURVEYING.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES YOU
WANT TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? SEEING NONE ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? COME
ON UP. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RICK
MOORE. I'M THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
WITH THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS AND
GEOLOGISTS. AND OUR MARCH BOARD
MEETING. OUR BOARD TOOK A
POSITION OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED,
AND DIRECTED STAFF TO WORK WITH
THE AUTHORS AND SPONSORS. STAFF
ON THE CONCERNS THEY HAD. WE HAD
VERY GOOD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM,
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN THE VERY,
VERY WELL WRITTEN COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, THIS, SATISFY THE
CONCERNS. AND AT OUR MAY 9TH
BOARD MEETING, WE SEE NO REASON
TO RECOMMEND TO OUR BOARD TO
TAKE OR WITHDRAW THAT OPPOSITION
. GREAT, GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. FRANCO. DON'T
GET USED TO ALL THE PRAISE. YEAH
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION OR WIENER OR ANYTHING
OTHER THAN SUPPORT SEEING NONE,
BRING IT BACK. WE'VE GOT A
MOTION IN A SECOND. COLLEAGUES
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING
NONE. MEMBER HOOVER, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANKS SO MUCH.
GREAT. CLOSE. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOOVER, FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I
UNDERSTAND THAT COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS WILL ADDRESS
TECHNICAL CONCERNS BROUGHT
FORWARD BY THE BOARD, WITH THE
AMENDMENTS ACCEPTED, I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE
ON ON AB 3176 HOOVER. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED. BERMAN
AYE. BERMAN. AYE. FLORA. LARA.
AYE. AL-ENEZI. BAINES I. BAINES.
AYE. JUAN. CARRILLO. JUAN.
CARRILLO AYE. CHEN CHEN. AYE.
DIXON GRAYSON. IRWIN. JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE.
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL AYE.
MCKENNA. HIÆN IRWIN. AYE.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. AYE. SANCHEZ
SORIA. ZUBER THAT BILL IS OUT.
CONGRATULATIONS. AND I BELIEVE
YOU ARE HERE TO GUEST INTRODUCE,
AB 2425 GUEST PRESENT, AB 2425,
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SALIH. THAT IS
CORRECT. I HAVE PRESENTED MORE
BILLS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS TODAY
THAN MYSELF. YOU ARE A GENTLEMAN
AND A SCHOLAR. IT'S BEEN A GREAT
DAY. ALL RIGHT, SO, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE
TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF
OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER SALIH, AS YOU
MENTIONED HERE, TO PRESENT AB
2425, A BILL INTENDED TO GIVE
OUR STATE, MORE RESOURCES TO
COMBAT CALIFORNIA'S ANIMAL
SHELTER. OVERCROWDING CRISIS.
SPECIFICALLY, THE BILL WILL
EXPAND THE CURRENT DOG BREEDER
STANDARDS BY LOWERING THE NUMBER
OF DOGS THAT MUST BE BRED FOR
BREEDING REGULATIONS TO APPLY.
IT IMPOSES NEW MICROCHIPPING AND
VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOG
BREEDERS. CONSISTENT WITH
SIMILAR REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON
ANIMAL ADOPTED FROM SHELTERS. IT
REQUIRES ANIMAL SHELTERS TO
CREATE A DATABASE OF ALL
ADOPTABLE ANIMALS OR ANIMALS
HELD PURSUANT TO STRAY HOLD
CODES IN THEIR CARE, PUBLISHED
ON EITHER THEIR INTERNET WEBSITE
OR A THIRD PARTY PLATFORM, AND
IT ORDERS THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE TO CONDUCT A STUDY
ON ANIMAL SHELTER, OVERCROWDING
THAT INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS
AND SOLUTIONS THAT THE STATE CAN
USE TO FACILITATE FURTHER
ACTION. WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY
AS NICK SACKETT ON BEHALF OF
SOCIAL COMPASSION IN LEGISLATION
, ALONG WITH KATIE PETTIBONE,
VOLUNTEER AT LARGE FOR THE
MALINOIS AND DUTCH SHEPHERD
RESCUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU
EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK
YOU. TURN THERE WE GO. THANK
YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
NICHOLAS SACKETT, DIRECTOR FOR
SOCIAL COMPASSION IN LEGISLATION
. I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR WORKING ON THE AMENDMENTS,
WHICH, AS THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER
MENTIONED, WE ARE TAKING FIRST.
THE BILL REQUIRES ANIMAL
SHELTERS TO PUBLICLY POST THE
AVAILABILITY OF ADOPTABLE
ANIMALS ON THEIR WEBSITE OR A
THIRD PARTY WEBSITE BY ENSURING
ALL ANIMAL SHELTERS ARE DOING
THIS, WE CAN ENSURE THAT LOOKING
THAT THOSE LOOKING TO ADD A PET
TO THEIR FAMILY ARE ABLE TO SEE
THE MANY WONDERFUL PETS
AVAILABLE WITHOUT HAVING TO
NECESSARILY TRAVEL TO THE
SHELTER FIRST. ADDITIONALLY,
POSTING ONLINE HELPS ANIMAL
RESCUES KNOW WHO IS AVAILABLE
AND WHERE THEIR HELP IS NEEDED
MOST. SECONDLY, THE BILL REDUCES
THE THRESHOLD OF SOLD DOGS TO BE
CONSIDERED A BREEDER FOR THE
PURPOSES OF STATE REGULATION, AS
WELL AS REQUIRING ALL BREEDERS
TO MICROCHIP AND INOCULATE THE
DOGS THEY SELL. ACCORDING TO THE
AMERICAN HUMANE SOCIETY, EACH
YEAR APPROXIMATELY 10 MILLION
PETS ARE LOST IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND MORE THAN 6 MILLION
ANIMALS WIND UP IN THE IN
SHELTERS. A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE
OF THE PROBLEM IS ANIMAL
IDENTIFICATION AND THE ABILITY
TO REUNITE THESE ANIMALS WITH
THEIR FAMILIES. ONLY 15% OF DOGS
AND 2% OF CATS IN SHELTERS
WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION ARE
REUNITED WITH THEIR OWNERS,
ENSURING THAT BREEDERS ARE ALSO,
PROPERLY INOCULATING THE DOGS
THEY SELL WILL CUT DOWN ON THESE
NEW PET OWNERS FROM INCURRING
EXPENSIVE VETERINARY BILLS EARLY
IN ANIMAL'S LIFE, WHICH CAN LEAD
TO OWNER SURRENDER AND THE
ANIMAL ENDING UP IN A SHELTER.
