Assembly Standing Committee on Banking and Finance

The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee is now called to order. Sergeants, please call the absent members. I believe we have a quorum. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Thank you. A few logistical items. We accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website In order to facilitate the goal of this hearing as much as possible for the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

Since we do have a quorum, we can begin. Before we get going on the file order, I would like to have the consent calendar passed. Is there a motion? Give me a second. Thank you. On the consent calendar is a B2028Chen, AB 2425Chen, and AB 2795, the bank and finance committee bill. Since we have a motion to second, madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have two announcements. AB 2558 by Assemblymember Berman and AB 2746 by Assemblymember Schiavo have been pulled from the agenda. Outside of that, we will continue in the order. And we do have enough votes to pass the consent calendar. We will hold that open for absent members.

We will begin with a v two one one six, assembly member Chiavo, California consumer financial protection law. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Assembly member Schiavo, your opening statement when ready. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Happy to present ab wait. That's the wrong bill. Hold on. Hold on. It is the wrong bill. Okay. Well, I guess I'll read the small print. I was hoping for a bigger print. Okay.

Happy to present AB 2116. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create jobs, drive innovation, and sustain our communities. And when they seek capital to grow, they deserve a market place that is fair transparent and accountable.

Before coming to the legislature, I was a small business owner myself. I understand firsthand how much time, risk, and capital it takes to keep a business afloat, especially under uncertain economic times like we have today. When small businesses feel the pressure first and hardest.

AB 2116 does not eliminate access to capital. It does not ban merchant cash advances. What it does is close a dangerous oversight gap.

Today, a growing segment of the market, products like merchant cash advances avoid regulation by claiming they are not loans because they rely on future receivables.

As a result, many of these companies are not required to register or operate under basic oversight, and they've been allowed to operate basically in the shadows. The gap is being exploited.

These products are often marketed to small businesses with limited options. But buried in the fine print are deeply troubling provisions, non disclosure clauses that silence business owners and prejudgment remedies that allow companies to freeze bank accounts without notice.

Let me be clear, a small business owner should never be legally barred from asking for help or advice. And no business should be forced to sign away its rights, before they're exists. That's not a innovation. That's coercion. In AB 2116, it restores balance.

It requires the financing providers are simply registered with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.

It establishes basic standards of conduct and prohibits the user the prohibits the use of prohibits the use of confessions of and power of attorney provisions before default. This bill does not restrict capital.

It ensures that access to capital is fair and transparent and responsible. And at its core, AB 2116 is about accountability. So when our small businesses pursue opportunity. They are not met with silence or coercion or exploitation.

I have Paloma here who is a small business owner and she runs a preschool to testify in support of AB 2116, and Heidi Pickman, with Cameo who represents small businesses throughout California with five or fewer employees to help provide testimony on behalf of the bill.

Thank you so much, committee. My name is Bianca Blomquist. I'm California Director for Small Business Majority, but we represent Paloma Corona. She gave me her testimony.

She's on her way here actually taking time from her business to share with you her experience with this product and her support for the bill. So if I may read her testimony on her behalf.

Please.

Thank you. Thank you again. My name is Paloma Corona. I'm the owner of Little Sprouts Immersion Language Preschool in Los Angeles. I'm a member of Small Business Majority's Network.

I'm here to share why AB 2116 is needed. I opened my preschool in 2020. I had years of experience in a solid plan, but the shutdown reduced demand for childcare.

I managed to stay open, but a few years later, I needed to I needed funding and began using my personal savings to cover expenses. After searching online, I found what seemed like an affordable loan at a 13% rate. Only after signing did I learn that the APR was actually 235% APR.

This was never disclosed. If it had been, I would have chosen a different option. Although California requires APR transparency, my lender did not follow the law. AB 2116 would require lenders lenders to register, ban confessions of judgment, and enforce existing disclosure laws.

Most small business owners are not financial experts as the SBA severs business owners from the safest avenues for access to capital. Lenders are taking advantage of this fact. I urge you to support AB 2116.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in the room in support of the bill? If so, please come to the mic and state your name, organization, and position.

Can we have one of these?

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California in strong support. As you just heard, since you only had one witness, APRs of hundreds of percentage are wrong, and they ought to be outlawed.

Not just here, but beyond. Thank you.

Good morning. Danny Kendall Kaiser on behalf of the California I'm sorry, Cameo Network in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Allison Snow, Mayor of the City of Lemon Grove. I also run, the housing rights legal clinic at the University of San Diego Law School. As Mayor of many small businesses, and it's a place with a very diverse economy.

