Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

All right, we are going to call the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development meeting to order for Monday, July 14th. And we do have a long agenda today. We have about 16, 17 items, I think. Something like that.

File item number eight, which is AB 967, and file item 16, AB 1307, have both been pulled from today's agenda. So, if you are here for file item 8, 967, or 16, which is 1307, those items, again, have been pulled.

When we get enough members here to establish a quorum, I will stop us, even if it's mid presentation, so that we can establish that quorum. But for now, my colleague from Sacramento and I will serve as a Subcommittee of ourselves. You can guess who lives closest to the building. It's us.

And therefore, we will go ahead and get started. We do have an author here who, kudos to him, does not live close to the building. Mr. Zbur, would you like to present? Come on forward.

I'm sorry, we don't quite have a quorum yet, but we can hear both bills and then take a action a little bit later when we get a quorum. Let's start with file item one, AB 309.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, Member. I am proud today to present AB 309, which will support California's comprehensive strategy to prevent the spread of HIV and viral hepatitis by preserving existing laws that increase access to sterile syringes.

After decreasing for about 30 years, HIV diagnoses began increasing again in 2021 and 2022, with Black and Latino men seeing the highest increases in diagnoses. The sharing of used syringes remains the most common mode of transmission of hepatitis B and hepatitis C and the second most common mode of HIV transmission.

These diseases are both potentially deadly and extremely costly for health care. The estimated lifetime medical costs related to HIV treatment for just one person is $326,500. After 20 years, extensive research and data collection has repeatedly proven that increased access to sterile syringes significantly lowers rates of transmission and saves lives, without increasing rates of drug use.

AB 309 will ensure that our state maintains critical public health tools, removing the sunset date on the statute which allows pharmacists to sell sterile syringes without requiring a prescription and removing the sunset on the statute, which clarifies that it is not a crime to possess sterile syringes and hypodermic needles for personal use.

In doing so, this Bill will reaffirm California's commitment to research driven and effective HIV and hepatitis prevention and ensure that Californians continue to have access to sterile syringes.

With me to testify in support of the Bill today is Michelle Rivas, on behalf of the California Pharmacists Association, and Laura Thomas, on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.

Thank you. Good morning. The California Pharmacists Association is proud to serve as a co-sponsor of AB 309 and appreciates the opportunity to speak to you today.

AB 309 removes the sunset on a vital public health provision, allowing pharmacists to continue providing nonprescription access to syringes, an important tool not only for disease prevention, but also for ensuring patients adhere to prescribed medication regimens.

Pharmacists play a critical role in supporting adherence by ensuring patients have access to the tools they need to administer medications such as insulin and hormone therapies. This is especially important for patients relying on mail order pharmacies who may be left without syringes or for those traveling from out of state.

Without access to syringes, patients may delay or miss doses leading to poor health outcomes. Allowing pharmacists to provide syringes without a prescription ensures that patients stay on track with their therapy.

In addition, this Bill continues to support safe syringe access as a public health measure to prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis B and C. Pharmacists also offer guidance on syringe disposal and access to drug treatment and testing services. This is not only sound public health policy, but also fiscally prudent.

For example, the cost of treating hepatitis c is approximately $20,000 without treatment for resistant variants reaching up to $100,000. AB 309 is a commonsense measure that supports treatment adherence, protects public health, and leverages pharmacists as trusted and accessible healthcare providers. We respectfully ask for your support.

Great. Thank you. Go right ahead.

Thank you, Senators. My name is Laura Thomas, and I am the Senior Director of HIV and Harm Reduction Policy at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. We are proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, as we were for the previous iterations of this policy.

And the San Francisco AIDS Foundation is co-sponsoring this because these programs, nonprescription syringe sales, are a core component of our highly effective HIV prevention response here in California. California has much to be proud of in our efforts to reduce new HIV transmissions.

And one of the reasons that we have done as well as we have is because of exactly these kinds of programs. They were cutting edge 30 years ago when California first started providing these services, authorizing these services.

Now, they are a matter of settled public health evidence and research and this Bill, as you know, merely lifts the sunset on our current practice. What we know from extensive public health research is that these types of syringe access programs do not increase syringe litter.

In fact, they often provide people with a way to dispose of their syringes, use syringes safely, that they decrease syringe sharing, which is a key driver of HIV and viral hepatitis transmission. They do not increase use of substances or sales of substances. And in fact, they are often route into drug treatment and into recovery for people.

And we see that in our own program, where we were able to refer people successfully into treatment because they come in for syringes. Just another note is, you know, pharmacies are often the most accessible healthcare provider, particularly in rural areas. And so, in parts of the...

Thank you. We just need to ask you to give us your final sentence there.

Thank you. And we ask that you support this Bill. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. Others in the room in support of AB 309, please come forward with your Me Too testimony. This will just be your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Good morning. Glenn Baccus for Drug Policy Alliance, proud co-sponsor, and ACLU and Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the County of Santa Clara, in support. Thank you.

Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Anne Sodergren, on behalf of the California State Board of Pharmacy, in support.

Kathy Mossberg, on behalf of APLA Health, in support.

Good morning. Craig Pulsar, on behalf of Equality California, in strong support.

Chair and Members, Jai Aldentez ,with Full Mooney Strategies, with—on behalf of—Alameda County, in support.

Good morning. Symphony Barbee, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in strong support.

Farrah McDadeting, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California, in support.

Isabella Argueda, with the Health Officers Association of California. We're a proud co-sponsor.

Shana England, with the California Community Foundation, in strong support.

All right, anybody else in the room in support of AB 309 who wanted to add their name to the list or organization to the list? Great. Then do we have lead opposition to AB 309? Anyone in the room in opposition? We have anybody in the room who'd like to just do me too testimony in opposition? Seeing no one.

We will come back to the dais. Colleagues? Would you like an opportunity to close? We are still one short of a quorum, so you can close now and then we will bring it up as soon as we get one more member.

I think I'd just like to close by saying that, you know, people who have access to syringe exchange programs are five times more likely to enter drug treatment, and they're also three times more likely to stop using drugs than those who don't use programs.

Additionally, there have been over 200 studies, including a study from the California Department of Public Health, that found that increased access to sterile syringes reduce rates of needle sharing and disease transmission without increasing rates of drug use, crime, or unsafe disposal of syringes. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. At the appropriate time, we will take it up for a vote. Thank you so much to your witnesses. Thank you, Assemblymember, for being here. Thank you to the other witnesses in the room for being succinct. We have one more Assemblymember Zbur bill. This is file item two, AB 478.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'll start by accepting the Committee's amendments and expressing my gratitude for the Committee's guidance in refining this bill. Today, I'm proud to present AB478, a bill that is rooted in compassion, common sense and real experience. When disaster strikes, no one should have to choose between their own safety and their pet's survival.

This Bill will ensure that pets are accounted for during emergencies and and that cities and counties develop clear procedures in advance to support pet owners during evacuations. This Bill was inspired by Oreo, a Pomeranian who went missing during the Palisades fire and survived for five days in the debris before being reunited with his owner.

During disasters, pets may be separated from their owners due to a variety of reasons, including owners not being home at the time of an evacuation order, lack of equipment, or difficulty in capturing the animal. While animals are legally categorized as property, most people view them as Members of their family and as such, are determined to save them.

While we have seen incredible examples of fire and safety officials working alongside the public to rescue pets, as well as extraordinary efforts of local animal shelters and rescuers, we owe it to our pet owners across California to ensure that a plan is in place before disaster strikes.

Upon the next update of a city or county's emergency plan, this Bill would require the jurisdiction to include procedures for rescuing pets in mandatory evacuation zones. Within that requirement, jurisdictions have flexibility to determine what procedures would be most relevant, safe and efficient for their unique circumstances and that are flexible under various emergency situations.

This Bill also requires clear online resources on pet evacuation and reunification, as well as a list of pets that have been rescued and provides time and dignity for both animals and their owners by extending the time owners will have to reclaim their rescued pets before they are adopted out, transferred or euthanized, while allowing flexibility to account.

By allowing flexibility for shelter capacity, AB478 will help to ensure that clear pet rescue procedures are in place prior to a disaster so that rescues are conducted efficiently. And it will disincentivize pet owners from endangering themselves by attempting unauthorized rescues. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me to testify in support of this bill is Nick Sackett, on behalf of Social Compassion and Legislation, sponsor of the bill.

He spends a lot of time in this room with us. Yeah, fun.

I do.

BPED your favorite. That's. This is your favorite Committee. Absolute favorite. Got it. All right.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Chair Members. Nicholas Sackett, Director for Proud sponsor of Social Compassion and Legislation as cited in the analysis, a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that the risk of evacuation failure increases with the number of dogs and cats in a household.

2021 survey showed that 80% of individuals who return prematurely to evacuation zones do so to rescue pets. During the LA fires, we saw residents and rescue groups gain access to the evacuated area, sometimes without proper authorization, because there was no plan nor entity designated to help with animal rescue.

Not only could this put those individuals and first responders in danger, but it also took additional time away from local officials who had to field emotional and desperate pleas for help from their constituents. We must do better. Families love their animals and are naturally going to be panicked to save them during an evacuation.

This Bill mitigates that by strengthening evacuation protocols and designating an entity that rescues can go to for help. As Mayor Lana Negretti of Santa Monica testified in the Assembly emergency management hearing, what that plan looks like, who implements it, those are choices that each jurisdiction will have to make on its own.

