Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. It is 09:31 a.m. We are unable to start until we have bipartisan representation on the Committee. So I would love to implore if the staffs of Vice Chair Flora, Assemblmember Alanis, Chen, Dixon, and or Patterson are watching, please go find your Member and bring them to. What room are we in? Room 1100. Thank you very much. Good morning, sir. No, exactly. All right. Good morning. Welcome to this morning's Assembly business and professions Committee hearing.

We have a number of bills on today's hearing agenda. First, please note, AB 1741. Waldron has been removed from today's agenda and will be set for another hearing date, and AB 1383 Ortega has been pulled by the author. We also have the following six bills on consent.

AB 332 by Assemblymember Lee, which is do pass as amended at the request of the author, AB 1126 and AB 1616, both by Assemblymember Lackey AB 1564 by Assemblymember Low, AB 1731 by Assemblymember Santiago and AB 1557 by my good friend Vice Chair Flora, which is do pass as amended, to add an urgency clause for each Bill being presented today.

We will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room today to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. Once again, we'll have primary witnesses in support and opposition. Each primary witness can speak for two minutes, so up to four minutes per side.

And then anybody else who wants to add on in support or opposition to a Bill, just give your name, the organization you're with, if any, and your position on the Bill either support or opposed for those wishing to provide. We already talked about that. With that, we're going to begin today's hearing as a Subcommittee. Still definitely a Subcommittee. Hello, Mr. Lee. What's that? Here it is. So we'll start with agenda item number eight, AB 766 Ting. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me just first thank the Committee and your Committee's help, your help for their amendments on the Bill. We're happy to be accepting the Committee amendments. As you know, currently in cannabis we have a variety of needs in terms of access to credit. Because of federal restrictions preventing the legal cannabis business from accessing credit and debt, we often have situations where terms of sales are not honored and some businesses along the supply chain do not pay.

This absolutely hurts the entire industry and creates an inability to actually run a business. Our state already has credit laws protecting businesses through the Alcohol Beverage Control and the Contractor State Licensing Board. New York itself has already established credit protections for the cannabis businesses. This Bill would address the debt crisis in the California cannabis industry by establishing clear terms for sale across the supply chain and establishing oversight of sales on credit payment. I have two witnesses. I have Eddie Franco and Caren Woodson.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Caren Woodson for Kiva Confections and our distribution division, Kiva Sales and Service. I'm also here on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association and the California Cannabis Industry Association to support AB 766. A lack of normal banking service coupled with limited retail access has resulted in an extension of credit into the market that threatens the stability of the legal supply chain.

Today, only 1600 retail licenses are active, and as a result, over several years, buyers are forcing changes to negotiated terms to extend payment, and others are delaying payments to preserve their cash flow. That behavior creates uncertainty and places suppliers in a negative cash flow position. Refusing to sell in an artificially restricted market can be catastrophic for brands, especially as the retail sector continues to consolidate among a few players.

These impacts are insurmountable for startup and small brands that cannot afford to jeopardize market access or carry the debt trade. Credit is a tool used by other industries and in other states, particularly when nonpayment threatens market stability and, more important, government revenues. BPC code requires contractors pay any subcontractor within 10 days of failure. Within completion, and failure to pay is subject to disciplinary action by the contractor State Licensing Board. BPC also enacts credit law for beer, wine, and spirits.

In fact, every state regulates credit between alcohol suppliers and retailers, most mirroring federal law. But some states prohibit credit altogether. Credit protection ensures that suppliers are paid consistently, which in turn supports scale and growth. Without consistent supply of cash, the process breaks down. Absent credit law, buyers are incentivized to stop paying one supplier and buy from another, and payment collection becomes the focus of these relationships. Absent enforcement, healthy cycle of commerce stops.

Legislative action is needed to stabilize and enforce credit terms in a nascent market. AB 766 represents a step in the right direction. Please vote aye, and I thank you for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Eddie Franco, Director of Policy for NABIS, a leading cannabis wholesale platform and licensed distributor here in California, also humbled to be this year's board Vice President of the California Cannabis Industry Association and a proud board member of the Distribution Association. Very happy to be testifying on AB 766. And thank you, Assembly Member, for your leadership on this as a transportation and wholesale business.

Very similar to a FedEx of the cannabis industry, we serve all shapes and sizes of licensed businesses here in California, in every legal jurisdiction in the state. As such, our role in the supply chain, combined with our service in the respective trade associations, gives us a uniquely holistic view of the reality of various issues happening in the cannabis industry.

Operators throughout the state, from small cultivators in the north coast to some of the most recognizable brands in California, are all commonly identifying outstanding accounts receivable as the top issue affecting their business. Even businesses offering mandated critical services to the industry, such as testing labs and waste management providers, are experiencing the pain points caused by nonpayment for the services they provide.

This ballooning debt across the industry directly affects their ability to pay employees, maintain and improve facilities, or in extreme cases, threatens the ability for these businesses to continue altogether, now collectively estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars. The debt bubble across our industry also has an indirect chilling effect on California's capital markets. Overall, cannabis investors, already wary of extending capital in a difficult macroeconomic climate, are unwilling to further invest in a market as deeply unstable as California's.

We've recently seen prominent businesses in the state leave within the last 12 months, losing state tax revenue, and prospective entrepreneurs are now even more reluctant to jump into our legal market. Instead, we're seeing these investors and entrepreneurs move into regulated cannabis states that have established or maintained robust credit laws, such as Colorado or New York.

Without the guardrails established under this Bill, the debt across our supply chain will continue to grow, forcing even more operators out of business, many of whom have been in business since the first days of cannabis legalization.

And if you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Absolutely. Thanks. The solutions under this Bill will help stabilize our industry. Thank you so much to the Assembly Member. Look forward to answering any questions you may have, and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's go to primary witnesses in opposition, and then we'll go to add ons, everybody at the same time, just to make it easy.

Sure. Thank you for hearing this Bill. I really appreciate this time. We've been in close communication not only with the sponsor of this Bill, but also with the author's office, and really appreciate the conversations we've had, because we've made a lot of headway. I think the part that needs to be said is there is a debt bubble looming in here, and it is amongst multiple people in the supply chain, but it's also amongst the people who are also paying taxes.

The tax remittance has now been moved to retail. The retailer owes the sales tax, the gross receipts tax locally, and the excise tax. And they are also trying to run a business that is in direct competition with a lot of undue forces in the unregulated industry. Now, if we push too much of this and move into a punitive way of treating these taxpayers, we run the risk of eliminating some of these retailers.

And we're already at a critically low number of retailers in the space that's here. So the fact that we've kind of moved some of these amendments to be less punitive, I think is the exact way we need to go. There are some things within the Bill that I think need to be amended, and that's why we're in an opposition and less amended position. One of those positions is there's currently a provision to say that they cannot extend more than 30 days of credit.

Now, 30 days of credit may seem like an interesting place for the government to get involved with, but we would rather it be more towards a contract law. If there is a 30, 60, 90 day credit that's being offered from the distributors to the retailers or anywhere in the supply chain, that I feel like the state could maybe intervene when that contract law is superseded, its time.

There's also another provision in the law that says that if they are in violation of this credit law, that they would not be able to obtain any new credit amongst any of the other suppliers, leaving retailers or anyone in the supply chain. The inability to access any new capital. Every small business has the opportunity to go when they run into hard times or have unexpected problems. They can run to a bank, maybe get a small business loan.

In this particular industry, we have none of those abilities. So to limit the ability for someone to access more credit when they're going into debt, I think only exacerbates the problem and pushes them into further and further hardships that they won't be able to pay any of the debts. And then it's like, whose debt comes first? Does the State of California come first with excise tax, or does the accounts receivable come first?

These are things that I think we all need to kind of look at, but respect all the work that we've done here. We do need some guardrails on this industry. So I appreciate everything we've done here with the small tweaks. I think we're all in a good position.

Thank you very much. Let's go to anybody who wants to add on, let's say, in support. Anyone who wants to add on in support of the Bill.

Mr. Chair, Members Rand Martin here on behalf of The Parent Company, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody wants to add on in opposition or concern?

Morning, Mr. Chair. Jonatan Cvetko here. In opposition, opposed unless amended, on behalf of the San Francisco Cannabis Retailers Alliance, the Silicon Valley Cannabis Association, Angeles Emeralds Social Equity, Los Angeles, the California Minority Alliance, the Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance Network, and the Long Beach Cultivated collective Association. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any want to open up to colleagues questions, comments on AB 766? Seeing none. We're currently working as a Subcommitee, so when we get a quorum, we'll open it up for motions and seconds and votes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me say before we get to that point, I just want to thank the author and stakeholders for working with us on the issue. And like it's been discussed, I know there are accepted amendments.

The accepted amendments may not go far enough to address all the opposition's concerns, but it feels like there's a good starting point and good conversations happening. So optimistic. And when the time comes, I will be supporting the Bill today. Thanks. All right, I see Dr. Wood with a Bill somewhere, 765 agenda item number seven, and we are just two Members short of a quorum. So again, if staff is watching, go find your Member, bring them to 1100. Appreciate you. Thanks.

Always happy to fill in.

If you need, we might little bringing the reliever. Thank you, Dr. Wood.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And Members. First of all, I'd like to begin by thanking the chair and chief consultant Robbie Sumner for working with us to clarify and improve this Bill. And with that, I accept the Committee amendments. The Committee's amendments clarify that the Bill does not prohibit the use of the term Doctor to the extent that it is allowed by other practice acts governing the license.

I believe California should take great pride in the number of different and diverse healthcare providers that practice in our state. Given the diversity of licensees in this state and the options that exist for patients seeking treatment, I do believe that it is critically important that patients are provided accurate information on who will be providing them care and can make informed decisions concerning their health. This Bill does not limit or impede on any scope of practice.

It is about transparency, accuracy, and assuring that patients know who is providing their care. My primary interest in pursuing this Bill is to ensure that the clarity and distinction that resides with physicians remains with physicians and is not blurred. As some of you know, I've been supportive of allowing people to practice to the full extent of their education and training, particularly when it helps increase patient access and choice.

Having said that, I also very strongly believe that it is critical that patients are not misled about someone's education and training, which may occur from the use of certain phrases and descriptions commonly used and recognized by the public as referring to physicians. This Bill still allows someone to say, I am a pediatric optometrist, which accurately characterizes that they are an optometrist who specializes in children's eye care, eye health care, but not an optometric pediatrician.

While this may seem much like a nuanced distinction, it is not insignificant. Over time, we tend to abbreviate and shorten titles. And while I'm not saying that providers would deliberately mislead the public, I do think it's easy to imagine how that situation could become just a reference to a pediatrician who specializes in children's eye health. Here to testify in support of the Bill, Dr. Antonio Conte, anesthesiologist, Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles, and Dr. Shawnee Francis, representing the California Society of Dermatology.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great, and folks will have two minutes each.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members, I am Antonio Hernandez Conti, an anesthesiologist at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles and President elect of the California Society of Anesthesiologists. CSA is proud to strongly support AB 765. It's not very easy to tell when I'm wearing scrubs, a hat, and a paper jacket that I'm a physician. My name badge, which abides by existing law that designates my title and licensure type, is not easily visible by my patients or any of you.

When I introduce to my patients myself as their anesthesiologist or in Spanish as their anesthesiologo, my words matter when they hear me say this. They know that I'm a physician specializing in anesthesiology. Existing law under BNP code 2054 already prevents nonphysician healthcare providers from using the term physician. But that is not sufficient because there are many other physician equivalent terms and titles that can be used by independently practicing nonphysician healthcare providers that imply they are a physician.

AB 765 would fix that problem by prohibiting nonphysicians from using physician equivalent terms like anesthesiologist, cardiologist, dermatologist, and other similar combinations of physician equivalent titles that are misleading the public. AB 765 does not change the scope of practice for any nonphysician healthcare provider, and title protection is not a turf war over scope of practice.

Furthermore, this Bill does nothing to restrict the use of the term Doctor or designation of Doctor by other healthcare and nonhealthcare professionals such as chiropractors, clinical social workers, dentists, naturopathic doctors, occupational therapists, optometrists, et cetera. Confusing or misleading healthcare advertising and title communication have the potential to put patient safety at risk, which may lead to unintended and potentially dangerous consequences.

It would never be acceptable for someone to impersonate or represent themselves to the public as a sworn peace officer when they arrive on a scene without the proper education, training and credentials, even if they are wearing a uniform and driving a vehicle with lights. Titles matter, words matter, and how you represent yourself matters, and AB 765 certainly matters. Thank you for your consideration and for all these reasons. We strongly encourage your aye vote on AB 765.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chairman Berman and distinguished Members of this community for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of AB 765. My name is Dr. Shani Francis. I am a board certified dermatologist practicing in Ventura County. I am here today representing the California Society of Dermatologists, Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery. We urge you to support the California Patient Protection, Safety Disclosure and Transparency act. The enactment of this legislation is a significant step towards ensuring health care transparency.

AB 765 would provide clarity to patients who are seeking care from a dermatologist or other physician by limiting the use of medical specialty titles in advertisements. In the clinical setting, it is often impossible for patients to know whether the person providing their care is a physician or not. This creates a great deal of confusion for patients who are often reluctant to ask about one's training and certification during a visit. Unfortunately, this is a real problem with real consequences, especially in the field of dermatology.

I have a colleague who diagnosed a very large skin cancer, about the size of a hand, that had grown over three years under the care of a physician assistant, which we will call Dr. Whom the patient believed was a Doctor. Dr. Who prescribed rash creams over these three years.

And even after the patient realized the diagnosis, which was diagnosed by a dermatologist, was wrong and suffered needlessly extensive surgery, the patient still remained confused about Doctor who's credentials because, as the patient said, everyone in the office, including Doctor who referred to him as a Doctor, maintaining trust in the Doctor patient relationship is critical. People deserve to get what they pay for. When you order a steak, you'll want a steak.

Our patients have the right to know the credentials and the level of training of the person making the important medical diagnosis, providing complex treatment, using a scalpel or pointing a laser at their body or face. Medicine is a team sport and all players are important. When our patients honestly know who is who and who is taking care of them, we all win. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 765.

Thank you very much and give us 1 second one more Member, you all. One more Member. To establish a quorum is all we need. Any witnesses in support or opposition? Opposition. So let's go to primary witnesses in opposition. Go ahead.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Elizabeth Bambuchet. I'm a certified registered nurse anesthetist and nurse anesthesiologist. I speak on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists in opposition of AB 765. AB 765 does nothing to change our practice or increase safety or transparency for Californians seeking Anesthesia services. Instead, the language proposed creates redundancy in current California law.

