Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance

We're going to start our hearing today as a Subcommitee because we have an author that has presented himself. Actually, if it's okay with you, we'll start with file item number one. But prior to that, we have nine bills on today's agenda. It is nine bills with three proposed for consent.

The consent items today are file item number four, AB 562, by Assembly Member Carrillo, file item number five, AB 588, by Assembly Member Robert Rivas, and file item number seven, AB 1044, by Senator Lowenthal. And file item number six, AB 894, by Assembly Member Friedman, has been pulled from today's agenda and will be heard at a future hearing. So without any further ado, we're going to start with file item number one, which is AB 46 by Assembly Member Ramos. Welcome.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Today I present AB 46, which focuses on our armed services and seeks to extend a state benefit for retired veterans, who usually retire after 20 years of service. Additionally, this Bill also exempts survivor benefits from being taxed in California. AB 46 focuses on honoring those who dedicated their lives to serving our country, strengthening and attracting a skilled workforce, which in turn strengthens state tax revenue.

Today you will be hearing from two witnesses, Fred Green, the past President of the California Council of Chapters of Military Officers Association of America, and James Fair, pronounced a retired U. S. Army Colonel and Vietnam Combat Veteran in support of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Want to welcome the witnesses to speak.

My name is Fred Green. I'd like to start off by stating that Military Officers Association, MOA, advocates veterans regardless of rank. I'm a retired school teacher. My wife is a retired nurse. California has seen a decline of 13% in our state's military retiree population. In turn, we have seen Nevada population increase by 10%, Arizona increase by 7%. Both states fully exempt its military retirees from state income tax. California surviving spouses has decreased by 26%.

Approximately 73% of our military retirees are enlisted, not officers, but enlisted. After 20 years or more of service. We continue to contribute to our population, to our state, and to our education. When we retire, we take on other positions in the state. We get new jobs. We contribute more to the state's economy through our new tax salaries that we have. We anticipate that California and this workspace by keeping us will grow by 2% instead of us leaving the state.

We really would like you to support to AB 46.I'll stop there.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your service.

Welcome.

Hello, my name is James Fair. I'm also a member of the Military Officer Association of America. I'm also a Commissioner for Alameda County Veterans Affairs and proud to be a math teacher in one of our public schools in Fremont and a union representative. First, I would like to thank Assemblyman Ramos and the over 30 Senators and Assembly Members who have co-sponsored this Bill.

For the past 20 years, men and women of the US military have been defending us without complaint through the longest wars in our history. Our service members are the most highly educated and skilled in our military history. The average age of retirement is their early 40s. They are trained managers, engineers, technicians, nurses, law enforcement and teachers ready to start a new career. Over 75% are enlisted. And to be competitive and growing our economy, California needs to retain more of these quality workers.

Military retirees are ready from the first day of retirement to enter numerous critical professions where there are major shortages, including teaching, law enforcement and first responders. The service members'retirement pay is a percentage of their base pay. They no longer receive any housing or food allowances, which is significant in the cost of living in California. Since California is the only state that fully taxes military retirement, many service members reluctantly move to other states.

Through this proposed tax exemption, California gains since retirees will pay paying full taxes on their new incomes plus retirement pay will be spent at California businesses, paying California sales tax, paying California properties taxes, and supporting California schools. Additionally, there is a stream of federal money that flows to the state based on the number of retirees and veterans. Examples are education, medical benefits and VA investments. California's share is currently 4.6 billion, in contrast to Florida, Virginia and Texas each receiving close to 8 billion.

When you say thank you for your service, mean it. Pass AB 46 for our veterans and for California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now is the time for any individuals that would like to testify in support in Room 2100 to please come forward. State your name for the record, your affiliation and your support.