We absolutely need this protection for our small business owners. They're entrepreneurs.

It's a very diverse immigrant based community. We are at second most diverse in San Diego County next to the City of San Diego, and they are clamoring for this. So, please, strong support for this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rafael Aguilera with the Greenlining Institute in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Nico Molina, on behalf of Capnus and Rapid Finance with the Tweener position. We appreciate the productive conversations with the sponsors and the author's office regarding the best way to provide robust consumer protection.

We look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please step forward. You have two minutes of testimony. Thank you.

Carolyn Veal-Hunter on behalf of the Revenue Based Finance Coalition. Unfortunately, our timely filed opposition letter was not included in the analysis.

So but I am looking forward to working with the author we've had, but I wanna put the three issues that we have on the table just so we can continue those discussions.

RVFC supports the goal of protecting small business, and they strongly support the ban on pre default confessions of judgment. Powers written there are three issues that need to be addressed.

One is the bill has a definitions on conflicting definition on what a small business is. It's inconsistent with definitions adopted in other statutes. Second, the bill improperly conflates consumer and small business regulation.

Small business are not consumers, and California has long regulated commercial financing differently because business transactions involve different risks and needs.

Third, the registration requirements are aligned more to consumer regulations, and we they established broad new registration requirements under the consumer finance protection framework.

And without additional resources or alignment, the department's commercial lending alignments, this we believe this will delay and limit capital for small businesses.

With target amendments in these areas, AB 2116 can protect small businesses and without cutting off the capital they depend on. The author was advised that significant amendments are underway, and she's going to take our concerns into consideration.

We'll be meeting with her to continue to address those concerns. We believe we can be able to make significant headway on these issues and continue to protect small businesses while preserving their access to needed capital. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there any additional individuals in opposition? If so, please step to the mic and also state your name, organization, and position. Seeing none, we will bring the discussion to the committee. Committee Members, are there any questions for the author?

Seeing no questions. Assembly Member Schiavo, really wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward. You and I have had conversations around the urgency and need for transparency, especially when consumers are having these products pushed in front of them.

I firmly stand behind the idea that transparency is of the utmost importance. And I do believe, especially, entrepreneurs across the state of California are intelligent enough and capable enough to make the decisions on their own in terms of what's best for their financial

future and their business model as well. But of course, having the information from them is extremely important so they can make that best decision. And because of that, happy to support the bill today.

We do have a motion. Do we have a second? Oh, we do have a second. Wonderful. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2116, Schiavo due pass to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

The bill passes. We will hold the roll open for absent Members. We will now move on to AB 2243, Mr. Haney. Begin when ready. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I wanna start by thanking you and your staff for the your work on this bill and accept the committee's amendments.

AB 2243 would establish a state bank commission to evaluate how a state bank or some additional public financing tools could serve California. California is the fourth largest economy in the world, generating nearly $300 billion in annual revenue.

Yet despite this economic strength, the state continues to rely heavily on private financial institutions to finance public investments. Every year, California taxpayers pay about $4 billion in interest to private lenders to finance public projects.

That $4 billion does not go toward building homes, repairing roads, or opening schools. It simply is the price the state pays to borrow money from outside financial institutions. California faces urgent affordability challenges.

House and construction costs continue to rise. Infrastructure needs are growing, and local governments are struggling to close budget gaps. Over time, these financing costs can can consume a significant share of project budgets.

Meanwhile, the number of community bank banks has declined nationwide, concentrating financial power among larger national banks. As a result, money generated in California communities is often invested elsewhere rather than supporting local housing, infrastructure, and small businesses.

AB 2243 will take the deliberative phased approach, establishing a state bank commission to guide implementation, develop a long term roadmap rep for how a state bank could be used as an additional finance tool.

The goal is to complement, not replace existing financing mechanisms by helping the state manage public dollars more strategically and address financing gaps in areas such as housing and infrastructure.

With me today to testify in support of the bill is Jennifer Finger with the California Public Banking Alliance and Tristan Brown with the California Federation of Teachers.

You each have two minutes. Thank you, and welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Jennifer Finger, and I'm a retired banker with over 35 years experience including at Bank of America and Beneficial State Bank. I'm here in strong support of AB 2243.

From a banking and public finance perspective, the bill is a prudent step to evaluate how California can better manage its own financial resources. The state has billions which are invested in deposits and securities.