LASTLY, TO FULLY GRASP THE
EXTENT OF THE RESOURCES AND
POLICIES REQUIRED TO SOLVE THE
PET OVERPOPULATION CRISIS, A
FULL STUDY OF THE PROBLEM BY THE
DEPARTMENT IS CRUCIAL TO HELP
GUIDE BOTH POLICY MAKERS AND
STAKEHOLDERS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. HI KATIE
PETTIBONE, ON BEHALF OF THE
BELGIAN AND DUTCH SHEPHERD
RESCUE, AS WELL AS THE EL DORADO
GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE, THE
ANALYSIS DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB
AND I'LL NOTE, PULL OUT ONE OF
THE PIECES THAT I THINK IS
REALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT THE
REPORT IN 2003 NOTES THAT
PUPPIES AND LARGE DOGS ARE BEING
DUMPED IN SHELTERS OR ENDING UP
IN SHELTERS AT A RATE THAT WE
HAVEN'T SEEN IN MANY, MANY
YEARS, THE BILL'S CHANGING THE
DEFINITION OF 3 TO 2 LITTERS A
YEAR FOR BREEDERS IS IMPORTANT
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IT'S
GOING TO WITH THESE ADDITIONAL
REGULATIONS, AND MICROCHIPPING
WILL HELP IDENTIFY WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DOGS THAT
ARE ENDING UP IN OUR SHELTERS, I
DRIVE DOWN TO THE SHELTERS, I
PULL DOGS, I DRIVE THEM,
ACTUALLY FLY THEM, DRIVE THEM
AROUND THE COUNTRY AT MY OWN
EXPENSE. AND WE NEED TO FIND OUT
WHO IS ACTUALLY CAUSING THE COST
TO THESE SHELTERS TO THE
GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IT IS AN
UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS, THIS
MICROCHIPPING REQUIREMENT THAT
REQUIRES ACTUALLY THE BREEDERS
AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
TRANSFERRED TO BE REGISTERING
THEM WILL HELP. I CAN TELL YOU
THAT I'M OFTEN AT THE SHELTER
AND THERE SAYING THERE'S A CHIP
AND IT'S NOT REGISTERED OR THE
DOG ISN'T CHIPPED. AND SO THIS
IS ONE SMALL STEP THAT WILL
REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HELP
ACTUALLY STEM THE PROBLEM OF THE
INFLUX THAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR
SHELTERS. IT'S SUPER IMPORTANT,
IT'S A IT'S GREAT POLICY. THIS
IS THIS IS JUST SIMPLY NOT ABOUT
POLITICS. IT'S ABOUT POLICY.
THIS WE NEED THIS. AND I ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
YOU WANT TO ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL? PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH
AND POSITION ON THE BILL. THANK
YOU. JULIANA TETLOW, ON BEHALF
OF SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JULIE VERGA,
ON BEHALF OF FIX OUR SHELTERS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ESTELLA
DRAKE, ON BEHALF OF THE
VOICELESS ANIMAL COMMUNITY OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LAYLA. DORA
WITH LAYLA'S ANIMAL CAUSE I
SUPPORT. THANK YOU TO THE ANIMAL
IN SUPPORT FROM FIX OUR
SHELTERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ELISE MIZE WITH FIX FRONT
STREET. I SUPPORT THANK YOU
SUSAN FALCON, SACRAMENTO
RESIDENT IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
RINA GÓMEZ. I'M JUST A NETWORKER
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MARK
CHACON. ANIMAL OUTREACH SERVICES
IN THE COMMUNITY HERE IN
SACRAMENTO, IN THE BAY AREA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, BARBARA SCHMITZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
SPCA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LISA
KIRK, ANIMAL RESCUER AND CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JAN SCHOTT, ANIMAL RESCUER
FROM WALNUT CREEK IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? COME ON UP. YOU'VE
GOT TWO MINUTES.
HI. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS BOB ROWLAND-SMITH, AND
I'M WITH THE AMERICAN KENNEL
CLUB. THE AKC CARES DEEPLY ABOUT
DOGS AND BELIEVES ALL DOGS
DESERVE A LIFE. AND SAFE AND A
SAFE ENVIRONMENT WITH LOVING
FAMILIES, WE ARE PROUD TO BE THE
LARGEST PUREBRED RESCUE NETWORK
IN THE UNITED STATES AND ARE A
LARGE FUNDER OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
BENEFITING CANINE HEALTH. WE
APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THE
BILL TO IMPROVE THE WELL-BEING
OF DOGS. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
CONDUCTING A STUDY TO DETERMINE
THE ISSUES THAT EXIST IN ANIMAL
SHELTERS, AND THE GREATER FOCUS
PLACED ON MICROCHIPPING AND
VACCINES. WE APPRECIATE THE
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS SUPPORTED
BY THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR
AROUND WHEN VACCINATIONS ARE
GIVEN TO DOGS. HOWEVER THE AKC
DISAGREES WITH CHANGING THE
STATE DEFINITION OF A DOG
BREEDER TO INCLUDE SMALL SCALE
HOBBYISTS FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
FIRST, PEOPLE ARE ALREADY
SUBJECT TO LAWS CONCERNING
ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL
CRUELTY THAT APPLY TO ALL WHO
OWN A DOG, REGARDLESS OF IF THEY
ARE A BREEDER OR NOT. YET AS
AMENDED IN THIS BILL, IT COULD
INCLUDE SOMEONE WHO BREEDS AND
SELLS JUST ONE LITTER AND THEIR
PRIVATE HOME. THIS IS. THIS IS A
SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN WHO THE
STATE BELIEVES IS A DOG BREEDER.