Good afternoon. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Coronado, in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Steve Vancil. I am a recent employer who lived the issue of AB 46. I had 45 military retirees. In three years, I lost 12 to other states. None of them had a problem with housing. None of them went to Texas or Florida. They went to other states where they are paying retiree pay. Both them and their families are paying taxes in other states. But this Bill is helpful for some of the employers. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Ramona Chavez, Captain, US Air Force, also in the California Air National Guard and the US reserves. I fully support AB 46. I ask you to support AB 46 and honor the men in uniform, excuse me, the men and women in uniform who gave more than 20 years to protect their country from enemies both foreign and domestic. And you've seen in recent history they're doing both.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Good afternoon. I'm Dana Nichol with Reeb Government Relations. AB 46 is our veterans client's top vet Bill priority. This year I have to speak in support on behalf of the American Legion, AMVETS, California Association of County Veteran Service Officers, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, the Military Officers Association of America and the Vietnam Veterans of America. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in room 2100? Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition. Is there anyone who would like to testify in opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference line to see whether there's anyone who would like to testify in support or in opposition of AB 46?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you have opposition or support for AB number 46 at this moment, press 1 and 0. We'll go to line 78. Please go ahead.

Thank you Chair, Members. Max Perry, on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 69. Please go ahead.

Hi, Mary Christie, on behalf of San Bernardino county, in support.

We now go to line 59. Please go ahead.

Captain Steve Huber from Oxnard, California, strongly supporting AB 46. And I would like you all to as well support AB 46. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 58. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is William G. Manders, retired Navy of 31 years. I began my naval career by getting on a Greyhound bus not far from the Capitol and reporting for active duty. In support of the measure. We've tried to get this passed numerous times. The fact that the Assembly voted for it unanimously is a great sign, and I hope you and the distinguished Committee Members will support it and pass it for a full vote in the Senate. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 80. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Gary Gatowski, 29 year retired Air Force, member of Military Officers Association of America. I strongly support Assembly Bill 46 and hope you do, too. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 61. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Scott Holwell. I'm appearing on behalf of the California Association of County Veteran Service Officers. I am a 30 year enlisted retiree from the United States Navy. I'm also currently serving as a county veteran service officer in the County of Kings.

In addition to the facts already covered, military retirees contribute to the structure and fabric of our communities in ways not easily quantified, such as being coaches and mentors, members of community-based organizations, veteran service organizations and various other organizations. Not to mention they're good neighbors and good stewards of our community and our resources. The State of California should want and undoubtedly need to retain military retirees as citizens. And with that, I please ask you to support AB 46. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll go to line 70. Please go ahead.

My name is Jonathan Ervin out of Lancaster, California. I'm a 26 year Chief Master Sergeant currently in Air Force Reserve, calling in support of AB 46. We're losing too many retiring veterans in our state who are starting second careers that we can use their vital skills. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll go to line 66. Please go ahead.

Hey, good afternoon. This is Gerard Quinlan. I'm a retired Navy SEAL officer down in Coronado, California. I strongly support this Bill. And I just want to add that everybody that I know that has retired is on a second career. Whether that second career is 10, 15 or 20 plus years, the return on investment is here. It's there. Please support this Bill. It's important. I'll be retiring again, my second time in about five or six years.

And if it doesn't change, I'm probably looking at going to another state to spend the last of my great years. So please support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Once again, if you have support or opposition to AB 46 at this moment, press one, then zero. We have no further comments, Madam Chair. Actually, one last person just queued up.

Very good.

And that will be from line number 83. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is retired Colonel William W. Taylor from Vacaville, California. I retired here in 1994 and went to work in the Travis Unified School District as an administrator. I retired again in 2006. I think that California really needs this Assembly Bill to be passed. We need to retain retirees and we are not retaining as many as we should. Please vote for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Now we have no further comment, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Appreciate your help. Bring the matter back to the Committee for comments, questions, or concerns. Senator Dahle?

I just would say I love your Bill. I would love to be added as a co-author if there's an opportunity to do that. And I'll be supporting the Bill when we get a quorum.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto?

Thank you very much. And thank you, Assemblymember Ramos, for having the perseverance to continue to pursue this issue, because it is really important. I come from a district that has a lot of military families in it because we have the most affordable proximity to a lot of the bases that are around there in Coronado and down in San Diego area and also Camp Pendleton.

And it's sad for me personally to see them, as soon as they retire or if something happens to them, their family is being forced to move out of California. The little hit that we take on, relatively little hit that we take on the tax as far as federal, I mean, the Franchise Tax Board hit is concerned, is more than made up for in the other productivity and income tax and all of these other things that we benefit from when they stay here.