This Bill can't dictate that kind of granular detail. AB478 is explicit in that whatever the local plan and procedures are, they are carried out under the chain of command of the incident commander. This Bill also is explicit that it does not authorize the access to the evacuation zone outside of the local plan and procedures.

19 years ago, Congress passed the Pets Act.

Okay, we need you to give us a final thought there.

Yep. Just want to say that the PETS act authorizes federal and state funds to reimburse these kinds of activities. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Anyone else in the room? In support. Port of AB 478, please come forward. Name organization, position on the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members. Karen Lange on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association in full support with the amendments. Want to thank your Committee staff and your staff for working with us to get us this place. Thank you so much.

Lisa Kirk, representing Lap Caps, Laylas, Animal Rescue and Paw Protectors. Thank you.

In support?

Yeah, got it.

Support.

Julie Virga, with Fix Our Shelters Coalition. Representing over 50 rescues and advocates across the state. Strongly support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, Sosin Madden here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund and strong Support.

Hi. Jamie McDowell, on behalf of Sustain Our Shelters, Kitten Rescue 101 Elevation Animal Rescue and Loves Legacy Rescue and support.

Elena Gaffney, on behalf of Animal Rescues for Change and 50 animal rescues in California. Support.

Valentina Martinchic, on behalf of Angel for Reference Rescue. Support.

Estella Drake, and I support this bill on behalf of Lucky Pup Rescue. You.

Thank you for being here. Okay, is there. Is that everyone in support of AB478 in the room? Then we'll move to opposition. Is there lead opposition for AB478? Seeing no one. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to do #MeToo? Opposition testimony? Seeing none. I'll come back to the dais. No comments.

Move the bill when appropriate.

Okay. When appropriate. You have a motion. Would you like an opportunity to close? We're still waiting on one Member for a quorum Assembly Member, but if you'd like an opportunity to close, happy to hear it.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. I guess one thing I'll say is that a lot of folks view this as an animal protection Bill, and it is that. But it's also about protecting Members of the public who actually become desperate at times and go into these evacuation areas and endanger their own and their family's health.

And so this requires the planning up front to make sure that. That everything is in place when these disasters strike to protect both their animals and Members of the public. So with that, I ask for your Aye vote.

All right. Thank you so much. Thank you to you and to your witness. Thank you for being here. We will leave those both for when we get a quorum and then we will take a vote at the appropriate moment. And I know we have two authors in the audience with us, but I told you struck a deal.

Is that correct? All right, Ms. Quirk Silva, you're going to get us started here. We're big fans of Rochambeau in this Committee, the Members waiting. All right, so this IS file item 9 AB782 by Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva. When you are ready, ma', am, go.

Ahead and yes, starting with a shout out to my collegial colleague there who allowed me to go ahead of him. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'd like to begin by thanking your Committee consultant for working with our office and sponsors on this Bill and and I accept the Committee amendments today.

I present AB 782, which removes burdensome and costly double bonding requirements imposed by some local governments on developers for private improvements. A bond is a type of surety used in construction projects to protect against financial loss if a contractor fails to complete a project or meet the required standards.

Some local governments improperly require developers to bond for private improvements such as streets, sidewalks, lighting and landscaping in addition to the bonds already required for public improvements. This double bonding increases costs and creates administrative hurdles. The Subdivision Map act should clearly state that private improvements are not subject to bonding requirements under the subdivision improvement agreements.

Sias with public entities, Private improvements are typically bonded through the California Department of Real Estate at the time a public report is issued. This ensures that the developer has adequate financial assurance to complete the private work without needing local governments to be involved. However, some jurisdictions refuse to issue Sias unless developers also bond for private improvements.

This practice creates financial and administrative problems, especially on large multi phase projects where bonding costs can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. Local jurisdictions cannot legally access these bonds to fund improvement. Despite requiring developers to post these bonds, cities have no legal right to use the funds.

In effect, local governments demand financial guarantees that they never can use. Courts have ruled that local governments cannot impose requirements that state does not explicitly mandate. However, some cities exploit loopholes and development permits to enforce double bonding. AB782 will assist in streamlining housing development projects by decreasing costs and remove administrative hurdles.

With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any questions from the Committee is Mr. Silvio Ferrari with the California Building Industry Association and who are sponsors of AB782.

Good morning Madam Chair Members. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association proud sponsors this Bill today. As the author said and alluded to, performance security bonds are critical, critical tools for both local governments and HOAs to have to ensure that what builders say they are going to provide to a community, they actually provide.

You guys have seen through up markets and down markets that things happen and sometimes those performance securities are there as needed tools to make sure again those promises are upheld. We have seen over the last couple years in certain areas that we are now actually having to provide double bonding.

So bonds from both local agencies as well as the dream, and it is driving up costs. And at the end of the day, that double bonding is unnecessary as long as it is sufficient and it can be provided to cover what is needed. We should only be providing it once.

So this is a good housing cost tool to keep those expensive long bonds down from a pricing standpoint. So, again, appreciate the Committee, appreciate the work and would just urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Are there others in the room in support of AB782? If so, please come to the mic and share your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of California UNB and Abundant Housing Los Angeles, in support. Great.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis in support. Thank you.

Great. We're going to stop for a moment and establish a quorum and then we'll come back for opposition.

[Roll Call]

Great. Is there anyone in the room in opposition to the bell? If so, please come forward. We have lead opposition for 782. Seeing no one. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to just do me too testimony or. Okay, great. Then we'll come back to the dais, take a motion.

Madam Chair, being a real estate broker, I know firsthand the public report is the protection for the consumer and the hurdles that these builders and developers were asking to join in and bring us housing and so on. These additional costs are unnecessary.

The public report issued by the Department of Real Estate takes under account their background, finances and everything else. So with that, I will move the vote or move the Bill.

All right. You have a. You have a motion. Sorry, I lost track of one Member there for a second. Okay, we have a motion and we'll go ahead. And do you want to have an opportunity to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much.

We'll call the roll. Motion is do pass as amended, to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call] Thank you. Thank you.

I'm going to move it on call for the other Members. Thank you so much. Assemblywoman, as the Assemblymember comes up, would you like to. Mr. Archuleta, would you like to renew your motion on file item two? Mr. Zbur, AB478. And we can call the roll?

Yes, ma'am.

All right, so moved this file item 2 by Zbur. 478. This is the accessibility to emergency information services evacuation.

[Roll call]

Great. All right. Thank you, Assemblymember. Thanks for waiting for us. We're going to move here to your file item, which is file item 5, AB667 on professions and vocations, when you are ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, today I'm Proud to present AB667. In partnership with the California Immigrant Policy Center, Immigrants Rising and the Economic Mobility for All coalition. AB 667 would allow applicants to certain business licenses administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs.

The option to use an interpreter to translate license exams that are not offered in the applicant's preferred language. This Bill codifies an accommodation already offered by some boards, while expanding the access to others. Importantly, it upholds the existing integrity of boards and their exams.

The goal of this Bill is to improve economic access to Californians with limited English proficiency and and to help them pursue careers in fields they already qualified for. This would directly benefit all our communities. A professional license can also open doors to people to gain more employment, education and professional development.

This Bill will help Californians earn a living capable of supporting themselves and their loved ones and will also increase the quality of services provided to communities. By creating a linguistic and culturally competent workforce, AB667 will lead to greater economic equity. With me representing Immigrants Rising is Denea Joseph and as well as impacted speaker, Liv Manolo.

Thank you. You each will have two minutes. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair Ashby and Members of the Committee. My name is Denea Joseph and I am here on behalf of Immigrants Rising, a proud co sponsor of AB667. California is home to millions of residents who speak a language other than English.

Yet far too many struggle to access critical services, whether it's education or social services. Because of a lack of multilingual professionals from families struggling to navigate essential resources. The need for a linguistically diverse workforce has never been more urgent.

Yet many highly skilled, experienced and educated immigrants are unable to obtain professional licenses simply due to language barriers forcing them to work outside of their fields or remain underemployed. AB 667 removes these unnecessary barriers, allowing more qualified multilingual professionals to serve their communities or business in social services and beyond.

This Bill is about economic mobility and equitable access to services and opportunity. It ensures that language is not a barrier to career advancement or to Californians receiving the care, services and support that they need. We urge your support for AB 667 to build a stronger, more inclusive workforce that reflects and serves our state's diversity. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Go right ahead.

Hello everyone and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here today to advocate for the fairness to opportunities for immigrants who aspire to build successful businesses and careers and their trades and vocations. In my line of work, I have the privilege of interacting with immigrants from a wide range of professions.

Landscaping, roofing, construction, plumbing, you name it. What stands out to me the most? What stands out to me is how many immigrants I meet are some of the most skilled and dedicated workers in their fields.

I often ask them why they don't consider going into business for themselves, cutting out the middlemen and ultimately earning more for their labor. What I consistently hear is not a lack of confidence in their skill skills, their ability to attract clients, or even the right tools and materials to do their work.

The common thread is the hesitation in taking the proper examinations to get their license. As we all know, vocations and trades are some of the most vital sectors in our state. It contributes to our economy, provides jobs, and supports infrastructure development that benefits every community.

However, for many immigrants who make up a large portion of the workforce, the dream of becoming a licensed contractor can be obstructed by one significant barrier, the language barrier. For many non English speakers, the exam itself can be an overwhelming challenge.