A portion of those funds may be used to fund loans that benefit people and projects within the state of California. Core bank funding includes capital and deposits. $1,000,000 in capital can be leveraged to support up to $10,000,000 in loans over time.

From my experience inside the banking system, the question is who those funds ultimately benefit. For example, do the funds benefit shareholders or the people of California? AB 2243 does not create a bank.

It creates a disciplined independent process to evaluate whether a state bank could reduce overall financing cost through better coordination of various state programs, improvement of liquidity for local lenders, and better alignment of public funding with public priorities.

Importantly, this model is not designed to replace community banks, credit unions, or CDFIs.

It is designed to partner with them to amplify loan participations, guarantees, and other support so they can expand public purpose lending to small businesses, affordable housing, climate, and other local projects.

Even modest reductions in financing costs or increases in investment returns can translate into billions of dollars in savings over time.

The Bank of North Dakota is an example of a public bank that generates strong annual returns in the 15 to 18% range for the people of the state. As someone who has worked in both large multinational banks, community banks, as well as a mission driven bank,

I see AB 2243 as a responsible step to explore how California can use its balance sheet more effectively.

Funds that are currently placed as deposit secure securities may instead be used for loan participations or guarantees, which would provide a better return and a public benefit to the people of California. This is about due diligence, cost efficiency, and long term responsible fiscal stewardship.

I respectfully urge you to support California state banking legislation AB 2243. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. It's good to see you here outside of my normal venue. This is a fun historic piece of legislation that we're happy to support.

It's been said, I think, attributed to Albert Einstein that the eighth wonder of the world is compound interest. I would posit that the ninth wonder might be fractional reserve lending.

And these are two tools that the private banking system has been able to utilize for innovation and growth in our communities for hundreds of years. These are tools that help businesses grow, help jobs grow. It's amazing wonder of our finance system.

However, these tools are used primarily to help fund, and feed the interest of shareholders of these banks.

And not to say that that is bad. We have everything in our pockets now and homes because of this system. However, there is a better way. There is another way, another option that we can have with a public bank, much like a public option in other industries. Public banks are there for public interests.

And there are many projects that might demand something outside of the comfort zone of the private and, banking industry. For instance, CFT sits on a work group with the superintendent of public instruction on trying to find workforce housing options for educators throughout our state.

One of those options could be to, turn existing properties owned by local education agencies into housing projects.

However, I'll tell you the number one thing that we continuously run into is the fact that the return on investment and the windows, the timelines for that return by private institutions is one in which creates an environment that only high rents and mortgages can can satiate the needs of those shareholders.

Again, not to say this is or to cast dispersions on that system. It is just one that can't engage in a timeline that would be more appropriate for public investment. Public banks can take a much longer view of the ROI on their investments.

And not only that, but the economic multipliers that don't fit on a private bank's profit and loss statement can be a part of the overall strategic plan of a public bank.

For instance, ridding our education workforce of housing and security can help see decreases in our budgets for social service our social safety nets, our health care programs, and the cost of our law enforcement where they have to deal with housing and security related issues.

So it's a tie time for California as one of the largest economies in the world to join the other 900 entities that have public banks who hold over $50 trillion in assets.

And California can make a plan to have this as a vital tool for our communities and our residents, and we hope that the Golden State will advance this program and we can see some great opportunity for all. So with that, we urge a Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for that testimony. Are there any additional witnesses in the room in support of this bill? Please state your name, position, and organization.

Hi. Good morning. Rafael Aguilera with the Greenlining Institute, cosponsor of the bill, and strong support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi there. I'm Megan Shumway, for Saks Fifth Avenue 350 and the Climate Coalition and its 37 members, in strong support.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair Will Brieger for Climate Action California, we support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Vanessa Flores on behalf of Golden State Opportunity and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Todd McPherson. On behalf of Indivisible California, state strong, 86 Indivisible groups representing 80,000 constituents across California, we strongly urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Devin Gray, President of End Poverty in California, proud cosponsor of this bill and in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Linda Wei with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nelio Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Doctor Goli Saba with California Public Banking Alliance. On behalf of California Public Banking Alliance and more than a 110 organizations representing communities, workers, and small businesses in California. We urge, an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Kevin Morey. On behalf of Courage California and California Alliance for Community Energy, we strongly urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Danny Kendall Kaiser on behalf of the Cameo Network in support.

Thank you.

Jannette Stephenson, a member of Indivisible. I second Indivisible support of this bill.

Thank you.