THE SECOND CHANGING THIS
DEFINITION BEFORE THE ANIMAL
SHELTER STUDY IS CONDUCTED,
SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT SMALL SCALE
HOBBY DOG BREEDERS ARE THE
REASON ANIMAL SHELTERS ARE
CROWDED. WE DISAGREE WITH THIS
NOTION. FINALLY, COST. AS THE
COMMITTEE KNOWS, ANIMAL CONTROL
IS OVERWORKED AND OVERSTRETCHED.
THIS DEFINITION IS A SIGNIFICANT
EXPANSION IN THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO COULD BE REGULATED
WITHOUT EXTRA MONEY TO
LOCALITIES FOR ADDITIONAL
ENFORCEMENT. IT DOES NOT MAKE
SENSE TO DEVOTE RESOURCES TO
MANY OF THE BEST DOG BREEDERS IN
THE STATE. INSTEAD, CITIES AND
COUNTIES SHOULD CONTINUE TO
FOCUS THEIR LIMITED ATTENTION
AND RESOURCES ON ENSURING THE
WELL-BEING OF ALL ANIMALS. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK THE DEFINITION
OF A DOG BREEDER NOT BE CHANGED,
AND THAT THE COMMITTEE OPPOSES
THE BILL. UNLESS DONE SO, THE
STUDY SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP,
NOT THE LAST. IF AMENDED, THE
AKC WOULD HAPPILY SUPPORT AB
2425. AND THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES YOU
WANT TO ADD ON IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL, SEEING NONE, WANT TO
BRING IT BACK TO COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR MOTIONS
OR SECONDS. WE WILL, THE BILL
WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR MOTIONS OR
SECONDS UNTIL THE END OF THE
HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SO NOW, WE
ARE WAITING ON MR. MCCARTY. MR.
MCCARTY, GET OVER HERE, BUT IN
THE MEANTIME, WE WILL, DO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR AND THEN ALLOW
MEMBERS TO ADD ON TO BILLS. WE
DO HAVE A COUPLE OF BILLS THAT
STILL NEED MOTIONS AND SECONDS
FROM EARLIER WHEN WE WERE ACTING
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. ON THE. SORRY.
EXCUSE ME, I NEED A MOTION IN A
SECOND ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
GOT, SOME MEMBER CARILLO AND
FLORA AND LOWENTHAL AND OTHERS
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FILE.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AB 2246 RAMOS
IS Dð. PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS, BERMAN BERMAN.
AYE. FLORA. FLORA. AYE. ALANIZ.
BAINES BAINES. AYE. JUAN.
CARRILLO. JUAN. CARRILLO. AYE.
CHEN DIXON. DIXON. AYE. GRAYSON
IRWIN. IRWIN. I. JACKSON
JACKSON. AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE.
LOWENTHAL LOWENTHAL. AYE.
MCKENNA. HIÆN WHEN. AYE.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. AYE. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ I. SORIA. ZUBER THAT
BILL IS OUT. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS OUT. EXCUSE ME.
WHICH IS, I THINK ONLY ONE BILL,
WHY DON'T WE JUST RUN THROUGH
THE. GOT A MOTION. WE NEED A
MOTION IN A SECOND. FOR WHICH
ONE IS THIS? AB 1991. AND WE HAD
A MOTION BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
PELLERIN AND GOT A SECOND BY
SENATOR CARILLO. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL A VOTE ON
AB 1991. BONTA. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED, TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
BERMAN. AYE. BERMAN AYE. FLORA.
FLORA. AYE. ALANIZ. BAINES
BAINES. AYE. JUAN. CARRILLO.
JUAN. CARRILLO. AYE CHEN. CHEN.
AYE. DIXON. DIXON AYE. GRAYSON.
IRWIN. IRWIN. AYE JACKSON.
JACKSON. AYE. WARD. WARD AYE.
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. AYE.
MCKENNA. TWIN WHEN. AYE.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. AYE SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING. SORIA ZUBER
. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE'LL LEAVE
THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
COLLEAGUES, I THINK WE MIGHT
NEED IT ON HANEY. ALSO KNOW.
EXCUSE ME. THE NEXT, BONTA.
BILL. AB 2051. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND. GOT A MOTION
BY PELLERIN A SECOND BY FLORA.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
VOTE ON AB 2051. BONTA. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN. AYE
BERMAN. AYE. FLORA. LARA. AYE.
ALANIZ BAINES. BAINES. AYE.
JUAN. CARRILLO. JUAN CARILLO.
AYE. CHEN. CHEN. AYE. DIXON
DIXON. AYE. GRAYSON. GRAYSON.
AYE. IRWIN IRWIN. NOT VOTING.
JACKSON. JACKS AYE. WARD. WARD.
AYE. LOWENTHAL LOWENTHAL. AYE.
MCKINLEY. HIÆN WHEN? AYE.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. AYE SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ I. SORIA. SPUR THAT BILL
IS OUT. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR ABSENT COLLEAGUES. BEAR
WITH US AS WE DO A LITTLE
PAPERWORK, AND WE NEED A MOTION
AND A SECOND FOR 2115 BY HANEY.