The technical language and industry specific terminology using in the exam are not only difficult for people who are not fluent in English, but they can also prevent skilled, qualified individuals from accessing the license process, the licensing process that they deserve. Providing interpreters during the exam is not just about fairness.

It's about about ensuring that the individuals who have the skills and experience to succeed are given the tools they need to prove it. By granting access to introverters, we're not only upholding the values of inclusivity and equality, but we're also helping skilled workers continue to contribute to our economy and our communities.

Many immigrants have worked hard to gain expertise in the construction and other trades and vocations industries. And their knowledge should be the deciding factor in their ability to. Their ability to pass the exam, not their proficiency in English. By allowing access to interpreters, we level the playing field, giving every immigrant contractor a fair chance to showcase their expertise.

Okay, thank you so much for your testimony, both of you. Appreciate it. Are there others in the room in support of AB667? If so, please come forward now. Go ahead. We'll get your name, organization, position on the Bill.

Better Remainders with Valley Impact Strategy in support of the Bill.

Executive Director of Initiating Change in our Neighborhoods supporting the Bill.

Mayra Baena with the Mesa Verde Group. On behalf of Asian Americans and Vast injustice in Southern California. In support.

Yahaya Hernandez with CIPC providing a. Me too. On behalf of the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative and Unite LA. Thank you.

Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center proud co-sponsor in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Santosh Seeram representing Chinese for Affirmative Action in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Rokita De Broy Reyes. On behalf of inclusive action for the city in support.

Shana England, California Community Foundation in support.

Great, thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 667 in the audience? Seeing no one is their lead opposition to AB 667. Seeing no one is there opposition in the room who just wants an opportunity to say they're opposed? Seeing no one will come back to the dais, colleagues. All right. Would you like an opportunity to close?

Assemblyman, Madam Chair and to Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity. In a time where, you know, our community wants to feel supported and a time where people want to show their skills, I'm just happy to bring this Bill to the light and give opportunity.

Folks that want to bring their skill level to California, help us build a beautiful California. So I'm just happy to have this opportunity for our communities and I appreciate all your support and I respectfully ask for an item.

All right, thank you. We would entertain a motion. Colleagues moved by Senator Menjivar. We'll call the roll

Motion is due pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, thank you, Assemblyman. Have a great week. Thank you to your witnesses and to those in the room in support and bettering of all of our bills. We appreciate you. Thank you so much. Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan is here. This is file item 3, AB578. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning, Members. Happy Monday. I am proud to present AB 578, and I want to thank the Committee staff for their work and accept Committee amendments which protect against fraudulent behavior. I want to appreciate your help with that. We had something we committed to continuing to work on coming out of Judiciary.

So, I'm glad we were able to do it here in the—in BNP. So, AB 578 is a simple bill that protects consumers from unfair refund and customer service policies imposed by delivery food platforms. And this Bill is one of those that was born out of my own personal experience, as the Chair knows.

For those that have not had the opportunity to hear me talk about this Bill, it was my daughter's Bat Mitzvah. We had the privilege of having her Bat Mitzvah in October and she wanted very few things for her Bat Mitzvah, so the food was the most important thing to her.

And one of the things she wanted was late night pizza. So, late night was 8:30 PM, for everyone watching. And so, I went, you know, I don't usually, I'm going to be honest, I'm not a big user of the food delivery platforms because for me, the fees are very high and so I choose not to use them often.

But for a special occasion like that, I was willing to pay these exorbitant fees. Have it come to me, the convenience mattered. So, I ordered 12 pizzas for this large room of teenagers and an hour and a half later, one pizza arrived. So, I had a room full of hungry teenagers and one pizza.

The Dasher, to their credit, was so apologetic and so kind and called Dasher support immediately and the restaurant, but it was too late to get it resolved. Obviously, that night I didn't deal with it. I was in the middle of celebrating my daughter's mitzvah, but then the next day, I went to get my money back for the other 11 pizzas that I never received.

Turns out that because of not being a frequent user, I was not eligible to get my money back. I was only eligible to get a credit on the platform, and I got none of the fees back.

So, they refunded me part of my thing to be sitting on a platform that I wouldn't use. And I was shocked that they could hold my money and not offer me a refund in the form of payment that I had used, so, back to the credit card that I had paid for it on.

So, I started to look into this because it seemed like in this day and age, when people are buying food and potentially living paycheck to paycheck, if they need their money back, they should be able to get it back. It shouldn't be held by these tech companies.

And so, it turns out, different companies have different policies, but for infrequent users like me, I was automatically tagged as potentially fraudulent because I didn't use the platform often enough and I couldn't get my money back. And so, this Bill is very simple.

It says that you should be able to get your money back in the form you wanted, that if you have a partial order like mine, you should pay for what you received, obviously, but not pay for what you didn't receive.

The amendments coming out of this Committee ensure that where there is fraud or where it is the fault of the purchaser, if you will, they do not have to give me my money back in the form that it was paid. But for the average user like me, you should.

In the course of this Bill, we also had the opportunity to address some practices that were being seen in New York around tips being used as a way to compensate workers.

And so, we were able to work with labor to make sure that the payment that the workers get is coming out of payment and the tips are on top of that, as is expected by every Californian.

So, hopefully this Bill builds upon years of work of this Legislature to make these tech platforms work better for Californians and protect consumers as they interface with platforms that we choose to use, but if they don't work the way they intended, should provide a refund to consumers.

Obviously, you are your own expert witness.

I am, Madam Chair.

I appreciate it so much. All right, is there anyone else in the room in support? Come on forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Elmer Lizardi, here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

All right, anyone else in support of this item? All right, is there any opposition to AB 578 in the room, lead or otherwise? Seeing none. Come back to the dais. I want to make a couple of comments. If we were forming a frustrated moms club, this might be at the top of one of the lists.

You know, we're just relying on these entities as we're, you know, trying to make it through this world. And I appreciate that it has turned into legislation to make life easier for everybody else out there who's using these platforms really to uncomplicate their lives.

It's very difficult when something on the back end makes it last days and weeks in, and so, good on you for taking your personal experience and fixing a problem that I'm sure you are not the only Californian to experience.

The other thing I would like to say, though they are not in the room, is that there were several groups that had issue with this, and they have all cleared. So, the fact that this room is, is empty, as to opposition or even tweeners, speaks to your work on this Bill.

I thank you so much for working with this Committee and with me personally. I think the people of California will get a little less frustrated thanks to your efforts here on AB 578. Any other colleagues? Then, all right, we could take a motion. All right. Moved by Senator Grayson. Would you like an opportunity to close?

We'll take that as my close. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

All right, let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. Thank you so much, Assemblywoman. We will hope you have a great week. I have one Bill here that I can present on behalf of Assembly BMP for Mr. Berman. So, this is going to be file item 17. Senator Menjivar, would you mind running the meeting for me while I do so? Thank you.

Madam Chair, whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Senator, and thanks for subbing in; help us move this along. I'm presenting AB 1503. It's the sunset bill for the California State Board of Pharmacy. It's authored by the chair of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, Mr. Berman. This bill extends the board's sunset date by four years and contains numerous provisions stemming from the Joint Sunset Review Oversight that we all participated in earlier this year.

Amendments being taken in this committee today would narrow the scope of the proposed standard of care, practice language, change the maximum number of pharmacy technicians who may be supervised by a pharmacist to a ratio of 3:1, and additional amendments to accommodate stakeholder feedback while still expanding access to care through pharmacist practices.

This bill represents the collaborative nature of the Joint Sunset process, and I respectfully request an aye vote on behalf of myself and Mr. Berman, who will be accepting this committee's amends. With us, we have some folks to deal with technical questions, and I think--I'm not sure if anybody's going to actually testify, but there might be somebody there who is, and then the rest is technical support, so--

For whoever is testifying, you'll have two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Ashby and members of the committee. My name is Seung Oh, president of the California State Board of Pharmacy. As a member of the board, I'm proud of the board's steadfast commitment to consumer protection and our role as a leader in many of our nation's pharmacy regulation standards.

The board appreciates the committee's thoughtful consideration of the policy issues raised by the board as part of its legislative report and the thoughtful questions raised by the committee during the oversight hearing in March.

As you may recall, as part of the board's last sunset review, the Legislature mandated the board establish an ad hoc committee to evaluate if a transition to a standard of care enforcement model was feasible and appropriate for the practice of pharmacy. The board found this mandate as an opportunity to evaluate how the board regulates pharmacists and pharmacies.

The culmination of the board's effort was memorialized in the board's legislative report submitted in 2023 and its continued efforts detailed in its sunset report. AB 1503 includes several of the policy changes related specifically to this work with the board seeking to remove barriers to patient care through the streamlining of the pharmacist practice model and a transition to a more robust standard of care model.

Further, as a result of policy valuation in several other areas over the last few years, the board is seeking changes to improve consumer protection in the board's ability to meet its mandate while affording patients ready access to drug therapy to prevent illness and treat medical conditions where appropriate.

These policy changes ensure consistency in the application of the law and address challenges the board has experienced in conducting investigation. The board is pleased to support AB 1503 and looks forward to continuing to partner with the Legislature and the Administration to achieve the board's vision: healthy Californians through quality pharmacist care. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you to the committee staff and members for your hard work on AB 1503. I'm Dr. Richard Dang, a pharmacist and Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacy at the University of Southern California. I'm past president of the California Pharmacist Association and speaking on behalf of CPhA.

