June 30, 2026 · Business And Professions · 12,079 words · 6 speakers · 352 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. There are a total of 13 bills on today's agenda. With the following four bills currently proposed for consent, SB 1376, SB 1391, SB 1416, all by Senator Wahab, and SB 1445 by the Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. Before we begin with today's agenda, I will remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. For each of the measures being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the bill, and the organization they represent, if any. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. With that, we will begin today's hearing, and I will begin by begging my colleagues who are on the committee to come to the committee hearing room so we can do the people's business, especially since I am presenting all of Senator Wahab's bills, and there are a lot of them. And so I want to get started, but I can't present bills if I'm also the only member of the committee who's here. And so that presents a conflict. I feel like we can't have – I feel like we need at least one other member before we hear Senate bills.
Assemblymember Addis, your popularity just skyrocketed in the legislature.
I think yours, Mr. Chair.
Debatable.
I'll remedy that soon. Don't worry.
We're going to start with agenda item number two, Senator Nilo with SB 1148.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and member. Yeah Such is it like just about every other committee I go here from here to judiciary and it will probably be an empty room also The chair of that committee is item number one so we see what happens At any rate, I'm presenting SB 1148, and I'll start by saying I do accept the committee's
Thank you for the good work on that.
SB 1148 provides greater flexibility for aspiring security guards by allowing applicants the choice, the choice to complete all hours of required training before their registration is issued. That might sound simple, but it is important. Under the current law, the majority of required security officer skills training must be completed after a registration or guard card has been issued. The current process, which is managed by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, requires aspiring guards to complete eight hours of training, then register and receive the guard card. Once the registration is issued, the guard must complete the remaining 32 hours of skills training. Because the current statute defines these windows, it creates a hurry up and wait kind of scenario. Applicants who are eager to finish their education often find themselves technically restricted from completing the full curriculum until their paperwork is processed by the state. SB 1148 makes an impactful change by allowing trainees the option to complete the full 40 hours before receiving their guard card. Now, I do have a witness, and I'm – They're on the way up. He is here, Mark Miller with Securitas.
You've got two minutes.
Good morning. Good morning. My name is Mark Miller and I work for Securitas Security Services USA. Securitas includes businesses that were previously operated since 1850 by Pinkerton and Burns International. We fully support well-trained security professionals. This bill is simple. Senate Bill 1148 provides a simple clarification in the BNP code that allows state-mandated security office training to be completed prior to when the security officer license is issued. At this time in the BNP code, Section 75A3 currently reads that security officers must complete all training within six months from when the guard license is issued. Reasonable minds can differ if the word within means both before and after the initial license is issued or if within means only after the license is issued. So since the current code can be confusing, this builds a simple fix and provides clarity that 32 hours of state mandated training may be completed prior to issuance of the guard card. This is good for a number of reasons. First, whether one completes the training before or after the guard license is issued makes no difference as long as the training is completed within the prescribed deadlines or timelines. Second, allowing applicants to complete their state-mandated training while waiting for the guard license to be issued allows them to be more fully trained and prepared prior to putting applicants on post, because sometimes it can take weeks or even months for a guard license to be issued Third and last for employers like Securitas who like security guards to complete all state training prior to work assignment this bill will allow guard license applicants to complete all training and begin working once a security guard license is issued without any further delays. This bill increases efficiency and allows prospective security officers to enter the job market fully certified. For these reasons, I ask that you please vote yes on Senate Bill 1148. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Any additional primary witnesses in support? Seeing none, anyone wants to add on in support of the bill? Seeing none, any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, anyone wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Still seeing that. Bring it back to now colleagues for questions or comments.
Not a one.
Not a one.
Nope.
Senator, would you like to close?
Well, you're slowly marching toward a quorum.
Yeah.
At which time I'm hopeful of a motion. And at that time, I respectfully ask and I vote.
Thank you, Senator. At this point, maybe after lunch. Thank you for bringing this bill forward.
When we do have that quorum, I'll be happy to support the bill.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Senator Menjivar with item number 7, SB 1314.
Mr. Sher, I appreciate you letting us go before your marathon of presentations.
Yeah. Yeah. It's going to get real boring real fast. no disrespect to everyone who's here for those bills
that was a very internal monologue that just came out well the bill in front of you mr sheriff i can proceed is nothing if not not boring it's been a whirlwind of a ride with this bill um i want to thank both the assembly uh health and bmp committees on the amendments they both worked on and i will be accepting those amendments however i do want to note there have been continued unintended consequences with the amendments that I want to say that I want to, we'll continue to work on massaging. We want to make sure that we're not impacting, you know, the Costco's of the world and so forth. So we'll continue to massage that. So I want to be clear with what this bill does and what it doesn't do. As amended, it prohibits any new, new tobacco retailer from being within 600 feet of school, of a school or daycare center effective July 1st, 2027. This applies, this only applies to, this won't apply to existing businesses, and none of them will be impacted. It prohibits the sale of nitrous oxide and any related paraphernalia. It aligns local enforcement with the Stake Act and still preserves local authority to adopt more stringent standards. So while my buffer is back to 600 feet, a local municipality is within their jurisdiction to increase that higher if they see fit to do that. It does not ban or box out tobacco retailers. It simply reduces their proximity near our youth. I keep repeating, at least in my district, I don't know about yours, but I could drive around and I'll see a lot of smoke shops near high schools, middle schools, and even elementary schools. Kids are walking to school and that's what they're being exposed to, and I'd rather them be exposed to libraries and statues of heroes and so forth of what they can be, murals of colleges of where they can go. instead of having or seeing this day in and day out. This is not going to raise gas prices or impact their profitability or existence. Current gas stations are allowed to operate where they are currently located, and we want to ensure that due to pollution and safety traffic concerns, they're not situated by schools or daycare centers. We've heard the concerns related to transferring the current gas stations to perhaps their children or family members as a family business. We have asked for an estimate of how many gas stations are near within the 600 buffer zone and then would fall under this buffer to get a fuller picture of this dynamic and understand its actual magnitude versus the narrative. For pharmacies, as with other businesses, if they are within 600 feet, they can continue to exist so long as they don't sell tobacco. And I'd like to remind this body that just last year, the Assembly sent over to the Senate a bill that would have that you all passed out of your house that would have banned all pharmacies from selling tobacco. So the assembly has already set forth their priority of what they think pharmacies should be selling or what they shouldn't be selling. Additionally, we've seen already CVSs and Riders of the World already pledged to move towards tobacco-free locations. Originally, I introduced a bill to address the prolification of smoke shops near schools and daycare centers. That was the intent of the bill. through conversations of stakeholders, policy committees, feedback from the department, health advocates. It was both not going far enough and wasn't enforceable. You can imagine as an author, a very hard place to be where people wanted me to go further. And then department told me that we can't implement this bill because I was defining and carving out definitions and it was hard for them to enforce. What you now see in front of you is no one is happy, some people are happy, and that's the nature of our work here. Like I mentioned, I'm committed to address ongoing unintended consequences to ensure that we're really addressing the root cause and exposure to youth of access to tobacco. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn over to my