So thank you so much. Thank you for allowing me to be a co-author on the Bill. I super appreciate it. It was something that you were working on last year, and this year, I'm glad to see it back. I hope everyone supports this, because our service people deserve this, and we need them, frankly, to stay here in California. So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else? Seeing no further comment, I want to thank you as well. This is an important Bill, and I appreciate your tenacity in bringing it back. I think the talent that's lost outweighs the cost to the State of California. So with that, we'll allow you to conclude.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, and thank you for the co-authors. And we'll definitely add you onto that. And any others that would see fit to be added on, please contact our office. This is a chance for us to move forward as a State of California, to honor veterans that have served in foreign wars and wars abroad. Now's the time for California to honor those in their retirement ages in there and exempt their taxes and their income. I ask for your aye vote.

Very good. Senator Dalton, did you move? That's true. Okay. Sorry about that. We'll have to wait till we get a quorum I was jumping ahead of myself. And when we do, we'll take up a motion on this item. Thank you much. We'll move on to file item number two, which is AB 516. Assembly Member Ramos, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and the Senators. I would like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments that have been proposed to us. AB 516 is aimed at increasing transparency to the Mitigation Fee Act. Small businesses and property owners are a pillar to California's economy and often struggle the most due to unforeseen expenses, one such being development fees for permits.

As it stands, this process often leaves small businesses and property owners in the dark as they feel that the money that they pay for these development projects sit idle in accounts. My Bill adds requirements that a local agency must include information for delays to these projects as well as information as to when the construction might resume. We also require that a local agency inform those paying these fees to their right to request an audit of these funds.

This is one step in providing clarity to the Mitigation Fee act for small businesses and property owners across the state.

Do you have any witnesses you'd like to present today?

No witnesses.

Okay, very good. Is there anybody that would like to testify in support of AB 516? Anybody in Room 2100 in support? Signal movement. Is there anybody in Room 2100 that would like to testify in opposition saying none will move on to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue up individuals who would like to testify in support or in opposition of AB 516.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As she indicated, if you are in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 516, go ahead and hit one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero, and we'll go to line 76. Please go ahead.

Chavez with the California Association of Realtors in support. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll give another reminder, 1 followed by 0, for your support or opposition to AB 5116. And nobody is queuing up at this time.

Very good. Any questions or concerns from the Committee? Seeing none, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senators, I ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you very much. We will take this up when we have a quorum.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Moving on to file item number three, AB 52, by Assembly Member Grayson. Thank you for your patience. We appreciate you waiting around.

It's all good.

The floor is yours, sir.

Good afternoon, chair and Members of the Committee. Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge and accept the technical amendments listed on page five of the Committee analysis. That would require credits to be claimed on original, timely filed returns direct taxpayers to maintain exemption certificates, invoices, and any other documentation necessary to verify the credit to be provided to FTB at its request.

Adding recapture language similar to the concurrent or to the current exemption that directs FTB to recapture the credit if the equipment purchased to generate the credit is converted or to a nonexempt use or removed from the State and also add language allowing tax information sharing between FTB and CDTFA necessary to effectively administer the credit. AB 52 seeks to incentivize long term investments and fuel expansion in California's manufacturing industry by providing what would essentially be full sales and use tax exemption for the purchase of manufacturing equipment.

The measure would accomplish this by providing a state tax credit for the local sales tax paid by manufacturers for qualified equipment purchases. This would facilitate the growth, hiring and training of skilled workforces for the future and provide high wage jobs for Californians. Pre pandemic California's manufacturing sector had already faced a decline in total employment. Much of this decline has been a result of California's steep cost of doing business, which is one of the highest in the nation. The COVID-19 pandemic has further challenged California's manufacturing sector.

Over the last two years, California has attracted less than 1% of the country's manufacturing investments, with other states aggressively attempting to lure our state's manufacturers with attractive lower business cost and location incentives. This Bill would help to reverse these trends and make California more attractive to investment, especially in light of the fact that 38 states already have a full sales and use tax exemption for manufacturing equipment purchases and another five states have no sales tax at all.