We support AB 1503, which includes a standard of care model to modernize pharmacy regulation. The current rigid statute-based approach in our legislative language lags behind rapid advancements in healthcare, forcing reactive legislation and regulatory action that often delays care and risk patient harms.

We really appreciate the committee's thoughtful work on AB 1503, which is a right--which is a step in the right direction to modernize healthcare and pharmacy practice. We are disappointed in some of the newly introduced amendments to narrow standard of care that does not fully embrace that concept, but we look forward to working with the committee and the Legislator to continue moving the issue forward in the future and to continue the legislator's work on this matter.

Pharmacists do more than dispense medications. They are integral members of the healthcare team. When pharmacists provide care under standard of care model, consistent with health physicians and other healthcare professions, deliver their care, they follow clinical guidelines and evidence-based practice tailored to patients' needs. We must strengthen California's healthcare system with modernization, including fully embracing standard of care.

Pharmacists are the medication experts to ensure safety and efficacy, and are amongst the most accessible healthcare providers. Our role is backed by decades of research with positive outcomes for patients, for health systems, and for the state.

This includes research from the California Health Manpower Pilot Project, which dates back to the 1980s and was conducted by the California Department of Health Care Access and Information. With that said, we appreciate the committee's work and we do support AB 1503. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Now is the time to record your #MeToo in support of this bill.

Susan Bonilla with California Pharmacists Association, in support.

McKay Carney, on behalf of Cedars-Sinai, in support.

Sarah Pollo Moo, California Retailers Association. We wanted to thank Chair Ashby for all the hard work that you've done on this bill, and we look forward to continued conversations and hope to get to a support position. Thank you.

Peter Kellison for Walgreens, in support of the bill. I want to thank the committee staff and the chair.

Jessica Moran, on behalf of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, in support, particularly of the expanded pharmacy to pharmacy tech ratio. Thank you.

Formal opposition, please step forward. Join us. Is there another formal opposition that's going to come up if we need to make room? Yes. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Pat Whalen, Ellis and Wilson Advocacy, here on behalf of UNAC; that's United Nurses Association of California/Union of Health Care Professionals, in respectful opposition of one key provision of this bill, which is the pharm/tech ratio issue that there's been some comments on.

Current law allows one pharmacist to have one technician or two pharmacists to have three pharm techs. The changes in this bill that were apparently put in or announced by the committee late last week dramatically changed that to a three pharm techs per pharmacist ratio. UNAC represents approximately 2,000 pharmacists who are opposed to that level of increased oversight.

I would remind the committee that as part of the sunset review process, a survey was done of the pharmacists throughout California, and the single highest response in terms of how to address the pharm/tech ratio was to move it to 2:1. Unfortunately, this bill goes beyond that, and for that reason, we are opposed.

I would also remind the committee that this is the type of issue that traditionally has been addressed in a standalone bill rather than put into a larger package like this bill, and we would respectfully request that this issue be given the policy treatment that it deserves by putting it into a standalone bill. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. George Soares with the California Medical Association, here--with the current bill in print, respectful oppose unless amended position. However, we're still reviewing the language that has been been circulated and that is highlighted in the analysis. Greatly appreciate the committee staff here, the chair, and the author's work on this.

Certainly a step in the right direction. We'll continue to meet with folks and talk about just a couple remaining issues on the standard of care and test to treat, specifically on ordering and interpreting of tests, but just really thankful for the work that's been done on this and looking forward to answering any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Please step forward if you'd like to record your #MeToo in opposition to this bill.

Thank you. Tim Madden, representing the California Rheumatology Alliance, the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, and the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, all with the same position as CMA described, so we're taking a look at the amendments but appreciate all the work on it. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Fred Noteware, representing PhRMA, and in light of the proposed amendments, we are going to be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OB/GYNs and the California Society of Pathologists. They do currently have an oppose unless amended position on the bill and will continue to review the amendments and do--continue to have concerns for the same reasons stated by a colleague at CMA. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, going to bring it back to our colleagues here for questions. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I just have a question on the survey point. Would, maybe--is there a witness that could address that?

Let me answer it first. The bill--Senator Ber--I'm sorry--Assembly Member Berman's bill started with a 4:1 ratio, so we actually reduced it down to 3:1 in this bill. As to the survey, if you'd like to hear from one of the experts, that's fine, but there are--as you guys all know--there are multiple sides to this issue. As you heard, there are some people who are coming off of the bill because of this, some people who are coming onto the bill because of this.

These sunset revision bills are tough. So many issues in the middle. But the current--this being 3:1 still is far less than most other states in the nation, but we felt it was--four was a bridge too far; moved it back to three.

Would someone from the proponents like to further elaborate on the survey?

I'll just state that the board did do a survey, and based on those results, you know, various practice settings do vary in terms of the levels of services that they provide and the types of operations that they do, so the bill as proposed to be amended would be 1:3. The board's survey didn't necessarily parse out to the same level of detail that I think is envisioned in this measure.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions. Madam Chair, you may close.

I thank all of you for participating in the process; acknowledge how difficult these types of sunset bills are. Respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of both this committee and the Assembly B&P Committee.

Motion was made by Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Seven to zero. We'll leave that on call. Thank you to Senator Menjivar for pinch-hitting for me today. Appreciate it. B&P, it's just like Health, right? Same, same. You have two bills for us, Assemblyman. You want to start with your own? Okay. This is going to be File Item Four by Assembly Member Lee, which is AB 631, and then he's doing us a favor today and presenting File Item 15, which will come right after, okay?

Thank you. When you are ready.

Correct.

All right, thank you, Senator—Chair Ashby—and Senators, I'm back today to present AB 631. As a reminder, this Bill requires animal shelters to post data on their websites on the number of animals taken in, the source of intake, and the outcomes for all animals.

If a shelter does not have a website, they're required to make this information available upon request. I appreciate the discussion that came up in the last Committee hearing and after careful considerations for the points that came up, we have taken significant amendments that remove any mandatory reporting requirements on private rescue groups.

As the Committee Analysis notes, our Bill, as amended now, simply encourages those rescues to share data on the outcomes of animals in their care, which will help provide a more comprehensive picture of pet overpopulation crisis in California.

I would like to reiterate that all the specific categories of data that are required to be published in this Bill are already existing categories of data that are currently being collected, which is why this Bill is supported by a wide range of supporters, including public animal shelters, humane societies and rescue groups.

Accurate public reporting on data related to animal intake and outcomes is important to evaluate the effectiveness of existing policy, make evidence-based decisions, and move towards impactful goals to improve animal welfare overall. The Bill will ensure that we have the information necessary to direct funding more efficiently to shelters and make informed policy decisions.

I will respectfully be asking for your aye vote, but today, in support, I'm joined by a witness, Nicholas Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs of Social Compassion in Legislation.

Go ahead, sir.

Great, thank you, Chair and Members. First, I'd just like to point out that California law requires animal shelters to take in all stray animals.

So, if they are turning away animals, we believe that that's against the law and why we would not want to include that in a set of data that is collected because we don't want to codify what we believe is illegal.

There are two primary types of entities that handle unwanted animals in our state—animal shelters and animal rescues.

If we can understand the figures for animals moving in and out of these entities, we can understand the extent of the pet overpopulation problem and be able to measure progress being made, or not made, as possible solutions are implemented. We have heard from opposition.

We are disappointed with some of the characterizations that were made around the discussions around these amendments. But ultimately, we are doing what the opposition has asked in their initial letter, which is to remove the mandate that rescues report their data. California law already treats shelters and rescues equally in at least nine sections of code.

Both entities are key to solving the pet overpopulation problem. Many rescues support this Bill. They are proud of their work and that California law currently does and through this Bill will continue to recognize their key role in solving this issue.

Our hope is that by encouraging rescues to report their own intake and outcome data, we ultimately get a broader data set. We also cannot wait one more year to collect the shelter data that is mandated in this law if we were ever going to get our arms wrapped around this enormous moral and financial problem.

Lastly, I just want to thank Committee staff, Assemblymember Lee, and his staff for their enormous effort on this Bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you so much for your testimony. Others in support of AB 631 in the room? Yeah, please come forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Karen Lang, on behalf of California Animal Welfare Association. The subject of the Bill—I represent the California public and private shelters here. Want to thank you, thank you for getting us where we are. Animals come into the shelter and when they leave, they go one of three ways.

They go because they've been transferred to a rescue, they are adopted, or they are reunified. The Legislature grapples with animal bills every year. They're incredibly challenging and emotional. So, thank you, Mr. Lee, for carrying a bill. We want the Legislature to have as good of data as possible when making decisions about finite resources.

Animal shelters in California do not receive any public funding from the state, with the exception of the checkoffs that CDFA administers. So, this is a really important Bill. The data is important. We want our rescue partners to join in providing the data. We do not want to harm our relationships with rescues. We do not.

They are the most important folks that we work with to decompress shelters when they are over full. So, we would never push for legislation that would harm them. And we appreciate the work that you've done and ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

All right, we're going to call that lead testimony round two. Everybody else, going to be your name, organization, position on the Bill. All right. Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Cuzona, on behalf of Humane World for Animals, in support. Thank you.