witnesses. Great, thank you. You have two minutes each. And just hit that little mic button. Sorry,
I know that. Good morning, Chair and members. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. We appreciate the author's efforts to attempt to reduce nicotine use by California's youth. We have seen, as prosecutors, the impact of nicotine use and abuse among youth. It's a highly addictive substance that does affect young brains differently than it does affect older brains. The state has had some limited success in curtailing tobacco and vaping use, but some different products do continue to increase and provide dangerous influences on the kids. So we're grateful to the author and appreciative of this bill's safeguards. We also share the author's concerns about nitrous oxide and appreciate her recognition of the dangers that that substance poses youth. Important to note that the enforcement in this bill is not in the penal code or criminally. It's just about licensing. The DAs are pleased to support. Thanks.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, Chair and members. Sirak Kaminsky on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, representing over 18,000 administrators throughout the state. ACSA is proud to support Senate Bill 1314 and urges your aye vote today because it limits students proximity to retailers of cigarettes or tobacco products by banning any new tobacco retailers from being within 600 feet of a school or daycare center For decades schools and districts have been working on reducing commercial tobacco use among California school youth Partnerships with the California Department of Education Tobacco Use Prevention Education Office have helped schools provide prevention education for students along with more targeted services for those experiencing tobacco-related addiction. Examples include teaching students to deconstruct tobacco ads to learn how the industry manipulates young people, training youth to conduct peer-to-peer interventions and refer friends to intervention services, youth-led extracurricular products to change norms and educate and engage their communities during Friday night live events, and involving families in homework assignments on tobacco and marijuana. Administrator SB 1314 is an important extension to these efforts. According to reports from the Department of Public Health, youth from rural communities are also at a higher risk of using tobacco products and are also less likely to be protected by tobacco control policies. Limiting students' proximity and exposure to harmful products along routes to and from school would serve as a powerful deterrent from engaging in tobacco use in the first place. Senate Bill 1314 would protect schools by creating healthy and safe neighborhoods around our schools. And for these reasons, AXIS supports the measure and urges your aye vote today. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill? I'll come up and provide your name, organization you're with, if any, in position on the bill.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and member Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of El Cerrito in support. Thank you. Good morning, Danielle Bradley on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.
Any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up. You've got two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. John Winger here on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. We represent the majority of gas stations and convenience stores in the state. Appreciate the conversations with the author, and I think as she noted in her opening, we are having kind of an ongoing dialogue about the impact of this bill on our stations. I think currently there's about 805 that fall within this buffer zone. And as was mentioned, with those existing stations, there is a concern on what the impact would be on trying to sell those stations. If you had to get a new tobacco license, you wouldn't be allowed to. Reduces the equity in that station. And so we have some concerns around that. We also have concerns about just the – we would call it a de facto ban on future gas stations. And currently, California has the lowest per capita amount of gas stations per consumer, which we think contributes to lack of competition and has an impact on prices. And so, regardless of the policy, we do have some sensitivity around that. But, you know, with that said, the proposed committee amendments do talk about an exemption to grocery stores. And within that definition includes convenience stores. It's a little bit vague, and so we'd like to have some further conversations with you, Mr. Chair, with the author, with the other committee chair, about whether there's a way to maybe further kind of define that and reduce some of the vagueness in that code. I think that would be helpful and provide some comfort to our folks. And so we are in opposition today but would like to continue to have dialogue and maybe find a path forward certainly don object to the overall policy of going after you know these smoke shops and others but I would say you know our stations are very effective at ID check. We do not think that, you know, we are selling to school-age children, and so we're happy to have further conversations about that as well, but that's something that's been well recognized by the Attorney General's office, and so we look forward to continuing conversations, but we are in opposition today. Thank you very much.
Any additional primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll go to add-ons.
Mr. Chairman and members, Dennis Loper on behalf of the California Distributors Association, which is an association of distributors that primarily service the convenience store industry. And for the reasons Mr. Winger outlined, we remain opposed. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members, James Jack on behalf of the Cigar Association of America. We are opposed in addition to the reasons Mr. Wenger stated also for the specific impact on private cigar lounges, which are 21 and over to begin with. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning. Sarah Polamu with California Retailers Association and the California Community Pharmacy Coalition. We are respectfully opposed. Thank you. Joanne Canetti, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, in opposition. Thank you. Diego Amaro, on behalf of the Latino Caucus of California Counties, in opposition to the amendments. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning. Sabrina Tour, on behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network as a volunteer, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids as a Youth Ambassador, on behalf of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network, and the American Lung Association, we change our position from opposed to neutral based on the amendments put forward. Thank you.
Thank you. Seeing any additional witnesses in opposition, seeing them bringing back to colleagues, Dr. Jackson.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Senator.
I think this continues to be a worthy debate to have. Certainly, I believe the amendments from the committee makes it a more balanced bill. I'm still concerned about, say, in my district where we still have a lot of vacant land, and if a business owner decides to put a gas station or something that might be prohibited in this bill, and they invest all the money into it, but yet a school district, after that gas station is built, builds a school near it. What happens to that business now if that happens? It doesn't impact it because there is no school there to begin with. So it would only impact if the gas station on that vacant lot is looking to be built. within already in established school. Okay, so that means that if that business is, that owner now wants to sell their business, will that license still be available to the new owner? And that's what we're trying to clarify. You know, we even had conversations this morning. John and my team had conversations this morning. We're trying to get language on how to make sure
that we not blocking that Yeah I think that at the end of the day even when people are trying to do the right thing and making sure that they making investments away from schools and things like that obviously in more urban areas, there's not a lot of land and usually the way things are the way things are. But I think that in some parts of the state that we definitely need more flexibility. I'm willing to support the build today in committee, But on the floor, I would really like to see some amendments to making sure that we're still making sure that we're setting up businesses for success on the long term and we're not just, you know, kneecapping their investments for the future.
Yeah, thank you, San member.
And that's, you know, I definitely included that in my talking points. But I do want to also add, we're also trying to balance, you know, CARB has already recommended that no new gas station should be salvaged within 300 feet of a school. So Napa, Marin, Sonoma counties have already themselves implemented their own bans on new gas stations or what was the word? Improvements of existing gas stations, because although I am sympathetic to the concern and passing on to family businesses, these are also entities that do pollute the area. I don't think I would want them personally polluting next to a school. However, I recognize the concern. We will work on the amendment, but balancing that with the reports that already show that it does pollute and impact the air near schools. No doubt about that.