GOT A I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO
LOWENTHAL THIS TIME. GOT
PELLERIN IS THE MOTION.
LOWENTHAL IS THE SECOND WE'RE
SHARING, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE VOTE ON AB 2115. HANEY.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH. BERMAN.
AYE. BERMAN. AYE. FLORA LARA.
AYE. ALANIZ. BAINES BAINS. AYE.
JUAN. CARRILLO. JUAN. CARRILLO.
AYE. CHEN CHEN. AYE. DIXON.
DIXON. AYE. GRAYSON GRAYSON.
AYE. IRWIN. IRWIN. AYE. JACKSON
JACKSON. AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE.
LOWENTHAL LOWENTHAL. AYE.
MCKENNA. WHEN? WHEN AYE.
PELLERIN. PELLERIN. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I. SORIA. SABER
THAT BILL IS OUT. LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR ABSENT COLLEAGUES. AND
THEN LET'S DO ADD ONS FOR THE
NEXT COUPLE OF BILLS, I BELIEVE.
AB 2231 GIBSON ON AB 2231
GIBSON, THE MOTION WAS Dð PASSED
AS AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. ALANIS DIXON
DIXON NOT VOTING. IRWIN. IRWIN.
AYE. WARD WARD. AYE. MCKENNA.
WHEN WHEN? AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING. SORIA.
SABER THAT BILL IS OUT. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
COLLEAGUES, THE NEXT GIBSON BILL
2526. A GOOD. ON AB 2526. GIBSON
IRWIN. IRWIN NOT VOTING
MCKINNEY. SORRY. TRÊN YEAH. ON
AB 2566. WILSON. THE MOTION WAS
Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
ALANIS DIXON. DIXON. AYE. IRWIN.
IRWIN. NOT VOTING. WARD. WARD
AYE. MCKINNEY. HIÆN ON TIME.
WHEN. AYE. SANCHEZ SANCHEZ.
ISAURIA. ZIPPER THAT BILL IS
OUT. LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT COLLEAGUES FOR THE NEXT
ONE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TEN.
ABBY. 2578. NEED A MOTION AND A
SECOND. GOT A MOTION BY GRAYSON.
A SECOND BY NGUYEN, I BELIEVE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON AB 2578.
FLORA, THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN I, BERMAN
I FLORA LARA I ALANIS BAINES.
BAINES I JUAN CARRILLO, JUAN.
CARRILLO I CHEN CHEN I DIXON.
DIXON I GRAYSON. GRAYSON I
IRWIN. IRWIN I JACKSON. JACKSON
I WARD. WARD I LOWENTHAL.
LOWENTHAL I MCKENNA. HIÆN. WHEN
I PELLERIN. PELLERIN I SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. I SORIA. ZIPPER THAT
BILL IS OUT. CONGRATULATIONS
VICE CHAIR.
ON AB 2651. DIXON DIXON, I IRWIN
. IRWIN I WARD. WARD I QUINN.
WHEN I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NOT
VOTING.
ON AB 2862 GIBSON. FLORA. 2862.
NOT VOTING. LARA. NOT VOTING.
ALANIS Ó CHEN. CHEN. NOT
VOTING. DIXON. DIXON NÓ. WHEN.
WHEN I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO. WAS
IT ALREADY OUT? YEAH. ON AB
2918. ZEBRA DIXON. WARD. WARD I
SANCHEZ.
ON AB 3176. HOOVER. DIXON. Þ
GRAYSON. ON GRAYSON. I. IRWIN.
IRWIN I SANCHEZ. Þ. OKAY. THANK
YOU. FOLKS, DON'T RUN AWAY. I
BELIEVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTY
IS HOPEFULLY HUSTLING OVER TO
PRESENT HIS BILL.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
GRAYSON. GRAYSON, I. ON AB 1991.
BONTA. GRAYSON. GRAYSON I
.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR CHEN
CHEN I
.
AND, ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AB 2420. NO.
EXCUSE ME, GENTLEMEN, NUMBER
SIX, AB 2265 MCCARTY. READY?
WHEN YOU ARE, SIR. I'M THE LAST
ONE BEFORE LUNCH. YOU ARE BEFORE
CAUCUS LUNCH. ALL RIGHT, HERE WE
GO. YEAH. YES. LET'S BOOGIE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND, WE
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE, COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. I REALIZE THIS IS A
VERY EMOTIONAL TOPIC. EVERYBODY
WANTS TO, SAVE ANIMALS IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, THE PEOPLE WHO WORK
IN THE ANIMAL SHELTERS. AND I
WANT TO SAY, I 100% RESPECT
THEM. I RESPECT THEIR CONCERNS
AND THEIR OPPOSITION. I RESPECT
THEIR WORK THEY'RE TRYING TO DO,
WHICH IS BRING ANIMALS IN, TRY
TO GET THEM ADOPTED, TRY TO GET
THEM HEALTHY AND, FOCUS ON A WIN
WIN, WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO FURTHER NARROW IT
TO ADDRESS SOME UNINTENDED
ISSUES, THE REAL FOCUS ON THIS
IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN
REDUCE EUTHANASIA RATES IN OUR
SHELTERS BY DOING TWO THINGS,
EXPANDING, PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS THAT OUR ANIMALS
ARE ABOUT TO BE EUTHANIZED, LIKE
WE DID WITH LAST YEAR'S BILL IN
THIS COMMITTEE. AND FURTHER,
REQUIRING THAT OVERSIGHT
HEARINGS SHALL BE HELD, WHICH
ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT CHANGES ARE BEING MADE AS
FAR AS SOME OF THEIR SHELTER
POLICIES, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR
THE COMMITTEE FOR ENGAGING WITH
US. AND WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A
CONTINUED PROCESS AND OUR
COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO WE MAY HEAR FROM
IN A FEW MOMENTS, WITH ME TODAY
ARE TWO, INDIVIDUALS AND,
SACRAMENTO LEADERS IN THIS SPACE
AND ASK THAT YOU ALLOW THEM TO
PRESENT. THANK YOU. GREAT. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU
, THERE WE GO, MR. CHAIR, MR.