Brittany Benesee, on behalf of the ASPCA, as well as Project Mini, Seeds for Change Animal Rescue, Stray Cat Alliance, and the Fix Project, in strong support. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Sosin Madden at W Strategies, here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, in support. And I've been asked to give a courtesy me too for the Animal Rescue Mission, Take Me Back Home Rescue, Better Together Forever, and STARt Rescue, all in strong support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Is there lead opposition to AB 631? If so, please come forward. The two of you, if there are two of you, would each have two minutes.

Welcome. When you're ready, just two minutes each, okay?

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Ashby and Committee Members, I'm Julie Virga, President of Fix Our Shelters. We appreciate Assemblymember Lee and Scale's commitment to improving shelter transparency, but we must remain opposed to AB 631. At the June 9th hearing, Chair Ashby asked us to meet with the author and sponsor.

After multiple meetings, on June 23rd, we reached a mutual agreement with the sponsor, evidenced by subsequent emails, texts, and phone calls with both the sponsor and the author. We had a clear agreement.

Scale would pursue removal of all rescue organizations from AB 631, in return for Fix Our shelters dropping our request that the data collection include animals turned away illegally at the shelters. Our concessions were significant as not collecting data on animals turned away would render data collection incomplete and misleading, but protecting rescues was paramount.

However, on June 2nd, we learned our deal had collapsed. 11th hour amendments now strongly encourage rescues to post data while giving shelters with no website a pass from reporting. We contend rescue should not be included in this Bill if shelter transparency is the true goal.

In closing, any frustration the author and sponsor have over opposition to this Bill should not be directed at rescues, but at Cal Animals and the shelter directors they represent.

They and UC Davis Corett and large wealthy nonprofit humane societies have controlled shelter policy for years, pushed reduced intake programs that turn animals away at the door so they can lower euthanasia rates, and created a statewide crisis of unaltered, unvaccinated animals breeding in our communities, pushing California now to number one in the nation for animals euthanized.

We respectfully ask for your opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Senator Ashby and Committee Members. My name is Estella Drake and I'm speaking today on behalf of Lucky Pup Rescue. We strongly oppose AB 631, not because we reject transparency, but because the Bill fails to deliver it. AB 631 allows shelters to keep hiding how many animals they turn away. That omission is enormous under reduced intake policies pushed by Kell Animals, UC Davis Corritt, and others.

Shelters are turning away thousands of animals, leaving them unaltered, unvaccinated, and abandoned in many communities. Assemblymember Lee admits that shelters are turning away animals and that it is illegal but argues that including those numbers would legitimize unlawful practices.

However, data tracking is neutral and does not address legality. Furthermore, shelters do not hide their violations of the law, but instead claim their so called science based programs should not be subject to the law.

San Diego Humane Society was recently found guilty of abandonment of 18,000 cats and kittens, yet ignored the judge's ruling until an injunction was filed. Meanwhile, the Bill threatens rescues by strong, encouraging them to report data opening the door to retaliation for failure to report. Lucky Pup was co-plaintiff in the Spark case after the LA County killed animals we had committed to saving. The court held the shelters have no direction to withhold animals from rescues, but confirmed shelters can choose which rescues they work with.

Sadly, rescues continue to be retaliated and discriminated against with animals paying the price for their lives, often.

So, opposed, right?

I am opposed and muchas gracias. Let's support our animals. They have no voice, and we must be the voice for them.

Are there others in opposition to AB 631 in the room? If so, please come forward. You'll state your name, organization, and position on the Bill, please.

Lisa Kirk, Contra Costa County, representing Lap Cats, Layla's Animals Rescue, and Paw Protectors, and the ghost animals they turned away.

Thank you.

Elena Gaffney, on behalf of 50 animal rescues in California. The ones that are providing a free service to our society as well as many more rescues are joining: A Dog Named Blackjack Rescue, Be Kind TNR Rescue, Be Holistic Cat Rescue.

Thank you.

Hi. Jamie McDolan, on behalf of Elevation Animal Rescue and Love's Legacy Rescue, opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Valentina Martinchek based on Angels Fury Friends Rescue, Heaven Dog Rescue, Lake Tahoe Wolf Rescue, and Howard's Hounds Rescue. Oppose.

Thank you.

Jacob Owen, here on behalf of Sustain Our Shelters and Kitten Rescue 101, oppose.

All right, that should be everyone in the room. I thank very much the witnesses, all of them, for coming forward. Bring it back to the dais. Colleagues, comments on this Bill? Okay, you have a motion. I'm going to make just one comment here. First of all, I want to thank the author for taking the time.

This is the second hearing because you did take the time to go meet with the folks that were opposing the Bill. And I know you have made some amends relative to those discussions. Not what they wanted. Clearly, they're still opposed.

This Bill for me and these two ladies sitting here at this table are two of the strongest leaders in animal care in my district, which makes this particularly difficult for me, which I have shared with the author.

But I must say, to his credit, he has worked at my request hard on the Bill, taken two hearings that doesn't usually happen. And, and made some concessions, though not as far as I think the opponents would like him to go. I feel like I owe the Committee that follow up because we did hear this once.

We did ask him to go back. He did take those meetings. He did make a few changes. He did not make all of the changes. That's where the Bill sits right now. You have a motion from Senator Archuleta. We will call the roll. Do you want opportunity to close?

Yes. I would just first of all thank the Chair for helping us out this and the Committee staff. And I also like to thank our Bill sponsors...so many folks are working on this Bill. I want to acknowledge that our animal rescue groups play a pivotal and crucial role when it comes to animal welfare.

And we do not. And I personally, as a cat parent, do not want to do anything to harm the mission of taking care of so many animals, especially those who are left out on the street and on their own.

And so, reflecting on some of the commentary that we had in Committee a month ago now, we decided to make it so that the language now is not mandating shelters—sorry, not mandating rescues—not mandating rescues no longer to report the data but now encouraging to do so.

There are lots of rescues out there, I think, that are more willing to do that or much happy to do that. And that's okay. And we want to make sure that happens. But the main priority of this Bill was always about reporting and making public existing categories of data.

And we want to make sure that's kept in that scope. It was intended to be small, kind of common sense kind of Bill, but reflective on our priority is that my Chief of Staff personally has taken many meetings on this Bill and tried to prioritize and make everyone as happy as possible.

Also a cat lover, it should be noted.

Yes. Also a notable cat parent as well.

Yes.

And Senator Ashby also helped with infamous case as well that when a cat kidnapping happens. So, thank you for that too. But anyways, yes, really appreciative of all that. I think we have arrived at a compromise.

I know not everyone is super happy with it, but, you know, this I think reflects a core of an issue that was presented a Committee with overburdening our rescues with issues. And we don't want to do that. So, that's why it was removed from the Bill. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

All right. You have a motion from Senator Archuleta. We will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. Thank you, Assemblymember. And thank you to the witnesses, and particularly these two ladies who work so hard in my district. I appreciate so much. All right. You have another Bill for us, Assemblymember, that you are going to present on behalf of your colleague, Assemblywoman Irwin. We appreciate that very much.

This is file item 15, AB 1175. When you're ready.

I'm presenting AB1175 on behalf of Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin. The Bill will modernize the licensing process for certified public accountants, CPA, by modifying educational requirements, enhancing interstate mobility practices. The demand for CPA services is greatly outpacing the number of new CPAs entering the profession, placing a strain on current CPAs, their clients and the public interest.

A significant portion of the workforce is entering retirement, while the number of candidates graduating with accounting degrees is taking the CPA exam is dropping. This has led to 18 states to pass the licensing reforms contained in this Bill, with eight more states introducing similar legislation. Updates to interstate mobility practices will strengthen consumer protection in California.

While other states modify their licensing requirements. The California Board of Accountancy will retain the ability to remove states from automatic mobility as they have since 2014, if allowing licensees from a certain state to practice in California violates the board's duty to protect the public.

AB 1175 will provide more inclusive, flexible and cost-effective pathways into the profession and will ensure consumers continue to have access to the quality accounting services they rely on. With me to speak in support is past board President and current board Member Joe Rosenbaum.

And Jason Fox on behalf of the California Society of CPAs, Dominic Franzella, Executive officer of board, will provide technical assistance. And since this is not my Bill, please direct their questions to these very, very capable, smart people. Thank you.

All right, the two of you who speaking, we'll get two minutes each and then questions from the Committee will go to the technical expert.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Ashby and Committee Members. My name is Joe Rosenbaum. I'm a CPA practicing since 1983 and licensed in 1987. I'm currently a Member of the California Board of Accountancy and the immediate past President.

I'm pleased to be with you today to discuss AB 1175 and why its passage is vital to the consumers of California and the accounting profession. I'd like to express the board's appreciation to Assemblymember Irwin and her team for authoring this important legislation and to the Senate Committee staff for taking the time to analyze the Bill.

I'd also like to thank Assemblymember Lee for presenting the Bill today. The accounting profession, as you've heard, has faced a talent shortage for several years, which partially relates to the licensure requirements.

The current education and experience requirements for a CPA licensure here in California include the completion of a bachelor's degree or higher, a total unit requirement of 150 semester hours and a specified number of units in accounting, business and ethics, and one year of accounting experience.

The 150 hour education requirement often necessitates a costly fifth year of college, creating obstacles for individuals pursuing CPA licensure. AB 1175 would require a bachelor's degree with an accounting concentration and two years of accounting experience. These requirements are straightforward and easy to understand. They're also not new.

