Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning everyone. Welcome to this morning's Business and Professions Committee hearing, which is our first regularly. Good morning. First regularly scheduled hearing for the year. We have 15 bills on today's agenda, half of which are Phil Chen, including the following five bills on consent, AB 2269 by Vice Chair Flora thank you. Vice Chair Flora, AB 2471 by Assembly Member Jim Patterson.

Two of Assemblymember Chen's 18 bills, AB 2540 and AB 2702, and AB 2864 by Assemblymember Garcia, which is do pass as amended for each measure 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. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name position on the Bill and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website, and with that, we'll begin today's hearing. oh, Assembly Member Chen, good to see you. Thank you for having half of our Bills.

But we're not going to start with you. We're going to start with Doctor Wood. AB 1918 agenda item number two, if you're ready, sir.

Good morning and thank you Mister chair and Members. AB 1918 is a district Bill. It involves an issue I've been working on for many years to address the application of certain California Energy Commission regulations to the Trinity Public Utility District's service territory in Trinity county. We appreciate the need for this Bill. It's important to understand several unique aspects of TPUD. We'll call them. Under a federal law enacted in 1955, TPUD has a right to hydropower generated by the Trinity river division of the Central Valley project.

All the power distributed by TPUD is by this hydropower. This hydropower is 100% carbon free. No other utility in California delivers powers to its customers which is 100% carbon free. TPUD only uses about a third of the power that's generated to which it's entitled. There's no realistic scenario in which TPUD will ever need to exceed its entitlement. The power delivered by TPUD is among the least expensive in the state. It's less expensive than rooftop solar.

Trinity county is a poor county with a population of less than 15,000 people. Consequently, there's very little new construction in Trinity county. Only about three new homes are built a year, and maybe every other year we'll get a new commercial building. My Bill addresses two closely related regulatory programs that require homes and commercial buildings to be constructed with solar and battery systems.

These programs make little sense for Trinity county because TPUD already provides the cleanest power available to its customers at one of the most affordable rates in the state. This is the fundamental rationale for AB 1918. Additionally, the requirements in AB 1918 are specific to the utility district service area. In the extremely unlikely event that TPUDs power portfolio ever changed, they would no longer qualify for the exemption we're asking for.

I'd also note that TPUD has two temporary, has received two temporary three year exemptions from the California Energy Commission for these programs. The most recent exemption took approximately 240 hours of TPUD's staff time at significant cost. I have one witness today, Paul Hauser, who is the General manager of TPUD. Thank you.

Thank you very much. First witness please,

Paul Hauser. And I'd like to thank Doctor Wood for helping us with this Bill. I'm just going to give a little bit of background, then answer any questions you might have. I've been the General manager of Trinity Pud for almost 13 years. To put it in perspective, we only have 25 employees. I have about six administrative employees. So the effort it takes to go through the exemption process with the CEC for a utility our size is, is quite onerous.

And I would reiterate Doctor Wood's point that we have access to federal carbon free hydropower in perpetuity through the 1955 Trinity River Division act. In the interest of time, if there's any questions I can answer, I'd be happy to do so.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1918?

Good morning Mister chair. Members Don Gilbert, on behalf of the California Municipal Utility Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 1918?

Good morning chair and Members Kim Stone of stone advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association. We're big fans of hydro and honestly, they seem like a great utility. It's really too bad the rest of the state's utilities can't have the same clean energy generation. But one good idea doesn't mean that we should get rid of another good idea.

When California became the first state in the country to mandate solar on new homes, we did so because solar fights climate change, reduces the need for more wholesale generation and transmission lines, and readies the grid for electric vehicles, natural gas free buildings. And since the mandate became effective in January 2020, solar has become as standard in new homes as wall insulation. We should be doubling down on our commitment to rooftop solar on new homes, not going in the the other direction.

And even when utilities get their energy from clean power, as this utility does. There is a benefit to not having transmission lines not have and increased resiliency for the individual homeowner. And so we would very respectfully oppose the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 1918? See you none. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Doctor Wood, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister chair. And I just would point out this in no way prevents anybody from doing solar it. Just remember, it's a poor county that gets 100% of an energy from a carbon free source. To mandate that all new construction have solar feels punitive at best and unnecessary and so there are safeguards here. Should the power mix change, then this exemption would go away. And so I just respectfully ask for your common sense support of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Just confirming you will accept the Committee's amendments?

Absolutely.

This Bill has a support and we'll take a vote when we get a quorum. Thank you so much, Senator Lee. AB 2012.

Good morning Mister chair and Members. Thank you. I am presenting AB 2012 today. This Bill requires the Department of Public Health or an accredited California veterinary school to resume collecting specified data from public animal shelters as part of their annual rabies control activities reporting. Department collected this data from 1995 to 2016 from all animal shelters as part of their annual rabies report.

However, in 2017, the Department reduced the categories of data to exclude those they deem no longer relevant to rabies control, such as the number of dogs and cats transferred from shelters or the amount of public rabies vaccinations administered, the data is no longer available to the public. Without proper reporting, it is impossible to get an accurate picture of animals entering and exiting shelters and and their outcomes. Californians care for the welfare of shelter animals and our official state pet is the shelter pet.

With cities and counties investing approximately $378 million annually to operate state animal shelters, it's critical we have the data to properly optimize resources to best inform policy and help pets find their forever homes. AP 2012 will ensure that we have information necessary to direct funding more efficiently to shelters and make informed policy decisions. I respectfully asked for I vote today, and today I'm pleased to be joined with my witness and support, which is Nicholas Second, Director of legislative affairs with social compassion in legislation.

Thank you very much. First witness with two minutes, please. I'm going to turn your mic on.

There we go. Good morning, Chair and Members. Nicholas Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs for Social Compassion in Legislation. From 95 to 2016, CDPH collected and made publicly available all categories of data required under this Bill. While this data was for rabies control, it also gave policymakers and others an estimate of the pet overpopulation problem. In 2016, the Department report showed that we euthanized over 158,000 dogs and cats combined.

But since 2017, the Department stopped collecting this important data, making it extremely difficult to know where we are with the problem. Some of you have noticed a spike in the number of bills introduced in this Legislature to help tackle the pet overpopulation issue. We applaud the attention to the issue. Californians care about what is happening in our state's animal shelters.

With this data, this Legislature, local governments and shelter and rescue communities, and the public will have metrics to evaluate the progress, and lack thereof, in getting the overpopulation problem under control. After consultation with the Administration, we have amended this year's Bill to give CDPH the authority to contract with a California vet school to carry out the duties under this legislation. Lastly, this information would be critical in the event of a future zoonotic disease outbreak.