It is imperative that the state find ways to mitigate financial burdens, promote increased production, and ensure the growth of high wage jobs for a variety of skill levels and backgrounds in one of the state's essential industries. A stout manufacturing job base is key to global and domestic competitiveness, especially for our economy because of its breadth and its variety. There is a misconception that all manufacturing is done on a large industrial scale, but over 70% of manufacturers have less than 20 employees.

Small and medium sized manufacturers face a disproportionate share of economic burdens, increased capital costs due to the pandemic, and one of the highest state and local sales tax rates in the nation. AB 52 would help to ease some of those economic burdens, and California has comparative manufacturing advantages to other regions of the world due to the strength and depth of its innovation in technology.

Not only does the industry employ 1.3 million people in California, it also plays a role in creating new jobs with its multiplier effect, supporting 2.5 jobs for every one manufacturing job. Manufacturing plays a crucial and essential role within our state's economy, supporting high wage jobs and small businesses with room to growth. It is my hope that this legislation can be the tipping point to encourage a new, quote, invent here manufacture here reality. By incentivizing companies to plant roots in our state and to grow.

AB 52 has been designated as a job creator Bill by Cal Chamber, is supported by such groups as California Life Sciences Association and the California Business Roundtable, and is sponsored by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. With that, I would also note that this measure passed off the Assembly floor with a vote of 77 to zero. And I do have a witness through the chair, Lance Hastings, President and CEO of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.

Madam Chair and Committee Members, Lance Hastings with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We appreciate Mr. Grayson carrying this Bill forward because we're now entering the fourth year post COVID and manufacturers are desiring to make investments in their capital equipment that has been sadly ignored for the four years out of economic uncertainty, the cost of capital has increased with interest rates and inflation. And this is of particular benefit to the small and medium manufacturer who really rely on their equipment to make their goods.

And this would really be a boost and show them that the State of California is a partner with them in the economic sector, that is, manufacturing, in my view, a critical sector to the state's economy.

Very good. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to test here in Room 2100 that would like to testify in support of the Bill?

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Cameron Demetri with capital advocacy on behalf of Ryan, tax preparation in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Margie Lee. On behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in strong support. Thank you.

Nico Molina. On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support.

Natalie Bowser, the California Business Roundtable, in support Thank you.

Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here today in support?

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in Room 2100 that would like to testify in support? We'll move on to testimony and opposition. If you'd like to testify in opposition to AB 52, please come forward. Seeing no one to testify in opposition, let's move on to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue up any individuals that would like to testify, either in support or in opposition to AB 52, now would be the time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you are in support or opposition to AB 52, please press 1 0 at this time. One filed by zero. Line 74, please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Moira Topp, on behalf of both Orange County Business Council and Biocom California, in strong support.

Thank you.

And next we'll go to line 90. You are open.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with shall get her. Antoine Schmelzer and Lang. On behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, SEMA, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 80 or, excuse me, line 87, please go ahead. All.

Business Federation, in strong support of AB 52.

Thank you.

Line 87. Alright, we'll try Line 82. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. David Gonzalez, on behalf of the California Life Sciences, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

If there are any additional people that would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 52, please press 1, 0. Line 73. Please go ahead. Line 73, you are open.

Hi, this is Lindy Johnson with the East Bay Leadership Council. Just calling in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, nobody else queued up.

Very good. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee. Just for, as a technical issue, there were four recommendations. Four technical recommendations. What we're asking is one, 3 and 4. We have discovered that number two is not necessary.

Thank you.

Very good. Any comments, questions from the Committee? Senator Seyarto?

Thank you, Assemblymember Grayson, for your Bill, because it is very timely with California. We have a lot of issues as we wade through our budget issues right now. What we are in dire need of is jobs and making the manufacturers, not only the manufacturers that we have already profitable and keeping them here in our state, but also being attractive to others that are looking for a place to land. And there are some out there right now that are landing in other places.

So we have to be competitive. And I think your Bill kind of hits the mark on one of the ways we can do that. So thank you for your thoughtfulness in helping the manufacturers bring something to us that I think can be very helpful. So thank you.

Very good. Any other comments, questions or concerns? Senator Blakespear?

Yes, thank you for your Bill. In your speaking points, you referred to only 1% of- Could you repeat that stat? That was really strong.