I qualified for my CPA license under these same requirements before the 150-hour rule was introduced. As for cross border practice or mobility, this has been an integral part of the accounting profession since the Legislature first enacted these provisions back in 2006 and refined them in 2013.

AB 1175 continues to uphold consumer protection, maintain consumer access to critical services, and support economic growth. By modernizing mobility to a CPA equals CPA model, the proposal eliminates unnecessary barriers enabling businesses and individuals to access qualified,

I do need you to give us your final thought there.

AB 1175 provides real world solutions to addressing pipeline challenges in the accounting world and modernizing mobility. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you so much. Second witness.

Jason Fox with the California Society of CPAs. At its heart, as you heard, AB 1175 is about ensuring the CPA profession is well positioned to continue to meet the needs of Californians. As you've heard, the demand for CPA services is growing faster than those entering the profession. This trend continues.

Essential services like tax prep, audits, financial consulting would become harder and more expensive to access. That affects businesses, nonprofits, local governments, and everyday consumers who rely on the integrity of financial information. While the CPA profession offers a rewarding career, it's becoming clear that the current path to licensure isn't working for everyone.

The extra year of education beyond a bachelor's degree adds costs and delays licensure and earnings. For many, especially those from underrepresented or lower income backgrounds, it becomes a roadblock. AB 1175 addresses this by enhancing and modernizing licensure framework to give candidates more flexible, affordable and accessible options.

This approach keeps the bar high, yet more achievable and accessible and reflects the diverse ways people gain the skills and experience needed to succeed in the profession. AB 1175 positions California as a leader in rethinking CPA licensure.

Its concepts are not only aligned with a new national licensure model and similar efforts, as Assemblymember Lee noted, other states are moving in this direction. With AB 1175, we have an opportunity to strengthen the profession, expand access and ensure the public continues to benefit from trusted CPA services.

And I would just like to thank the Committee staff for the thorough analysis and conversations throughout the process, and the board for their leadership in this. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. Are there others in the room? Actually, did you want to state your name for the record, too? Our technical expert. And then we'll go to that.

Dominic Franzella, Executive Officer for the California Board of Accountancy. Thank you.

All right. Here to answer our tough questions. Yes.

Hello. Pat Joyce. On behalf of PWC, Deloitte, KPMG and Ernst and Young in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in support of AB 1175 in the room? Seeing no one. Is there opposition to the Bill, lead opposition to AB 1175 or just folks in the room who are opposed? Seeing no one, we'll come back to the dais. Colleagues, any comments on this Bill? What a surprise.

The CPA has a comment on the CPA Bill.

As a CPA licensed in 1974, 51 years ago, I move the Bill.

All right. I mean, the close doesn't get much better, but would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. There you go. You have a motion and we will call the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

We lost a few Members, but I'm sure they'll come back. We'll leave it on call. Thank you. We appreciate you, Assemblyman. Thank you to the witnesses and folks in the room. I did see another author. I think Mr. Flora is here, so we will take up his item. All right.

Mr. Flora, you are file item 12 AB876. Is that correct?

That is correct, Madam Chair.

All right, let's see what we can do here when you are ready.

Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair. I just want to start off by saying thank you to yourself and to Sarah Mason for their hard work on this Bill. It was a lot of fun. To work with you on it. And I appreciate that very much.

Colleagues, I'm here to present AB876 codifies Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive order that allows certified registered nursing esthetists who practice in California. I am proud to offer this Bill as it will help Californians in my district throughout the state to access timely care in all healthcare settings, including hospitals, surgical centers, pain management clinics, and many more.

This Bill affirms CRNA's ability to provide Anesthesia services independently. Consistent with their education, training, and long standing role in California, AB876 maintains access to Anesthesia care in hospitals in rural areas and underserved communities. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. And you have a couple of witnesses with you. We'll give you each two minutes. When you're ready, they'll turn it on for you. Go ahead, just start talking. It turns on like magic.

Good morning. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology, I just want to quickly thank the author, the chair and the Committee staff and the members for taking so much time to listen to the need for this Bill. We actually started on this process before there was a Bill. We started stakeholder process last year.

And as the need for the Bill appeared, the author made it clear to us, I don't want to do anything that's an expansion. I want to make sure that we're codifying the current practice that's in regulation, case law, and other law into statutes so the Nurse Practice act is not confusing.

We started out with a much bigger Bill and we're very happy with what we've come to today. Again, appreciate your work, Madam Chair, and your staff. Thank you. To help us get to the place that we are today and have Emily here to provide a little testimony as well.

Thank you. All right. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Emily Frank. I am a practicing, certified registered nurse anesthetist, and I am also the President of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology, representing over 3,000 CRNAs in California.

As AB876 is a straightforward Bill that clarifies longstanding law and precedent, affirming that CRNAs can provide Anesthesia services in independently when hospitals choose to allow it. This preserves local discretion while ensuring patients, especially in rural and underserved areas, continue to have safe, timely access to the Anesthesia care that they need.

We are grateful to the chair and the Committee staff for their collaboration and commitment to fine tuning the language of this Bill and this Bill has already received strong bipartisan support in the Assembly. We respectfully ask for your aye vote to keep California's regulatory framework clear, consistent and focused on patient access and safety.

Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay. Thank you so much. Others in the room in support of AB876.

Madam Chair and Members. Monica Miller on behalf of the American Nurses Association, California ANAC, and just pinching for them today because they're multitasking like all of us. So thank you.

Yes. Okay. Thank you so much.

Jessica Rand on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members Ryan Pierini, on behalf of the California Ambulatory Surgery Association. We apologize for getting our letter in. A little late, but happy to support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members Alicia Priego, on behalf of. Samuel Merritt University in support. Thank you.

Chair Eric Robles on behalf of United Nurses Associations of California Union of Healthcare Professionals and support.

Thank you.

Cheapy Hanna, on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support.

All right, thank you all so much. Is there lead opposition in the room? If you want to come forward, we have a couple spots for you up here and you'll have two minutes each when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

I'll turn it on. Go ahead, just start talking.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Bryant on behalf of the California Society of Anesthesiologists. I want to thank the Committee, its staff for your efforts to work through some of the challenges within the Bill and to narrow the focus of the proposed Bill to clarify laws related to Anesthesia care rather than expand scope of practice.

We appreciate the time that's been spent here understanding the practice of anesthesiology, the different roles responsibilities of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists, and the importance of physician led Anesthesia care team as the safest model for patients. CSA is committed to working with this Legislature on policy solutions expand access to care while preserving standards and following national best practices.

As currently amended, the Bill defines anesthesia services and firms that nurse anesthetists may perform these services under the order of physician, dentist or podiatrist. We do remain concerned about aspects of the definition that could be interpreted to expand scope and we share the author's interest in protecting access to care and preventing unnecessary disruptions to care.

And we want to serve as a resource for health systems and policymakers deploying Anesthesia, staffing models that meet the needs of our state while ensuring there's always physician involved in the Anesthesia care to manage complexities and emergencies that can arise.

We'll continue to work with the Legislature to build them through the process, providing additional recommendations and technical details as needed. Thanks very much. I appreciate the effort here and thank the staff and the Chair. Thank you Members of the Committee.

Thank you, thank you and thank you for being here.

Good morning, chair and Members, George Soares with the California Medical Association. Just want to start off by thanking the chair and the staff here as well as the author and sponsors for this long process that we've been working through.

The recent amendments certainly we think are a step in the right direction and we really appreciate everyone's collaborative effort on that. But just highlight CSA that we're in alignment with them as far as seeking a few more technical changes to the Bill, but just really appreciate everyone's work thus far. Thank you. Happy to answer questions.

Okay, thank you so much. Anyone else in opposition or tweeners in the room? Come on forward.

Madam Chair of Members, Tim Madden representing the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology and the California Rheumatology Alliance. We have had an opposed position on the previous version of the Bill. We're look at the amendments and we're really appreciative of the author and sponsors on their comments and efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ellie Fenton, sutliff intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, in respectful opposition.

Ryan Spencer with the American College. Ryan Spencer with the American College of OBGYN District 9, the California Society of Pathologists, California Radiological Society, and the California Podiatric Medical Association. We currently have imposed less amended position on the Bill as well, but appreciate the author's work and continue to have discussions. Thank you very much.

All right, thanks. We're going to come back to the dais, colleagues. Okay. I'll make a couple of comments on this Bill. First of all, to everyone sitting at the table, thank you for working so hard on this Bill. You have worked with this author and my office for literally months trying to find the right balance.

And it's exactly what good governance looks like. Good, good conversation. Everybody trying to pull in the right direction and keeping your eye on the ball.

The author has done a great job of keeping his eye on the ball, which is, at the end of the day, what is the access to care for individuals across the State of California. And I appreciate everyone involved in this dialogue. It has actually. It's been tough, but actually really a good system.

And prove, further proof that it does work. Messy democracy is messy, but it does work and can turn out good for us. So my compliments to the author for patiently wading through a very, very, very tough dialogue. That being said, we can entertain a motion from my colleagues so moved by Senator Grayson.

Would you like an opportunity to close?

I just want to say thank you to the chair and Sarah, thank you for your time as well. To the opposition, look forward to this continued conversation. Appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

All right, we will call the roll. You have a motion from Senator Grayson.

The motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll put you on call. Thank you all so much, truly, everyone, for working on that Bill. Okay, I think I saw a couple authors walk in the room. Ms. Wicks, I think you're first on the list. You ready?