COVID-19 was a zoonotic disease, the implications of which we all live through understanding how many animals are entering, exiting our shelters, and under what circumstances would be helpful in any response to a disease outbreak. With that, I respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2012? Name and organization please.

Clifton Wilson with Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Meljean Lang on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, also known as Cal animals. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? DAB 2012? Seeing none. Any questions from Committee Members? Seeing none. Mister Lee, would you like to close.

For our shelter pets respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. This Bill does have a support-support. We'll take a vote when we have a quorum.

Thank you.

Next we're going to go to Assemblymember Chen presenting one of five. But we will start with AB 2107. Hold on. Turn that mic on.

Sorry, it's my mute. First time here. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. First, I want to say, I want to thank the Committee and the committee staff for allowing me to present AB 2107 and that we will be taking all the Committee amendments. The use of digital data, results and images becoming more common in the field of pathology.

For example, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration approved whole slide imaging system for primary clinical diagnosis on April 12th, 2017. WSI technology permits digitization of entire class size, thereby eliminating the need for pathology practice to be locally tethered to a conventional microscope due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the federal Department Health and Human Services Centers for Medicaid announced a policy authorizing pathologists and other laboratory personnel to review pathology slides and digital data results in images remotely.

Upon conclusion of the PHE, CMS removed the authorization for the remote review of physical slides continued to permit remote review of digital materials, including that of slides by pathologists and other laboratory personnel. However, California remains the only state that doesn't allow the remote review of digital materials.

Despite CMS's authorization, AB 2107 will bring California into conformity with federal laws by allowing pathologists lice state licensed laboratory personnel to review digital clinical laboratory data digital results in digital images at a remote location under a primary location's clinical laboratory improvement amendments certificate, as long as CLIA requirements under the code of federal regulations are met. Today, we do have witness testimony here to test. We have Doctor Zoltan Lasik, MD and Ryan Spencer representing the California Society of Pathologists.

Thank you very much. Before we go to your first witness, we're going to establish a quorum real quick.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. We have a quorum. First witness, please. Two minutes.

Good morning esteemed members of the California Committee. My name is Zoltan Laszik and I'm here today to voice my strong support for AB 2107, which seeks to permit remote viewing of digital pathology materials outside of CLIA laboratories by qualified personnel using VPN. As a pathologist, I understand the critical importance of tiny and accurate pathology diagnostics in healthcare. Pathology plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases, guiding physicians in making informed decisions for patient care.

However, the traditional methods of pathology review are often limited by geographical constraints and time consuming processes. With the advancements in technology, digital pathology offers a transformative solution by enabling remote access to digital materials, thus breaking down barriers to access and accelerating diagnostic workflows. The proposed bill to allow remote viewing of digital materials outside of a CLIA facility through VPN is a significant step forward in modernizing our healthcare infrastructure.

By allowing qualified professionals to access and analyze digital materials remotely, we can facilitate the sharing of expertise, swift second opinions, and ensure patients receive the best possible care in a timely fashion, regardless of their location. Furthermore, implementing secure VPN protocols ensures patient privacy and data security, mitigating any potential risks associated with remote viewing. By adhering to stringent regulatory standards by HIPAA at the remote location, we can confidently embrace this technological advancement while upholding the highest standards of patient care and confidentiality.

Of note, remote viewing of digital images via VPN is already a standard practice in radiology. In conclusion, I urge you to support AB 2107 and embrace the integration of digital pathology into our healthcare system. By legalizing remote viewing of digital materials outside of CLIA laboratories using VPN, we can improve diagnostic efficiency, expand access to specialized expertise, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes across the state. Thank you for your attention and commitment to advancing healthcare legislation in California.

Thank you very much. Next witness please. Two minutes.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Society of Pathologists, they are the sponsors of the measure. We simply ask for your aye vote I'm here to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2107? Name and organization please.

Hi, Kristi Foy here on behalf of the California Clinical Laboratory Association in strong support.

Thank you.

Mike Robson on behalf of Quest Diagnostics in support.

Jen Chase on behalf of The University of California, in support.

Also, the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you very much.

Perfect. Anyone else in support of AB 2107? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 2107.

Good morning, my name is Kristin Heidelbach with UFCW Western States Council testifying in regrettable opposition to AB 2100. Seven. UFCW represents thousands of clinical lab members in Southern California who would be impacted by this bill. I would like to start by sharing that we are in conversations with the sponsors and the author's office on the bill and look forward to seeing where those discussions go related to our worker and patient safety concerns.

AB 2107 is drafted as overly broaden its applicability to healthcare facilities and the personnel that would be able to remotely review digital data. The lack of safeguards in this bill, we believe, will lead to increased patient harm. If there are challenges with interpreting or reading digital laboratory data, there are no other laboratory personnel in the individual's home to assist with the interpretation or the ability for that lab personnel to rerun a test for a patient, potentially leading to delayed results or inaccurate test results.

We understand that clinical laboratories in California can experience surges or waves of tests that need to be analyzed in an urgent and timely manner, which is why we understand the need for transfer of tests between licensed facilities to assist with these workload challenges. And while we agree that timely access are vital, we regrettably are opposed to the bill in its current form. We respectfully urge your no vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2107? Name and organization, please.

Vaughn Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, bring back to the committee. Any questions from the committee? Doctor Bains.

Can you hear me now? Okay, I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I also wanted, you know, as a physician during COVID you know, increasing access to healthcare, especially in this field, is really, really important. But I do also have the concern from the opposition as well, of making sure that jobs stay here and that jobs don't get outsourced. Very, very concerned about job growth in California.

I will be supporting this bill today, but I would like to see that we make more of an effort to make sure that these jobs stay here.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, along with my colleague, would like to go on record and express my concerns as well. And I do believe that there is a commitment on your partner as an author not to speak for you. But I believe that your intention is right. But I also believe we need to make sure the conversations lead to the guardrails that protect jobs in California and that we don't see leakage through outsourcing, especially very important honeyco laboratory employees. So if you could address that in your clothes or whatever you'd like to do, that'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Committee? Assemblymember Chen, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the questions from my members. Also appreciate the conversations we've been having with opposition. Our goal and intent of this bill is not to outsource jobs out of the State of California. We want them to be retained here in the State of California. We just hope to have additional access when it comes to digital documents here in California. I believe some of the amendments that we've taken from the Committee will help alleviate some of those concerns.