To reiterate what you heard before, per business and profession code Section 680, all healthcare providers, including nurse Anesthesia providers, are required to disclose while working their license status on name tags in at least 18.0 type or prominently displayed license if they're in an office setting. Section 680.5 of that code similarly requires healthcare practitioners to communicate their name and practitioner license type to their patients. Section 2054, as you heard, goes on to prohibit nonphysicians from using terms implying their physicians in any business cart or advertisement.

Of note, inclusion of the word nurse or dentist before the term anesthesiology comports with all of these requirements while providing Anesthesia care. I always introduce myself as a nurse anesthetist or nurse anesthesiologist. It is abundantly clear to the patient, the procedurist, the surgeon, and myself that I have a foundational training in nursing as well as additional training and board certification in anesthesiology. The proposed amendments completely exempt dentists, thus recognizing the need for dental anesthesiologists to define their practice in the same manner leading with their licensure.

Dr. Wood would certainly attest to the fact that dental anesthesiologists are not physicians, and if they simply stated they were anesthesiologists, this may be misleading or lack transparency. I call on the Committee to ask why a dentist with additional training would be allowed to refer to themselves as an anesthesiologist. Per the proposed amendments, while doctorally prepared and board certified nurse anesthesiologist would be held accountable to a misdemeanor crime for using the term nurse anesthesiologist.

If it is okay to use dental anesthesiologist, it should be equally okay to use nurse anesthesiologist in finality. On behalf of Cana, I want to thank Dr. Wood for his continued work to ensure transparency and care remains a top priority in our state. Nursing continues to be the most trusted profession in the world, and with this foundation in our training, I have no doubt that we can add value to his goals if we work together to achieve a consensus on transparency.

Thank you very much and we're just going to take a quick break to establish a quorum and then we'll continue. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Great, we have a quorum. Thank you. Please continue.

[Roll Call]

Good morning. My name is Dr. Elisa Cicerone. I'm a licensed naturopathic Doctor and fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology. I'm here today as the President emeritus and Legislative Chair of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association. In strong opposition to AB 765 naturopathic doctors are licensed primary care doctors with a broad, independent scope of practice. In addition to primary care practice, there are currently four naturopathic specialty associations with board certification, oncology, endocrinology, gastroenterology and pediatrics.

I personally obtained fellowship with the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology. After completing residency at Indiana University Gaushian Center for Cancer Care and working as an attending physician at Cancer treatment centers of America. In both roles, I worked in a team of medical, surgical and radiation oncologists in a hospital setting and provided supportive care for patients receiving conventional oncology treatments. Like my M. D. Do colleagues I worked alongside.

After I met the requirements of an accredited residency, oncology patient case studies and oncology related continuing education, I was eligible to sit for the board certification exam. I've continued my practice as a naturopathic oncologist in California and completed my 10 year recertification this last month. Like my fellow naturopathic certified specialists, I co treat patients and coordinate care with conventional specialists. I share patients and comanage care with oncology teams at UC San Diego, Scripps, Kaiser, sharps and other local private oncology practices.

It's extremely important for both patients and conventional oncologists to understand the scope of knowledge of naturopathic oncologists for communication about co treatment and to understand that patients are being advised by a licensed Doctor with specialty training and board certification, not simply a health coach or nutritionist. As doctors, patient safety is our utmost concern. And being able to accurately and transparently reflect our level of training and skill is crucial for patient safety. We respectfully request a no vote on AB 765. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Now let's move on to any folks in the room who want to add on in support of the Bill. And just a reminder, give us your name, organization you're with, if any, and your position on the Bill.

Mira Morton with stone advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association in support of AB 765. Thank you. Good morning. Chair, Committee Members and staff. Christophe mayor, with the American Federation of State, county and Municipal Employees in support.

George Sores with the California Medical Association, in strong support. Mr. Chair Members. Bryce Doherty, on behalf of the California Ambulatory Surgery Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, the California Academy of Family Physicians, all in support.

Thank you. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, in support. And with the recent amendments, the California Podiatric Medical Association, a non physician group, in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology, the California Rheumatology alliance and the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, all in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Matt Back, representing the osteopathic physicians and surgeons of California, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. I'm Brianna Pittman Spencer with the California Dental Association. We do not have a position on the measure, but want to thank the author and the Committee for taking amendments that clarify that dentists can use dental specialty terms in their practice. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition?

Good morning. Rebecca Mitchell, on behalf of the California Naturopathic Medicine Board and the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authority, we are strongly opposed to AB 765 unless amended to exclude naturopathic doctors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Christine Schultz, representing the California Optometric Association. We appreciate the author's efforts. Unfortunately, optometrists are unable to specialize, so the amendments don't technically address our concerns. But we think we can get there and we hope to continue to work with the author to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Neil Miller, representing California acupuncture and traditional medical Association. We are opposed unless amended. If I can have 1 minute. I'm sorry, sir, but the opposition already had two minutes each for two witnesses, and those are the rules of the Committee, and we have a lot of bills today, but I appreciate it. And I know you've handed out stuff that I've allowed for the Committee Members to get. So thank you very much for.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So with that, let's go to colleagues. Questions, comments, motions, seconds. We have a quorum.

I have a question. Thank you. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. Dr. Wood, I do have a concern, maybe question, maybe clarification, as the nurse mentioned, I see that it excludes the dental anesthesiologist, and I'm wondering why the nurse anesthesiologist wasn't included in that exclusion.

Thank you for the question. Assembly Member, dental it's obvious to patients, if they are going to a dental anesthesiologist, you're actually going there for someone to give you Anesthesia for dental treatment. That's an obvious nexus there. That's why that exists. As far as nurse anesthesiologists, that is not a term that's recognized by the Federal Government or by the state. So whatever certification we're talking about is not a recognized certification. Anesthesiologists are certified through medical MD programs.

And so I think the opposition witness kind of made my point, quite frankly.

You're right. If I was going to go to a dentist, I would get the dental anesthesiologist there. But if I was going for something else, I wouldn't go to the dentist to get treatment or to get my health concerns if I was ill or whatnot.

I would go to the Doctor to where I would see the nurse anesthesiologist if needed, for whatever the reason is, I'm not quite sure, and I don't know the field well enough to be able to say the certification and what weighs more than the other to me, I just feel like the nurse anesthesiologist should be a part of this exclusion.

And then I'm wondering, because we heard quite a few other folks also that wanted to see if they can work with you on the amendments, and I'm hoping that that's something you can work with them on.

I'm always happy to work with opposition. I would just reiterate, there is no such thing as a nurse anesthesiologist, not by law, anyway, and that's the point of the Bill. People shouldn't be using terminology that is not appropriate to their license. So that is why. So a dental anesthesiologist only does anesthesiology for dental procedures. A nurse anesthetist is a term that's used. I had surgery three years ago. The Anesthesia was provided by a nurse anesthetist. It was disclosed up front. Everything went really well.

I appreciated that disclosure. I knew what the difference was. All we're saying here is that people should know what the difference is in the level of training. And so when people are using terminology that is associated with a higher degree of training, that is, I believe, inappropriate. And that's why we're just simply asking for clarification.

I'm sorry. Are we saying that dental anesthesiologists are going in there also, and they're allowed to say that they're doctors? They are doctors, but the nurse anesthesiologist can't go in there and say, and I don't know, are they saying they're doctors? Because what I hear earlier is that she's saying that. They're not saying that.

I think the implication is that there is a higher level of training, and what we're trying to do is avoid confusion. I believe the dental situation is different. However, the implication from the opposition is that the nurse anesthesiologist could provide, which is a term that doesn't exist. I'll go back to that in law, could provide Anesthesia services for pretty much anything. Dentistry is very, very specific, and it's associated with the license to practice dentistry.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions, comments, motions, or seconds? We're going to wait for other colleagues to get here. Mr. Grayson. I have a motion for Mr. Grayson. I have a second for Ms. Mckinnor. With that, would you like to close, Dr. Wood?

Thank you. And thank you for the questions. I recognize that this is a little bit of a confusing issue, but imagine the consumer being confused as well. And what we're simply trying to do is create transparency and eliminate some of that confusion so that people know the level of training that person has up front. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Dr. Wood. And thank you to you for your work on this Bill and for your history of work on expanding access to care. And as you noted, I think this is a very complex issue. I believe it's been made clear today. This Bill does not prohibit anyone from using the term Doctor who is currently allowed to use that title. And Committee amendments make that even clearer.

Additional Committee amendments further clarify that a licensee can still accurately describe services that they specialize in, that are within their scope of practice, as long as they don't use certain restricted titles commonly associated with physicians, as was noted these amendments don't fully resolve some of the opposition's concerns, and I appreciate the author's willingness to continue engaging with all the stakeholders on this Bill. And in the meantime, I'm happy to have that conversation move forward and to support the Bill today as amended.

Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 765 Wood the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] I'm going to stay off for now so I could see the amendments when not voting. You Patterson Ting.

So we'll keep that Bill open for absent Members to add on to vote as they come in. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I see something Member Wicks with agenda item number nine, AB 1021.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members and committee staff. AB 1021 specifies that upon FDA approval and subsequent FDA rescheduling, California medical professionals acting under all applicable laws and regulations of the state would be authorized to prescribe legal medications after approval by the Federal Government. Currently, California is in the minority of states that have no law that permits a healthcare provider to prescribe a drug when the FDA has approved it for medical use.

This bill does not legalize any specific substance, nor does it legalize any substance for non-medically approved use. This bill is supported by Kaiser Permanente and sponsored by MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. With me to testify here in support is Ben Everett, research scientist, and Medical Director for MAPS. We also have Leslie Boner, JD, MBA, senior legal assistant with maps for technical questions and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Benjamin Everett. I'm a research scientist and a medical director at MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. I'm here in support of AB 1021, which simply states that if the FDA approves a new drug and the DEA reschedules it, California's healthcare practitioners will be able to prescribe it, and patients will have access to it like any other approved prescription therapy.

Thank you. Member Wicks, any primary witnesses in support? Yes. You have 2 minutes to present.

This legislation does not decriminalize or legalize any drug. It is worth noting that California is in the minority of states that do not do this. Already in New York and Colorado, similar legislation passed with nearly unanimous support. I urge you to consider what is the downside of not acting on this legislation. Delays in access to novel treatments for potentially life-threatening conditions only add to the burden faced by patients, their families, and society at large. Additionally, delays prove confusing and burdensome for patients and prescribers.

They think if this therapy is approved by the FDA, why do I not have access to it? Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support?

I'm Leslie Golden. I'm here with the parent company of MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Just here for technical questions as needed.

Great. And let's go to any additional witnesses who want to add on in support. Your name, organization you're with, if any, in position on the bill.

Thank you, M.J Diaz, on behalf of Kaiser Permanente, in support.

Thanks so much. Any primary witnesses in opposition seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition. Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions, or seconds. Assembly Member Chen.

Assembly Member, thank you so much for bringing this bill up to this committee; I did have a question. I understand one of the major issues that we have is the scheduling, and the scheduling offset between the state and federal governments in the area of cannabis, how it's interacted legally with state and federal statutes. Do you see any unintended consequences as it pertains to this bill, and understand that right now, we're looking at amendments as proposed by perhaps the committee in terms of excluding cannabis from this?

I just want to get your thoughts on that. Thank you.

I would defer to my expert witness.

It's my understanding that an amendment was made that excluded cannabis from this.

That's correct, yes.

And you don't see any additional unintended consequences with making sure the scheduling is more in line? How does that interact between state and federal statute?

Essentially, so once a drug goes through an entire clinical development program, the sponsor of the clinical development program would prepare a new drug application which goes in front of the FDA. The FDA then rigorously vets the new drug application for first safety and then benefits to assure that the safety benefit ratio or risk benefit ratio is appropriate for that medication.

If a drug that is currently schedule one, like MDMA, for example, or THC, is approved by the FDA in that manner, it is then, by law, no longer appropriate to be schedule one. Schedule one indicates that there's no indicated medical value. Right. So, the DEA would then reschedule the drug. So all this does is essentially allows California to mirror exactly what rescheduling class the DEA, the Federal Government puts in place to the DEA.

Thank you, Mr. Chen. Any additional questions, comments, motions? Seconds? Have a motion?

Looking for a second? Have a second. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Wicks, would you like to close.

This bill has no opposition, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Thank you for accepting the committee's amendments to carve cannabis out of this bill. To be clear, if there is federal action to legalize cannabis, that is certainly something we will move to reflect in California. But the amendment will make sure we have time to reconcile that with our current regulatory scheme for cannabis. With that, I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

AB 1021 Wicks. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open for absent members.

Thank you very much. I see Assembly Member Cervantes with agenda item number two, AB 336, have a motion. Have a bipartisan motion. And second.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 336. Today. I want to begin by accepting the Committee suggested amendments as outlined on page 10 and 12 of the Committee analysis. As you know, existing law requires California contractors to provide workers compensation insurance to its workers. The contractors state license Board, or CSLB, implements this requirement as part of its mission to regulate the licensure, practice and discipline of the construction industry when acquiring or renewing their license.

Contractors must provide CSLB with a valid certificate of workers'compensation insurance or certification of self insurance. CSLB does not verify the level of workers'compensation insurance that each contractor purchases is appropriate to the work that their employees perform. CSLB classifies contractors into three workers compensation categories based on their payroll. These classifications are based on the contractor's employee's performance. However, under current law, the classification is publicized. The only information the public can see is that a contractor has a worker's compensation policy of some kind.

Unfortunately, this lack of transparency leads to the possibility of bad actors purchasing inappropriate levels of workers compensation that do not match the type of construction work that their employees actually perform. This creates a situation where these bad actors purchasing inappropriately Low levels of insurance can gain a competitive advantage over contractors who play by the rules. AB 336 will require contractors to provide CSLB with the workers compensation codes based on the workers compensation insurance that they actually purchase.

It would also require that CSLB post each contractor's classification code on its website. This increases transparency, which will allow both the public and the rest of the construction industry to verify that the insurance each contractor provides is appropriate to the kind of construction work that their employees are actually performing. I am proud to have Assembly Member Dahle as a joint author of this bipartisan Bill.