So only 1% of investment in manufacturing. California has only had 1% of the nation's investment in manufacturing happen here in the fourth largest economy in the world.

Right. That's really a shocking statistic. So I'm glad that you're attacking this head on. Thank you.

Thank you.

I also want to thank you for bringing this forward and appreciate all the data that you gave us. I think it's really impressive. And so we'll allow you to conclude at this time.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very good. When we get a quorum, we'll take this up and no doubt pass it. We're going to move on to file item number nine, AB 1684, by Assembly Member Maienschein. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, I want to begin by accepting the amendment requested in the analysis, AB 1684 seeks to give local governments more tools to combat the illicit cannabis market. Despite the legalization of cannabis in 2016, we have not seen reduction in illegal and unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. In fact, the illegal market still makes up approximately 70% to 80% of the industry in California. Unlicensed activity poses significant danger to the public, to the environment, and to the viability of the legal marketplace.

AB 1684 allows for increased administrative enforcement against unlicensed commercial cannabis activities at the local level, and creates opportunities for greater cooperation between local jurisdictions and the Office of the Attorney General. Current law allows local agencies to immediately impose administrative fines or penalties for illicit cannabis cultivation. This Bill expands that authority to violations that exist as a result of any type of illegal cannabis activity, such as manufacturing, distribution, and retail sale. With me to testify in support is Deputy Attorney General Ethan Turner.

Very good, Madam Chair. I'm Ethan Turner, a deputy Attorney General in the Cannabis Control Section. Attorney General Bata is pleased to support this Bill and his goal to provide local jurisdictions with additional tools for enforcement against unlicensed cannabis operators, and we thank Assembly Member Manshein for supporting this or authoring this important measure.

The Attorney General has long supported a well regulated commercial cannabis industry because it ensures that safe cannabis and cannabis products are available for California adults and for medical use, and also to wrong some of the inequities that were caused by the War on drugs. I'm a former city attorney, a former county council, and a former Director of a local commercial cannabis program, and was directly involved in authoring and implementing regulations and ordinances for commercial cannabis activity and to address illegal operations. And today?

Currently, most local jurisdictions rely principally on criminal enforcement methods to address illegal cannabis operations and also on civil litigation. This Bill supports additional administrative enforcement. Administrative enforcement can be undertaken at a much larger scale, much more cost. Effectively, it's much quicker and does not carry with it some of the inherent risks and collateral impacts that naturally attend and can attend criminal enforcement actions.

AB 1684 will encourage a shift towards greater use of administrative action, leading to broader and greater enforcement around the state against all types of legal cannabis activity, and also, we hope, will initiate a shift away from drug war tactics towards treating cannabis more as a land use issue and as unlicensed business practice, like any other commercial enterprise or agricultural enterprise that requires a state license and a local permit.

Additionally, AB 1684 will support local jurisdictions who are unable, on their own, to take civil actions under business and Professions Code two 600:38, which is the statute that allows lawsuits to collect treble damages against unlicensed operators because the threshold requirements for that statute required that a local jurisdiction have at least 750,000 people in their jurisdiction. Only 11 counties and a handful of cities can undertake actions under that statute.

And this Bill encourages local jurisdictions to refer cases, larger cases, to the Attorney General's Office for those kind of actions. And finally, this Bill does not change anything about the administrative remedies that are available to people who are cited for any violation of any local ordinance, including cannabis violations.

Every county and city is required to have administrative appeal processes available to those who are cited for violations of a code, and those remedies have to be exhausted prior to seeking judicial review of a particular citation or of an ordinance imposing citations. And for these reasons, and on behalf of Attorney General Bonta, we respectfully request your. aye vote, and I'm available for any technical questions you might have about how this Bill will affect local law and how it will be implemented.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony here today. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support of the Bill? Seeing no one, is there anybody in Room 2100 that would like to testify in opposition?

Good afternoon, chair and Members, on behalf of California Normal. I'm just here briefly to state that we have worked with the author's office. We appreciate all of their work, and we do, unfortunately, still have an opposed and less amended position. But there is one amendment in particular. That we are hoping that we can work out. So thank you so much.