I think that – but I think it's important for us to have consistency and predictability, too, for our businesses. And what I mean by that is, again, there might be a situation where a district decides to put a school near one of the facilities that sell tobacco. And so in that case, it wasn't the business owner who did it. It was the district, and that means the business is being penalized for a public body's decision. And so all I'm saying is that the good news is that when a school is built, now we understand the rules of the game. But a new school can possibly disrupt the rules of the game in certain parts of the state. And so, again, I just want to make sure. Door wide open on that conversation.
Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you, Dr. Jackson. Any additional questions or comments, Vice Chair Johnson?
Good morning. So I just wanted – there's a couple questions, a lot of outreach on this. I know we haven't had the chance to speak, so can you see me? I'm short. Sorry.
Yeah, and they give me the shortest chair too.
No, you can raise it.
Yeah, the chair is making sure I know my spot.
You have the ability to raise and lower the chair.
Not a chair.
This one is broken.
This one is broken, as you know.
Is it?
I don't know.
You know what?
No, I'm going to give you my chair.
It goes down further. It goes down further.
We're going to recess this committee until we figure out how to operate the chairs.
So much better.
I will give you my chair any day of the week.
I'm going to address just my crown here.
Thank you.
Okay, I do have some questions.
Back to business.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So a couple things. Lots of outreach on this. And I know that the original sponsor is now in opposition. So that caused some concern. So maybe you could speak to that in your closing. I know the coalition of opposition, there's a couple concerns about, like, let's take a district that's most fully developed, and this means no future opportunity because with that 600 feet setback, we're looking at, like, you know, I was thinking of districts to be, for an example, where there's already density, and now we're looking at how do we move forward without killing small business. I also understood, was made aware that I don't think you can transfer a tobacco license. And so that makes it very challenging for future business. So I'm looking at it from a business perspective, and I still think there's some questions. Honestly, I'm obviously new at this, but the original bill was really good. And I'm perplexed as to why all these amendments, because I think the first bill is something we all could have said yes to. But now I do have some concerns. So if you could answer that, I'm very concerned about the outcome here.
So my original sponsor hasn't pulled off. It was the local council member here for Sacramento because the amendments came in just in a couple of days. He's still reviewing it. So I just want to paint the picture. When I first introduced the bill, I had entities, health advocates, opposed. Only health advocates were opposed, like American Lung Association. So my last committee I presented with all this opposition was not opposed. All the businesses were not opposed. It was only health advocates opposed. Now the amendments were taken, and now health advocates are supportive and businesses opposed. You got to – I wasn't able to get it at a committee without the amendments. I shared that some people wanted me to do more and others wanted me to do less. and my original intent could not get out of committee. There was concern that it wasn't just smoke shops, that kids get their tobacco from convenience stores. And I was worried that that was going to impact a lot of businesses because at least in my district, convenience stores are oftentimes used as grocery stores as well. And that's where a lot of people get ethnic food, cultural food, and so forth. So I was able to work in a pause of those health committees to continue to finesse them. We were able to exclude grocery stores and some convenience stores with the definition that the health committee chair was comfortable with. This was never my intent. I really just want to prevent tobacco access from kids at the end of the day. Look, the name of this bill is Youth Over Smoke. You have a decision to make, and I know it might be a hard one. Are we going to prioritize the health of our youth? Are we going to prioritize smoke entities? Now, I have committed to address the unintended consequences for, you know, the Costco's of the world. And if gas stations are there, unbeknownst to them that a school is being constructed there in a couple years, it's not their fault at all. I am sympathetic to that, and I have committed to working on that language with the permission of both this chair and the health chair. It's not up to me moving forward. I have to have permission that both chairs are going to be comfortable with the language that I can move forward with. But like you, Assemblymember, we are placed in a rock in a hard place of you want to get your bill out. These are the amendments you have to take in. This is where we are now.
Yeah, well, thank you for that. I definitely think there's a lot of conversation to continue. I don't think I can be supportive today, but I'm hoping we can get there because I, like you, the original intent I think is fantastic. I will also note the department gave us TA. Well some kind of TA They said that it was gonna be really really hard for them to implement my bill with creating a brand new definition of tobacco smoke shops that they be really hard to enforce it So that was another issue that the committees took into consideration, that it'd be really hard to enforce when you separate something out. I think we can protect our youth and also protect small business and business and communities as well. So, yeah, thank you very much for your response.
Great. Any additional questions from the dwindling number of committee members? I think none. Senator, would you like to close?
Mr. Chair, I think I've said everything in the answers. I appreciate the ongoing work. I will continue to turn to you, Mr. Chair, on massaging some of these things that the opposition has raised. I look forward to continuing working with the committee staff as well.
respectfully asking for an i-vote. Well, thank you, Senator. And I first want to acknowledge that much of the language contained in the proposed committee amendments were initially proposed by health committee that the author has committed to take those and the author has committed to take those amendments today. This bill has certainly proven to be a balancing act and continues to be. We all agree we don't want smoke shops near our kids' schools and daycares. At the same time, we don't want to unfairly punish reputable retailers or small businesses who have lawfully operated in communities for years. I believe the bill as amended is closer to striking that balance. As the author stated, conversations continue, and I'm happy to support the bill today. But we don't have a quorum, so it doesn't matter. So when we do, we'll have a motion. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to go present a bunch of bills unless Senator Umber gets here, which I would encourage and welcome. What's that? I'm presenting those here. That's a good idea. All right. We're going to start with SB 1302. SB 1302 is a sunset bill for the Board of Registered Nursing. This bill makes changes to the board stemming from the recent Sunset Review Oversight hearing. The changes in this bill aim to improve the overall functions of the board to ensure a healthy and efficient nursing workforce in California. I would like to accept the committee, the benevolent committee's amendments in the analysis, which help to improve operational efficiencies of the board and ensure greater accountability for those NPs who may obtain transition to practice hours outside of California. And with me today is Loretta Melby, executive officer of the BRN, who's here to answer any technical questions. I don't know if Loretta has any initial comments.
Totally up to you, Loretta. All the way up?
Sure.
Yeah.
No, you're good.
Thank you. Hello. Thank you for the work by the staff and everybody. We've been working really hard to get where we are today. We did receive the language yesterday. There are some areas I think we still need to continue to work on. We did see some opposition in there as well, so we're willing to continue with conversations. but I believe we're moving in the right direction. Appreciate all the work done.
Are there any other persons in support of the measure Good morning
Roxanne Gould on behalf of the American Nurses Association. We've spoken with Director Melby. We're in support with the exception of we would like.
Please just support your name, affiliation, and position only.
Thank you.
Okay.
Good morning. Jessica Moran with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners in support. Just want to thank the committee for all of the work on making sure that we're updating the statute to align with AB890. Thank you. Good morning, Olena Svetloff, president of California Clinical Nurse Specialists. We oppose Sunset Bill in current form as it lacks enough support due to lack of existence of National Example Clinical Nurse Specialists. We'll have the language.