We believe that AB 336 will level the playing field and bring an improved sense of safety in work environments for construction workers throughout the State of California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and with me to testify in support of the Bill is our sponsor, Keith Dunn, with the District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn, District Council Iron Workers of the State of California I'd like to thank your Committee staff for working with us to make clarifications that CSLB is not responsible for enforcement of this. I'm here to answer any questions. With me is Mitchell Bechtel from local, 118 iron workers here locally. We'll make a few statements, but we appreciate your staff working with us. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Aloha. So this Bill just seeks to create a greater transparency for contractors. We think during this whole budget crisis that California is going through, that this is a fiscally responsible way of showing that transparency for contractors and allowing consumers and awarding bodies the opportunity to make sure that their contractors and people bidding their work actually pay the correct workman's compensation rates on behalf of their workers.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses? Anybody want to add on in support? Name organization you're with and position on the Bill?

Mr. Chair and Members Mike West, on behalf of the State building and Construction Trades council. Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada conference of operating Engineers. We're in strong support. Thank you.

Chair. Skip Daum, on behalf of the American Subcontractors Association, hundreds of large subcontractors in support of the Bill for its transparency and for consumer protection as well. Thank you for the author.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition who want to testify on the Bill? Seeing none. Any witness or any folks in the Committee hearing room who want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. We have a motion and a second. Want to bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much.

My favorite close. Thank you, Assembly Member Cervantes. With the amendments, I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

AB 336 Cervantes. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll call].

Thank you, Assembly Member. We're light on Members of the Committee right now, but we'll keep the roll open. Thanks. So I see Assembly Member Wallace snuck in the back. If he's ready to present, we're ready for him to present. If not, we can do some other things. We'll do some other things. Can I get a motion in a second on the consent calendar. Got a motion in a second on the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call].

We'll keep the roll open for the consent calendar. We also had Assembly Member Ting present AB 766 when we were a Subcommittee. Can I get a motion or a second? And a second. Got a bipartisan motion and second on AB 766, Ting. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 766 Ting. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

We'll keep that roll open for absent Members as well, seeing no additional authors to present. Do we have anybody on the Committee? No. So I will present my Bill. I'm going to hand over the gavel to the Vice Chair. Staff, if you're watching, go find your Member, bring them to the Committee hearing room. Both for Committee Members and also for Bill presenters. Thanks.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're going to be presenting AB 537. Ready when you are.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to begin by thanking Committee staff for everything they do, but especially in regards to this Bill, for their work on the Bill. I will be accepting the amendments included in the analysis to specify that a consumer must select specific dates as it relates to the requirements in the Bill. AB 537 is a common sense consumer protection Bill that cracks down on short-term lodging hidden fees. We've all experienced it.

A consumer goes to a website, enters the dates of their stay, picks a room for a certain price, and then at the last minute, fees such as resort fees or cleaning fees are tacked on once most consumers have already psychologically committed to that property. I've even seen hotels that tacked on a destination fee at the very end of the booking process. It's a hotel. Being a destination isn't a special add-on. It's literally the essence of a hotel.

If you want to charge that, just put it in the advertised price. Unfortunately, the reality is that consumers are being manipulated into thinking they're getting a better deal than they really are. In his most recent State of the Union, President Biden called out these fees for harming consumers by preventing them from seeing the true price when they pick out a hotel and by limiting their ability to comparison shop. This isn't a partisan issue. Nebraska's Attorney General, a Republican, filed suit over resort fees.

Pennsylvania's Attorney General, a Democrat, did the same thing. It's time to take action on behalf of California consumers and to put an end to this deceptive practice. AB 537 would prohibit hidden fees by ensuring that the advertised or offered cost of the stay be disclosed in the upfront price, including all taxes and fees required to book or Reserve the short-term lodging. Californians are sick and tired of being misled. The advertised or offered price of your stay should be the real price that you pay.

This Bill is supported by numerous consumer organizations and my office has been in communication with stakeholders as we receive feedback. And I look forward to continuing conversations with everybody as this Bill, or if this Bill moves forward, respectfully ask for an Aye vote. And with me today is Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California.

Thank you very much, Mr. Harell.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're the sponsor of this Bill. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Berman and others. This is part of a six-bill package that CFC is either sponsoring or co-sponsoring to deal with junk fees in various sectors of the economy. This one is incredibly straightforward. These fees, either called junk or hidden fees, sometimes called drip pricing, they're pernicious.

85% of Americans have experienced these in one way, shape or form or another. As the Assembly Member said, it is not a partisan issue. It has been bipartisan for the last number of years that there are problems here. Just tell people what you're going to pay. It's that simple. I call it five-click syndrome because you see the price and it's jimmied up in your search engine a little bit so that it looks lower.

And most consumers, let's be honest, they're price aware at a bare minimum, if not price driven. And then when you get to the fourth or fifth click, then you find out there's a resort fee. And by the way, in many cases, it's not even prominently mentioned. Some of them even say, well, you have to pay that at the property. But what you're going to pay right now on the website is this, but it won't include the destination fee or the resort fee or whatever.

And so it's just very disingenuous. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and transparency in this area protects consumers. With that, I'd ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Just add-ons. Name and organization, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Karen Lange, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, in strong support this morning for the tax provisions especially. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 537? Seeing none. Opposition> Anyone in opposition to AB 537?

That now live? Okay, thank you. I'm not used to having a nice mic. So, Robert Mutrie with the California Chamber of Commerce. We are regretfully opposed to AB 537 at the moment. On this matter, we represent a range of hotels, online bookings, and short-term rental businesses. I first want to come out and say that absolutely understand the Assembly Member's concern. There are a number of bills on this.

We've spoken to his staff on it, and I'm not here in any way in defense of those kind of issues. Our concern of this Bill really stems from concerns over collateral damage in the language. And this comes in a couple of places. And again, we have spoken to staff on it. We're hopeful we can resolve them. First, related to taxes and inclusion, and I appreciate the Committee amendments on that. We're analyzing them.

But one of our concerns here relates to competition, that our read on the language is that we would be required in the first advertised price to include all taxes, TOTs, TIDs, those issues. Right. And we are concerned that if you're looking at a place, for example, in Tahoe, a consumer is looking, as you say, consumers are price sensitive. They're going to see California prices appear significantly higher than the prices of other option because that other state is not including it this way.

Notably, there is federal legislation looking at this issue to try to have a solution for all states. And if it was fixed there, I think that would fix our state-to-state competition concern. But we have some concerns that including all taxes and other quasi-governmental fees at that point was going to make California look significantly more expensive than other states when it's not at that first-click point, really. That's really the only points I wanted to address.

Glad to talk to the author's staff and we'll work forward on it, but we just want to make sure we address those collateral damage issues. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition?

Yeah, Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. Very similarly, we are not opposed to what the author is trying to accomplish here. We have an opposed and less amended position. We support what you just heard from Cal Chamber on the competitiveness issue and the inclusion of TOTs and TIDs. We additionally want to recommend that a little more time to comply would be very helpful. Coding and dealing with legacy software with these reservation systems would be helpful.

And we also think that maybe a little clarification that all platforms are included in this. I think that's the intent, but maybe we want to wiggle around the language, too. So with that, we are happy to work with the author on this and continue to build forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Name and organization, please. Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

I appreciate the concerns raised by the opposition. Commit to continuing to have conversations with them if the Bill moves forward and respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

It's going to get real awkward if it doesn't. But Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 537, Berman the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call].

Thank you very much. We'll leave that roll open for absent Members. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I see Assembly Member Rubio, I think, was here first with agenda item number 13, AB 1171. Ready when you are. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I am here to present AB 1171, which will empower the licensed cannabis market to seek injunctive relief against unlicensed operators. Over the years, many Members, including myself, have sponsored, supported, and advocated for additional enforcement against illegal operators in the cannabis market. Unfortunately, the illicit market has continued to grow despite the additional enforcement steps we have taken since passage of Prop 64. There are several clear indicators of the toll this is taking on licensed operators.

Currently, four out of five cannabis purchases made in California are made on the illicit market. In May of 2022, there were close to 1500 brands in the market. Less than a year later, only about 1000 remain. This has led to the largest of the multistate operators characterized California's operating conditions as brutal and the investment climate as hostile. This in turn, devastates the unionized workforce of licensed operators and reduces the opportunities for workers in the space as the legal businesses leave the state.

As such, it is clear unique steps must be taken to further empower the legal market. AB 1171 provides that unique support by simply empowering licensed operators to seek injunctive relief against nonlicensed operators. I do not take this type of legislation lightly. As many of you know, I've always have issues with these types of legislative moves. Except for in the cannabis industry, we have seen a lot of issues that we are trying to address.

Unfortunately, we have to do it piecemeal Bill by Bill and hopefully this Bill can address the pressure or can address, I'm sorry, can impose additional pressure on illicit operators and encourage them to either seek a license or leave the market completely. AB 1171 is a smart and targeted measure to directly address a problem unique to the cannabis market.

This measure is double referred to Assembly Judiciary, where we will work to further refine questions of the standing and process as drafted, ensuring this complements the state's existing enforcement efforts while also preventing abuse of new enforcement pathways. Here with me today to testify is Kristen Heidelbach and on behalf of UFCW Western States Council and Tiffany Devitt, on behalf of March and Ash, the sponsors of this measure. We additionally have Alberto Torrico available to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

I was insupportant to that last comment about former majority leader Torico.

I debated. I don't know if you saw it. I stuttered a little bit.

I've got a motion and a second. Please, 2 minutes each for witness in support when you're ready.

Good morning Chairman Berman and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Tiffany Devitt and I'm actually here on behalf of the San Diego Imperial County's Joint Labor Management Cannabis Committee. The Joint Labor Management Committee is a joint venture between the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 135, which represents over 13,000 unionized employees, and March and Ash, which is a community oriented chain of Southern California cannabis dispensaries with over 500 unionized employees.

We are here to testify in support of Assembly Bill 1171 and as the Bill sponsor. Five years after the passage of the adult use and Marijuana act, we find the legal market teetering on the brink of failure, including its high road employers and community entrepreneurs. Today, good operators in the licensed cannabis industry are under siege on three fronts.

We are losing substantial market share to the illegal cannabis operators, to licensed cannabis operators working outside the regulated market, and to companies selling high-potency synthetic THC-like products under the guise of hemp. Unfortunately, state and local law enforcement have been unable to keep up with the growing illicit market. Not enough is being done to curtail the sale of illegal, untested, and untaxed intoxicating cannabis and cannabis-like products outside of the regulated framework.

The devastating impact of this illicit competition is seen in the form of dramatically decreased tax revenue. Between the second quarter of 2021 and the fourth quarter of 2022. The California Department of Tax and Fees Administration reports that cannabis excise tax revenue has dropped by 40%. As the Assembly Member noted, there's no sign that that downward trajectory is slowing.

On the contrary, we are seeing massive number of business failures and layoffs among licensed cannabis operators while illegal shops operate openly, brazenly, right down the street from us, offering tax-free cannabis products at less than half the price. The persistence of the illicit cannabis market continues to put workers' lives at risk, it degrades our natural resources, it endangers community safety, and it undermines the stability of the state's cannabis tax revenue.

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

Yep, illicit cannabis businesses are robbing the state of about 2 billion per year. AB 1171 empowers operators like ourselves to seek judicial relief. For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request you support this bill. Thanks.

Thank you. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chairman Berman and Members of the Committee. My name is Kristen Heidelbach, here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, in support of AB 1171. I want to first thank the author for her tireless work in trying to reduce the number of illegal and illicit operators in the cannabis industry. UFCW has partnered with her in the past on this issue and we will continue to do so until we fix this issue.

UFCW represents over 6000 workers across the cannabis industry in California through bona fide collective bargaining agreements, and we're working to represent thousands more who work for employers that have signed labor peace agreements with UFCW locals throughout the state. One of the biggest challenges for licensed unionized cannabis employers is the fact that 60% to 70% of cannabis products can be traced to the illicit or unlicensed operators. Unfortunately, state and local enforcement has been unable to keep up with the growing illicit market.

Additionally, UFCW remains concerned about what workers must endure while working for bad actors. We unfortunately have firsthand stories of folks falling into grinders. We hear stories, lack of PPE, robberies, and these workers that are experiencing the worst working conditions have little to no resources to seek help. In short, more needs to be done to clamp down on the nefarious actors.

AB 1171 will empower licensed operators to seek judicial relief against their illegal competitors by giving them standing in Superior Court to seek a permanent injunction against unlicensed operators. One final point. UFCW does not support further criminalizing unlicensed cannabis operators. We support AB 1171 because it is strictly a civil remedy which is much needed in order to protect and bolster the licensed operators. Thank you very much. On behalf of UFCW Western States Council, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members, Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, in support.

Thank you.

Jared Kylo, President of The United Cannabis Business Association, in strong support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any folks you want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. We already have a bipartisan, if I recall, motion and second. Maybe it wasn't bipartisan, but it's still a motion and second, we got a motion and a second. Any additional comments or questions from colleagues? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I agree that the unlicensed market is a problem for legal cannabis. While there are a number of concerns raised in the analysis, the mechanics of those concerns are related to the judicial system. This Bill is double referred to the Judiciary Committee, and hopefully, the concerns can be addressed there. With that, happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 1171, Blanca Rubio. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call].

We'll keep that roll open for absent Members. Thank you very much. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan with agenda item 14, AB 1369, you're higher up on the agenda. We follow orders here. I think everybody knows we follow orders in the Assembly business and professions Committee. Except for when the Vice Chair is the chair, and then we definitely don't follow orders.

Thank you. Mr. Chair here to present.

You got a motion from the Vice Chair after that.

Thank you.

Got a motion and a second.

He's a friend, even when I give him a hard time. So I'll be presenting AB 1369, which relates to remote care for terminally ill patients with conditions that require them to seek care outside of California. This Bill came to me when a dear friend of mine's husband was very sick with cancer. He had a very unique type of cancer, and the only specialist that could see him that had treated the cancer he had was in New York.

Despite how sick he was, his wife wanted to give him this final opportunity to get the care he needed, and they got on a plane and traveled across the country for him to see the Doctor. As you can imagine, in the condition he was in, he ended up hospitalized and he made it home. But when they saw the Doctor and the Doctor said to them, I wish you were in another state. I could have treated you with telehealth.

She called me and she said, how is this possible that my husband, that needed this care, who was so, so sick, was forced to travel across the country to see this Doctor despite his condition? And I thought, how is that possible? And I looked into it, and we have no exceptions to the rules around providing telehealth out of state, even for patients who are incredibly sick, who are terminally ill, who want one last chance to see a specialist somewhere else.