VICE CHAIR MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
MARK RAKICH, AND I DON'T
REPRESENT ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE
DOGS THAT WE FOSTERED WHO ARE ON
A EUTHANASIA PATHWAY AND PLACED
IN GOOD HOMES. I'M HERE BECAUSE
OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. MOST
OF. WELL, LET ME START OVER. MY
WIFE AND I. I'M SORRY. THAT'S
OKAY. YOU GOT IT. I'M A LITTLE
BIT NERVOUS. I'M NOT USED TO
BEING ON THIS SIDE. WE'RE ALL.
WE'RE ALL. WE'RE ALL FRIENDLY.
WE'RE ALL FRIENDLY, MY WIFE AND
I, IN THE PAST TEN YEARS HAVE
FOSTERED AND PLACED MORE THAN 80
SMALL DOGS THAT WE'VE PULLED
FROM LOCAL SHELTERS. FULLY HALF
OF THOSE DOGS WERE DESIGNATED
NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC OR
ON THE EUTHANASIA LIST. THEY
WERE ALL ON THE PATHWAY TO BE
EUTHANIZED. YET WE PULLED THOSE
DOGS. NOT SURPRISING TO US. THEY
TURNED OUT TO BE REALLY GOOD
PETS, EVEN THOUGH THEY FAILED
THE SO-CALLED TRIAGE TESTS THAT
THE SHELTERS USED. YOU'D FRANKLY
BE SHOCKED AT THE REASONS THAT
SHELTERS SOMETIMES USE TO PUT A
DOG ON ITS PATHWAY TO
EUTHANASIA. SO APPROXIMATELY 40
DOGS ON A EUTHANASIA PATHWAY, WE
BATTED 40, 40, 40 PLACED. NOW, I
UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURES MR.
MCCARTY INDICATED AS WELL. I
MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURES
THE SHELTERS ARE UNDER, AND SOME
DO A MUCH BETTER JOB THAN
OTHERS. AND I WANT TO
PARTICULARLY SHOUT OUT TO THE
EMPLOYEES AT THE YOLO COUNTY.
YOLO COUNTY SHELTER, WHO DO A
GREAT JOB OF IDENTIFYING DOGS
THAT FAILED THEIR WHATEVER
TESTS, BUT NONETHELESS REACH OUT
TO RESCUE GROUPS, BUT BY THE
WAY, THIS TRIAGE THAT THEY PUT
DOGS THROUGH TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON A
EUTHANASIA OR NOT AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC LIST, HAS ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO DO WITH DANGEROUS OR
VICIOUS DOGS. THEY COULD BE
TIMID. THEY COULD BE A LITTLE
BIT NIPPY BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED
TO DEATH, BECAUSE THEY'RE IN
THIS SHELTER ENVIRONMENT. AFTER
HAVING BEEN, FOUND ON THE
STREETS. BUT YOLO COUNTY AND
SIMILAR SHELTERS ARE NOT WHY WE
NEED THIS BILL. AND I APOLOGIZE
AS TWO MINUTES IF YOU COULD WRAP
UP. OKAY, MY POINT IS, MY POINT
IS THIS SUNSHINE WORKS WHEN THEY
REACH OUT. SUNSHINE WORKS.
PEOPLE LIKE MY WIFE AND I COME
FORWARD AND PULL THE DOGS AND
MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO BE
ADOPTED. BUT NOT ALL SHELTERS
ARE DO THAT. VERY GOOD. DO A
VERY GOOD JOB OF THAT. AND OUR
OTHER WITNESS IS GOING TO TALK
ABOUT WHY WE NEED A BILL. GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. MY NAME IS LAYLA,
AND I REPRESENT THE ANIMALS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO VOICE. AB
2265 WILL GIVE ANIMALS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE SAVED WHILE
REDUCING THE EXORBITANT COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH EUTHANIZING AND
DISPOSING OF THEIR BODIES ISN'T
SAVING LIVES AND SAVING MONEY A
GOOD THING? ALTHOUGH I WORK FULL
TIME IN MANAGEMENT, I WAS ALSO A
DEDICATED VOLUNTEER AT A SHELTER
IN SACRAMENTO, SPENDING THE
MAJORITY OF MY WEEKENDS,
HOLIDAYS, AND VACATIONS HELPING
AT RISK ANIMALS BY EVALUATING
THEM, MAKING VIDEOS AND SHARING
THEIR STORIES ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA
. I WAS EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL
CREATING PUBLIC AWARENESS SO
THAT FOSTERS ADOPTERS AND
RESCUES COULD HELP SAVE A LIFE.
I, ALONG WITH MANY NETWORKERS
AND RESCUES ACROSS CALIFORNIA,
SAVE AT LEAST HALF OF THE
SHELTER POPULATION BY SHARING
WITH THE PUBLIC WHICH DOGS ARE
AT RISK FOR EUTHANASIA.