But our conversations are ongoing with opposition and you have my commitment to make sure that we will make sure those concerns are addressed.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 2107. Chen the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call].

The bill's on call. We'll leave it open for absent members. Next, we're going to go to Assemblymember Haney, presenting AB 1775.

Turn your mic on, bud.

There we go. First time back in a while. Thank you, Mister chair and Members. I want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments today. I also want to extend my thanks to the staff for working with us on this issue for the past year. AB 1775 is a reintroduction of AB 374, which many of you supported last year and which received strong bipartisan support throughout the legislative process. This Bill will legalize cannabis cafes by allowing cannabis retailers to sell non-cannabis foods and non alcoholic drinks.

It also allows cannabis retailers to hold live performances at their venues. This Bill does not legalize consumption lounges. Consumption lounges currently exist through the State of California if authorized by local governments, and people are actively consuming cannabis at these lounges. However, what is currently not allowed under existing law, under a one size fits all policy, is the ability of cannabis retailers to diversify their businesses by selling food, drinks and an experience. Ironically, they can only sell cannabis and cannabis merchandise.

We believe that if we want to move away from that model and create an experience for their consumers, they should be able to. Why should we allow that? Because the cannabis industry is struggling. Issues like an oversaturation, high taxes, and a still thriving black market are hurting cannabis businesses who follow the rules and pay taxes. Cannabis cafes are a proven way to help these small businesses, and if you look around the world where it's happening, it is bringing tremendous revenue, tourism and job creation.

By authorizing cannabis retailers to use the coffee shop model, we are boosting revenue for California's small businesses. Additionally, these venues are especially important in dense urban communities, like those in my district, where many renters are prohibited from consuming cannabis in their own homes. I want to let the Committee know that we are diligently working to address the governor's veto, which focused on the impact on employees. And we are engaging with UFCW, who are here today, who represent many of these workers, on strengthening workplace protections.

Amongst other things, we are considering language that would clarify separation between food preparation and consumption lounges. And I also want to reiterate that local governments who have consumption lounges currently have the ability to put more strenuous regulations around safety and health, and that would still be the case, and we are still going to find ways to do that from the state regulation as well. Here to testify with me and support is Pam Lopez from California normal and Kristen Heidelbach from UFCW.

Thank you very much. First witness and two minutes apiece.

Yes, good morning. My name is Kristin Heidelbach. I serve as cannabis legislative advocate for UFCW western states council here in support proud to support of AB 1775. UFCW represents thousands of workers from seed to sale in the cannabis supply chain. I want to start by thanking Assembly Member Haney for this Bill and his intent to offer a potential lifeline to struggling cannabis businesses by broadening their ability to connect with California consumers.

Allowing cannabis consumption lounges the ability to prepare and serve fresh food and non-alcoholic beverages gives them the opportunity to expand their business model while also educating cannabis curious consumers. It is important to note that cannabis consumption lounges already exist, as mentioned by the Member, and legally operate in various California cities. Unfortunately, these businesses are limited in their scope and cannot serve cannabis much the way a bar serves alcohol, with the option to serve fresh food and to provide entertainment.

If a new cannabis consumer has the option to sit down in a cafe, order a cappuccino and have a conversation with a bud tender, they're not in a rush dispensary setting and they have the ability to learn more about the products and where to begin. They can ask questions and understand safe dosage. More importantly, they are able to purchase a cannabis product and enjoy it in a safe space and out of the public eye.

Consumption lounges provide a better alternative for age appropriate patrons to consume cannabis and not do so in a park or other public setting where families and children's children convene. Additionally, there is one major assumption that we are making, and that is that all cannabis consumers want to inhale cannabis. There are other options, other vehicles to consume cannabis, and that could be an edible or some other avenue. Finally, no part of this Bill shuns California labor law.

California employers have different responsibilities under Cal OSHA, California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 and title eight of the California Code of Regulations. Under current law, employers must make necessary adjustments for the safety and well being of its employees, and they are required to maintain, implement and revise, if needed, an injury and illness prevention program. Finally, AB 1775 provides us with an opportunity to strengthen these protections with additional measures such as separation of space, proper ventilation practices, and additional worker training.

UFCW is committed to working with the author so that all consumption lounge employees have the proper measures in place to work safely, and we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness please

Pamela Lopez with K Street consulting on behalf of California Normal. We are happy to be the sponsors of AB 1775. As Assembly Member Haney has already stated, existing law already allows local jurisdictions to authorize cannabis consumption lounges within their communities.

And while cannabis consumption lounges may not be the right fit for every community, for the communities that choose to authorize these lounges, they offer very important benefits, and upgrading the experience of cannabis consumption lounges to allow patrons to order a cappuccino or get a sandwich while they are there will offer very important benefits in strengthening the social fabric of the communities that choose to authorize consumption lounges.

First, many renters are not allowed to consume in their own homes, and so they need a place to go that is desirable where they can be with other patrons and be in community. Second, it's important for all Californians, including cannabis consumers, to have opportunities to pursue fellowship and friendship in public places. This is especially true after the pandemic which drove adult loneliness and isolation.

Millions of Californians are cannabis consumers, and improving the consumption lounge experience will encourage more adult consumers to go to a public place where they can meet a neighbor or make a friend. AB 1775 in this way will strengthen communities that choose to allow consumption lounges. California normal appreciates Assembly Member Haney's commitment to safety. We are working with Assembly Member Haney to conduct a literature review regarding cannabis speaking secondhand smoke, which we are happy to make available to all of the Members of this Committee upon request.

The most important takeaway from this literature review is that there are no appreciable adverse health impacts caused by cannabis secondhand smoke. In other words, cannabis secondhand smoke does not behave in the same way as tobacco or other types of secondhand smoke that we might be familiar with. This is important for non-consumers who might work or otherwise spend time in a cannabis lounge.

We hope that the Members of this Committee can support the modest step of allowing consumption lounges, which already exist, to improve the experience for their patrons by offering food and or concert venues.

Thank you very much for that. Any other witnesses in support of AB 1775?

Yes. Good morning, Mister Chairman and Members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and Spark, a San Francisco Sonoma county based retailer, and strong support.

Thank you.

Zoe Schreiber, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, in support.

Chair Members. Alicia Priego, on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, in support.

Richard Miller, on behalf of Americans for Safe Access and the American alliance for Medical Cannabis. We are patient organizations that have no financial gain in this, and we're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 1775? You come on up to the desk either way. You have two minutes apiece. I'll move the Bill.