And so we're seeking an opportunity to do just that. This Bill is incredibly narrow in its exception. It is for the patients who truly cannot or may die in the process of trying to get the care they need out of state. And so providing them this last opportunity through telehealth is humane. It's something we as a state, should be open to and look into. And that's what I'm asking this Committee to do. And so with me today in support is Kelly Goss with the ALS Association to testify in support.

Good morning. Thank you, chair Berman and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Goss and I'm with the ALS Association. I'm pleased to testify today as a sponsor of AB 1369, which creates a narrow exemption to California licensure requirements to allow virtual care from out of state physicians for a small and highly vulnerable patient group, such as those with ALS. ALS is a rare, terminal, progressive neurodegenerative disease in which the mean survival time is two to five years from diagnosis.

The progression rate, range and order in which symptoms present varies among patients. People with ALS become increasingly dependent on the roundtheclock care as their muscle function and mobility decline. Travel, even to a local ALS clinic for care here in California can be grueling. Telehealth is an effective tool to provide care when in person visits aren't necessary.

It greatly reduces the physical burdens and safety risks of travel for those who are immunocompromised, terminally ill, and also helps reduce travel costs to patients and caregivers who must accompany them. In fact, some ALS clinics within California utilize telehealth care for these reasons. Terminally ill patients may seek out of state care from specialists or opt for treatment that is only available at a finite number of health centers that are located outside of California. As is the case for some rare diseases.

As assemblywoman just pointed out, Californians with ALS who seek care from out of state specialists would greatly benefit. Having virtual care access for initial screenings prior to in person travel to obtain a second opinion or to maintain continuity care in between in person visits. Telehealth access for terminally ill patients reduces the physical, financial, and emotional hardship of having to travel out of state for every consult and creates an equitable option for those whose fragility or physical inability bars them from traveling out of state.

These patients should be entitled to the same access of care from out of state providers as those who can physically travel out of state. Requiring an out of state specialist who treats only a few patients per year, but perhaps several patients across multiple states to obtain a California license is onerous and impractical.

The time delay for out of state specialists to obtain the California medical license is yet another disadvantage imposed upon the terminally ill patient, and one that could potentially cost the patient their life while waiting for access to virtual care.

In closing, AB 1369, narrowly tailored to help terminally ill patients who have limited time and physical limitations that impede their ability to travel the same right to seek care from specialists out of state to try and extend or improve their quality of life while they are still living. On behalf of the ALS Association and the families impacted by ALS, I respectfully ask for you to support AB 1369.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any folks in the Committee hearing room who want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. We've got a motion in a second. Bring it back to colleagues. Questions or comments? I've got first Assembly Member Irwin and then Assembly Member Lowenthal.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think this is a great idea, and I'm surprised that we're not doing it already. My one concern is how do you hold doctors accountable for, let's say, malpractice when they're out of state?

Thank you, Assembly Member. And it's a great question. I mean, one, civil suits are obviously still available. The question that's raised in the analysis, which is a good one, is around licensure. Most states, I think all states that do this right now have compacts that allow this, and in the compacts they dictate how licensure will be dealt with. It's something we're looking at and trying to figure out without the compact how we will do that.

But we're committed to making sure these patients have the ability to bring a complaint against the license of a physician who mistreats them. Again, the Bill is incredibly narrow and deals with people at end of life, so we want to make sure they have this opportunity but at the same time, they deserve the same quality of care that they would receive here in California, and we're going to work to figure that out. Thank you.

First of all, I just want to say thank you so much for this Bill. Enthusiastically supported. And I just want to remind everybody that we have areas of California that rely on telehealth, telemedicine, because there are no hospitals, there's no care nearby. In my district, actually, Catalina Island, we have a population of people that don't have the ability to access health care on the island per se, and certainly they have life threatening illnesses.

It's an hour ferry ride in either direction to get back and forth to the island. There are thousands of residents there, and weather precludes them from being able to leave. And so access to appropriate care is certainly important. You're going to hear me talk about that issue and that island at every opportunity I can. So thank you again for bringing this up.

Thank you.

Assembly Member thank you. Yeah, that's your floor.

Thank you for bringing this forward. I actually think this is long overdue, and I think there's another unique aspect of this on the mental health. We talk a lot about mental health in California, and it makes no sense to me that if a californian is traveling and they have a mental health crisis, that they can't call their provider, somebody that knows their issues, somebody they've worked with in the past. So I think this is a great first step. But there's also a few other places I'd like to see this expanded to. So thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Some Member would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for all of your comments. And I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Vice Chair. I think there are many ways that we need to really think about our restrictions, although I think Assembly Member Erwin brings up a good point, which is we do need to protect Californians. So how do we do both at the same time? And I think we can, and I think this is an important first step.

And my friend David is no longer with us, and he got the care he needed despite the fact that it took traveling and the harm that that came in his last months of life. But I know that in his memory, we're doing something to make the end of life better for others. And I thank you for your support. With that, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member, and thanks for bringing this Bill forward, which clearly seeks to meet a compelling need for some patients with life threatening conditions. I remember you talking to me about this issue when your friend David was. When it was happening. So I'm glad that you're following up with legislation so that other folks won't have to go through that in the future. The analysis points out some policy issues, as did some of the questions today that still need to be addressed.

I appreciate your commitment to continuing to work on those. I know you will. And with that, I'm more than happy to support the Bill. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 1369. Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

Congrats. That is the first Bill to actually make it out of Committee so far today. And with so many colleagues hitting the exits, it might be the last Bill for a while to make it out of Committee. Congrats. We'll keep the roll open for absent Members with that. Assembly Member Wallace with agenda item 16. zero, excuse me. I apologize, Mr. Wallace. I didn't see Mr. Lowe. Mr. Lowe is higher up on the agenda, and as I mentioned earlier, we follow the rules here in.

Assembly Member, business and professions. Agenda item number 10, AB 1070. Assembly Member Low move. The Bill got a bipartisan motion in a second. Mr. Lowe, do me a favor. Mr. Low just hit the mic before your soundingly very quick presentation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1070, which allows for increased access for physician assistants. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the appropriate time is before us.

Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me to speak with you today and for considering our request to modify the supervision of physician assistance by a physician when the PA is performing specific services that do not involve rendering treatment or prescribing medications. My name is Dana Strauss, and I'm responsible for Medicare policy at signify health. Additionally, I hold a DPT. I'm a licensed physical therapist. I practiced for 20 years before moving into value based care payment programs.

In 2022, our licensed Clinicians conducted more than 2.3 million Medicare Advantage, or Medicaid MCO in home evaluations for some of the most vulnerable and or aging Americans across all 50 states, from inner cities to deeply rural areas. Nearly 24,000 of those evaluations were conducted in California. Signify Clinicians spend an average of close to 50 minutes sitting face to face with the beneficiary to review current and past health conditions, perform diagnostic tests when appropriate, and identify social, functional, or safety concerns.

43% of those we see have a social risk factor that may affect their overall health. We partner with plans to resolve these social needs, for instance, arranging for meal delivery through meals on wheels or transportation to doctors appointments. The clinician does not provide any treatment nor issue any prescriptions during the visit. As you are well aware, the Covid-19 pandemic had a profound impact on workforce availability that remains a challenge today.

Highly trained and credentialed physician assistants are well qualified to perform these in home evaluations that we provide, and the limited scope of services we render is well within their clinical knowledge and capabilities. Currently, California allows a physician to oversee four physician assistants that provide in home evaluations. Our ability to deliver these valuable services to a greater number of aging Californians is constrained by our ability to work with qualified providers.

For all of these reasons, we fully support Assemblyman Low's AB 1070 and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any additional witnesses in opposition? You want to add on? Seeing none, we got a bipartisan motion. And second, colleagues, any questions or comments? Seeing none is something. Member Lowe, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you for working with us on this Bill. I think the limited exemption makes sense, and we believe the amendments will help address concerns that have been raised about supervision. Will you just remind me? Yes.

Let me just reference to number one. Also acknowledge the hardworking Committee staff for partnering with our office and being as proactive as possible. And also acknowledge the Committee amends and notice in the analysis.

Great accepting. Perfect. Thank you very much Assembly Member. With that, happy to support the vote today. Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

AB 1070 Low. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll call].

We'll keep that open for absent Members. Thank you very much. And Assembly Member Wallace, thank you for your patience. We're ready for you. Agenda item 16, AB 1448.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I have before you today Assembly Bill 1448. AB 1448 will enhance local enforcement mechanisms for unlicensed cannabis activities. Since California voters made recreational cannabis legal in 2016 with Proposition 64, the Legislature, as well as state and local jurisdictions have struggled to drive unlawful full operators out of the cannabis market. Rural communities have been inundated with unlicensed and unregulated cannabis activity that is undermining the health and safety of residents and irreparably harming our regulated cannabis businesses.

Illicit cannabis operations are highly profitable endeavors that frequently engage in worker exploitation, water theft, illegal pesticide use, environmental degradation, and tax evasion. Under state law, local jurisdictions can impose penalties for commercial cannabis violations through the judicial process, but any net recovery goes to the state, making this mechanism unattractive for local governments. Counties and cities often use code enforcement when dealing with unlicensed cannabis activities. However, the penalty structure is primarily designed for ordinary zoning and building violations.

This is not always well suited to deter large-scale illegal commercial cannabis operations. AB 1448 does two things. First, it encourages localities to use the statutory penalties under Business and Professions Code 2638 by allowing a 50-50 state-local split of the statutory penalties recovered by local jurisdictions. As originally enacted by the Legislature in the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. The Bill would allow the penalty recovery through local administrative penalties process rather than requiring a court process.

Revenues from these actions will provide much-needed resource of funds to reinvest in illicit cannabis enforcement. The second section of the Bill will provide a streamlined cannabis code enforcement process to authorize the recovery of penalties through local administrative processes. Specifically, AB 1448 allows local jurisdictions additional flexibility regarding penalty process and amounts. It streamlines appeals and judicial review, and it facilitates collection of final penalty amounts through judgment and lien mechanisms similar to those used for pesticide violations and code enforcement abatement.

This last piece is what the opposition is concerned about, and I'm committed to working out the issues as this Bill moves to Judiciary Committee, assuming you look upon the Bill favorably today. Finally, I just want to thank the Committee staff for your hard work on the analysis, and we'll accept thoughtful Committee amendments to clarify that the Bill applies to unlicensed cannabis activity only and to establish penalty limits that mirror the existing civil penalties for unlicensed cannabis activities.

With that, I'd like to introduce my witness, Sarah Dukette, Policy Advocate for the Rural County Representatives of California, the sponsor of AB 1448.

Thank you, Assembly Member, we have a motion. Please go ahead.

Sarah Dukette, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in strong support of AB 1448, counties and cities are being inundated with unlicensed cannabis activities. You've probably seen a lot of articles, whether it's the L.A. Times talking about the increased activity, as well as CalMatters, about water theft and environmental damage, and how it's prolific throughout the whole entire state. Many local jurisdictions have decided to use code enforcement as a tool to go after these type of illicit activities.

We've created code enforcement units, but one of the challenges we have is traditional code enforcement really wasn't meant to deal with this type of lucrative, large-scale business. So oftentimes when we go through a normal code enforcement process, maybe it's an unpermitted building, it can often take many months. And during that time, with the cannabis activity, you'll have operators that are harvesting as well as continuing to manufacture or operate illegal retail.

So we need a streamlined, quick approach so we can end the activity and hopefully see a stop right there. So one of the components of this Bill in Section Two really focuses on that. It's a streamlined approach that we can move swiftly to dismantle these illicit activities, which will also benefit the legal market, which is struggling as well. The second part of the Bill talks about the statutory penalties. Currently, local jurisdictions are not using it.

We've really moved to local code enforcement through administrative penalty processes, and right now, we can't use that process to collect the statutory penalties, and we really don't want to go through the court process. It would be a duplication of effort and work. In addition, there was a difference between McCursa and what was in Proposition 64 in terms of this split. So if a local jurisdiction moved forward in McCursa, 50% of those proceeds would stay with the local jurisdiction, 50% would go back to the General Fund.

That changed with 64, with 100% going back to the General Fund. With those provision, it just doesn't make sense for local jurisdictions to collect on those statutory penalties. So this change would incentivize us to go ahead and do that. And finally, there is some provisions around super-priority liens, which we think will be very helpful. But we understand the concerns of the opposition. We look forward to working with them to hopefully mitigate their concerns moving forward in Judiciary. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members, Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and cannabis companies CannaCraft and March and As, in support.

Hello. Ada Waelder with the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Thank you. Let's move to primary witnesses in opposition. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. Anthony Helton with the California Land Title Association. While we appreciate the goal of AB 1448, we are opposed to its use of super-priority liens, which we think will have negative ramifications for the affordability of real property in jurisdictions subject to the Bill.

It is our understanding that the properties that this Bill is currently targeting are often owned outright, meaning that there is no need for a super-priority lien since there is no mortgage in front of which to jump. In addition, a super-priority lien would allow bad actors to shield themselves by conducting their illegal activities on rented property or property to which they have no occupancy rights at all, and avoid financial repercussions altogether.

We have proposed amendments that would replace the super-priority lien with one that has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien, which would avoid the aforementioned issues and which has the added benefit of expanding the reach of any penalties or fines brought under this Bill by attaching to all property in a bad actor's name in a given county.

We appreciate the author's and sponsor's willingness to engage with us on this issue and look forward to continuing those conversations in order to find a workable solution. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members Mike Belote, on behalf of the California Escrow Association, Mortgage Association, and United Trustees Association. Very briefly, it was a good analysis, laid out the issues. Our only issue is the super-priority of the lien. And there's a very sound public policy. Why forever California law has been first in time, first and right in terms of the priority of liens. And it isn't always an argument between the bank and someone else.

There are liens of record that have very socially worthwhile purposes, child support liens, other judgment liens. So our request is very simple. This should be a lien like any other first in time, first in right. That has been California law forever. And we would respectfully ask that the author consider that as the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses want to add on in opposition, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

Jennifer Speck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in opposed, unless amended position for the reasons already stated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Shari McHugh, representing the California Credit Union League, in respectful opposition to the Bill unless it is amended to address the super-priority lien issues that have been raised. Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, let's bring it back to colleagues, I believe we have a motion. Still looking for a second. Was that a second? Got a second from Assembly Member Chen. Any questions or comments from colleagues? Assembly Member Nguyen.