Thank you very much for being here today. Is there anyone else seeing. No one will move on to the teleconference line and see if there's anybody that would like to testify in support or in opposition of AB 1684.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Please press one, followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to simply Bill 1684, and we will go to line 69. Please go ahead.

Hi, Mary Christian. On behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, in support.

Thank you.

If there are any additional participants wishing to testify in support or opposition to AB 16. Eight, four, please press one, followed by zero. Nobody else is queuing up, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. I'm going to insert right here that we have one more Bill that's on the docket today. We need a quorum of our Committee in order to vote on all our bills. So I want to encourage Members of the Committee to please be prepared to come down here immediately. And also, if we could call the one remaining Assembly Member that has yet to present her Bill, that would be terrific.

So we can let her know that we're going to be prepared to take up her Bill very soon. So we'll bring it back to the Committee for Questions, comments, concerns. Yes. Senator Dahle.

Well, good to see you. Assembly Member, I just saw this Bill for the first time in the Committee. It's awesome. I think it's a great attempt to curb the illicit market, and we're trying to get the legal market going. But I was curious to what the amendment was. I don't have anything in here that talks about what the concern was by normal.

Yeah. So we've been working with them over a long period of time. We've had a great, I think, as witness said, we've had a really good relationship with working on it as we move forward. I believe sort of where we're at is that the amendment would prohibit only illegal cannabis operations. The word illegal, I am in agreement with that. The only issue is that current law has, there's a different definition of it in current law, so that would sort of change current law.

So I agree with the point of it, and we're hoping we can work through that. It's really kind of coming down to a legal definition that we want to make sure this Bill is consistent with where current law is. Does that make sense?

That's helpful. The other question I had, too was there was mention of a threshold of 750,000. Can you explain this will be available in my smaller counties. I'm correct.

It will. The idea isn't about the number of plants because right now the current status of the law talks about cultivation. So that's where sort of the number is, and that's current. What we're talking about is sort of expanding that beyond just cultivation. That's what the purpose of this is. So it's really not a numbers issue, really isn't applicable to what we're trying here to do.

It's if you're illicit and if you don't have a permit or a license, then you can have civil penalties.

Correct? Awesome.

Thank you. You bet.

That brings up the question. The amendment that is proposed by the Committee is to change the term illegal to unlicensed, and you're accepting that amendment. Okay. Very good. Senator Seyarto, did you have a question? Senator Blakespear?

Yes, I think this is a really good Bill, and I appreciate you bringing it forward. I think the issue of somehow ensnaring personal gardens and people growing it for medical use, I think that was the concern from normal that I had understood. So changing it to unlicensed still allows the personal use of people's gardens to not get caught up in.

You know, as I said to Senator Dahle, there have been a number of issues we've worked on. I'm sort of singling out one of the amendments, which I think is still the amendment we're still trying to work on. We have worked through those issues. If that is still an issue ongoing, we will work through that, because clearly, that's not what it's intended to do. I believe we have solved that issue.

Okay.

But if there's any indication that we haven't, we will.

Okay, great. Thank you.

You bet.

Any other questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none, we'll allow you to continue.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair Members, respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. It appears as if we have a quorum. If we could take the roll, that'd be terrific.

Senators. Caballero, Here. Seyarto, Here. Blakespear, Here. Dahle, Here. Durazo. Glazer, Here. Skinner. Wiener.

We do have a quorum. So I will entertain a motion on file item number nine, AB 1684. We have a motion by Senator Dahle. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Judiciary Committee.

Senators. Caballero, aye. Seyarto, aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle, aye. Durazo. Glazer, aye. Skinner. Wiener. 5 - 0

Five to zero. That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. I will entertain a motion on the consent agenda. Items. There is a motion by Senator Seyarto. That's file item number four. File item number 5 and file item number 7.

Motion is adopt a consent calendar. Senators. Caballero, aye. Seyarto, aye. Blakespear, aye. Dahle, aye. Durazo. Glazer, aye. Skinner. Wiener. 5 - 0

That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. Given that we still don't have the last remaining author, we will go through the bills that we've heard, starting with file item number two. File item number one, AB 46 by Assembly Member Ramos. There is a motion by Senator Seyarto.