Hello, Chair Members. I am Autumn Ogden Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network here today in opposition of AB 1775 acs can't opposes this Bill as we did previous versions, because it will undermine smoke free workplace protection laws by proliferating venues in which workers could be exposed to secondhand smoke. We have long known that breathing in secondhand smoke causes lung disease, heart disease, and cancer. Last year, the Governor vetoed this same language, citing concerns about worker safety.

At the same time, the Governor signed SB 626 by Senator Rubio, which eliminates smoking in all hotel and motel rooms because we know that there is no safe ways to keep secondhand smoke from adjoining rooms. And as previously stated, about folks who are living in housing that cannot smoke in their housing, it is for the same reason, because we cannot separate the smoke from getting into the other rooms. California has fought long and hard to protect workers and ensure a safe, healthy, smoke free work environment.

AB 1775 will undo that by recreating harmful work environments of the past. We respectfully ask for no vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Good morning, Mister Chair Members. I'm Doctor Lynn Silver, pediatrician on behalf of the Public Health Institute, also full Professor at UCSF and a Member of the Prop 64 Advisory Committee to DHCS. Smoke free air is one of our great accomplishments of the last century, preventing countless deaths from heart disease and cancer, and transforming social mores around smoking. Unlike my childhood, my children and yours grew up in smoke free environments and work safe from smoke exposure.

My first grandchild will be born in August, and I want him and your children to continue to live in a smoke free state. AB 1775 will fundamentally undermine that progress by again exposing more workers for longer periods to harmful secondhand cannabis smoke, forcing pregnant workers to choose between their baby's health and their job, and bringing back smoke filled bars and restaurants. The Governor was wise to veto this Bill last year to protect workers.

It can't be fixed through better ventilation, something the tobacco industry long tried to say, and it was never true. It will also. It's also very, very clear that cannabis smoke is not safer than tobacco smoke. Extensive research at UCSF has documented it. It may be more harmful. Just 1 minute of cannabis smoke impairs function of the heart endothelium for longer than tobacco smoke, it affects placental function, and so on, even for police working only outside of concerts with cannabis events.

One third tested positive for cannabis afterwards, and over a quarter reported symptoms after exposure. Cannabis restaurants will also increase drug driving and crashes as patrons head home and Amsterdam is pulling back on its iconic cannabis cafes. Our retailers also don't need you to bail them out by cracking one of our most important worker health protections. Active cannabis licenses increased by 41% in 2022 to 23, and the sector is not in crisis. Only 10% are equity licensees.

So 90% of the benefit will go to non equity licensees. Ending criminalization and stigma and creating legal access are positive. Going backwards on smoke free air is not. Please respect the governor's veto and protect our future generations. While we support the amendment, it is not. It does not solve the problem of secondhand smoke exposure. So we ask for your nay vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 1775? Name and organization, please.

Good morning. Jamie Morgan. On behalf of the American Heart Association in opposition, as well as the American Lung Association in California, in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to Committee. Any questions from Committee Members on AB 1775? So, Member Bains.

I will get this at 1.0. Here we are back again. Same, a couple of questions. First is this Bill was vetoed last year. What are we doing to change it? But second, and most importantly is what are we doing to address the secondhand smoke? Smoking is bad, guys. I'm really proud of California's efforts to ban indoor smoking, and we have to do everything we can to continue banning that.

And please, please do not make remarks that secondhand smoke for Marijuana is okay, because that is not true at all whatsoever.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Questions from the Committee? Seeing none. What? I was going to kick it back to him. Assembly Member Haney, would you like to close?

Yes. First of all, we are going to absolutely address the concerns that were brought forward in the veto. We're, in conversations with the Administration. We were encouraged to bring the Bill back and address this issue. I think there's not an objection to the fundamental principle of allowing for cannabis cafes.

I think what we're working on now with the employees, with their representatives, making sure we get right some of the separation that can occur, some of the health and safety requirements that we can build into the Bill. We're committed to doing that, and we communicated that and working with the staff and the chair that we're going to do that in the next Committee. So by the time you see this Bill again, when it comes to the floor, we will have done that.

We are not going to send this Bill back without addressing the employee issue. And we have here the representatives of the employees who are here in support of the Bill. And so we are fully prepared to do that. I totally appreciate and respect the point about secondhand smoke.

My belief around this is that when Prop 64 was passed, consumption lounges were built into that to be able to provide a safe place for people to go and so that they are not smoking in their cars, in their homes and other places around kids and families in other types of public places. In order for us to do that, we have to get that right on the safety front, and we are committed to doing that. Not everybody who is coming to these consumption lounges are smoking.

In fact, many of the people who are going are taking it in other types of ways. So we are going to work on getting the health and safety right for the employees before we send it back. And we're working on those amendments. And we really appreciate your aye vote today.

Roll Call

Thank you very much. We have a motion a second. Aye think we're good. Okay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll

Thank you very much. The bill's on call.

We'll leave it open for absent Members. Next up, we'll go to file item number eight, AB 2327. Senatorwoman Carrillo. I'll move the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I'd like to start by thanking your Committee staff for working so closely with my staff on this Bill, and we are accepting the Committee amendments. Today, I'm proud to present AB 2327, a Bill that would enable nonprofit organizations to continue to offer op glasses services free of charge for underprivileged populations and children across the state.

Specifically, the Bill extends a law authored by the former chair of this Committee in 2019, which established a regulatory framework for the operation of nonprofits' mobile optometric services. The law expires next year and the regulations that were supposed to be already finalized have not yet been finalized. AB 2327 will remedy this by extending the sunset that allows the Board of Optometry to finish the regulations.

This Bill is sponsored by Vision To Learn, a Los Angeles based nonprofit that provides vision screenings to students' Title 1 schools and then provides free glasses to those students who need them. To date, Vision to Learn has conducted more than 1 million vision screenings and provided 217,000 free pairs of glasses to underserved communities across the state. With me to testify in support is Damian Carroll, the National Director and Chief of Staff for Vision To Learn.

Thank you very much. Two minutes, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Damian Carroll. I'm the National Director of Vision to Learn. We are a California based charitable provider of mobile school based vision services. Since our founding in 2012, Vision To Learn has helped over 1 million California students attending Title 1 schools in thirteen counties receive vision screenings, eye exams, and glasses, all at no out of pocket costs to students or their parents.