This is just for everybody. We're going to state your name, affiliation, and position only, and we thank you for your comments. Appreciate that.
Thank you. Good morning. Justin Banzel on behalf of the California Association of Nursing Anesthesiology. We're in support of the current bill, and we're looking forward to continuing the discussion on the section around APRN delegation. Thank you. Thank you.
Any primary witnesses in opposition?
Good morning, Chair and members.
George Soros with the California Medical Association.
Today we're here in respectful, opposed-less-amended position to SB 1302 by Senator Wahab. I want to appreciate the committee for the recent amendments in the analysis, and we're still reviewing those. We think they're a step in the right direction. However, we had proposed amendments to remove the out-of-state nurse practitioner transition to practice provisions. Our concern with this bill is exclusively focused on the provisions relating to out-of-state nurse practitioners having the ability to bypass California's transition to practice requirements. This bill modifies California's implementation of the independent practice framework established under previous legislation and regulations by recognizing qualifying transition to practice experience completed in other states. This provision does not include any meaningful attestation process to an individual's clinical experience. In this scenario, there should be potentially a California licensed physician who provides the attestation to ensure our licensing boards have the ability to validate clinical experience and provide enforcement if necessary. Clinical practice requirements vary dramatically from state to state. Some states have substantially different supervision, collaboration, and prescribing requirements, requirements. Treating all out-of-state experience as equivalent assumes a level of consistency that does not exist. For those reasons, we would like to keep the conversations going with the author and this committee to see if we could reach some sort of resolution and move to neutral on this. And I would just note as a last thing is a very similar provision was removed from SB 1451 in 2024. It was another business and professions bill. That is all I have for today, and thank I'm happy to answer questions.
Thank you. We'll invite any additional opposition to speak. Name, affiliation, and support of the bill, please.
Good morning, members. Jason Bryant on behalf of the California Society of Anesthesiologists. No position on the bill, not support or oppose, but providing comment here in public testimony. We appreciated the opportunity to work with the BRN staff on the delegatory issue. Really thank the staff for that effort. ultimately that language is not in this bill but look forward to working with the committee on issue number 13 on the delegatory issue for next year Appreciate your time Thank you All right Not seeing any other opposition I bring it back to the committee for questions or
comments. I just wanted to ask CMA, you're talking about clinical experience differing across states. Can you give some specific examples of what would be taught in California and not in other states?
As far as the specifics, we'd have to follow up with you and your office on that. But, you know, some states have, you know, where they can go and go to school and then do their training and just become, you know, independently practicing nurse practitioners all the way to having similar supervision requirements that California does. And, you know, kind of as I noted, there's not a one size fits all. So having some sort of mechanism in California law for our regulatory boards, whether that be the medical board or the Board of Registered Nursing, being able to provide enforcement on that attestation process we think is extremely crucial to ensuring that the standards are similar or the same as far as education and training requirements from those other states.
Any other questions for my colleagues? Did you have something to add there? You asked about education,
and so Lori from the Board of Registered Nursing, the nurse practitioner education is the same throughout the nation. There is not any difference between the education preparedness. It is the scope of practice in each state that is different. And so when you come to the scope of practice in each state, each state has the ability to set what they allow each APRN to do, and that also includes whether it's allowed to prescribe. Additionally, in each state, they have different requirements on whether or not they should work as an RN first for a certain amount of hours before they become an APRN. Other states require no RN work before they can become an APRN, but then at the APRN level, they do have several different transition of practices, some as little as 1,500 hours, some as the most as 7,500 hours. And so it is truly different from state to state on the transition of practice. but the education and training that you asked about is identical, as well as the national certification that checks to make sure that they have a basic knowledge for independent practice, and that is the same as well, and that is a requirement.
All right. Not seeing any other questions. Would you like to close?
Respectfully, ask for your aye vote.
All right, then I will entertain a motion that I will give. Oh, I can't. Sorry. I appreciate the enthusiasm. Then, okay. I forgot we don't have quorum. I was ready to go. But when we get quorum, I will give you your motion. How about that? Senator Umberg, you've got agenda item number one, SB 342.
And members, thank you very much. Thank you to the chair and Caitlin Curry for their work on this bill. We'll be accepting the committee amendments to limit the bill's scopes to public works projects. SB 342, the Contractors Licensure Fairness Act, provides a more balanced approach to contractor licensing by allowing contractors to receive payment for the time spent on a project while they are licensed, even if gaps occur in their licensure. Under current law, if a contractor's license lapses for any period, sometimes as brief as one day due to late renewal, they may be barred from recovering any payment for the entire project. This all-or-nothing approach punishes contractors who experience delays in minor administrative Heirs are renewing their licenses. It's important to note that the bill does not allow contractors to recoup pay for any of their unlicensed days and will continue to be unlawful to begin work on a project if they are unlicensed. With me to testify today is, well, Mr. Curtin is here, and Mr. Nida may be here also, but let's start with Mr. Curtin.
Okay, well, that's right off. And I don't know if the mic's on. I'm pinch-hitting for a very respected lawyer in this field, so go easy on me, all right? This particular law that exists is probably one of the best examples of where justice does not equal fairness. It's basically, for certain contractors, a possible death sentence for what is essentially a procedural violation of the license law. repeated court decisions, and I've read through a few of them, I'm still baffled, but including the Supreme Court, make it perfectly clear there is no judicial leeway or discretion in applying the draconian penalty of full disgorgement, regardless of the amount of time you're unlicensed. We appreciate and believe in the right to cure provisions of the contractor's license board, but that process emphasizes the procedural nature of this issue, but does not alter the punishment. Punishment fits the crime, not in this case. The penalty should be disgorgement for the time your license has lapsed. I believe that's the language in the law. It also will result in less cases because if there's less benefit to people who bring this case, only a small portion of the disgorgement, they'll probably work it out by settlement as opposed to coming to the courts. The contractor must be licensed to the start of the project. That doesn't change. But I've also heard it may be restricted to public works in one of the amendments, which makes absolutely no sense. Public works, 20 to 30 percent of all construction, is the least likely to have these kind of fraudulent problems and the most well-enforced laws in the construction industry. Whereas housing, almost 40 percent, is rife with violations and to not include it in the private sector makes no sense. We support consumers' protection in terms of homeowners. I'm sure there's language that can be crafted, if it's not already crafted, to protect individual homeowners. And perhaps most importantly, the draconian penalty of full disgorgement has nothing to do with actual damages. And if you could ramp up, that'd be great. Okay, that's not even a consideration. There may be some abuse, by the way, of public agencies that we should look into, and there's no reason. I believe there's been no opposition in this legislature. it's a good bill that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill?