Motion is due pass to the Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. [Roll call] Five to zero.

That Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent members. Moving on to file item number two, AB 516 by Assembly Member Ramos. Do I have a motion? Motion by Senator Dahle.

Motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] Five to zero.

That Bill is out. We'll place it on call for the absent Members. And then we're moving on to file item number three, which is AB 52 by Assembly Member Grayson. Do I have a motion? Is that by Senator Glazer? Please call the roll.

Motion is due pass this amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

Five to zero.

That Bill is out. Five to zero. We'll put it on call for the absent Members. And that takes us to file item number eight, which is AB 1268 by Assembly Member Irwin. Welcome.

Thank you and good afternoon, Chair and Senators. AB 1268 will allow individuals to sign up for the California Organ and Tissue Donor Registry on state income tax forms. Organ and tissue donations save thousands of lives each year. Unfortunately, California lags behind other states in donor registration. While over 20,000 individuals await a transplant. By far the most effective program is the registration method, Donate Life California. How its used is the DMV method, asking applicants for driver's licenses and identification cards to sign up for the registry.

With our need to grow the registry and the trend showing driver's license applications dipping among young people, it is appropriate to look for new methods to register donors. I am pleased to have with me as my witness Lacey Felder, program manager for Donate Life California.

Very good. Welcome.

My name is Lacey Felder, and I am honored to stand before you today as the program manager at Donate Life California. When I was 10 months old, my parents were told that I was in heart failure. I had caught a virus that attacked my heart, and a heart transplant was my only option to live. My family and I waited eight months before we got that soul-conflicting, heart-wrenching miracle of a phone call.

A 22 month old baby fell from a three story building right near here. Across from the street actually. His name was James. And he is my hero. Forever my guiding light in life. Last October, I celebrated 32 years with baby James' heart. And I live each and every day for baby James and his family. The most challenging aspect of advocating for organ donation as a transplant recipient is the fact that we look like normal people.

You can't see the hundreds of inches of scars or the gratitude for simply living. My journey hasn't been an easy one and became even harder when I was diagnosed with kidney failure in high school. I'm so lucky that my brother Tyson stepped up and donated his kidney to me in 2006. My second hero. Because of Tyson and baby James, I've been able to be the first person in my family to get a college degree. And most recently, I married the love of my life and we are now on the journey of starting a family through surrogacy.

Organ donation doesn't just save lives, it transforms them. It creates memories, experiences, and milestones that we didn't even know were possible. By passing AB 1268, you are giving hope to over 20,000 Californians waiting for a life saving organ. Currently, those 20,000 Californians represent a diverse community, with over 45% being Hispanic or Latino, 21% white, 20% Asian, and 10% African American.

Unfortunately, 6,000 people died waiting for an organ in the US in 2001, or 2021. AB 1268 aims to change that number and help increase the number of Californians saying yes to organ, eye and tissue donation. Currently, we are very proud that the relationship with the DMV has gotten the Donate Life California Donor Registry to reach over 18.6 million Californians. This is a huge accomplishment for our state, but unfortunately, it still only accounts for about half of our population.

AB 1268 will allow the registry question to get asked on an annual basis, which is something we truly feel will save lives. I've made it my life's mission to honor Baby James and my brother every single day and help give the 20,000 people waiting for an organ in California the same chance as me. By supporting AB 1268, I know the lives saved will be worth it, and it will give even more Californians the opportunity to say yes and transform more lives just like mine.

Thank you so much for this opportunity. And remember, live life to the fullest. We don't always get a second chance.

Thank you for sharing your personal story today. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in support of AB 1268? Made me tear up, I couldn't read my page. Seeing none in room 2100. Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move on to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could queue up any individuals that would like to testify either in support or in opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. I believe we are in AB 1268. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you very much. If you are in support or opposition, please press one, followed by zero. And we have no participants queuing up at this time.

Very good. Is there anybody on the Committee that would like to ask a question or make a comment? Senator Blakespear.

Well, thank you, Assembly Member for this Bill. And that was very moving testimony. Thank you for sharing your story. I was also tearing up over here. I'll move approval. Thank you.

There's a motion. Anyone else like to make any comments? Senator Dahle?