About one in four students needs prescription glasses to see clearly at school, and this figure is higher in low income communities. Unfortunately, we find that the vast majority of our students are going without regular and sufficient vision care. While our students are screened diligently by school nurses in state mandated grades and most of them are covered by Medi-Cal, innumerable access barriers prevent them from receiving a recommended eye exam, without which they cannot be prescribed or provided glasses.

A 2018 DHHS study, a Vision To Learn program, found that approximately two thirds of Medi-Cal students provided glasses by Vision To Learn had received no vision care services in the four years preceding our intervention, and an additional 13% of students served were undocumented and at the time ineligible for Medi-Cal during that study.

So in 2019, California passed AB 896, authored by Assemblymember Low, which instructed the California Board of Optometry to adopt regulations to establish a registry for mobile optometric offices like those operated by Vision To Learn. By January 1st, 2022, mobile clinics may be operated by charitable organizations that do not accept payment from patients outside of Medicaid reimbursement. While the Board of Optometry has passed its deadline to adopt regulations, it has issued proposed regulations and is currently circulating those regulations for comment.

Vision To Learn and our colleague organizations across the state are currently engaged in the regulatory process and are eager to have our programs officially registered with the board. This Bill would extend the deadline for the board to implement its registry via regulation to January 1st, 2026 to allow the board to proceed with the current rulemaking process, and additionally, it would extend the sunset of this registry to July 1st, 2035.

Vision To Learn request your support for this legislation, which will allow our program and others to help millions of students receive the glasses they need to succeed over the next decade. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 23? I'm sorry, support 2327? Seeing none. Any opposition to AB 2327? Seeing none. Any questions from the Committee? Dr. Bains.

Assemblymember Carrillo, loved this Bill. Amazing job. I'd love to add on as a co author.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Carrillo.

I also want to thank the author for bringing this up and continuing to provide this service to the underserved communities that some of us represent, if not most of us. And I just also want to ask if you consider me being a co author. I do represent those communities, and I know that efforts are being made in the community that I represent, and I want to thank you for doing that. It is important for us to be able to provide the needs of our children in school.

Not only the fact that some of them go hungry during school hours, but there's also the fact that some of them have a hard time learning just because they're not able to see clearly what is on the blackboards or whiteboards now.

I guess the blackboards are gone. They think of the past in my time. But anyway, I just want to thank you for bringing this up and continuing the efforts of providing these services to the kids that are in need in those communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions from the Committee? Seeing none. I would also love to be added as a co author, if you'll have us. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the Members. I would encourage all the Members of the Committee to jump on this Bill. One in five children in public schools across the State of California lack the glasses that they need to see the board, read a book, and participate in classrooms. So we can throw all the money into education.

But if we don't actually understand and fix the fundamental problem that if a child does not have the glasses that they need to learn, we are not investing in the future of California, and that is simply just wrong. So with that, I'd love to of course accept all the co authors and respectfully request an aye vote. And I would just also like to thank personally- a moment of privilege- the Los Angeles Dodgers, who are a major supporter of Vision To Learn.

And hopefully, Mr. Chair, you can do something about the rest. You know what I'm saying? Thank you.

I'd like to remove my support.

Speaking of glasses, you should probably look into that. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 2327, Wendy Carrillo. The motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. We'll leave that roll open for absent members to add on. Thank you so much. Next we'll go to Senator Garcia with AB 2860.

Good morning Mister chair and colleagues. AB 2860 removes the pilot status of a program that was established in 2002 by Assembly Bill 2045, authored by the late Assemblymember Marco Antonio Firebaugh.

The program focused on ensuring that communities throughout the State of California did not go without, ensuring that Californians had doctors and dentists available in medically underserved communities. Program has proven that it has quality doctors providing services in medically underserved communities and this Bill, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, removes the pilot status for this program. Respectfully asking for your I vote we have two witnesses that will be very brief in their remarks and again, respectfully asking for your support. Thank you very much.

First witness, two minutes peace and I will move the Bill.

It does an excellent job of providing an accurate history of the physicians from Mexico initiative since its inception in 2002. The doctors are doing a fantastic job providing services to patients that historically traditionally hadn't been served, they didn't have access. AB 2860 hopefully will secure the approval of the Committee.

Many of you represent districts that have clinics that now want to bring in the physicians from Mexico, including Golden Valley Health centers, Clinica Sierra Vista, serving San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Kern and Tulare counties, the Wesley Health center, serving Lancaster, Palmdale, southeast Los Angeles County and SAC Health, serving major cities and communities in the Inland Empire and San Bernardo county. We can answer any questions as they come up. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Two minutes, please.

Good morning, chair Members. Dennis Cuevas-Romero, Vice President of the California Primary Care Association, advocates proud co sponsors of the Bill. We represent statewide Association for Community health centers and clinics representing nearly 1300 health centers. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2860? Name and organization, please.

Aaron Bone with the medical board of California. The board has a support if amended position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Medicacio Garcia, on behalf of AltaMed in support, thank you.

Antonio La Torre, on behalf of Sabatino Health foundation and strong support.

Arcade Viveros, chair of the board of Sabatino Health foundation fully support this program. It is God's gift to California.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 2860 opps? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Doctor Baines.

Great Bill. I also love to be able to jump on as a co author on this. Necessitamos mas Personas que Hablana Espanol. It's great that we have people that can speak multiple languages and cultural competency is so important, especially in underserved areas. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions from Committee, Soria?

Yeah, I just wanted to also thank the author for bringing this piece of legislation forward as someone that represents many of the counties that the, the sponsors mentioned in terms of the need of physicians. We're at the epicenter. I joined Assemblywoman Baines where in the valley we desperately need physicians to come, now. I do, though, dream of a day where we don't have to rely on these types of programs, but we're not there yet. And so I'm obviously strong supporter today, and I would love to be at it as a co author of the Bill.

Thank you very much. I just want to confirm some Member that you're accepting amendments for both 2860 as well as 2864.

Yes, we will be accepting the amendments on both. I know the other Bill is on the consent calendar, and so we will, and thank you. I welcome the two colleagues who have expressed their desire to join.

Would you like to close?

Yeah, no, just before he starts, I just want to thank the author for bringing this up. And thank you. Thank you for providing services to the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, which I represent. I think the program's shown to be very well served for those communities that you're in. But I wanted to ask about the dentist providers. Last hearing we had a BMP.

We had a discussion on the dental Association, and did you have data or something that shows that the dentists are also being part of these services in our communities? This may not be the right time to do that, but if we can have some data as to how many dentists are also serving in California. And again, the reason I bring that up is because of the last BMP here we had with the California Dental Association.