There are not, Mr. Chair.
Anyone who wants to add on in support of the bill?
Can I get two more minutes?
Call me later. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to my colleagues for questions or comments. Still seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?
Thank you very much. Urgent eye vote.
Thank you very much, Senator Umberg. I'm happy to support the bill today with the amendments, and I know we'll be having more conversations as we work out some of the details. And when we have a quorum, which might be tomorrow, we will entertain a motion on the bill. Thank you. I look forward to seeing some of you later on today.
Probably most of it. Maybe tonight. Probably most of us. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you Okay I going to go back to presenting with Hobbsville Turn it back over to the vice chair Is this 13-03?
I assume so.
Okay.
I believe we're starting with 1303.
Is that correct? Great. Fantastic. SB 1303 is the sunset bill for the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine. This bill makes changes to the board stemming from the sunset review oversight process and extends the operations of the board to January 1, 2031. With me today is Rebecca Mitchell, Executive Officer of the California Naturopathic Medical Board, to provide comments and answer any technical questions.
Thank you so much. I appreciate that introduction. Good morning, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Again, my name is Rebecca Mitchell. I'm the Executive Officer of the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine. SB 1303 continues the board sunset and allows us to maintain the systems that ensure naturopathic doctors meet the education competency and continued education standards established in law. As noted in the sunset background paper, unlicensed activity remains our most significant enforcement challenge, accounting for approximately 71% of all complaints received. Much of this stems from consumer confusion. When individuals use naturopathic titles without being licensed, strengthening title protection will allow us to better safeguard the public while reducing enforcement expenditures. The board's trying to work with stakeholders to find common sense fixes that will reduce public confusion, allow unlicensed individuals to continue doing their good work, but strengthen the board's ability to enforce its statutes and regulations. I have not received any contact from opposition, but would be interested to continue this discussion for the sake of consumer protection. Thanks for your time today, and I am here to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. Will you invite any additional support this time? Name, affiliation, and position on the bill only?
Don't think they're coming to the mic. They might be leaving. Wrong direction. Okay. All right.
And then any opposition? Well, this is going to go fast. Any persons liking to speak in opposition? All right. Any committee comments or questions? All right. Well, then we are at a close and a hold. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the opportune time. Sounds great. Moving on to 1304. SB 1304 is the sunset bill for the Respiratory Care Board. This bill makes changes to the board stemming from the recent Sunset Review Oversight Hearing. The changes in this bill aim to improve the overall functions of the board to ensure an efficient respiratory care workforce in California. I would like to accept the committee amendments in the analysis which clarify that suctioning is a basic respiratory task and service And with me today is Christine Molina Executive Officer of the Respiratory Care Board
Members of the committee, I'm Christine Molina, Executive Officer of the Respiratory Care Board, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of SB 1304. The bill strengthens consumer protection by extending the board, maintaining rigorous licensure and competency standards, ensuring practitioners convicted of serious felonies are swiftly removed from practice, and providing the board with the tools needed to continue to protect Californians through effective oversight. I would like to thank the committee staff for the work that it has done, the amendments that are proposed that you have before you today. We have worked closely with the committee staff, and we are in support of those related to the suctioning and look forward to continue work to ensure that licensed vocational nurses and the employers have the clarity that they need to provide qualified care and authorized care for patients.
Thank you. Any additional support?
Good morning, Chair and members. Jennifer Tannehill with Erin Reed and Associates on behalf of the California Society for Respiratory Care in support.
Thank you. Thank you.
Peter Kellis on behalf of the Pediatric Day Healthcare Coalition and California Assisted Living Association in support.
Thank you. Now we'll invite opposition if there is any.
Just don't forget to... There you go. Good morning. Yvonne Chung with the California Association of Health Facilities. CAF is the statewide association representing about 900 skilled nursing facilities and 400 care facilities for the developmentally disabled. Our member facilities employ LVNs to care for an elderly and disabled population, and these health care workers are critical to California's long-term care delivery system. We are opposed unless amended on SB 1304. Existing statute and RCB regulations related to LVNs providing respiratory care have resulted in confusion, major care disruptions, and unanticipated cost increases in health care, social service, and educational settings. There are not enough RNs and RTs in many areas to comply with the LVN limitations. We appreciate the committee's amendments to specify that LVNs may perform oral, nasal, and tracheal tube sectioning and to include amendments which seek to distinguish LVN nursing tasks related to documentation and data collection from respiratory tasks that involve patient assessment. It is our hope that through continued discussion, the bill can be amended to more clearly state that LVNs may place and adjust masks to deliver oxygen for patient comfort and adjust oxygen levels under the explicit direction of a physician or RN. CAF continues to be concerned about the exclusion of SNFs from the list of exempted facilities where LVNs are authorized to perform basic respiratory care tasks. We request that SB 1304 be amended to include SNFs and hospitals as settings where LVNs can be trained to provide these tasks, consistent with what the bill allows LVNs to do in the exempted home and community-based setting. Establishing a more restrictive scope of practice for LVNs working in health facilities than for LVNs working in non facilities is contrary to the state goals for patient safety and public protection For these reasons CAF continues to be opposed unless amended unless it's amended to include SNFs and other health care facilities as settings where LVNs can perform these tasks. We look forward to continued discussions on this issue. Thank you.
Thank you. Good morning. Amber King with Leading Age California, representing nonprofit providers
of care services and housing for older adults, including assisted living, skilled nursing, continuing care retirement communities, and home and community-based services providers. Unfortunately, here with an opposed and less amended position on SB 1304 due to the LVN language that's included. While we understand this is a longstanding issue, we are concerned that long-term care providers and the older adults they serve are stuck in the middle. LVNs are the backbone of long-term care workforce, and the change in respiratory care they can provide has been a significant challenge for our provider members and the residents who need that care. We are very appreciative of the work of both BMP committee staff and the amendments that will be taken. While we do believe those are helpful in the short term, we don't believe they fully address the issue. We believe it's important to allow LVNs who receive the appropriate training to provide the specified respiratory care across all settings consistently. This is particularly important for our continuing care retirement communities, which are campuses that provide multiple levels of care, including assisted living, skilled nursing, and independent living. CCRCs could have LVNs providing care to nursing home level of care residents in all three levels of their care with the appropriate support. Under SB 1304, LVNs who have received the same employer-specific training could provide needed respiratory care and independent living through the home health exemption and in assisted living, but that same LVN, the same training, could not provide that care in the skilled nursing. We are encouraged by the recent discussions around this issue, and we hope to continue working to find a long-term solution. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional opposition?
Jim Wood here, representing the Association of California Health Care Districts in an opposed unless amended position.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association, also opposed unless amended with the same concerns as the representatives from CAF and LeadingAge and ACHD.