UNFORTUNATELY I EXPERIENCED
FIRSTHAND THAT MANY SHELTERS
CHOOSE TO HIDE WHICH ANIMALS
THEY INTEND TO EUTHANIZE, AND
THEREFORE MANY ANIMALS ARE
KILLED WITHOUT A CHANCE. WHILE
WHILE VOLUNTEERING. I WAS
BLINDSIDED WHEN THE SHELTER
DIRECTOR, WHO IS ALSO DIRECTOR
AT CAL ANIMALS, TOLD ME THAT I
COULD NO LONGER VOLUNTEER IF I
CONTINUED TO USE THE WORDS AT
RISK FOR EUTHANASIA ON MY OWN
PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA. I WAS
BULLIED AND RETALIATED AGAINST
FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. THIS IS
NOT UNCOMMON FOR VOLUNTEERS AND
STAFF TO EXPERIENCE. I'VE SEEN
WHAT HAPPENS TO VULNERABLE
ANIMALS WHEN NO ONE IS MADE
AWARE THAT THEIR LIVES ARE AT
RISK. VOLUNTEERS WERE OFTEN
HEARTBROKEN WHEN WE CAME IN TO
FIND HALF A BUILDING EMPTY, ONLY
TO LEARN THAT THEY WERE KILLED
WITHOUT NOTICE. WE WERE
DEVASTATED, KNOWING WE COULD
HAVE HELPED IF ONLY WE HAD KNOWN
IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO ME THAT
ANYONE WOULD OPPOSE THIS SIMPLE,
EFFECTIVE, LIFE SAVING
NOTIFICATION THAT CAN EASILY BE
IMPLEMENTED USING EXISTING
SHELTER INFRASTRUCTURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WANT TO
ADD ON IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL?
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? YOU JUST WANT TO ADD
THEIR NAME, ORGANIZATION
THEREWITH IF ANY AND POSITION ON
THE BILL. JULIE VIRGA SPONSOR IN
SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KARINA
GÓMEZ I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
THANK YOU. SUSAN FALCON IN
SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU. CATHERINE RAKIC,
LONGTIME FOSTER MOM AND ANIMAL
RESCUER. AND I SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. ESTELLA DRAKE,
COMMA, THE VOICE OF THE
VOICELESS ANIMALS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. THEY. I ARE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IN SUPPORT
FROM NORSE LED. THANK THANK YOU.
PLEASE. WITH FIXED FRONT STREET
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU MIKE YOU
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK
YOU. CLAUDIA AND CAMPBELL,
LONGTIME ANIMAL RESCUER AND
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT OF THIS
TRANSPARENCY. THANK YOU. MARK
CHACON. 25 YEARS OF ON THE
FIRING LINES OF, ANIMAL CARE,
RESCUE AND TREATMENT AT MY HOME,
STRONGLY, EXTREMELY IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. THANK YOU. JAN SHOT
FROM WALNUT CREEK, LONGTIME
ANIMAL VOLUNTEER RESCUE. THANK
YOU. HELLO. CORINNE COOPER FROM
SUISUN CITY, LONGTIME, ANIMAL
ADVOCATE AND SUPPORTER OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU, LISA KIRK,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, THIS ALSO
SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR'S
INTENTION OF NÓ SHELTERS SHOULD
KILL HEALTHY, TREATABLE,
ADOPTABLE ANIMALS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, GARY COOPER, ANIMAL
LOVER IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. WE GOT ONE MORE.
NICK. SECOND, FOR SOCIAL
COMPASSION AND LEGISLATION,
WE'RE KIND OF A TWEENER
POSITION, WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S
A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS ABOUT HOW
IT'S IMPLEMENTED, AND IT'S NOT
SO SIMPLE, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO
ENGAGE WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE GOING FORWARD ON ON
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? COME ON UP. YOU'VE GOT TWO
MINUTES EACH.
SORRY READY WHEN YOU ARE. HELLO.
MY NAME IS JILL TUCKER, AND I'M
THE CEO OF THE CALIFORNIA ANIMAL
WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING HUNDREDS OF
MUNICIPAL AND NONPROFIT
SHELTERS. THE SHELTERS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE JOINED BY MAJOR
ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS,
ARE OPPOSED TO AB 2265. EVEN
WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS,
BECAUSE THIS BILL THREATENS
PUBLIC SAFETY, REDUCES THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN ADOPTING,
AND THREATENS THE SAFETY OF OUR
STAFF AND SHELTERS HAVE A LEGAL
OBLIGATION TO HOLD ANIMALS FOR A
PERIOD OF 72 HOURS, YET THEY
CHOOSE TO HOLD THEM AS LONG AS
THEY CAN TO HELP THEM FIND A NEW
HOME. THUS FAR IN 2024, THE
AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY FOR DOGS
AND CATS AND SHELTERS IS 32
DAYS. DURING THIS TIME, SHELTERS
ARE REACHING OUT TO HUNDREDS OF
RESCUE PARTNERS DAILY, ASKING
FOR HELP AND RUNNING EXTENSIVE
PROMOTIONS TO ENCOURAGE
ADOPTIONS. ONLY 30% OF PEOPLE
ACQUIRE THEIR PETS FROM A
SHELTER OR RESCUE, WHICH MEANS
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE
GETTING THEIR PETS ELSEWHERE.