They seem not to have records of dentists that are serving our communities. So when I saw this Bill and I saw not only the physicians, but also the dentist, I was curious to hear from your perspective and if there is a way that those efforts can be increased, having more dentists serving our communities.

But again, I understand that this may not be the time to ask for the data that you may not have, but I'd like to continue that conversation to see how we can have more dentists from this program be brought to California.

Brief answer? Yeah, there is data and we can prepare that. But the data shows that there's also tremendous need to have Spanish speaking and other languages in the communities in California due to the diversity of our state, the beauty of our state, the data is there and we'll share that with you guys.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mister chair. I'll close by just saying thank you so much to the Committee staff analysis, respectfully accepting the amendments, and wanted just to, again, thank you to the colleagues that are adding on.

As authors, I wanted just to point out something very special about the Bill, the foresight of the late Assembly Member Marco Antonio Firebaugh, who was already seeing the lack of healthcare in very specific communities, you know, 20 plus years ago, he was already seeing the value of the educational opportunities on the other side of the border, looking at the issue of cultural competency in emerging population in California and a system in California that's not moving fast enough to be able to serve the medical needs.

And it's taken a while to get this program off the ground, but it's off the ground and it's proven to be effective. And we're now asking that this pilot program become an institutionalized opportunity for us to serve our communities and that we diversify. Right the program to other places where students and doctors who speak other languages can also serve the diversity of Californians who need medical services.

For me, this is a very special Bill because I was a college student following the career of Marco Firebaugh when he initiated this Bill, AB 540, and many other very important pieces of policy, and respectfully asked for I vote on this particular Bill. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this Bill forward. And I'm happy to support this Bill today, which I know is the product of more than two decades, as you've alluded to, of work by the sponsors to identify solutions to California's primary care workforce shortage by leveraging foreign trained professionals with proven track records of practicing safe, effective healthcare. There's no question that culturally and linguistically competent care is essential, particularly in farmworker communities like the ones that I represent in my district.

I appreciate the author continuing to work with all stakeholders to ensure that this program can sustainably expand and continue to serve California patients. And with that, Madam Secretary, please call. The vote

On AB 2860. Garcia. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent colleagues. Thank you to the Vice Chair for covering while I was gone. I learned that y'all are much more efficient when I'm not here. So I'll spend more time, I'll spend more time in other committees. So I see, I think, Assemblymember Low, you're up. This is AB 2148 agenda item number five.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2148. And I'd like to start off by accepting the committee amendments. This bill helps to strengthen the California Fiduciaries Bureau, and I respectfully ask for aye vote and have Jerry Desmond here to speak in support.

Thank you very much. Mr. Desmond.

Chair, Jerry Desmond with the Professional Fiduciary Association of California in support. We believe that this measure will ensure that in those situations where an entity is appointed in a fiduciary capacity as a conservator, a guardian, a representative, or a trustee, that the state licensing bureau will have jurisdiction over them and ensure that they provide services only if they're licensed as individuals.

Wonderful. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Any. Yeah, any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to add on in support or opposition to the bill? Got a motion? Second. Got a second bipartisan motion in second. That's a good sign. Don't see any other witnesses or anyone who wants to add on. Any questions? Colleagues? Nope. Nope, nope. Very straightforward, good legislation. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask.

Thank you to the author and sponsor for working with us on this bill and the amendments. I agree that it is important to clarify the role of fiduciary corporations and close loopholes that allow for unregulated practice. I know this is something that the author has been working on for many years. I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out with 12 votes. Congratulations. We'll leave the roll open for absent colleagues. And I think next up is Assemblymember Chen, who's already. This is round two. Round two. For a total of four. Four bills. 1, 2, 3, 4 bills. You're not done yet? You've got two more coming at future hearings. This is fun.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your time. And I wanted you to know that Vice Chair Flora did an incredible job supporting you while you were gone. Sir, if I may. I want to begin by expecting committee's amendments and thank them for their work on this bill. Unfortunately, a culture of non-payment has emerged in California's legal cannabis industry. This has created a whole host of issues.

Because the state's limited retail channel is the only getaway, a gateway to consumers, there has been reluctance to hold bad actors accountable. This has caused these businesses to fail. Last year alone, California experienced a 30% loss of cannabis brands in the marketplace. This will require the Department of Cannabis Control, DCC, to begin disciplinary actions against licensees who fail to pay their outstanding invoices. Cannabis credit law is a necessary change to professionalize the industry, stabilize the market, and restore confidence in California's legal industry.

Here to testify today, we have Caren Woodson, Kiva, one of the sponsors of this piece of legislation, and also Aaron McCarrick. Thank you so much.

Great. Ready when you are. I think you might need to hit the mic.

There we go.

Beautiful.

Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you, Assemblyman Chen, for the leadership that brings us here today. My name is Caren Woodson for Kiva Brands. I'm also here on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association and the California Cannabis Industry Association to urge your aye vote. The cannabis industry, like all others, relies on the timely flow of cash to sustain operations and foster growth.

Unfortunately, limited access to banking services, coupled with fewer than 1000 retail channels, has fostered a pervasive culture of non-payment, which threatens the stability of the supply chain. The result has created real challenges for businesses, resulting in financial instability and business closures. As mentioned, California experienced a 30% loss in brands in the marketplace, including the state's largest distributor and three national brands. In fact, cannabis licensees are increasingly listed on the CDTFA's list of top 500 sales and use tax delinquencies.

If they fail to pay their taxes, they're almost certainly not paying their vendors on time, if they pay at all. Trade credit law is a tool used by other industries and in other states when non-payment threatens market stability, and more importantly, government revenues. State law requires state contractors. State law requires contractors to pay subcontractors within 10 days, and failure to pay is cause for disciplinary action by the contractor State Licensing Board. State law enacts credit law for beer, wine, and spirits.

In fact, every state regulates credit between alcohol suppliers and retailers. And other states that regulate cannabis have begun to enforce the terms of sale among licensees. On March 25, the New York Office of Cannabis Management unveiled a robust delinquent payer reporting system to ensure that payments occur within 30 days. This bill ensures that suppliers are paid in accordance with the terms of an invoice.

Without a consistent supply of cash, the process breaks down and the healthy cycle of commerce stops absent credit, credit terms and payment collection become the focus of these relationships. 2888 is needed to stabilize and enforce timely payments of invoices. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Committee Chair. Thank you so much for having me here. My name is Erin McCarrick. I live in Clear Lake, California, and own and operate a small distribution, owned and operated a small distribution company in Lake County just around the corner. So we are greatly affected by the non-payment of retailers. Thank you, Assemblymember Chen, for introducing this bill. I urge the full support of the committee for this.