So the opposition talked about the lien, and I know you mentioned a little bit about it as well, too. Is there any way that you would be able to work together to figure it out so that way we can come to some type of a consensus? Because I do agree that some of these liens are very similar, and I know you spoke a little bit about it, but I'm not sure if you can respond to that or not.

Yeah. So part of the reason we have a super-priority lien is we already collect that for certain other provisions for abatement, as well as pesticide and the actual cleanup cost of these properties. The reason we have a super-priority lien here, oftentimes these properties are owned outright. Cannabis is usually not the only violation, sort of the number of violations as well as judgments. So oftentimes the amount of judgments and liens on the property outweigh the value of the property.

So one of our concerns is that we're truly able to collect, along with the cleanup costs. We are working on guardrails for the super-priority liens and areas to address any concerns in terms of the housing market. But I do think that we can come to a consensus in Judiciary Committee to address their primary concern, which is the super-priority lien.

Yeah, just with that being said, we're very committed to working with the opposition on that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? I've got a motion, a second. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just thank you to the Members of the Committee, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thanks for working with us on this Bill. The accepted amendments help establish consistency and limits on the use of the new penalties. And while there are still concerns around the special aim provision that have been expressed today, I think those issues are best addressed in the Judiciary Committee.

So I'm happy to support the Bill today, notwithstanding some open issues that I'm sure will be worked out. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

AB 1448 Wallis. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call].

We'll keep that roll open for absent Members, and let me just check the Assembly Member. Essayli, you're up next. You're higher up on the agenda. I apologize, but I have to be consistent with the rules. I don't apologize to you, I apologize to Assembly Member Pellerin, that I have to be consistent with the rules. Come on. Bring the witnesses down. And just hit that button.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Let me first start off by saying I really want to thank and commend the Chair and the committee for their hard work on this bill. I know that this bill was a result of a lot of attention and work, and I could see the work that went into it, and there were some really substantive committee amendments. I'll categorize them as a compromise, and we were happy to accept them in good faith with the committee.

So I really want to just start off by sending my appreciation. Mr. Chair, we are here today because every adoptable pet deserves the chance to find a loving home. Unfortunately, far too often perfectly healthy, loving animals are euthanized before they have a fair notice and opportunity to be adopted. In November of last year, a puppy named Bowie was wrongfully euthanized without notice at the LA County Animal Shelter after he had already been flagged for rescue by Underdog Heroes. What happened to Bowie was wrong.

There's no excuse for it, and it was completely preventable. The bill I'm presenting today would have saved Bowie's life. The law is simple. It just says to require 72 hours public notice before an adoptable dog, cat, or rabbit is euthanized. That's the overall intent of the bill. Some shelters currently provide notice, plenty of notice, some give a little bit of notice, and some shelters don't give any notice at all. Bowie's law will end this inconsistency and have a standardized practice.

Bowie's law will require shelters to post on their website a list of animals that are scheduled or at risk of being euthanized, ensuring that public and rescue organizations have a fair opportunity to step in, intervene, and save their life. Many shelters already post animal information on their website, and many publish what's called a red list, which highlights pets that will be put down soon, if not adopted.

And you'll hear today those lists are really important because rescues and people in the public use those to network and get the word out so people can foster or adopt a pet before they're euthanized. Bowie's law will also commission a statewide study to get data and recommendations for the overcrowding issue at our shelters and how we can address it. We recognize shelters are under a lot of stress and pressure, and it's not their fault they're being inundated with animals on the street and people surrendering them.

So we want to be a good partner with our shelter groups. And so this study will look at ways that we can provide support, assistance, and resources to our shelters and eventually get to our goal, which is a no-kill state for all our animals. The notification requirement would achieve the law's proposed twin goals, one, to increase government transparency, and two, to reduce the number of animals rescued.

In fact, this notification requirement I'm proposing was just adopted by the Los Angeles County Animal Shelter, the state's largest shelter. The new policy requires staff to notify rescues three times every 24 hours for 72 hours. Bowie's law only requires one notification. The director indicated that the policy was being implemented precisely because they were understaffed and overcrowded, acknowledging that the policy change is designed to reduce animals to the care for and subsequent, sorry. To reduce animals cared for and subsequent killings of those animals.

And if they can do it, taking in over 90,000 animals a year, I think every shelter can also do it. It's also important to note that this is the very shelter that wrongfully euthanized Bowie prior to implementing this policy. I have some brief remarks I'll save for closing, but I just want to thank the committee for its attention to this. I want to thank the bipartisan support. Some of the members on this committee have also supported the bill.

I just think in an era where we're so divided as Americans and Californians, at least we can unite behind our furry friends. So with that, I'll introduce my witnesses, Nickolaus Sackett from Social Compassion and Legislation, and Amber Lancaster, who's a strong advocate and speaking on behalf of the the No Kill Advocacy Center.

Thanks. And each witness has two minutes per witness. Thanks.

Good morning. My name is Nickolaus Sackett, director of legislative affairs for Social Compassion in Legislation, or SCIL. SCIL was founded in 2007, and since that time, we have sponsored 60 bills, with 23 being signed into law. Many of those bills pertaining to shelters, including establishing the pet lovers' license plate, which has now generated over $1.5 million for low-cost spay and neuter. We are here in support of 595. We recognize that all parties involved are working for the betterment of animals.

With that said, as California's animal shelters continue to remain full of adoptable animals, the need for predictable, systematic communication between the shelters and the public, including rescue organizations, is imperative. California's animal shelters are the hub of our state's robust dog and cat rescue community. We know that the devil's in the details, but we believe that the bill with today's amendments is a workable solution to better communications between shelters and the public and will help save more animals' lives, so with that, ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Amber Lancaster. For the last 15 years, I've been a cast member on a little game show called The Price is Right, where for the last 50 years we ask 6 million people every day to spay and neuter their pets. I'm a social media influencer. I have a platform of nearly half a million followers. I'm also a volunteer with numerous animal rescue organizations such as Hanks Legacy Foundation, the Animal Pad, Saving Sterling, and Just for Jack's Animal Sanctuary.

I'm a proud mom of one human baby and two rescued for babies myself. I'm also here today to speak on behalf of the No Kill Advocacy Center in strong support of Bowie's law AB 595, which will undoubtedly save countless animals' lives. Over the last few months, I've experienced firsthand the crisis in our shelters. Healthy, adoptable animals, some just babies like Bowie, are being killed every single day without any notice.

With the death toll upwards of 300 dogs per month, and that is just in one shelter alone, we must do better. This is not only unfair to these animals and rescue groups, but it has and will continue to have societal ramifications if something isn't done. Instances such as Bowie's and many others I've personally helped network on my platform all had substantial public interest, whether it was a rescue group or a private adopter, but they were never even given a chance at life.

They were all redlisted and euthanized in the same day, and in most cases, they were only in the shelter for under a month, some as little as two weeks. Just to give you one example, last month there was a puppy named Sterling and he was turned into the shelter by no fault of his own, but because his family had a baby on the way. He got over 50,000 views and hundreds of comments on social media of people interested in adopting within 72 hours.

Note with the 72-hour notice, he would have easily been adopted and in a happy home today. But with only a few hours notice and the shelter unresponsive to emails and phone calls, he was killed that day. Make it make sense. The rescue groups I work with are all nonprofit, donation-based 501. They are run by private citizens with other jobs and lives.

They're all foster care-based, meaning they can't pull an animal from the shelter without a foster in place to care for the animal first. It truly takes an army to mobilize and rescue just one animal, most times taking at least a day to formulate a plan. And AB 595 would give these rescue groups and the public 72 hours notice of animals facing euthanasia at our shelters and giving them a chance to be saved.

It would give the rescue groups with the shelters heavily rely on the ability to prioritize these red-listed animals and time to mobilize to form a plan which includes everything from having a representative travel to the shelter to pull an animal, arranging out-of-state transportation, special needs vet care, networking to find a foster posting on social media to raise interest and funds to save each animal. Given the value these rescue groups have to our shelter system and the interconnected online era we live in, it is astonishing that if our priority is saving as many lives as we can, that this 72 hours notice is not already being done voluntarily.

Thank you. If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Yeah. Do you want me to finish or no? The suggestion. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you for your time, and thank you, Assemblyman Bill Essayli, for authoring Bowie's law.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

My name is Neil Miller. I'm just representing myself on this issue. Today is national Pet Day, and I thought that the committee ought to know that as you take an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? You have two minutes each.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Karen Lange, on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association. I represent California's public and private animal shelters in your districts. Before I jump into the substance of our opposition, I just want to be very clear that I would not be working for them if they woke up happy to euthanize animals at their shelters. I just need to be very clear about that.

Due to the characterizations that have been made about our opposition on the Internet, that is not where they are and that is not who I work for. There are unintended consequences to AB 595. Shelter staff statewide are living the day-to-day nightmare of severe overcrowding, slow adoptions, and hundreds of people waiting to surrender their pets. This is happening nationwide due to inflation, job and housing instability, and the inability to access veterinary care. This bill does nothing to address those issues.

These shelters are doing everything that they can to get animals out, including daily outreach to hundreds of rescue partners. They have adoption promotions, media outreach, and more. Euthanizing animals for space is the absolute last resort, and it is only done when all other options have been exhausted. While this bill sounds like it requires a simple notification, the process ramifications from that are far from simple.

The 72-hour notice constitutes a holding period on those animals, removing the shelter's flexibility on decision-making and the ability to pivot quickly to accommodate unexpected intakes. For example, if you hoard animals and 200 are taken from you and they are brought into the shelter, you have to take them in. They are someone's property until a judge says they are not and you have to make room for them.

The shelter would have to continuously, on a 72-hour basis, make sure that they have room for that horrific inevitability to occur. Which means that this bill, even with the amendments, will continue to create circumstances where they will have to euthanize more animals and not less animals because they will always have to manage for the space that is required in this bill. The bill's modifications under the amendments don't clear a pathway that will reduce that negative unintended consequence.

Public safety and higher euthanasia rates to ensure space is available to accommodate animals that they are legally obligated to take in remain the primary concerns. The changes around dangerous dogs that are in the bill, even with the amendments, are a problem. We need to address those things if the bill is going to move forward because the shelter staff are the ones interacting with the animals that could create bite hazards or create danger to the employees working in the shelters.

Even with the amendments, that presence is still a problem. We find it very alarming that the bill would be advanced after hearing from the shelter and animal professionals statewide, this bill will increase euthanasia. They will have to manage for space prospectively going forward on a 72-hour basis. They will always have to have room, which means they will always have to euthanize more animals to make space for them.

And if you could wrap up, that'd be great. Thank you.

The only alternative to additional hold is to place every animal on a euthanasia list at intake. The red list will grow. This serves no purpose and will cause public harm and confusion most of the 99% of the time. We urge your strong no vote on this bill. Please do not advance legislation that will harm shelter pets. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, in position on the bill.

Hello, Chair and members. Ada Waelder on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, the Urban counties of California, and the League of California Cities, in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ross Buckley, on behalf of the City of Sacramento, opposed.

Thank you.

Hello. Thierry Savage with the Association of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Looks like we've got one coming.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition.

Thank you very much. Want to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds? Assemblymember Lowenthal.

Assemblymember, first of all, thank you for bringing this bill forward. My plan is to support the bill, but I have a lot of concerns. I'd like to share them with you today and hope that you will bring them forward. I Reserve the right to change that opinion, of course, on the floor. Making it to the floor. I also want to thank you, Ms. Lancaster, for being here using your celebrity as a platform for such a very important cause.

And what I hear today is that everyone agrees, everyone agrees that we should have less euthanasia, and everyone is going towards that goal. But there are some components of this bill that, to me, are untested. They're not data-driven, actually, on both sides. Now that I hear. Why 72 hours? What is the magic number around 72 hours? Why do we know that 72 hours actually brings us less euthanasia over others? At the same point on the other side, why is it that we actually know that if we are implementing this because of a crowding situation or a spatial, that it will actually result in more euthanasia?

So what I hear today is that things aren't tested, and if we're all going towards the same goal, why wouldn't we consider a pilot program associated with this, where there are various shelters that would engage in the pilot, change their operations, and you would test it in certain ways to maximize the lack of euthanasia and at the same time, meeting the goals of space and otherwise? I also have deep concerns as it relates to the criminal penalties associated with this. Those are already out.

Those are part of the amendment.

Those have already been. So you know what I'm concerned about, Assemblymember, here is the lack of data here. We're making assumptions and assuming that that's going to increase our goals. If we want the same goals, we need to have data. We need to be data-driven in this. We need to try and see what happens, not implement.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, sir. Thank you for bringing this forward. One of the things that I happen to know with our local animal shelters, and I don't know if it's statewide or not, but they started a program, a foster program, and I've learned that the foster program is very successful in the sense of not only does the family end up falling in love with this furry friend and them keeping it, but they fall in love with it so much that when they can't keep the animal, they try real hard to find a family to be able to adopt their furry friend.

And I'm hoping that this isn't something where they would have to post it, because how heartbreaking would it be if a family took in an animal, furry friend animal and fell in love with it and had kids and wanted to adopt it? But then it was posted and they had to give it away or give it up.

So I'm hoping that that's not going to in any way jeopardize the foster program that is already in place because I think it's a great way to get the community involved and get these animals saved. A lot of what my colleague mentioned earlier as well, too. I, 20 years ago, I rescued a dog and I found out it was on the list and I took that dog home. But I also hear what the opposition is saying, and it's going to increase, right? And I want to make sure that that doesn't happen and so we can work with the opposition on that. That would be great.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Assemblymember Patterson.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Essayli, there's very few bills that really spark the emotion of people in California more than bills around pets. So I'm happy that I've been a co-author of this bill since day. You know, there has been a lot of discussion on this bill and a lot of, I think this might be the number one bill people have reached out to me on, which has been interesting.

I used to actually sit on a nonprofit board that took animals from a shelter and rescued them and would give them the medical treatment that they needed to save their lives. And I think we realize that shelters are overburdened, and so organizations like that are needed. But I don't think there's anybody that can convince me that providing a date that a dog is going to be euthanized or a healthy animal is going to be euthanized is a bad thing. I get it.

People working in shelters, I mean, I've met them. We have them on the city that I used to serve on the council, and I've met with people within our own county. These are people who love animals. They don't want to euthanize them. And I know that I see the amount of cats that are left in shoeboxes all over the place. This is a big problem. But we have to do everything we can to give people the opportunity to adopt these animals.