Sorry. So I'm an organ donor on my license, which is very simple process. So can you kind of just run me through how are they going to know, like, typically, you have your driver's license on you and that's something that shows the- How would they identify it?

Well, this will just be a mark on your tax forms. Basically, if you have it on your driver's license, you're good already. You're in that database.

But you're trying to get more, right?

Right. And now we're trying to get additional. And that will go into the same database.

Okay.

Other comments, questions or concerns? Seeing none, we'll allow you to conclude.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. Thank you very much for bringing this Bill forward. We have a motion. Please call the roll.

Motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] Six to zero.

The Bill is out. We'll put it on call for the absent Members.

Thank you very much.

Do you want to call the other? What do you want to wait for?

Thank you very much. So, Members, that concludes all our bills for today. I'm going to ask any Members that have not voted to please come down to the Committee so that we can wrap up the rest of the votes.

I'm trying to figure out which is the fastest way to do this. Can we call and find out how long?

Well, part of it might be the information issue. All it does is go directly from the FPV registry.

He's in Health.

We're going to go ahead and lift the call so that people don't have to sit around here and wait. So we'll start with the consent. Go ahead.

File item number four, number five, and number seven. Motion is adopt a consent calendar. [Roll Call] Seven to zero.

Those bills are out. Seven to zero. But we'll put them on call again. We'll start with file item number one, AB 46, by Assembly Member Ramos.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on Military and Veteran Affairs. Senator Durazo. Durazo Aye. Skinner.

I would like to know what the vote is before.

File item number one, AB 46. Motion is do pass of the Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. Current vote is six to zero. Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]. Six to zero.

Put that back on call. File item number two, AB 516, by Assembly Member Ramos.

Motion is to pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is five to zero. Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]. Seven to zero.

Place back on call for the absent Member. File item number three, AB 52, by Assemblymember Grayson.

Motion is to pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is five to zero. Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call].

Apologies. But for this Bill also, I would like to know.

You said it right. Yeah. It was five to zero with me voting Aye yeah sorry.

I'm sorry.

Do you want me to call it again?

I'm sorry. What is the threshold in this Committee for passage?

Five. Do you want me to do it again?

Yes. Okay.

File item number three, AB 52, by Assembly Member Grayson. Motion is to pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is five to zero. Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]. Five to zero.

We'll put that back on call. Moving on to file item number eight, AB 1268, by Assemblymember Irwin.

Motion is to pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is six to zero. Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]. Seven to zero.

We will place that back on call. And then we did Maienschein. Right?

We have to open the call on number nine.

Okay, we'll call file item number nine, AB 1684, by Assembly Member Maienschein.

Motion is do pass as amendment to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is five to zero, with Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]. Seven to zero.

Put that back on call as well. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to go through the file order one more time. We'll start with the consent agenda items, which is file item number four, file item number five, and file item number six, seven. I'm sorry.

Motion is adopted. Consent calendar. [Roll Call]. Eight to zero.

Those consent items are out and that concludes those items. We'll move back to file item number one, which is AB 46, by Assembly Member Ramos.

Motion is to pass of the Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. Current vote is six to zero, with Chair voting Aye. [Roll call]. Seven to zero.

That Bill is out, seven to zero. Moving on to file item number two, AB 516, by Assembly Member Ramos.

Motion is to pass this amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is seven to zero, with the Chair voting aye.{Roll call]. Eight to zero.

That Bill is out. Moving to file item number three, AB 52, by Assembly Member Grayson.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is five to zero, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call]. Six to zero.

That Bill is out. Moving on to file item number eight, AB 1268, by Assembly Member Irwin.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is seven to zero, with Chair voting Aye. [Roll call]. Eight to zero.

That Bill is out. And then finally, file item number nine, AB 1684, by Assembly Member Maienschein.

Motion is do pass as amendment to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is seven to zero, with Chair voting Aye. [Roll call]. Eight to zero.

Eight to zero. That Bill is out as well. That concludes the work of the Committee on Governance and Finance for today. If you wanted to give testimony but did not have an opportunity, you can still participate by contacting us at our website and sending your information in so that we can include it in the record. Thank you very much for participating, and we'll see you back next week. Bye.