All right. Assemblywoman, thank you for being here with us. This is file item six AB 671.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for accommodating my childcare needs this morning.

Worked out perfectly.

I appreciate it. Today I'm proud to be presenting AB 671, which streamlines restaurant openings to help our local businesses. I'd like to thank the committee and the chair for all of their hard work on the bill and I accept the committee's amendments.

Restaurants are the heart of our economies and our communities. They're spaces where we celebrate our graduations and birthdays, where we catch up with friends, where we have our first dates. Everyone loves their local restaurants. The restaurant industry provides critical first jobs and it creates pathways to business ownership, particularly for our immigrant communities and our communities of color, but right now, it's simply too hard to get these restaurants up and running in California.

Restaurant owners are forced to pay dead rent on unopened restaurants even as they navigate complicated permitting processes, processes that for small business owners, can create difficult, even insurmountable hurdles to opening restaurants, and all the while, communities can't access these important venues for food and connection.

AB 671 responsibly reduces barriers to opening new restaurants in California by fast-tracking front-end plan review. It authorizes qualified professional architects and engineers to self-certify plans for restaurant projects that convert an existing facility to a new use.

These restaurant retrofits are often completed by small restaurants and this new permitting pathway means that these small business owners won't have to wait as long to start generating a profit from their restaurants. Under the framework, randomized audits ensure compliance with health and safety codes and the approach does not exempt restaurants from mandatory construction inspections.

So AB 671 creates a process to facilitate timely restaurant openings while maintaining public safety standards. Committee amendments added provisions to allow the Architects Board and the Board of Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists to enforce the bill. AB 671 passed out of Senate Local Gov Committee with bipartisan unanimous support. See, I'm bringing bipartisan unanimous support bills to committee. Isn't that nice?

Yes, that's so nice.

Yes, like most of my legislation.

Oh, did I laugh out loud? That was supposed to be internal dialogue.

Major, major American cities, including New York, Washington D.C., and Chicago have already seen success with similarly streamlined permitting programs. With AB 671, we have the opportunity to do the same in our state. We can lessen the burden on many small restaurants by allowing these businesses to open faster. We have here to testify, folks who will self-introduce, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you so much, Assemblywoman. All right, guys, two minutes each.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Silvio Ferrari, here on behalf of a group of restaurants under the Hard Scale Eats brand, and actually thinking about why you were just laughing a minute ago, I was thinking about housing and how difficult that issue is, and that actually is one of the reasons I think we find ourselves with this bill.

A lot of people talk about permitting and the difficulty in housing. It isn't just housing, it is other things, and restaurants also struggle with time, efficiency, cost, delay, and this is really at the heart of what this bill is all about. At the end of the day, this bill says that up front, permitting part, we are going to expedite that just a little bit.

We are still going to leave the building department, the local agencies in charge of approving, but we are going to put some guardrails and speed that up. All of the field inspections are untouched. All of the backend check is untouched.

So at the end of the day, if there are problems found, the local agency can still deny certificate of occupancy. So we're taking a little bit out of the frontend, trying to provide that certainty, providing that clarity, get doors open faster, and get modifications to restaurants that are desperately needed done sooner. So thank you very much for your time. Would urge an aye vote.

All right. Thank you so much.

Chair and members, good morning. Morning. Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association. A lot of the comments that were said here this morning were pretty much covered as well. In my talking points, I'll keep it short. The CRA is the uniting force of the restaurant industry.

Over two-thirds of our members are local neighborhood restaurants of all different sizes, types, and locations. In fact, many of our restaurants are family-owned operated restaurants that have been serving their communities for generations. The CRA consistently surveys our members for any opportunities and challenges that they may be facing.

One of the challenges that consistently comes up is permitting. The restaurant outlook right now remains precarious or very delicate in just about every part of the state, with neighborhood restaurants reporting relentless operation cost pressures associated with different operating costs such as insurance, security, rising credit card swipe fees, but permitting always seems to come up on top.

The CRA is here before you today to ask for your support of 671, a much-needed tool. These plans are often completed by small restaurants that are converting a facility to a new use or making simple building modifications to an existing facility. We think that this bill is narrowly tailored.

It's going to help out a lot of restaurants; whenever there are delays, that also means a loss in sales tax revenue, employees are not taking advantage of employment opportunities, and also there's deferred activation of a supply network of purveyors such as food distributors and professional service providers when a restaurant does not open their doors.

Your support for this measure ensures that the restaurant industry can continue to thrive and contribute to the fabrics of your community. For these reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. You guys certainly chose an author who has expertise of cutting through bureaucracy. That is for sure. Any others in the room in support of AB 671?

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Amy Jenkins, here on behalf of the City of Ontario, in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Chair and members, Norlyn Asprec with Axiom Advisors, here to register support for the following restaurants and organizations: CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, HIHO, Jon & Vinny's, Matu, Sushi Nozawa, Yuvo. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, is there anyone in the room in opposition to AB 671? Seeing no one, we'll come back to the dais. Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to commend the author. This--we do a lot of things around here, but this is one of the bills that I see that will move the needle substantially, and because of the fact, being involved in construction, the backend isn't so much time-consuming as much as it is the frontend and the back and forth, back and forth before permits issued, and so I think this is a tremendous bill. Well done, and would love to co-author and move the bill when it's appropriate.

All right. Moved, picked up a co-author. You want an opportunity to close?

Just would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

All right, we'll put it on call.

We're missing quite a few members, but we appreciate you all very much. Assemblyman Valencia, you here? You want to get us started here? I have to step out for just a moment, but I think Senator Menjivar will cover for me, if I can for just a second. When you are ready, this is File Item Seven: AB 759. Go right ahead.

Thank you.

Appreciate that. Muy buenos dias, Madam Chair and Senators. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee, the Chair, and also the sponsors for working on AB 759. I'd like to also state that I'll be accepting the Committee amendments. AB 759 seeks to improve attrition in the architectural profession by allowing eligible candidates to use the title "Architect in Training."

By allowing architectural candidates to receive the same recognition as other professions, we will not only align these individuals with other esteemed industries, but also encourage them to complete licensure.

With me to provide testimony is Ginger Thompson, the President Elect of the Architect Institute of California and immediate past President of Academy of Engineering Professionals, and Mr. Mike Belote, with the California Advocates, to provide any technical.

Ma'am, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Already stated, my name is Ginger Thompson. I'm a proudly practicing architect here in Sacramento and I'm excited to express support for AB 759. I'm going to give you a quick personal story. I've discovered my destiny as an architect much later than usual.

I was already a 30 year old mom, a single mom of three kids already in school.

And I kicked it off taking courses at local community college, worked as many internships as I could drum up, and took any job that would move me closer to this goal of both licensure and then also before the licensure, taking my exams and getting my hours done.

The progress to this goal was slow, difficult, and required consistent persistence, but that also makes a good architect. In 2020, I passed all of my required hours. 2020 then made me eligible to start taking my exams. This also coincided, as we all know, with a shutdown which freed up my calendar pretty well for studying.

In addition, I also had three children who are now officially adults. So, I was able to pass all of my exams in under two years.

This feat, which sounds fantastic, is a rare one, as most women who graduate architecture school, we've got like over 50%, by the time they get eligible for taking their exams, as I, we've got 46% of those, and right now, one in four architects are women who are licensed.

AB 759 will create a formal time limited designation, "Architect in Training," for those who've proven their intent and their persistence and progress by passing at least one of those examinations. It offers structure, accountability, and clarity. And it acknowledges that licensure is a path, not a switch.

By allowing this stage to be named, AB 759 reinforces the value of licensure itself and helps keep this profession accessible, aspirational, and resilient. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Did you speak yet? Second finish. Are we on set? Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Mike Belote, on behalf of the American Institute of Architects California. You know, the Bill speaks directly to architects, but it involves a bigger situation in California, and that is really the graying of our professional licensee populations. And it's not just architects. It is throughout the licensee population.

But it's particularly important for architects because of the arduous process of becoming an architect, which takes, on average, over 13 years. The washout rate between—during—that 13-year period is substantial, and it is, while it's true of every demographic group, it's particularly true of underrepresented groups.

This Bill changes no scope of practice, but it does allow those on this arduous path to adopt a title at their expense of "Architect in Training." It is not revolutionary. We do it now for engineers and for land surveyors. We are told that the Land Surveyor Program, which started in 1974 has been very successful.

We would like to personally thank Ms. Lamar for working with us to craft this correctly to get the guardrails necessary for public protection, but this is without revolutionizing the licensing process in California. We'll make a small, incremental improvement, we think, in keeping people on this long path to licensure as an architect.

And so, because it's been tried with other professions and worked, we would like to see it adopted in architecture. And for that reason, we would ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you both so much and thanks for your patience with the switching, changing, of the guard up here. Is there opposition—actually, are there others in support of AB 759 in the audience? Seeing no one. Is there opposition to AB 759 in the audience? Seeing no one. Will come back to the dais. Comments from colleagues? Motions from colleagues?

I have a question on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question just has to do with the title itself, the "Architect in Training" title. How will consumers know what that means? And how do we ensure that those folks in training aren't overstepping on what the sort of restrictions are, in terms of what that title means?

I just want to make sure it doesn't create confusion for consumers and that is not liability down the line.