I want to address some of the bill's opponents' comments, and I apologize, because she came into my office to talk about something else, and I kind of just went on a tirade about this bill. But I think inherently, we know that when an animal goes into a shelter, that if they are not adopted relatively expeditiously, that they will be euthanized.

I've never actually thought that an animal is going to go into a shelter, and if they're not adopted in some short amount of time, that they're not going to be euthanized. So unfortunately, a lot of times, animals that go, most of the time, animals that go into shelters already are on a kill list.

And it's sad, and I understand it's because it's the resources, but I've already had that expectation, and now we have 72 hours notice that people are going to say, hey, public, here's 72 hours notice. Bowie is going to be put to sleep. Come adopt Bowie. And I think that's a good thing. So I'm happy to support a Bill that prohibits healthy animals from being euthanized without that proper notification. So thank you for bringing this bill.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Vice Chair, Flora.

Thank you, Chair. Essayli, thank you for bringing this bill forward. And there's a couple of things I want to just address on this issue, and I certainly understand the overcrowding issue the opposition had. My hope for this is this will encourage all of us to really focus on the adoption, working with the shelters to get these puppies, get these animals adopted as quick as possible. To my knowledge, there's only one of us elected.

Our colleague from Bakersfield, Mr. Fong hosts an adoption day where the sole purpose is to adopt animals from shelters. I think that's something we should look at if we really care about animals. Let's have that conversation. I'm with my colleague, Mr. Patterson. It's hard for me to understand why giving the public 72 hours is a negative thing. I get it. It's going to be a little bit of a challenge.

But when you see a dog get adopted, and I appreciate the motion, as a dog guy, you see his puppies, like, there's one little picture online where the pup is just, like, hanging over the fence, just waiting to be picked, right? Dude, these dogs, they need homes. And I think we need to do everything that we can to make sure that we give them every opportunity to live. And there's a lot of good families out there. A lot of good.

I mean, I know a lot of people that don't go to shelters because they'd come home with every one of them if they could. I mean, there's a lot of emotion behind this. So I appreciate it. I appreciate the committee's work on this. I know this was not an easy bill. And honestly, to appreciate the author, you took a lot of heat on this for a long time, and your tenacity is noted. And I also think to the opposition, I didn't hear any solutions either.

All I've heard was opposition, and I personally reached out to opposition to this bill and asked, what is the solution? And got absolutely nothing back from them. So I just appreciate you moving forward with this bill and sticking it out, and thank you to the committee staff for allowing it to move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Any additional comments or questions? I need a motion and a second. Have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Essayli, would you like to close?

Very breifly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to address Assemblymember Lowenthal, I hear you loud and clear, and I'm committed to working with the opposition. I always have been. And I just want to say the 72 hours is sort of the industry standard. The shelters are currently required to hold them for a minimum of 72 hours. So this notice could be parallel with the current standard, so it doesn't impose any additional hold time. They're already required to hold at least 72 hours.

And as Mr. Assemblyman Patterson noted, the shelters know quickly which ones are going to get adopted versus not. So the 72 hours is a minimum. They could have them on the list longer, so they just have to plan ahead. What we don't want is just sudden, instant death where the rescues don't have an opportunity to intervene and help. So I realize probably 90% of shelters are excellent. They're probably doing this anyway. But we have to protect every animal in every shelter, regardless of where they are.

And I spoke with your shelter in Long Beach. They seem like an excellent shelter. They haven't euthanized any pet in the last few years. They told me, so this law wouldn't even affect them. So I hear that loud and clear. And the foster program is unaffected by this. And also to address the opposition, there is a safety valve built into the committee amendments, should there be a hoarding case or something.

So the committee's made some really thoughtful additions to the bill. And also to your point on data, the second part of the bill is calling for a study by the Department of Agriculture, and I expect some substantive data and recommendations on how we help our shelter partners. One of the things I heard is that they don't have enough vets to do spay and neuters. You know, we only have two vet schools in the whole State of California, woefully under what we need. So maybe we need vet tech programs for spay and neuters or something like that. So I want to make sure that's in the recommendations. I see.

You're all good.

So with that, I appreciate your comments. I'll work with all of you and the opposition to do what's best for these animals. I respectfully ask for, aye vote, and we can chat anytime.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. I want to thank the author for his presentation today, as well as all the stakeholders and members of the public who have weighed in on this bill. And there are a couple of things that I want to emphasize, and the first thing that's very clear is that everyone that we've heard from on this bill, in support of the bill, in opposition to the bill, with concern about the bill, cares deeply about the welfare of animals.

And regardless of where folks are on this bill, everyone shares the goal of reducing the unnecessary euthanasia and increasing the rate of adoption of pets and shelters. There's clearly disagreement how to meet that goal, and that's why I believe the study in this bill, as the author just spoke to, is so important. So we have access to more reliable information on how to solve the problem of overcrowding.

Assemblymember Essayli, the author, and I have spoken at length about this bill, and I appreciate the author's willingness to work with me on the amendments that are being taken today. I recognize that these amendments don't fully address the opposition's concerns, so it's my hope that the author will continue to engage in respectful discussion with those stakeholders. Just on that note, I have so much appreciation and respect for the people who work in shelters, and I know that all of my colleagues do as well.

And we need to get past this kind of adversarial relationship between the people who work in shelters and the rescue organizations that are pouring their hearts and souls and resources into adopting pets. And I know that's not happening with anybody who's presented today, but I've seen it too much online. Everybody is. People who go to work for shelters care more deeply about animals than anybody I know, but the blame falls on society. The blame doesn't fall on the shelters.

The blame doesn't fall on the rescue wars. The blame falls on society for abusing animals, for not spaying and neutering their animals, and love what the price is right has done for decades on that. I saw something on Twitter yesterday, and again, you can't believe everything you see on Twitter.

So I want to put a caveat on that, but about somebody who was going on vacation for a month and didn't want to pay for a dog sitter and so took their dog to the local shelter, and that dog is at risk of being euthanized. It's us that are the problem. We need to all acknowledge that and work together to try to address helping out our furry friends. The first dog we ever had growing up was a sheltered dog.

When I met my then-girlfriend, now wife. She just adopted a half-blind, geriatric cat from the SPCA in San Francisco. That cat did not like me. Luckily, the cat's owner did. So let's really kind of all try to work together on these issues. But for purposes of today, the amendments to this Bill will ensure that the public has essential information about adoptable animals that are subject to euthanasia while giving shelters more flexibility to act in the best interest of all the animals under their care. So with those amendments, I recommend an aye vote on today's bill. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Assemblymember Pellerin, thank you for your patience. You have agenda item 11. That worked out well. Agenda item 11 for AB 1111. Yeah, that's kind of a trip.

Well, good morning. Thank you, Chair and members. I'll start by accepting the committee's amendments, and AB 1111 would provide small and equity cultivators with the opportunity to apply for a Department of Cannabis Control license that would authorize them to vend their products at licensed state temporary cannabis events. Under existing state law, these events must be organized by a cannabis event organizer licensed through the DCC, and each individual event must receive authorization from both state and local government, ensuring local control.

These events are subject to extensive regulation, including regulations on packaging and labeling, track and trace, and prohibitions on underage sales. Additionally, each of these events must be authorized by the DCC at least 60 days before the event is scheduled to be held. While AB 1111 would most directly impact small and equity cannabis producers, its positive effects would extend to the legal cannabis market as a whole.

Sales by craft producers at cannabis events will drive additional sales through licensed distribution and retail outlets, and craft producers selling at cannabis events will have a strong incentive to direct customers to legal retailers where more of their product can be purchased. With me to testify in support today is Ross Gordon, policy chair of Origins Council and Madison Shockley, President of Cannabis Equity Policy Council and a social equity retailer.

Thank you. Each of you have two minutes.

Good morning committee members and staff. My name is Ross Gordon. I serve as Policy Chair with Origins Council and Policy Director with the Humboldt County Growers Alliance. Origins Council is a statewide advocacy organization representing 800 members across the full cannabis supply chain, most of whom are small and independent legacy licensed cannabis cultivators. California's small cannabis farmers are world renowned for producing the world's highest quality craft cannabis.

However, small and equity farmers currently face severe challenges in the legal cannabis market due to collapsing wholesale prices, high compliance costs, and barriers to entry and market access. In other sectors of specialty agriculture, such as wine, beer and coffee, state and federal law provide appropriate opportunities for direct-to-consumer sales in a variety of familiar forms. These include microbreweries, wine tastings, and farmers market sales. For small operators who lack access to vertical integration, marketing budgets, and sales teams, these allowances are critical to their success.

AB 1111 would conceptually mirror these approaches, but only within the specific, limited and highly controlled cannabis events framework that has been well established within California law since 2018. Each state-licensed cannabis event must receive both an individual state license from the Department of Cannabis Control as well as authorization from the local jurisdiction in order to operate. We believe it is critical to ground this conversation within the actually existing scope of these events.

According to a January 24 PRA request to the DCC, between 2018 and 2022, there were a total of 65 cannabis events held in the State of California, held in 16 different jurisdictions. None of these cannabis events were held in the counties of Los Angeles or Orange. AB 1111 would not change anything regarding how these events are regulated and would not affect the absolute local control that jurisdictions have to authorize and regulate events.

Instead, AB 1111 would simply provide small and equity cultivators with an opportunity to participate in these events alongside nearly 2000 retail delivery and microbusiness licensees who already hold this eligibility. We are proud of the broad coalition in support of this bill, which includes more than 35 diverse organizations representing small producers, equity businesses, patient and consumer advocates, veterans groups, local governments, and retailers, and ask for your support today to provide equitable opportunity to California's world-renowned craft cannabis producers. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Madison Shockley III. I'm a social equity retail licensee from Los Angeles, and I serve as the President of the Cannabis Equity Policy Council, which represents over 400 equity entrepreneurs and advocates from across the state. Like small cannabis farmers, most equity licensees are small businesses that lack the scale and resources of large venture capital-backed corporations. Just like many small farmers, we struggle to get access to the market, and if we are so lucky, to get into the market, the struggle to stay in business in the current market conditions is tremendous.

That's why we are seeing most businesses hanging on by thread or collapsing under the pressure. Large corporations are running laps around us while we struggle year after year with the cost of red tape and operating compliantly. For social equity farmers, both urban and rural, the opportunity to promote their brand at these farmers market events and sell directly to consumers can mean the difference in making payroll that month.

The state needs to do everything it can to help these businesses succeed, and this bill is one of those solutions that will make a difference on the ground. I support the proposed equity definition amendments as well to this bill because social equity can look different from community to community.

The original equity definition from Senator Bradford's SB 1294 states that local equity licensee means a person who has obtained a license from a local jurisdiction to engage in commercial cannabis activity within the jurisdictional boundaries of that jurisdiction, and who meets the requirements of that jurisdiction's local equity program. The definition is the best option that we currently have in legislation. Over the past few years, we have watched as established cannabis companies have opposed bills that would help smaller, independent businesses be more competitive. They've been anticompetition.

This is another one of those instances. There has been a lot of fear-mongering about the potential impact of this bill to equity entrepreneurs. Some will tell you that this bill would undermine hundreds of equity entrepreneurs, but the lion's share of those equity entrepreneurs are in Los Angeles, where the city currently doesn't allow cannabis events at all.

And as a small equity business, I'm proud to stand by the small farmers and advocate for AB 1111 in hopes that it will extend a lifeline to our social equity farmers and small outdoor farmers whose legacy we stand on today.

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

So glad this is not an animal shelter bill. Karen Lange, on behalf of the boards of supervisors in the counties of Humboldt and Mendocino, in support this morning.

Thank you, thank you. And me too.

Amy Jenkins. On behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Ada Waelder, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in strong support.

Thank you.

Pamela Lopez with K Street Consulting, on behalf of California NORML, in strong support.

Thank you

Mr. Chair and members, Rand Martin, on behalf of the Parent Company, one of the largest cannabis companies in the state, in strong support of this bill that would benefit small growers and equity businesses. Thank you.

Thank you. Turn to the primary witnesses in opposition. You have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning, on behalf of the California Minority Alliance, founded by Virgil Grant, the President and founding father of the social equity movement, a victim of the war against cannabis that resulted in years of imprisonment, and finally today, a licensed cannabis retailer in the City of Los Angeles, as well as a licensed cannabis cultivator in Humboldt. I wish to express our deepest objections to this bill.

It is morally objectionable and deeply insulting to hundreds of social equity retail applicants that continue to wait for many years to have their applications approved to open their mom-and-pop retail businesses, meanwhile, burning through limited capital, holding on to expensive property in hopes of realizing their dreams and deserved opportunity to become a retailer.

In addition to creating unfair competitive advantage against the struggling California licensed cannabis retailers, AB 1111 seeks to unfairly allow thousands of cultivators to become retailers, skipping the line ahead of hundreds of social equity applicants patiently waiting for their retail applications to be approved.

This is the third time the sponsors of this bill have attempted to push this legislation forward without substantially addressing the concerns in regards to undermining all the time and investment by retail applicants who have abided by the licensure program established by the voters of Prop 64. AB 1111 harms legal cannabis retailers and only dilutes existing markets where cannabis is already able to be sold.

The state has already allowed cultivators the right to display and market their products direct to the consumers at events where they are able to partner with a retailer to sell their products, ultimately supporting the viability of the entire supply chain. We have seen examples of cultivators obtaining delivery licenses to be able to sell directly to consumers, as well as partner with retailers to host a direct-to-consumer market as recently reported and celebrated in the City of San Francisco.

If cultivators want to be retailers, they have numerous options to do so within the current licensure structure and without undermining and unfairly jumping the line ahead of social equity retail applicants. Harming one license type to support another is not a solution.

As a licensed cultivator and a retailer, we remain opposed to the bill until the sponsors and the author address the serious concerns that still remain after numerous previous failed attempts to allow this legislation to pass. Thank you.

Thank you. And you get the award for being closest to two minutes so far of anybody, please.

Jerred Kiloh, President of the United Cannabis Business Association, on behalf of Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance, Long Beach Collective Association, Social Equity, Los Angeles, San Francisco Cannabis Retailers Alliance, Silicon Valley Cannabis Alliance, and Angel Emeralds. This is my 19th year as a licensed cannabis retailer and president of a retail-centric trade organization. I can tell you, as an economist, as a longtime stakeholder, and someone who communicates with my retail members, I am qualified to say that this will be harmful to the retail sector of cannabis.