Since we launched, our mission has been to support the small farms, small to medium farms in Lake County, 10,000 sqft an acre or less, get their brands to market in packaged product. We launched in 2019 at the Emerald Cup and ever since then have been chasing retailers. And yes, everybody chases retailers, but we have no recourse.

For example, the most recent bill that we had that is still outstanding, and our bills are 10,000 people, 20,000, 40,000, which might not seem like a lot, but for us, our margins are very small. In order to ensure the farms get their fair payment for what they did all year, that's what they got. They did one crop, that's what they're going to get. So we keep our margins small.

Learning from lessons in the past, we requested a COD for the first payment with this retailer, got the COD okay. Felt like we built a level of trust there, had the next invoice, and that was a small, you know, a couple $1000, did a $15,000 invoice with them, and that was August. And in November, I reached out to the DCC, I reported their license. That's the only recourse that we have, is to report their license on the website.

And I got a response and I said, oh, thank goodness, something, because I'd already texted, emailed, threatened legal action, but we're so small, we don't really have that capability. So I got a response from the DCC and I submitted all the paperwork that I'd done, all my records, invoices, metric. It had been logged in through the metric track and trace with how much we had agreed upon, the agreed upon text messages, emails, and then the person replied back and said, get a lawyer. Okay, thanks.

This person should not have their license. This retailer should not have a license if they're not paying their vendors and I'm not able to pay the farms I had. This gives me a glimmer of hope. That I can call the farms and say, payment's on its way. You guys are getting paid for this year's work, so I very much urge your support of that. Those are all the things I wanted to get across.

That's perfect. Two minutes.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me.

Thank you for being here. I appreciate that. Any additional folks want to add on or in support of the bill? Any add-ons and support?

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of SPARC retail dispensary in San Francisco and Sonoma County, in very strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Richard Miller. As an employee by cannabis company, I've been directly affected by this when companies do not pay their bills.

I apologize. Sir, if you just provide your name position on the bill.

Support for this bill. Protect the employees.

Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

Sara Noceto, on behalf of Origins Council. We're a little bit of a tweener, mostly in supporting the concept of the bill. We are seeking some amendments, as was detailed in the letters sent to the committee. Continue working with the author and the sponsors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Jason Bryant, on behalf of the Cannabis Distribution Association. We're in support of the bill.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill in the room today? Seeing none. And he got a motion, got a second. I'm going to bring it back to colleagues for questions and comments. Before I do, just want to confirm, Assemblymember, that you accept the amendments.

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Beautiful, thank you. Any questions, comments from colleagues? Got a motion, got a second. Assemblymember, would you like to close? That's my favorite close. I'd like to thank the author and stakeholders for working with us on this bill and accepting the amendments which are consistent with the prior version of the bill. And with that, I'm happy to support the bill again. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

Great, that bill is out with 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent colleagues. I see. Speaker emeritus Rendon, sir, with AB 2202, agenda item number six. Ready when you are. Yes please, wherever we are.

I haven't done this in a while, so I wasn't sure if this was the first time. Just vote yes if you want. I don't have any problems here. Best presentation. Yeah, exactly. Good morning, chair. That's you, committee members. All right. I'm oriented. I'm here today to present. AB 2202.

AB 2202 would require that short term vacation rentals disclose any requested cleaning requirements they have to consumers before they book. It would also require that any fees or penalties consumers might incur for not completing these tasks be disclosed in advance. This legislation builds on the important work of the chair to create more transparency for California's guests at short term vacation rentals. While California has required that any taxes or fees consumers must pay be outlined during the booking processes.

Cleaning tasks, meaning the cleaning chores short term vacation rental owners ask guests to do before they leave remain unregulated. These requested cleaning duties, which may include stripping sheets, starting laundry or vacuuming, can be onerous and unexpected for guests. And my sister in law and I can tell you a story about Tahoe this past summer. These duties are also often on top of substantial cleaning fees consumers pay to stay at these properties.

Californians deserve more clarity about what they are being asked to do during their stay of short term vacation rentals. They should also be aware of what penalties they might face if they are unable to complete these tasks, including facing a drop in their guest rating. Here to speak on behalf of this bill is Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California.

Thank you very much, Mr Herrell. And before, I think we had a motion in a second.

Was it Assemblymember Grayson with the motion who had the second and Phillip Chen with the second? Great. Please.

I shall truncate my testimony appropriately, Mister Chairman and Members, thank you very much. Robert Herrell, I'm the executive director of the Consumer Federation in California. We've been working for a number of years, as you know, on junk and hidden fees. And this is a situation where, as the author has indicated, people are essentially having to double pay.

They're paying in some cases at some Airbnbs, a really sizable cleaning fee, in some cases more than one or multiple nights. Then they're also being given a task list to actually clean the unit in some ways in what feels like a very professional manner. So not only are you paying to clean, but you're doing the cleaning yourself. So it's not appropriate, as Mister chair knows from his efforts last year that we worked with him closely on. People should know upfront what they're getting into.

They should know what they're going to pay. They should know what their obligations are, and this is a continuing step in that direction. We urge your aye vote.

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

Good morning, chair and Members Melissa Werner, on behalf of the Expedia group with a support, if amended, position on the bill. We appreciate the intent of the bill and are generally supportive of the proposed policy regarding the display of any excessive cleaning tasks that are required before checkout. Having said that, we have had some positive conversations with the author's office last week, have raised some concerns that we hope to continue working on over the next few weeks to emphasize the traveler relationship with the STR host. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments to the bill. Seeing none. Speaker Assemblymember Rendon, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

That's close.

Thank you for bringing forward this bill. I'm sure most of us here today have experienced the frustration of having a laundry list of chores to do the last day of a vacation at a short term rental property. And frankly, I think a lot of the cleaning fees that are charged are really just going for profit for. For the owners of the units. And then it's insult to injury when you have to spend the last hours of your vacation cleaning.

That's a brutal way to end a vacation. Happy to support this bill today. Would love to be added on as a co author as well. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the vote.

On AB 2202. Rendon, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

I think you did better than I did with my bow last year. That bill's out with 10 votes. Thank you. We'll leave the role open for absent colleagues. Let's do. Is housekeeping the consent calendar? Let's do the consent calendar. Do I have a motion a second for the consent calendar. Got a motion. Got a second. Can the secretary. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on the consent calendar?