Senator, again, Mike Belote, through the Chair. That is really the essential question and what we have been working with the Committee consultant and leader and Chair on. You have to work under the supervision of a licensed architect whose own license is on the hook for any violation of the Practice Act.

So, we think the real protection is by putting the licensed architect's own license on the line to supervise and make sure that no scope of practice has been exceeded here. But we actually think it will help consumers understand who they're dealing with, that you're not talking about, you know, a first or second year person.

You're talking about a person who is well down the path to licensing and is really committed to their profession, where they're headed. So we think that public protection is there, but it's a great question.

And so, and again, how will consumers know the difference? Is there a sense of, is there a communications piece to this? What is the way that the consumer will know the difference between an architectural student, an architect in training, in the architect?

Well, right now, again, Madam Chair, right now you would, you might be dealing with a person who has no title of any sort. This, this puts in front of the consumer that this is a person on the path to licensure. There is no mandatory disclosure.

But right now there's nothing to tell the consumer who they're talking to—could be called a drafts person. A lot of different titles might be adopted, but this, and again, it's voluntary, so they don't have to do it.

We don't want to make things harder for the people going through this arduous path, but I think it does give the consumer a little more information that they're dealing with, like in the medical profession that, you know, that somebody comes in and is a resident, it means something.

And again, no scope of practice change, but it is a message to the consumer that we think will actually help them.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, quick comment from me too. Thank you to the author and to the folks who are working on the bills. Exactly how it works for law too, that you can practice while you're working on the Bar or working towards the Bar, but you're under somebody else's license and they're responsible for you. So, very, very similar.

The Senator from Los Angeles's questions were exactly the questions of this Committee. Appreciate the amendments that you took in that regard. Maybe some further discussion for additional disclosure at some point later but agreed that it does more than it did previously than current law. So, would you like an opportunity to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate the questions. If I could just share a quick anecdotal personal note, I have a childhood friend who is going through the process now. Mr. Belote alluded to the lengthy process that it takes about 13.3 years, which does, at times, create hurdles along the way.

So, in conversations with my childhood friend, he thought that this was an incredible idea to ensure that folks are encouraged to continue the process at a time when we do need more architects in California nationally as well. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Need a motion. So moved by Senator Grayson. We'll call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. Thank you to your witnesses. Thank you, Assemblyman. Have a great week. Let's see, I think we are lacking of an author at this point. Although we will note that file item 11, AB 873, has been pulled by the author. Okay. And we are looking for—we really need two authors. Oh, there's one of them. All right.

Right on cue. Perfect entry. We love it. Assemblywoman, I understand you are presenting two bills for us today. Would you like to start with your own? You want to do the other first? All right, great. That's file item order. So, file item 13, AB 968, which you will be presenting for Assemblywoman Boerner.

Yes.

Wonderful. Thank you. When you are ready.

All right. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. On behalf of Assemblymember Boerner, I am presenting Assembly Bill 968 that covers a pharmacist's ability to prescribe non-hormonal contraceptives. Currently, the law specifies that a pharmacist may only supply hormonal contraceptives. At this time—I'm sorry, I'm out of breath.

At this time, this law was created over 10 years ago, and the goal was to increase access to the most popular method of contraceptives that birth control—which are birth control pills—for individuals who cannot safely use the contraceptives, such as cancer survivors or other individuals managing complex medication regimens.

The non-hormonal option are necessary, but they are not an actual preference. California has long been a trailblazer in progressive public health policy, and passing Assembly Bill 968 will position California as the second state to formally include this type of contraceptive in pharmacist care, setting a standard for equity, access, and innovation in the contraceptive policy.

Assembly Bill 968 enjoys bipartisan support and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today is Nicole Sydney, Assemblymember Boerner's legislative assistant, to answer any technical questions.

You're here for just technical questions? Okay. So, is there anybody else in the room in favor of AB 968? How about in opposition to 968? Seeing no one, we'll come back to the dais. Colleagues, comments? Moved by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. We'll call—would you like an opportunity to close?

Sure. Her closing honestly says she respectfully asks for your aye vote.

All right, we thank her and you. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. Assemblywoman, would you like to move on to your item now? You ready?

Yes.

This is File Item 14: AB 1027 by Assemblywoman Sharp-Collins. Couple of witnesses here. When you're ready.

Okay, I think I got my breath now.

All right.

All right. Once again, good morning, chair and members. Today I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1227, a bill that strengthens the Departments of Cannabis Control Authority to regulate cannabis product testing, ensuring that consumer safety and product integrity and market transparency. When voters passed Proposition 64, they struck a deal that would provide a safe legal cannabis market.

Reports show that we are failing to deliver on that promise in part because of the existing regulatory frameworks that do not provide the Department of Cannabis Control adequate authority to regulate testing labs and perform oversight.

Recent investigations, including those by the Department of Cannabis Control at the LA Times, have found serious testing irregularities, including THC inflation, failure to report contaminants, fraudulent certificates of analysis, and a lack of oversight in track and trace compliances.

In one report, a sample of 150 randomly chosen California products found that 87% had inaccurately high THC potency levels, allowing the seller to charge a higher price for an inferior product. Findings also revealed that some licensed laboratories have intentionally omitted pesticides and other contaminants to retain the manufacturing clients, threatening customer safety and also threatening people's public health.

Certificates of analysis are supposed to be a means of tracking and verifying THC content and strained information, but with fraudulent certificates, fraudulent certificates being uncovered, both retailers and consumers are deceived to potentially dangerous results.

Finally, it has also been reported that some distributors have been caught selling products without proper testing verification through the track and trace system, undermining public confidence in the legal market. An unsafe legal market only pushes more consumers to the illegal market for the cheaper prices.

This is tax money that is lost revenue to the state, and especially at a time where we cannot afford to lose any more revenue. Assembly Bill 1027 addresses these issues in a few ways, including mandating blind proficiency tests for labs, granting DCC authority for random quality assurance reviews, strengthening enforcement against non-compliance products, improving transparency in product labeling, enhancing accountability in distribution, and expanding DCC's recall authorities.

By modernizing product safety standards and increasing transparency and enforcement, Assembly Bill 1027 protects consumers, safeguards public health, and restores faith in legal cannabis market. With me today to offer additional testimony is Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operations Association.

All right, thank you. When you're ready, two minutes. Go for it.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association. We represent more than 300 licensed cannabis businesses across the supply chain.

We are proud to sponsor AB 1027, a measured and thoughtful bill that strengthens oversight of cannabis testing to improve transparency, support enforcement consistency, and reinforce consumer confidence in California's cannabis market. California has long required cannabis products to undergo testing by licensed laboratories to ensure compliance with limits on pesticides, heavy metals, and other contaminants, and yet, as the author noted, recent findings make clear that further action is needed to maintain trust and accountability.

Essentially, AB 1027 is a straightforward, enforceable, and fiscally neutral measure. Its impact will be meaningful. It supports public health, promotes transparency, and protects compliant operators from being undercut by bad actors who may be cutting corners or manipulating test results. AB 1027 is a necessary step forward, and we thank the author for her leadership. We respectfully urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. Are there others in the room in support of AB 1027? If so, please come forward. How about in opposition to AB 1027? Seeing no one, we'll come back to the dais. Colleagues? So moved by Senator Menjivar. Would you like an opportunity to close?

Thank you so much for your time, committee chair and members. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you so much to you and your witness. We appreciate you and appreciate the bill. Let's call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you so much, Assemblywoman. Have a great week. Thank you to your witness. Thanks to everyone in the room. We have one author outstanding. We are waiting for her to make her way to the chambers. In the meantime, we do have one file item, which is File Item One: AB 309 by Zbur.

That requires a motion, moved by Senator Menjivar. We can call the roll on that one. This is file item 1 AB 309 Zbur, as to hypodermic needles and syringes.

Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, we could probably run through the roll one time, although I think most of you were here for most of it. Why don't we. I don't think. I don't think they all were. So let's. Let's give it a shot. We'll start with file item 2, AB 478 by Zbur.

Motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 6 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that stays at 6-0. We'll leave it on call. File item three. Bauer-Kahan. AB 578.

Motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Floor. Current vote's five to zero. [Roll Call]

We'll leave that on call as well. Move to file item four by Lee. AB 631.

Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 8 to 0. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call. File item 5. AB 667 by Solache.

Motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote;s 5 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

File item 6 by Wicks. AB 671.

Motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 5 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call. Move to file item 7. AB 759 by Valencia.

Motion is due pass as Amended as Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 5 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

File item 9 by Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva.

AB 782. Motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 6 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll leave that on call as well. Move to file item 12 by Flora AB 876.

Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 5 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right. File item 13 by Assemblywoman Boerner. AB 968.

Current vote. Excuse me. Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 5 to 0. With Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, we just took up Sharp Collins, so we can probably skip that one. Come back to it. How about file item 15. AB 1175 by Irwin presented by Lee.

Motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current votes 5 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll leave it on call. Final item here for now. AB 1503. File item 17 by Berman.

Motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 7 to 0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, we're going to hang out for one second. If you are a Senator on the Business, Professions and Economic Development Code, please make your room, your way to Room 2100. And we are also waiting for one author. We're going to give it just a second. And if they're not here, we will recess.

But first, let's give it one second.

All right, we're going to run through this roll one more time because we have another Senator here that we can, we can add on. Let's start with file item 1, Zbur, AB 309. Motion is do pass under Appropriations Committee. Current vote's 4 to 1, with chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]