Let's be clear. One acre of cannabis, which is considered a small farm, is 1500 pounds of production. That would now be, they said that they'd be able to sell a few pounds at these farmers markets, be able to capture market share, but there's still 90% to 95% of their product that still needs to be sold through a retailer. So a relationship with retailers is very important. So I don't understand why this has become so, I guess, conflicting. There is already existing competition.

I have 145 listed advertised canvas businesses in Sherman Oaks within a two-mile radius of my retail shop. These are all legal brick-and-mortar delivery companies that service the area. This is not the only competition I have. I also have competition with illegal operators and intoxicating hemp products that are also diluting my market share. So to hear that 2000 cultivators will contribute to the dilution of the market share, I don't have a line outside my door. I'm not a profitable business.

I'm constantly in debt and constantly trying to find a way to survive in this cannabis market and to add more dilution to a currently existing problem. Doesn't really seem like the solution we're looking for. We can pose us as large companies, but I'll tell you right now, of my 165 Members, not a single one of us owns more than two dispensaries. So here we are in a place where we've got mom-and-pop retailers who are also trying to survive. So what if I said this?

I'm a retailer in Los Angeles. I don't have the ability to have any outdoor cultivation because my community does not allow it, and there is no zoning allowed for it.

So I'd like my City of Los Angeles to give me a local authorization to go to another county and maybe set up a cultivation, maybe in Mendocino County, where I can now go and just be a part-time, temporary cultivator for a small amount of time, and maybe jump in front of line of the other 600 applicants who are also in Mendocino County trying to be cultivators. This is exactly what I'm hearing.

I realize it may sound a little bit grandiose, but the fact is, this is my license type. I've tried everything I can to preserve it. And now someone is trying to jump in line of multiple other attempts of to open retail. And everyone acts like this is so easy to collect. Taxes, excise tax, gross receipts tax, sales tax metric, track and trace point of sale systems, purchase orders. Do we really think it's that easy?

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

Yeah. We've offered them this coalition 10 amendments, and not a single one has been accepted to this date. So I would like us to at least consider some of the amendments to this bill so that we can see that there's not undue competition and dilution of this market. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, I want to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds. Assemblymember Patterson?

Yeah. Thank you. Can you help me? There was a similar ill. Well, not similar. There was another bill in one of the bazillion committees I'm sitting on, might be this one, that allowed a retailer to come into a wedding, special events like that. And you were the proponent of that. I voted no on it on that.

But describe the differences again with this bill. This is talking about not weddings or whatever. This is talking about these farmers markets and things like that.

It would be a special event that the state and local government would have to approve, and there's a limit on the number of events that could be held every year, and it would be for this purpose for these small farmers to be able to sell directly to consumers.

Okay, sure, go ahead.

They're my experts.

Happy to expand a bit. So I believe that Bill AB 471 created a new framework for cannabis catering, something which doesn't currently exist. This bill, AB 1111, operates within an existing framework for temporary cannabis events, which has existed since 2018, requires a DCC permit, requires local authorization, and would simply expand eligibility for participation to small cultivators. I'd also add, I know there was conversation on AB 471 about the mixing of cannabis and alcohol at these events.

AB 1111 would operate with an events framework that prohibits that intermixing.

Thank you. And to the opposition, you gave me a lot of reasons why business is hard. And I think that's part of the problems I think that everybody's trying to solve with the legalization of this. But I'm not typically trying to make competition in the market is typically a good thing. I know that maybe existing everybody, if everybody in every existing market can say, hey, I only want to have my business or limited businesses, then everybody would sign up for that.

But I am a believer know, in most cases, giving people the opportunity to survive and also creating competition, usually I think that's better for the market. But I'm interested in the discussion as it goes on. And when they call my name, I'll make a vote, make a decision at that time. So thank you for bringing this. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gibson.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. At least open up the dialogue. I've heard from a number of the retail cannabis retailers in my district, and my concern would be, based on what I've heard, the mom-and-pop, those in Los Angeles who have retail licenses, and then you bring in others from outside of Los Angeles or LA County to come in, even get a temporary license for that day.

But it disenfranchises those who brick and mortar who are paying employees, and they're needing that business, because what I continue to hear day in and day out when I speak to cannabis, any person that embeds themselves into this space, we cannot survive because the illegal market is drowning us. They're not paying their fair shares, they're not paying taxes like we are. As legal operators in our community, we're employing individuals. There's a waiting list in Los Angeles.

For those to even be considered getting permits or getting licenses. And then we have, through this bill, what I've heard is that bringing in, even for one day or a couple of days to participate in farmers markets when you can have a retail right down the streets from this farmer's market. And so I don't see the fairness.

And I'm looking for something that would change my mind as a result of these dynamics, because I'm a firm believer I can't feed my neighbor's kids if my own kids are going hungry. I just said something. And so it is important to me that I'm not, or we're not, or I cannot support if we're disenfranchising those who follow the rules, paying their taxes, who are there, and making significant investments to be a retailer in communities.

And then we have growers or others coming and absolutely being able to set up a shop, or even for temporary shop, and taking that business away from that retailer. And so I'm not asking you to respond. I'll be laying off on this bill today, and if it gets out, look forward to other dialogue, but please take that into consideration. Thank you very much.

And the only thing I would have to say to that is that in Los Angeles and Orange County, since this has been started in 2018, there's never been any special events in that area. So there has been no competition. And they could continue to do that because it does require local acceptance and control. It allows them to say whether these events are allowed or not. Yeah, you have more to say on that.

I would just second that. That's the fear-mongering, that there's this competition when Los Angeles doesn't even allow these special events. And so it's hypothetical at best. And I view this as more of a large cannabis versus small cannabis. If you're a large monied company, you have the ability to go direct to consumer already.

It's the small farmers in rural places that are looking for an opportunity just to survive, because many large cannabis companies aren't buying their product, and so they're not getting an opportunity to be in the supply chain at all. So, as an equity retailer, I can relate to anti-competition. Many of these organizations have prevented equity businesses from having the policies that would help us get into the market and to thrive, because they oppose the competition of new people entering the market.

And we're the small, non-established folks. And so this bill is for small, fledgling small farmers and small equity farmers, and that's who would help. So thank you.

Just to make a comment, this is not anti-competition. What this is, is there's been systems set up locally to allow people to apply for licenses. Some of them have sat on properties for 23 years waiting to open, and to allow 2000 cultivators to jump in front of that line due to the local control.

That is what I have issue with, and that is where it's undue competition, because we have set up a system to allow these operators to come into compliance and to start operating, and now we're going to let 2000 cultivators jump in front of them. I think that is unfair.

Thank you, Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you, chair. I came in late, but I did have a question when I was reviewing this. You're saying that the local jurisdiction can approve up to 32 events per year. Is that per small cultivator or total for that community?

So the specific limitation in the bill is 32 days of events per cultivator per year who applies for this license type. But reiterates, statewide, there's only been 65 of these events total since 2018. There were 25 held in the State of California last year. They're not formally limited, but the regulatory, licensing, and fee requirements around the events means that the events are naturally limited in addition to local control.

Well, it says this would not require a retail license. So I'm not clear on the data that you're citing, because this will really open up, potentially the floodgates, frankly. So let me go back to my original question. So there could be 100 small cultivators, each could be approved for 32 separate events. So you could have hundreds potentially.

That's correct. But there's the limiting factor of the events themselves.

Where did you come up with the number 32?

Why is that the number in the bill? Last year, the committee made amendments to limit to eight events per year per cultivator. Each of those events authorize up to four days of sales. And so we multiplied eight by four to get 32 days.

I see. Okay. All right, thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues, any motions or seconds from colleagues? Was that move the bill? Got a motion. Have a second bipartisan motion. And second. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

I would love to. Thank you. This is a pro-business bill. This is an equity bill. This is a pro-consumer bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Assemblymember Pellerin. I recognize that many cannabis licensees are struggling to operate in the legal market, so I'm sympathetic to the need for this bill. At the same time, I think it's critically important that we find the right balance so that efforts to support small cannabis cultivators do not unduly disadvantage retailers with the committee amendments. I think that moves us closer to striking that balance.

I appreciate the author's interest in willingness and continuing to work with all stakeholders to continue to create balance in the bill, and I'm happy to support the bill today.

I meant to say that we'll work with the opposition to work on the amendments. We just got them last week, so.

Appreciate you doing that. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call a vote.

AB 1111 Pellerin. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Congrats and Assemblymember Carrillo. Agenda item number 20, AB 173. Thank you, Assemblymember Haney, for your patience. Ready when you are.

Check 12. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. And again, thank you to Assemblymember Haney for allowing me to go before him. Difficult to be in two places at the same time, right? I'm proud to present Assembly Bill 173 which will return the California State Athletic Commission back to firm financial footing. And thank you again to the committee staff and consultants for working with my team.

We are accepting the Committee amendments for those who may not be familiar with the California State Athletic Commission, it oversees fighting sports in our state. The commission plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety and welfare of athletes, enforcing rules and regulations for events, and investigating the disciplining of any violations of those rules. The commission is facing significant financial difficulties and faces insolvency. The commission is funded by a portion of revenue from events under its jurisdiction and had to turn to its reserves during the pandemic.

The commission's revenues have returned to pre pandemic levels, but due to projected onetime costs and depleted reserves, this amount is insufficient to prevent insolvency. This bill would modestly increase the cap at gate revenue fees of gate revenue fees that can be collected, raising it for the first time since the year 2000 during Y2K. This will ensure the commission's continued operation with no need for intervention with taxpayer dollars.

Here to speak more on the bill and to answer any additional technical questions is Peter Villegas, chair of the California State Athletic Commission and Andy Foster, Executive Director of the California State Athletic Commission. Thank you.

Bipartisan motion and second two minutes each.

Thank you Member Carrillo, for your leadership. Chair and committee members, the business and professions code one any 82482 allows the commission to collect a fee of 5% of the amount paid for admission to contests and exhibitions. The 5% fee is capped at a Max of $100,000. The commission only collects the Max fee of $100,000 when the contest or exhibition reaches or exceeds $2 million in gross sales tax.

The last time the commission increased the cap of 100,000 was in year 2000, so 23 years ago was the last time we addressed this. The max fee of $100,000 is paid to the commission one to three times per year by its largest promoters. Those events generally exceed $2 million in gross tax sales. However, the commission is not able to collect more than the $100,000. The commission estimates the increase of the cap will bring an additional $300,000 a year in revenue.

Increasing the cap to $200,000 will not impact small promoters who hold events all over the State of California. The increase in the cap will not impact the athletes, managers or other licensing types as a 5% fee is paid by promoters. The commission's largest source of funding comes from the fees collected on the cost of admission to the contest or events. The cost of the admission to contests or events has increased over the years. However, the amount that the commission collects has not increased.

The commission has not requested an increase of the 5% fee be assessed, as that would affect all promoters in the State of California and could negatively impact the attractiveness of California as a venue. The revenue that AB 1703 will bring in will assist the commission in paying for resources for staffing, safety materials, health examinations. As such, and the California Athletic Commission hopes that the committee will vote to approve the cap increase that is vital to the commission's fund.

Increasing the cap is the best way for the commission to increase its revenue to ensure that the commission remains solvent without impacting very many of its licensees. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this bill.

Thank you very much. Any additional testimony in support? You don't need to if you don't want to. You're good. Good. All right, you got a bipartisan motion. And second, I feel confident about the fate of the bill. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support in the audience?

Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any witnesses in the audience who want to add on in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments, motions or seconds. Oh, sorry. We have a motion. A second. I apologize, Mr. Alanis, did you have. No, you're good, Mckinnor. Perfect.

Yes. I just want to thank my colleague for bringing this forward. And I just appreciate that we're looking out for the boxers pension. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional comments, Senator Member, would you like to close?

Appreciate the bipartisan support and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member, Carrillo, for bringing this bill forward. And thank you to the commission for working with us on this bill. I agree it's important for the commission to be properly funded for the protection of boxers and martial artists with the accepted amendment keeping the current threshold for the boxing pension. I'm happy to support the bill today, Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

AB 173. Wendy Carrillo. The motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Too many colleagues are in other places, but I'm sure when they get back, it'll get the votes. We'll leave it open for absent members. Thank you very much. Appreciate. Get it. So next we're going to move to agenda items 3 and 6 by Assemblymember Haney? Whichever order you prefer, sir.

374 first, if that's okay, Mr. Chair?

That is great. Ready when you are.

All right, so thank you, Mr. Chair. And members, I want to start by accepting the committee's technical amendments today, and I want to thank you and your staff for working with us on the language. AB 374 is a pro small business bill. It is a pro tourism and hospitality bill. It is a bill that will help our state create tremendous amount of revenue and jobs. And it's also a local control bill.

It will legalize cannabis cafes by allowing the sale of non cannabis foods and nonalcoholic beverages at licensed cannabis retailers. The situation we have right now does not make any sense. We allow local jurisdictions to authorize cannabis retailers and also authorize cannabis lounges, places where people can consume cannabis in person. But what we don't do is allow them to sell anything else. They're not allowed to sell non prepackaged foods. They're not allowed to sell a muffin. They're not allowed to sell coffee.

And the result of this is that we are tying their hands in a way that is putting them at an extreme disadvantage as it relates to the illicit market. We're seeing the illicit market grow, and we're seeing the legal market. What we did here as a state, the people of California, did to make sure that we have a legal cannabis market.

We are tying their hands and putting them in extreme disadvantage because they're not allowed to do something as simple as selling a muffin or a cup of tea. We know from places around the world, like Amsterdam, that this works, that people want to consume cannabis safely, legally, socially, with their friends, in a legal setting, and that there's a huge opportunity for our legal cannabis retailers to do that. This is also a local control bill.

It's only for cities or areas that want to do this, places that say, hey, we have cannabis lounges already. We want to allow them to sell coffee, food. This is an opportunity. It's a way to push back at the illegal market, support our cannabis retailers who are struggling, support our tourism industry, because we know that there are many people who want to consume cannabis legally, safely, and socially.

Here to testify with me in support today is Ben Bleiman from the California Nightlife Association and Jerred Kiloh from the United Cannabis Business Association.

Sorry. Ready when you are. Two minutes per witness, please. Thanks.

Thank you very much. My name is Ben Blyman. I'm the Chairman of the California Nightlife Association, also known as Cal Night, and we're a statewide nightlife advocacy organization. We have members all the way from San Diego up to Sacramento, everything in between. And we're really excited about AB 374. First of all, I just want to give a quick note about why cannabis lounges are really important when we enshrined in state law, adult use cannabis.