On the consent calendar. File item seven, AB 2269 Flora, file item nine, AB 2471 Jim Patterson and file item 10, AB 2540 Chen, are do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. File item 11, AB 2702 Chen is do pass to the Committee on Higher Education and file item 13, AB 2864 Garcia is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Consent calendar is out with 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent colleagues. So let's quickly just go to AB. Go back to agenda item number four, AB 2107. Earlier in our excitement to get through one of Assembly Member Chen's four bills, we failed to confirm a motion and second for the prior vote. So we're gonna strike that prior vote and start over. Can I get a motion and second on AB 2107? Got a motion in a second.

Madam Secretary, please call the vote on AB 2107.

AB 2107 Chen the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is on call. And a quick public safety announcement. Not a public safety announcement. It's more of a public service announcement. If you work for Assemblymember Mckinnor, please go find your boss. We've got one more bill presentation and we're saving the best for last, which is agenda item 153063. So if you work for assemblymember Mckinnor, track them down. In the meantime, we're going to go back through some of the other bills so that folks who missed them can add on.

Should we just start at the top? So let's start at the top and just run through the list, Madam Secretary.

AB 1775 Haney the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Governmental Organization. [Roll Call]

Okay, so that bill is out with enough votes. How many votes with 11 votes? I need a motion in a second for AB 1918 by Doctor Wood. Got a motion in a second and a couple. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 1918 Wood. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations.[Roll Call]

That bills out with 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open. Rob's and colleagues, we need a motion in a second for AB 2012 by Assemblymember Lee. Got a motion, got a second. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary please call a vote.

On AB 2012 Lee the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out with 10 votes. Leave the roll open for absent colleagues. We did 2107. We did 2148. Oh, no. Yeah. We did 2148. I don't know if we should join. What's that? Yeah, why don't we run through it? Oh, the ones who. Okay, then let's just keep moving. The Carrillo Bill.

On AB 2327 Wendy Carrillo. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bills out with 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Correct. So I think 2860.

On AB 2860 Alanis? Alanis Aye.

Do we have any.

AB 2888 Chen. Alanis? Alanis aye. On the consent calendar Alanis? Alanis aye. On AB 1775 Haney. Alanis? Alanis aye. On AB 1918 Wood. Alanis? Alanis aye. On AB 2012 Lee. Alanis? Alanis aye. On AB 2107 Chen. Alanis? Alanis aye. On AB 2148 Low. Alanis? Alanis aye. On AB 2202 Rendon. Alanis? Alanis aye.

[Roll call].

Assemblymember Mckinnor, please present Agenda Item 15, AB 3063.

Good morning. I was going to say good afternoon, but we haven't gotten there yet.

Not yet.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee, I am here to present AB 3063 which will clarify the addition of flavoring agent to enhance the taste of a prescription does not constitute compounding. This Bill was unanimously supported last year in this Committee and was vetoed by the Governor. As a result, on November 1, 2023, the number of pharmacies providing flavoring dropped from 3100 roughly to 30 total, a whopping 99.5% reduction in access to service. Literally overnight.

This measure will affirm existing standards and practices at pharmacies across California, bringing the practice of flavoring back to independent and retail pharmacies, thereby making it easier for parents, children, and those with developmental disabilities to have access to medicine they will actually take. This measure is critical to ensure public health and reflects an urgency clause. Further, the provision of the Bill will sunset in 2030. We are in talks with the Governor's Office and hope to come to a solution soon. With me here today is Sarah Bridge, representing ACHD.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, here in proud support of AB 3063. ACHD represents the 77 healthcare districts throughout the state which provide essential services. They are public entities that operate a wide range of healthcare services, including operating hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, clinics, and pharmacies. I want to start by thanking the author for her leadership in this space.

AB 3063 makes necessary clarifications that flavoring agents used to enhance the palatability of prescriptions do not constitute compounding. Thousands of pharmacies across California, as the Assemblymember has already mentioned, have already ceased flavoring children's medications in anticipation of the Board of Pharmacies' regulations on compounding. Without this clarification, this unfortunate practice will continue. The goal of the Bill is simple and necessary: Protect the ability to flavor medications and make it easier for parents and children, folks with developmental disabilities, to access palatable medications that they are more likely to consume. We know that if medications go untaken, conditions can seriously worsen and additional medical care may arise. There is simply no reason that California should make it more difficult for children to take medicines when we don't have to.

There is no evidence of harm to a child as a result of flavoring, and the overwhelming majority of states allow a full or limited exemption for flavoring and laws governing pharmacy compounding. AB 3063 simply affirms existing industry standards and safeguards against the ambiguity and regulations that may threaten this standard practice. It is for these reasons that ACHD is in support of the measure and strongly and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Community Pharmacy Coalition, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Erin Norwood, representing FLAVORx in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Katie Layton, on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds. Doctor Bains.

Assemblymember McKinnor, great Bill. Love to join on as a co-author for this Bill. Thank you for bringing, it's really important, speaking especially as a physician, that our kids take their medication. Amoxicillin comes in a bubblegum flavor, and I know that because the kids come in and ask for the bubble gum-flavored medication. So it's really important that we strive to make sure that it's kid-friendly for our kids because medication is gross. And what do they say? A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down?

Doctor Bains, can I take that as a motion? Got a motion. We'll get a second from Lowenthal, a third from Soria. Assemblymember Alanis.

They already took my thunder. I was gonna have the Mary Poppins, and I was gonna motion it, too, so, okay. Thank you.

Apparently Doctor Eggman sang it on the Senate floor last year, so maybe we'll do that on the Assembly floor this year. I really don't know if there's anything to say after that. Anybody want to try? No? Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Just a spoonful of sugar, helps the medicine go down. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

There it is. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the author singing in the hearing. It's a good way to end it. And I appreciate the author renewing her efforts on this issue. We all support access to flavored medication for children and other vulnerable patients. Last year, I did express a concern that the Bill's kind of late amendments made it difficult to work out issues with the Board's opposition. You should recognize that the Board, the California State Board of Pharmacy, is opposed.

And while I know it's always unfortunate to get a Bill vetoed, there is now at least an opportunity to work with stakeholders on resolving some of these outstanding concerns. Appreciate your openness to doing that. And so with that, I know the author is committed to working out the concerns raised by the Board and reflecting the Governor's veto, and I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 3063 Mckinnor, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill is out with 14 votes. We'll leave it open for absent colleagues and we will try to run through.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, everybody. The hearings adjourned.