MANY PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO VISIT
SHELTERS, SEEING THEM AS SAD,
SCARY PLACES OR PERCEIVED
SHELTER PETS TO BE DAMAGED. WE
HAVE MAXED OUT ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF GUILT, SHAME
AND EMOTIONAL EXTORTION TO GET
PEOPLE TO ADOPT THIS BILL DOES
NOT OFFER A SOLUTION TO INCREASE
ADOPTIONS, BUT WILL MOST
CERTAINLY KEEP ADOPTERS AWAY
WHILE INCITING HATRED, THREATS,
AND ACTUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST OUR
EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS BILL AFFORDS
SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SAFETY
CONCERNS, DECIDING WHICH DOGS
THREATEN OUR COMMUNITY'S SAFETY
IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF ANIMAL
CONTROL. THIS BILL CREATES VERY
NARROW CRITERIA FOR WEEDING OUT
DANGEROUS DOGS, REFERENCING A
CODE SECTION THAT ONLY APPLIES
TO OWNED DOGS THAT HAVE GONE
THROUGH A HEARING PROCESS UNDER
THIS BILL, AN UNOWNED DOG THAT
HAS JUST MAULED A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC WOULD NEED TO BE PROMOTED
FOR RELEASE. WE WANT TO SAVE
MORE LIVES, AND THIS BILL DOES
NOT HELP. AB 2265 IS A MISGUIDED
ATTEMPT AT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL
SOLUTION, AND WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, MATT BROD HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, I YOU
KNOW, I THINK THIS BILL IS A
GOOD EXAMPLE OF WELL-INTENTIONED
BUT PERHAPS POORLY EXECUTED, YOU
KNOW, WE OPPOSED VERY SIMILAR
BILL WITH RESPECT TO THE LIST
PROVISIONS. THE 24 HOURS TO 72
HOUR WINDOW LAST YEAR BY,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ASSALY. AND SO
WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT PICKING ON
OUR FRIEND, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MCCARTY, WE REPRESENT WORKERS IN
THESE SHELTERS. AND THE REALITY
IS THAT OUR MEMBERS LOVE
ANIMALS, MANY OF THEM HAVE
ADOPTED AS MANY ANIMALS AS YOU
POSSIBLY COULD, BUT THEY'VE ALSO
FACED THREATS THEY FACED, ACTUAL
ASSAULTS. ALL TOO FREQUENTLY.
AND SO WE'RE VERY WORRIED THAT
THESE PROVISIONS THAT WOULD
REQUIRE LISTING, COULD INVITE,
UNFORTUNATELY, SUBJECTING OUR
MEMBERS TO, TO MORE RISK. AND,
AND SO WITH THAT, WE'RE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TODAY AND
HOPE TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES WHO WANT TO ADD ON IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? PLEASE
PROVIDE YOUR NAME ORGANIZATION
YOU'RE WITH. IF ANY, AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF OF THE
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED
STATES, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SHARON GONSALVES
WITH THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. CAROLINE GRINDER, ON BEHALF
OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
DOCTOR GARY WEITZMAN I'M A
VETERINARIAN AND PRESIDENT OF
SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY,
VOICING OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. SORRY. IF EVERYBODY
CAN EVERYONE'S BEEN RESPECTFUL
TO EVERYONE SO FAR. I KNOW WE'RE
THREE HOURS IN, IF FOLKS CAN
JUST COME UP AND PROVIDE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION YOU'RE WITH
AND POSITION ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, DYLAN FINLEY, ON
BEHALF OF THE ASPCA, RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
MERRILEES, ON BEHALF OF SAN
MATEO COUNTY IN OPPOSITION,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ASHLEY
CLOUZOT, REPRESENTING THE CITY
OF STOCKTON ANIMAL SERVICES IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
ZIMMERMAN, REPRESENTING THE CITY
OF SACRAMENTO, FRONT STREET
ANIMAL SHELTER FOR YOUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. JOSH, ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY HEALTH
EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE URBAN
COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA, OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. HARRY FENNEL OF MARIN
HUMANE, AND WE OPPOSE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. HI I'M LISA
BLOCK, ANIMAL LOVER, AND I
OPPOSE THANK YOU. KATHY RUNYON,
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSE.
AND THANK YOU. RAJATAVA MORI
WITH HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE
UNITED STATES, SEVEN YEARS.
ANIMAL ADVOCACY AND ADOPTIONS
COUNSELOR AND FOSTER MOM OF 20
PLUS DOGS. OPPOSED THANK YOU.
THURMOND OF VALLEY HUMANE
SOCIETY. WE OPPOSE. THANK YOU.
LINDSAY MCCAUL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY
OF SONOMA COUNTY. WE OPPOSE.
THANK YOU. BARBARA SCHMITZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
SPCA. WE'RE OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
WENDY TAYLOR CHANEL, ON BEHALF
OF JOY BOUND PEOPLE AND PETS AND
A POSITION. THANK YOU, KATHY
HEFFINGTON, TULARE COUNTY ANIMAL
SERVICES. OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. AMY SHOCKLEY AND
TULARE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. I HAD NO INTENTION
OF BEING HERE TODAY. I JUST AM
HERE FOR SOMETHING ELSE. AND
CASSIE SAID SHE WAS IN HERE, I
OPPOSE. I'VE WORKED IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FOR 17 YEARS, AND I
WOULD NOT WANT TO MAKE THAT
DECISION EVERY DAY TO EUTHANIZE
AN ANIMAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. SEEING NO ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES. WANT TO BRING IT UP
TO COLLEAGUES FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS OR SECONDS
TO SOME MEMBER. PELLERIN. HI, SO
, SO, THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR.
AND THANK YOU. CHAIR. I HAVE
SHELTERS IN MY DISTRICT THAT ARE
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL
AND HAVE RAISED A NUMBER OF
CONCERNS. SO DO I HAVE
CONFIRMATION FROM YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, THAT YOU'LL BE WORKING
WITH THEM TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE
OPPOSITION THAT THEY HAVE INTO
THIS BILL? YES. AND JUST TO BE
SPECIFIC, WHEN I LOOK AT THE,
THE, THE LETTER AND SOME OF THE
ISSUES RAISED, THAT'S NOT THE
OVERALL INTENT OF OUR BILL. OUR
INTENT OF THE BILL IS
NOTIFICATION BEFORE EUTHANASIA.
AND PUBLIC PROCESS WHEN YOU
CHANGE POLICIES AND IF YOU LOOK
AT SOME OF THE LETTERS AND SO
FORTH, THEY TALK ABOUT SOME OF
THE STANDARDS ADOPTABLE AND
TREATABLE ANIMALS, WHAT THAT
MEANS. AND WE WILL, AS I
PROMISED YOU AND OTHERS, WE WILL
WORK AND REMOVE SOME OF THOSE
ELEMENTS TO MAKE SURE WE FOCUS
ON THE GIST OF THE BILL. SO
THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. ANY GOT A MOTION.