Thank you. If there's no additional opposition, we'll bring you back to the committee for questions, comments. I think there's only three of us up here, so it's going to be a light crew. Sir, would you like to close?
I appreciate the engagement and the concerns that were raised. We'll continue having conversations with everyone and respectfully ask for your aye vote.
At the appropriate time, you will. Except for Dr. Wood. I don't appreciate those comments. Everyone else is. We noted on the mic you're insulted. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Then we're moving on, I believe. Thank you for the testimony. I believe you have one more, sir. Is that 1311? Two more. Oh, how many more do you have? Three more. I should get that on the mic. I think it's on the mic whether you like it or not. SB 13, story of my life. SB 1311 makes various statutory updates to a few boards and a bureau at the Department of Consumer Affairs to improve efficiency and operations. I would like to accept the amendment. identified in the committee analysis. SB 1311 makes updates to the Dental Practice Act, ensures that the governor can appoint the additional registered veterinary technician member to the Veterinary Medical Board, extends the deadlines for applicants for the licensed physicians from Mexico pilot program, and exempts master agreements from meeting start and end date requirements for private investigator contracts. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Any additional support?
Lawrence Gain with the California Dental Association and support. Thank you.
Thank you.
Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Reed and Associates on behalf of the California Dental Hygienists Association. We're kind of a tweener. We have a supportive amended position right now. We like that we're doing something in this space. It's critical to have the infection control education and training. Our concern is the lack of actual hands-on training. There's no clinical training. There's not even in-office a hands-on walkthrough on how to make the correct protocols happen for infection control. So we look forward to working with the committee as this bill continues to move through the process. And thank you for considering our position.
Thank you.
Good morning, Jasmine Asher. I'm representing the California Association of Orthodontists, and we're in support. Thank you.
Thank you. I'd now like to invite the opposition. You don't have to hurry. We don't even have a quorum. Take your time. You need to hit the mic and then you'll have your two minutes start. All right. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your time. My name is Melody Randolph, and I'm here representing the Dental Assisting Alliance, a collaboration between the California Association of Dental Assisting Teachers, the California Dental Assistance Association, and the California Expanded Functions Association. We respectfully oppose SB 1311 unless amended. Infection control education and training requirements for unlicensed dental assistance has been the subject of discussion and careful consideration for many years. SB 1453, which became effective in January 2010 and remains reflected in current law, requires unlicensed dental assistants to complete both didactic instruction and laboratory clinical hands-on training in infection control. This educational model has helped ensure that California patients receive dental care in an environment that prioritizes the prevention of disease transmission. One of the certification pathways proposed in SB 1311 would not require either formal education or live hands-on training. Under this pathway, an individual could become certified solely by passing an online examination without completing any required coursework or demonstrating competency through hands-on instruction. We are concerned that this removal of infection control education and training could increase risks of disease transmission to patients. Dental personnel most responsible for cleaning, disinfecting, packaging, sterilizing, and monitoring dental instruments and supplies could become certified as sterilization technicians without receiving the education and hands-on experience that have long been considered essential components of infection control disease transmission prevention As SB 1311 moves forward we welcome the opportunity to continue working collaboratively with legislators regulators educators employers and the Dental Board to ensure that California remains the gold standard for patient safety and dental assisting education and training.
Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to invite any additional opposition. Not seeing any questions from the committee. Comments? All right, sir, would you like to close?
I appreciate the engagement of everybody. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.
All right, and at the appropriate time, we will do so. Thank you for the testimony. If we had a quorum, we could establish votes, but everyone's very busy presenting bills, I know. And that will take you to 1363. Yes. Thank you, Chair. SB 1363 is a sunset bill for the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. This bill makes changes to the board resulting from the sunset review oversight process. The changes in the bill are intended to improve the overall operations of the board and extend the operations of the board through January 1st, 2031. I accept the committee amendments. And with me today is Christy Underwood, Executive Officer of the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, for comments and to answer any questions.
Just here to answer any questions.
All right. Any additional support? All right. How about opposition? Wow.
We're going to – huh?
Yeah, this is the best bill yet, he says. any additional opposition that would like to be included alright if the committee has no questions comments or concerns we will have the quickest close and bill presentation of the day respectfully ask for your aye vote I think we did that in like less than two and a half minutes oh yeah thank you for your time all two and a half minutes of it All right. So 1368, sir. Thank you, Chair. SB 1368 is the sunset bill for the speech language pathology and audiology and hearing aid dispensers board, which I think is the longest board name we have. This bill makes changes to the board stemming from the recent Sunset Review oversight hearing. the changes in this bill and to improve the overall functions of the board to ensure an efficient workforce in California. And I'm joined by Sharice Burns, executive officer of the board for comments and to answer any questions. Thank the committee and their staff for all the amendments and to continue protecting consumers of speech and hearing services. Thank you. Here for any questions. It's not a lot. It's not a question day, apparently. Yeah, is there any additional support? Looks like we have some.
Excuse me. Thank you, Chair and members. Andrea Ball here on behalf of the California Speech Language Hearing Association in support. want to thank the staff of this committee and in the Senate and especially the most recent amendment to extend the Recognition of a certificate of clinical competency for speech language pathologists. Thank you. Thank you
Now we would like to invite the opposition We're dwindling Anybody that would like to register an opposition Any comments or questions or concerns from our small but mighty committee They love it Okay Sir, would you like to close? I know we're moving through things quickly. I do – this applies to everybody. I just want to thank everybody, all the different boards and our staff and the advocates and the professionals and the licensees for working with us on these sunset bills every year. It's a lot of work. It's not super sexy work. We hope it isn't. If it is, then something probably went awry. But it's important and dictates how tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of professionals in California provide services to hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians. So it's very important work, even if it isn't the most exciting, and just appreciate everybody who's a part of the process and respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. At the appropriate time, I will make a motion to support as well. Thank you. Thank you for the testimony. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Is that it? I think this is the part where the chair comes back and encourages staff to get your members here so we can establish quorum. We got one. All right. I was about to say, Vicer, you're too nice. Now's the time when I start threatening people. So if your boss is on the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, go get your boss. I know they're presenting lots of bills in other places, as will we all be soon. But if we can get a quorum, I think we can get through the agenda very quickly and then we can all go about our day. So if your boss serves on the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, which might I remind people is a temporary status. There is no guarantee that your boss continues to serve on the Business and Professions Committee. And if they don't actually show up to the hearing, that gives me an indication they're not interested in continuing to serve on the Business and Professions Committee. So if you can get your boss to the committee so we can establish a quorum and vote for some bills. After that, the other people don't even have to show up. You can just be shown as abstaining, and we can move on with our lives, and we'll close the hearing out. But we need the quorum to do the people's work. So I could threaten to shut the hearing down, but that just harms the senators. And they did their job, or at least I did one of their jobs, but a couple of them did their job for presenting bills. so Chair Wahab I hope you didn't see that because you should run some committees presenting bills we're just kind of it's open mic night it's very dangerous and I'm sleep deprived yeah text your friends call your friends here we're going to publicly shame people So the members on the committee who are not here are – I think I saw Addis show up, right? No, she was, but she's gone. Addis, Aaron – so Addis, Aaron's – we have a lot of A's on the committee. Addis, Aaron's, Alanis, Baines, although I don't know if she's going to make it. Bauer Caloza Chen Hadwick Haney Hart Lowenthal Macedo Wynn Yes yes Man on a mission over here Irwin gets credit. Irwin gets credit. One, two, three, four, five, eight. Yeah. Totally. So we need three more to establish a quorum. What if I start kicking people off of the committee? does that then lower the number I need for a quorum? Yes, go ahead. Because we get there real quick. My committee consultant is telling me that's not permissible. He's also being a buzzkill on procedural grounds, which I'd never appreciate. I'm hitting the mic. Public shaming round two. Addis. Aarons, thank you for being here. Alanis, Baines, Barcahan, Caloza, Chen, Hadwick, Haney, Hart. Aren't we all? Lowenthal, Macedo, and Wynn. We got options. unfortunately for the people here the committee has turned into Hotel California where you can check out anytime you like but you can't ever leave so we've locked the doors
yeah
Thank you. Thank you. Reopening 1302 for very quick public comment. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Karen Stout here on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association. Just speaking super quickly on behalf of them for 1302.