We also needed a place for people to legally consume it. And right now, for example, in San Francisco, where I am, the only place you can legally consume outside of a lounge is in a home that you personally own. So we're missing an incredible amount of places for people to consume. So we want them to consume it in a safe place, away from children, away from at risk individuals, and place with state of the art ventilation, which is all part of the code.

We know that in the past, enforcement on illegal consumption has been weighed very heavily against at risk communities and communities of color. And so lounges are really important as a legal place to consume. Unfortunately, dispensaries and lounges are not doing okay right now. They're, frankly, on death's doorstep in many cases. And this is because of huge federal tax burdens and a ballooning black market, which undercuts us at every chance that they have.

And this would give us a crucial lifeline to add to the lounges, and it would allow us to sell things like coffee and pastries and allow for performers and artists to charge a cover to pay for their services to perform, which would offer another avenue for nightlife and performance, which we're excited about. Is this going to save all of the retailers problems? Absolutely not, and we know that. But will it help them a lot? Definitely.

And there's a reason that this bill has gotten so much attention in the state and international press. And there's a reason that CalNight is so much behind it. It's because it's awesome. So, simply put, we hope you support it. And thank you for listening to me.

Thank you very much.

Thirds a charm here today. Thank you for hearing me out all these times.

I was going to say it if you didn't, so I'm glad we got you on support.

We're cannabis centric here today in BNP. This is mostly about tourism. I mean, we're looking at these nice new economies that are kind of popping up around cannabis.

We're also looking to see where are people traveling from and why are they coming to California, and if they are coming to California to experience some form of legal cannabis here, since we are kind of the world premiere of the best cannabis in the world, they want to come here and they want to be a part of the community.

And if they're shuttled to corners and behind places to smoke or consume stuff, we're really just shunning them and not really letting them be a part of the culture. The culture of cannabis has been very communal. There's a reason why we sit around and eat and drink while we smoke. It's pretty much almost a side effect of smoking.

So to limit the ability for them to consume products right next to the consumption of cannabis really just limits their abilities to enjoy each other's company, and it also limits the tourism to come in and be a part of the community, add tax dollars to this, and also be a place to eat and drink.

I think when we look at where we go, when we look to kind of hang out, we look at Starbucks, like, look, we don't just go there just because I have free WiFi. We go there because they do have food and beverages, and it is a place where we can commune.

And I think if we limit that communal kind of space, we limit the opportunity for the brand of California cannabis to be an international brand and for people to come here and spend their tax dollars here or spend their tourism dollars here, I think it's really important. As a retailer, I can't even sell a bottle of water. And I think that the restrictive nature of how we are not allowing any other products to be sold doesn't really make sense from any retailer standpoint.

So if we can be a little bit more of a hub for multiple purchases, I think this does a good service to allow consumers to feel like they're integrated into the cannabis culture.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And for what it's worth, one for three would get you in the starting lineup for the giants right now. Nice. I'm in Dodgers. You'd be on the bench. I'm a Giants fan. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill, I want to add on?

Amy Jenkins. On behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, in support.

Thank you.

Pamela Lopez with K Street Consulting, on behalf of California Normal in support.

Rand Martin. On behalf of The Parent Company, in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition, just hit the mic button.

Hi, my name is Tim Gibbs with the American Lung Association. I wanted to apologize to the chair and the author for registering late. Opposition.

In that spirit, I'll keep these comments very brief, but our opposition to this bill is due to concern that will undermine the state's smoke free workplace law. The bill has the potential to proliferate the types of businesses that would expose workers to second hand cannabis smoke, which contains many of the same risks as secondhand tobacco smoke exposure. And so for those reasons, we are in opposition.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill, seeing none, want to bring it back to colleagues for questions, comments, motion, seconds. Got a motion. Got a second. zero, I'm sorry. Assemblymember Dixon, you have a question? Please do.

Mr. Assemblymember Haney, you mentioned Amsterdam. I've been to Amsterdam many times, so I kind of picked my interest because I remember reading recently that Amsterdam City Council is in chaos right now because they feel that tourists who come to these cannabis coffee shops are overrunning the city. And to your point, it may not be necessarily a good thing, although San Francisco probably may need more tourists positive reasons, but it's a concern.

So Amsterdam is, the residents are very much opposed to because of the influx of tourism and the kind of behavior that perhaps goes along with this. So the local control aspect is really important to me. So could you just restate what the local control measure would be?

Sure.

So this just allows localities to authorize this if they want, with their own process, with their own way of giving out those permits. It doesn't automatically allow anyone to do anything. So existing cannabis retailers, if this passes, wouldn't immediately be able to sell food and hold events. The locality would have to pass legislation to have a way to regulate it, including some of the things that have been problems in Amsterdam, like the concentration, like the lack of regulation.

Right now, for example, some jurisdictions have cannabis lounges. The locality would have to decide how to regulate them. Now, being able to sell food, but right now, under state law, it's entirely prohibited. So if a locality wants to offer this to their retailers, they're not allowed to, and that's what we'd be lifting with this bill.

Okay, very good. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions, comments? We have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Haney, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you to the author for accepting the committee's amendments as amended. I believe this bill will still allow for the Amsterdam type establishments that were discussed today that you're intending to legalize. Subject as was discussed to that local control. With that, I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

AB 374 Haney. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Governmental Organization. [Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you very much, and would you like to move on to your next bill, AB 663.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members.

Got a motion? Got a second.

All right. I will be accepting the committee's clarifying amendments today, and thank you for working with us on this language. We have to get a lot more people into treatment. We have to make treatment more accessible where people are. That's what this bill will do to confront the fentanyl and opioid epidemic. AB 663 would allow mobile pharmacies to dispense medications for opioid addiction treatment.

This change would expand local efforts to prevent overdose deaths and improve access to health care for some of our most vulnerable populations. Studies have showed that the mobile pharmacies can significantly improve outcomes for people that they serve. Under local law or under current law, local governments can operate mobile pharmacies if they choose to do so. However, these pharmacies are currently restricted from providing medications for opioid addiction. This bill would change that, allowing mobile pharmacies to carry medications for opioid addiction to help to reduce overdose deaths and increase access to treatment, will directly benefit many people in our state and counties that are prepared to deploy these mobile pharmacies. Here to testify and support today is Dr. Ham from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, who will be speaking for the city and County of San Francisco.

Great. Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Chair Berman, Vice Chair Flora, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of AB 663. My name is Jeffrey Hamm. I'm a primary care doctor and the Director of Population Behavioral Health in the San Francisco Department of Public Health. There, I lead staff in implementing programs and policies to address substance use and overdose prevention while deaths. As you all know, we're in the midst of a profound public health crisis.

7,175 people died from opioid overdoses in California in 2021, 83% of which 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, often referred to as opioid addiction. This illness is often defined by withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and risky behaviors that can put one's health and safety at risk. But opioid use disorder, like other chronic medical conditions, can be effectively treated.

There are three FDA approved medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder; methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Methadone can only be dispensed in specialized treatment programs for the treatment of opioid use disorder. But both buprenorphine and naltrexone can be prescribed in outpatient clinics and dispensed by retail pharmacies. Although access to these treatments has improved, there continue to be significant barriers. One is the difficulty for people, especially underserved populations, to get to a pharmacy. A second is that not all pharmacies stock these medications.

This bill addresses both of these barriers. California law permits pharmacies to operate in mobile units as an extension of their brick and mortar pharmacy license, but they cannot dispense controlled substances. This restriction includes buprenorphine, which is one of the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder. Like methadone, it can reduce the risk of death by 40% to 50%. It saves lives.

Since the beginning of the year, one of our pharmacists in the San Francisco Department of Public Health has been delivering buprenorphine to supportive housing units and in underserved neighborhoods. He currently reaches about 70 people walking up to 19,000 steps a day, seeing patients and providing them their medications. One gentleman who's been off and on opioids for 15 years recently told our local newspaper that, quote, the buprenorphine deliveries free him up to focus on what's important, like his 10 year old son, and also to lessen the chance of him missing a dose and relapsing, end quote. We believe having a mobile pharmacy capable of dispensing buprenorphine would multiply this impact, helping us reach many more of our isolated city residents and save lives. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

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

Hi, Tiffany Matthews. On behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, in support.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members Jean Hurst here today, on behalf of the county Health Executives Association of California, in support.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members Meegen Murray with the vitamin group, on behalf of the California Society of Health System Pharmacists, in strong support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you. Elizabeth Bambuchet, on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists, we support.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and members Bryce Docherty, on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians, in support.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. We have a motion in a second. Want to bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Any questions or comments? No. Senator Haney, would you like to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, and I apologize. Can you just confirm for me that you're accepting the committee amendments?

Accept the amendments.

Thank you very much. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. I think that the need for effective strategies to address opioid use disorder is absolutely a priority that we can all agree on with the author's acceptance of the committee amendments. I'm happy to support the bill today, Madam Secretary. Please call a vote.

AB 663 Haney. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

So close. Too many absent members. Thank you, Assembly Member Haney. We'll leave that roll open for absent members.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. I appreciate it.

Thank you. And last but not least, Assembly Member Pacheco. AB 1707 item 21, ready when you are.

Good afternoon. I apologize for my voice, but thank you, Mr. Chair and members, I want to start by thanking committee staff for all their hard work on this bill and will be accepting the committee amendments. I am pleased today to present AB 1707 which would ensure that all providers under the healing arts license are protected from hostile laws in other states with regard to the licensure and protects providers staff privileging in the hospital setting. Abortion providers and those who seek abortion are under attack.

We know other services are being attacked, like gender affirming care. One of the most important things we can do to ensure that these services are accessible here in California is to ensure that the providers offering this care can continue to offer it without fear. With me today in support is Dr. Mai Fleming, a family physician practicing at San Francisco General Hospital, and Molly Robson, VP of government affairs at Planned Parenthood affiliates at California.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Berman and members, my name is Dr. Mai Fleming. I'm a family physician at San Francisco General Hospital, and I provide abortion care across state lines. I travel to provide care in Kansas and across multiple other states via telehealth to patients who have traveled hundreds of miles to see me. Prior to the Dobbs decision, I had been practicing in Texas, where my healthcare provision is now deemed a felony.

I'm also a gender affirming care provider, prescribing hormones via telehealth to transgender, non binary, and gender diverse patients who have often been unsuccessful or even faced overt discrimination in their attempt to access care in their own communities. Their lives are the newest target of an attempt to control bodily autonomy and criminalize providers for providing compassionate, life saving care. I'm here today in support of Assembly Bill 1707 which will protect healthcare providers in California like me from hostile laws in other states.

We are fortunate that providing this essential care is legal here in California. The nationwide, ideologically driven attacks on evidence based health care threatens the abilities of providers like me to continue to practice by putting us at risk of having our licenses suspended and our privileges revoked. I personally have already been targeted by emboldened anti abortion groups in Michigan who filed a meritless formal complaint against my license, leading to a lengthy formal investigation by the medical board there.

I've had to report this to every licensing body and application since, threatening my credentialing and privileging. As a Texas licensed physician as well, I'm at risk of an overzealous criminal or civil action for providing legal abortion care to Texans who travel to care for me. But surrendering my Texas license to protect myself would not serve my gender affirming care patients there.

I was already forced to abandon the reproductive health needs of my Texas patients, and I refuse to also abandon patients who face higher risk of suicide without the access to the care that I provide. We are amid an unfolding human rights crisis as vast swaths of the country can't access reproductive and gender affirming care. The fear of losing our ability to practice for serving our patients threatens our ability to meet that need. We need to take action now to protect providers, and I respectfully urge you to support AB 177 today so that I can continue to safely do my job just providing care to patients.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, chair and members, Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California. We represent the seven Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state who operate over 100 health centers and provide over 1.3 million patient visits annually. We're proud to be sponsoring this bill to protect California's providers from out of state laws attacking comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care.

Since the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade last year, abortion providers and their patients have faced an onslaught of new and unprecedented attacks on abortion and other services, including criminalizing the safe and effective health care procedure. Today, 13 states have bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and five states have implemented previability bans. With the ever changing legal landscape and uncertainty, one thing is clear.

California must protect providers in our state that can continue to offer this care legally, compassionately, and provide comprehensive care to patients. As you heard from Dr. Fleming, there are very real consequences that is being experienced by providers across the country who are legally providing care across the country and care that's still allowed in California. AB 1707 ensures providers are not punished by being stripped of their licensure or their staff privileges for providing care to patients in line with their fundamental rights in this state. And ultimately, it protects patients access to affordable care from trusted providers. With that, I respectfully urge your support today.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the bill, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. Neil Miller, California Acupuncture Traditional Medical Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Want to bring it back to colleagues for questions? Comments? Motion seconds? Assembly Member McKinnor?

Yes, excuse my voice as well. Assembly Member, I thank you so much for bringing this forward, and it is extremely important that we not only protect our patients and our citizens that choose to have an abortion, but to protect our doctors. And so I thank you. This is a really important bill for us out here, and I also thank you, Doctor, for what you're doing. And I call the motion.

Thank you very much. Have a motion? A second. Senator Nguyen, did you good. Any additional comments or questions on the Bill? Pacheco, would you like to close?

Thank you again and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you to you and to all the stakeholders who have been engaged in protecting access to critical health care in California, as that care has been under attack in other states. The committee amendments fine tune the bill to its intent and ensure that California medical professionals won't be punished for providing abortion, gender affirming care and other sensitive services. I'm very happy to support the bill today, as amended. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

AB 177 Pacheco. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

We'll leave that roll open for absent members who are probably all at caucus right now. Hopefully they come vote on bills. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. So, with that, we've run through the agenda. We'll go back over the bills. I'm going to ask everyone to be patient because folks were running in and out all day, which causes chaos for the committee secretary. If you want to start going through the bills from the top, that'd be great.

On consent Alanis Alanis aye Alvarez Bonta Sorry Dixon Dixon aye Grayson Grayson aye Erwin Lee Lee aye Mccarty Mckinnon Aye Mckinnon aye Patterson Ting.

The consent calendar is out. Did we have Mr. Gipson on the consent calendar?

Okay, perfect.

AB 336 Cervantes [Roll Call]

Bill is out.

On AB 374 Haney [Roll Call]

Out no okay. My bill is still not out.

AB 595 Essayli [Roll Call]

Bill is out.

AB 765 Wood [Roll Call]

The Bill is out.

AB 766 Ting [Roll Call]

Bill is out.

AB 1021 Wicks [Roll Call]

AB 1070 Low [Roll Call}