GOT A SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING
NONE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTY,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR.
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER I JUST REALLY WANT TO
START BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE
HEARING ROOM TODAY IS FULL OF
PEOPLE WHO LOVE THEIR PETS, NO
MATTER WHETHER OR NOT YOU OPPOSE
THIS BILL OR YOU SUPPORT THIS
BILL, I KNOW EVERYBODY LOVES
THEIR PETS. I KNOW EVERYBODY
HERE IS WORKING VERY HARD AT
DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE PROCESS
TO TRY TO SAVE AS MANY PETS AS
POSSIBLE, AND I THINK EVERYBODY
WOULD, WOULD BENEFIT FROM
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT OF THE OTHER,
THAT THAT MAYBE IS ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THIS BILL. I ALSO WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT
HOW THE STATE CAN ACHIEVE ITS
GOAL OF SOLVING THE
OVERPOPULATION ISSUES WE FACE,
AND FINDING HOMES FOR ALL
ADOPTABLE ANIMALS, THE AUTHOR
HAS WORKED WITH ME IN MY
COMMITTEE ON SIGNIFICANT
AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL. I
APPRECIATE HIS COMMITMENT, WHICH
HE JUST STATED ON THE RECORD, TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS. I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE A LOT OF THE
CONCERNS, THAT WERE RAISED BY
THE OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, AND
THE IMPORTANCE OF REFINING
LANGUAGE AND WORKING OUT SOME OF
THOSE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT. FOR
NOW, I BELIEVE THAT THE BILL HAS
MADE GOOD PROGRESS TOWARDS
REACHING THAT COMPROMISE, SO I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT, AS AMENDED
TODAY. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE VOTE ON AB 2265
MCCARTY. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. BERMAN A BERMAN,
AYE. FLORA FLORA. AYE. ALANIS.
ALANIS. AYE. BAINS BAINS. NOT
VOTING. JUAN. CARRILLO. JUAN.
CARRILLO AYE. CHEN. CHIEN AYE.
DIXON GRAYSON. IRWIN. IRWIN.
AYE. JACKSON. JACKSON AYE. WARD
WARD. NOT VOTING. LOWENTHAL.
LOWENTHAL AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE. HUAN WHEN. AYE. PELLERIN.
PELLERIN. AYE. SANCHEZ SORIA.
ZIPPER. ZIPPER. AYE THAT BILL IS
OUT. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I THINK WE'VE GOT
SOME FOLKS WHO NEED TO ADD ON TO
SOME BILLS, SO WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE IT FROM THE TOP UP, AND, DO
ADD ONS. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, ALANIS.
ALANIS. AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE. SORIA ZABIR. SABUR. AYE. ON
AB 1991. BONTA. ALANIS ALANIS.
AYE. MCKENNA MCKENNA. AYE. ZABIR
ZABIR. AYE. ON AB 2051. BONTA.
ALANIS. ALANIS AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE ZIPPER. ZIPPER. AYE
. ON AB 2115. HANEY. ALANIS
ALANIS. AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE ZABIR. ZABIR. AYE. ON AB
2231. GIBSON ALANIS. ALANIS.
AYE. ZABIR ZABIR. AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I'M SORRY. SHOULD I GO BACK?
OKAY. JUST KEEP GOING. OKAY ON
AB 2265 MCCARTY. GRAYSON GRAYSON
NOT VOTING. SORIA Þ ON AB 2265.
MCCARTY. SORIA NOT VOTING. ON AB
2526. GIBSON. ALANIS. ALANIS.
NOT VOTING. MCKENNA MCKENNA.
AYE. SORIA. SORIA. NOT VOTING
ZABIR. ZIPPER. AYE. ON AB 2566.
WILSON ALANIS. ALANIS. AYE.
MCKENNA MCKENNA. AYE. SORIA.
SORIA. AYE ZEBRA. ZEBRA. AYE. ON
AB 2578. FLORA ALANIS. ALANIS.
AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA AYE.
SORIA. SORIA. AYE. ZIPPER
ZIPPER. AYE ON AB 2651. BAINS.
ALANIS ALANIS. AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA AYE. ON AB 2862. GIBSON.
ALANIS ALANIS. NOT VOTING
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. ZIPPER.
ZIPPER. AYE ON AB 2918. ZIPPER.
ALANIS ALANIS. AYE. DIXON
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. SANCHEZ
OH. SORRY ON AB 3176. HOOVER.
ALANIS. ALANIS AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. SORIA SORIA. AYE.
ZEBRA. ZEBRA. AYE.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SORIA
SORIA. AYE. ON AB 1991. BONTA.
SORIA. SORIA AYE. ON AB 2051.
BONTA. SORIA SORIA AYE. ON AB
2115 HANEY. SORIA SORIA. NOT
VOTING. ON AB 2231 GIBSON SORIA.
SORIA AYE.
GREAT. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE
HEARING OPEN FOR FIVE MORE
MINUTES. FOR SOME ABSENT
COLLEAGUES TO JOIN. THEN WE'RE
GOING TO ADJOURN AT 1230. THANKS
.
GREAT. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE,
RUN THROUGH THE ROLL FOR ADD ONS
ON AB 2265 MCCARTY DIXON. OH
ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 2265 MCCARTY
DIXON. NO SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE.
ON AB 2918. ZEBRA. FILE ITEM 13.
DIXON DIXON. AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. AYE ON FILE ITEM 14, AB
3176. HOOVER. DIXON DIXON. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. EVERYBODY. MEETING
ADJOURNED