At this point, let's just do name, organization, position on the bill, but not additional comments.
Thank you. Karen Stout, California Nurse Midwives Association. Support.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let it be noted. We've set the bar real low. We've set the bar real low in this committee. Thank you. Now, for the record, the members' staffs get no credit because I think it's just member-to-member communication right now that is getting members here. So the staff of all members – there it is. There it is. Thank you, Assemblymember Hart. Winner, winner. And everybody says Jackie's text. So thank you, Jackie. I think you get the nonexistent prize. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Berman.
Here.
Johnson. Addis.
Aarons. Alanis.
Baines Barakahan Caloza Chen El Huori Hadwick Haney Hart Irwin Jackson Jackson
Jackson. Lowenthal. Macedo. Quinn. What is here? Pellerin.
Where am I?
We're here.
We have officially lost it. But we do have a quorum, so we gained that. We lost our minds. We gained a quorum. Now can I get some motions in seconds? Can I get on consent?
Got a motion in a second.
Thank you, colleagues. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on the consent calendar. On the consent calendar, file item 10, SB 1376, Wahab. File item 11, SB 1391, Wahab. File item 12, SB 1416, Wahab. and file item 13, SB 1445, from the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. The motion for all is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?
Aye.
Berman, aye.
Johnson?
Johnson, aye.
Addis?
Aarons?
Aye.
Aarons, aye.
Alanis? Baines? Barcahan? Colosa? Chen? Elhawari? Aye.
Elhawari, aye.
Hadwick? Haney? Haney, yes.
Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Erwin. Erwin, aye. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lowenthal? Macedo? Macedo, aye. Huen? Huen, aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Consent calendar is out. Agenda item number one, SB 342, Umberg. Got a motion in a couple of seconds. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 342, Umberg, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Addis? Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Anise? Baines? Barrakehan? Colosa? Chen? El Huori? Aye. El Huori, aye. Hadwick? Haney? Haney, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lowenthal? Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. That bill is out. Can I get a motion in second for agenda item number three, SB 1302?
Second.
Got a motion. What's up? Oh, excuse me. That was my note-taking mistakes. Agenda item number two, SB 1148, NELO. Got a motion in second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1148, NELO, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?
Aye.
Berman, aye.
Johnson? Aye.
Johnson, aye.
Addis? Ahrens? Aye.
Ahrens, aye.
Alanis? Baines? Barakahan? Colosa? Chen? El Huori? El Huori, aye.
Hadwick?
Haney? Haney, aye.
Hart?
Aye.
Hart, aye.
Irwin? Aye.
Irwin, aye.
Jackson? Aye.
Jackson, aye.
Lowenthal? Macedo? Macedo, aye.
Huen?
Aye.
Huen, aye.
Pellerin? Aye.
Pellerin, aye. That bill is out. Now we'll get to agenda item number three, SB 1302, Wahab. Got a motion? Got a second? Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1302, Wahab, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?
Aye.
Berman, aye.
Johnson? Aye.
Johnson, aye.
Addis?
Aarons?
Aye.
Aarons, aye.
Alanis?
Baines Barakahan Colosa Chen El El aye Hadwick Haney Haney aye Hart Hart aye Irwin Irwin not voting Jackson aye Jackson aye Lowenthal Macedo Macedo aye Nguyen Nguyen aye Pellerin aye Pellerin aye I think that's 10. That bill is out. We'll move on to agenda item number 4, SB 1303, Wahab.
Second.
Got a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1303, Wahab, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?
Aye.
Berman, aye.
Johnson? Aye.
Johnson, aye.
Addis?
Aarons?
Aye.
Aarons, aye.
Alanis? Baines. Bauer-Kahan. Bauer-Kahan, aye.
Colosa.
Chen. El-Hawari. El-Hawari, aye.
Hadwick.
Haney. Haney, aye.
Hart.
Hart, aye.
Irwin.
Irwin, aye. Jackson. Aye.
Jackson, aye.
Lowenthal. Macedo. Macedo, aye.
Huen.
Huen, aye.
Pellerin.
Aye.
Pellerin, aye. That bill is out. We'll move on to agenda item number, sorry, which one was that? 1303, so 1304. Thank you. Jenna Adams, 1304, Wahab. Go to the bill. Got a motion. Got a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1304, Wahab, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?
Aye.
Berman, aye.
Johnson? Aye.
Johnson, aye.
Addis?
Aarons?
Aye.
Aarons, aye.
Alanis? Baines? Bauer-Cahan. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Coloza. Chen. El-Hawori. Aye. El-Hawori, aye. Hadwick. Haney. Haney, aye. Hart. Aye.
Hart, aye. Irwin. Irwin, aye.
Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Lowenthal. Lowenthal, aye. Macedo. Macedo, aye. Wynn. Wynn, aye. Pellerin. Aye.
Pellerin, aye. That bill is out. We'll move on to agenda item number six, SB 1311 Wahab. Got a motion. Got a second. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1311 Wahab, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman? Aye. Berman, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Addis? Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Alanis? Baines?
Bauer-Kahan? Bauer-Kahan, aye. Colosa?
Chen? El-Hawori? Aye. El-Hawori, aye. Hadwick? Haney? Haney, aye.
Hart? Aye.
Hart, aye.
Irwin? Irwin, aye.
Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, aye.
Lowenthal? Aye.
Lowenthal, aye.
Macedo? Macedo, aye.
Nguyen?
Nguyen, aye.
Pellerin?
Aye.
Pellerin, aye. That bill is out. We're going to move on to agenda item number 7, SB 1314, Menjivar. We're going to go to the bill. Got a motion in a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1314 Manjivar the motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations Berman Berman I Johnson Johnson no Addis Aaron's Aaron's I Alanis Baines Barcahan Barcahan I Colosa Chen Elhuri Elhuri I hadwick
Haney Haney I heart
I heart I Irwin Irwin I Jackson Jackson I Lowenthal Lowenthal I Macedo Macedo no Quinn Aye Quinn Aye Pellerin Aye Pellerin aye That bill is out. We'll move on to agenda item number eight, SB 1363, Wahab.
Second.
Got a motion in a second, and the Secretary very deservedly took some water in the middle of this marathon, which I appreciate. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1363, Wahab, the motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?
Aye.
Berman, aye.
Johnson? Aye.
Johnson, aye.
Addis?
Ahrens?
Ahrens, aye.
Alanis?
Baines? Barakahan? Barakahan, aye.
Coloza?
Chen? El-Hawari? Aye.
El-Hawari, aye.
Hadwick? Haney? Haney, aye.
Hart?
Hart, aye.
Irwin?
Irwin, aye. Jackson? Aye.
Jackson, aye.
Lowenthal? Low and tall, aye. Macedo, aye. Huen, aye. Pellerin, aye.
That bill is out. Move on to it.
What's that?
Oh, thanks. That bill is out. We'll move on to agenda item number nine, SB 1368, Wahab. Got a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. On SB 1368 Wahab, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?
Aye.
Berman, aye.
Johnson? Aye.
Johnson, aye.
Addis?
Aarons?
Aye.
Aarons, aye.
Alanis? Baines? Bauer-Cahan? Bauer-Cahan, aye.
Coloza?
Chen? El-Hawari? El-Hawari, aye.
Hadwick?
Haney? Haney, aye.
Hart?
Aye.
Hart, aye.
Irwin? Erwin, aye. Jackson, aye. Lowenthal, aye. Lowenthal, aye. Macedo, aye. Huen, aye. Pellerin, aye.
Right. That bill is out. Excuse me. That bill is out. And then we'll do add-ons for colleagues who weren't here for the whole run-through. Madam Secretary, please take a minute. I got to go present. Thank you. On the consent calendar, Bauer-Cahan?
Aye.
Bauer-Cahan, aye.
Lowenthal? Lowenthal, aye.
On SB342, Umberg, Barakahan?
Barakahan, aye.
Lowenthal?
Lowenthal, aye.
Did you hear all that? On SB 1148, Nilo.
Barakahan? Aye. Barakahan, aye. Lowenthal? Aye.
On SB 1302, Wahab.
Barakahan? Barakahan, aye.
Lowenthal? Aye.
Lowenthal, aye.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you for letting me elevate my chair as well. On SB 1302 Wahab, Lowenthal?
Aye.
Lowenthal, aye. Okay, and then we're all caught up.
Did you get low and tall in 13.03?
Is that what you just called? And then he's on from there. Okay, so Aaron has very kindly offered to go around so I can go present all my bills.
Great.
How many bills do you have? Oh, that's a good point.
Does this mean I'm temporarily? Yeah. Maybe permanently, depending on what mistake that has made. A thousand percent.
So we're going to give folks 15 minutes to 1045 for members of the committee to come and add on to bills. At that point, we're going to adjourn the hearing. I pass all powers, as small as they may be, to Assemblymember Aaron's. I will even go give him the gavel so that I can go present my bills. Thank you, everybody.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please keep on doing what you're doing. Ha, ha, ha. 51. 51. What did I do? We need three? Don't throw it at anybody, Patrick. Did you? Darcy's saying you didn't do 1303 to 1302 twice. Out of order. but she's saying I think she called out who do we need who voted there that we need to get back right but she's saying you said the wrong thing so we're sure that you mark them but did they get out without them so that's important call it out everything was out Yeah, okay, there we go. Okay, so it's out. The only person who walked in after me, I walked in after 13.03. Yeah. Which one's 13.03? That's a Wahab. The naturopathic, okay. It doesn't matter for the outcome. I'm just going to confirm with the staff. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you All right we going to take it from the top and add on absent members
You may call the roll. On the consent calendar, Addis. Addis, aye. on SB342 Umberg, Addis, Addis I on SB1148 Nilo, Addis, Addis I on SB1302 Wahab, Addis, Addis I on SB1303 Wahab, Addis, Addis I On SB1304, Wahhab, Addis. Addis aye. On SB1311, Wahhab, Addis. Addis aye. On SB1314, Menjavar. Addis. Addis aye. On SB1363, Wahhab, Addis. Addis aye. On SB1368, Wahhab, Addis. Addis aye.
All right, we have 10 more minutes left in the Business and Professions Committee in room 1100. If you are hearing this and you have not added on yet, or if staff is hearing this, please have your member come so we can add on. Thank you. 10 minutes left. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you Thank you
Madam Secretary, can you please take it from the top for my friends on the other side of the aisle who are late?
On the consent calendar, Alanis? Alanis, I. Hadwick? Hadwick, I. On SB 342 Umberg, Alanis, Alanis I, Hadwick, Hadwick I. On SB 1148 Nilo, Alanis, Alanis I, Hadwick, Hadwick I. On SB 1302 Wahab, Alanis, Alanis I, Hadwick, Hadwick I. On SB 1303 Wahab, Alanis? Alanis, I. Hadwick? Hadwick, I. On SB 1303 Wahab, Lowenthal? Lowenthal, I. On SB 1304, Wahab, Alanis. Alanis I, Hadwick. Hadwick I. On SB 1311, Wahab, Alanis. Alanis I, Hadwick. Hadwick I. On SB 1314, Menjavar. Alanis? Alanis, no. Hadwick? Hadwick, no. On SB 1363, Wahab. Alanis? Alanis, I. Hadwick? Hadwick, I. on SB 1368 Wahab. Alanis? Alanis, I. Hadwick? I. Hadwick, I. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, will you please take it from the top?
On the consent calendar, Chen, Chen I. On SB 342 Umberg, Chen, Chen I. On SB 1148 Nilo, Chen, Chen I. On SB 1302 Wahab, Chen, Chen I. On SB 1303 Wahab Chen Chen Ai On SB 1304 Wahab Chen Chen I On SB 1311 Wahab Chen Chen I On SB 1314 Menjivar, Chen, Chen not voting. On SB 1363 Wahab, Chen, Chen aye. On SB 1368 Wahab, Chen, Chen aye.
All right, I think with that, we are now adjourned. Thank you all.
Thank you. Thank you.