Nick Gunderson, on behalf of three different organizations, Sacramento Act, including 56 congregations and neighborhood groups representing 60,000 families in the Sacramento region.

Inland Congregations United for Change with 63 congregations and 60,000 families, and Faith in Action East Bay, 23 congregations and 25,000 families were all urging an Aye vote on AB 2243. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Bianca Blomquist, California Director for Small Business Majority. We have research as of 2025 that indicates 82% of small business owners support the creation of a state public bank. We support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sally Caligan, Auburn, Friday for Future, supports the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? If so, please step to the desk, and you have two minutes each. Welcome.

Mr. Chair and Members, Chris Schultz for the California Bankers Association. Wanted to make sure to, thank and acknowledge Assemblymember Haney for the amendments adopted in the last committee. Supporters have important goals.

They say the public bank would generate $4 billion in for their priorities, but it's important to understand how they get there. The state spends about $8 billion a year on debt service.

And let's be clear about what this is. This is interest on bonds that the state has already issued. So California bonds are primarily held by individuals.

Some are held by institutional investors like pension funds, university endowments, financial institutions, insurance companies. To follow the logic here, one of two things needs to be true. Either the legislature and the voters are going to stop issuing general obligation bonds.

So that's no housing bond, no support for Senator Hertzberg's bond, no future school facilities bonds, or the proponents have a brand new idea for the state to borrow money without paying interest.

We remain opposed to the bill, and I want to run you through a couple of our, specific detailed objections. Should the state's taxpayers be on the hook to guarantee the deposits of a municipality that elects to start a state public bank?

Should the state's taxpayers provide technical assistance and financial services to subsidize the formation of local public banks?

Section 62706 b 7 appears to use the capital of this of the fair plan in the Earthquake Authority to capitalize the public bank. The bill delegates environmental, social, and governance investment standards to the board of the proposed public bank.

The legislature may want to consider retaining those investment standards. The legislature may want to ensure that the lending programs already authorized by this legislature are not disallowed by AB 2243.

The multiple studies regarding public banks and the relatively recent failures of SafeBidco in the Los Angeles Community Development Bank are detailed in our letter.

We respectfully oppose the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rob Wilson with California's Credit Unions. Two banking hearings in one week. How blessed are we? I we appreciate the recent amendments from the office office.

Exactly. It is yeah. Absolutely, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the recent amendments, especially, reinstating the sunset date as part the deal of AB 857, which is a bill that we worked on, and eventually, credit unions became neutral on that bill.

We do remain very concerned with the provisions of the study on the state guarantees of public deposits as my colleague from the bankers noted.

We view this as a a a step towards overturning the requirement for FDIC insurance that was agreed upon as part of that deal of AB 857.

This is an important requirement for the public bank, not just for the guarantee of deposit, but for the regulatory oversight that comes with it.

It's very important to have an independent regulator to overlook the insurance to fund, especially when it comes to these public deposits. These are taxpayer funds at the end of the day. So with that, that's our main concern with the bill that's outstanding.

We also remain concerned with the the use of funds for technical assistance. And for those reasons, our credit unions remain opposed to AB 2243. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional opposition, please step to the mic and state your name, organization, and position.

Good morning. Lindsey Golderon on behalf of the California Community Banking Network, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Seeing no more opposition, for the record, the motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Let's bring the discussion back the committee. Any questions by committee Members? Assemblymember Krell. Thank you.

Yeah. I just wanna thank, the author and the sponsors for their creativity and vision in bringing this bill, and I especially wanna thank SAC AC SAC Act. Many of my constituents came by to talk to me about this bill. Really appreciate it, and I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any additional questions from committee Members or comments? Assemblymember Schiavo.

Can thank you so much for this bill. I know this is something that's been talked about for a very long time, and efforts have been behind it for a very long time.

Can you talk a little bit more about how you see I mean, obviously, there's a lot of money that flows through the state and a lot of opportunity for that to be part of a state bank.

How do you how do you see this working in terms of state budget and being the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world depending on the day and who you talk to and how that could interact with the state bank?

I appreciate the question. I think as as you said, we have a lot of money that comes to us from California's residents and and taxpayers.

The question is how we in a in a smart way, in a way that interacts with other types of lending and and private and, you know, banking that we that we utilize, that we can keep more of those funds here in California for the priorities that we have.

That would mean looking at ways for us to send less interest, to large national banks, which they may use for their shareholders and other types of priorities that are out of California. We have a lot of funds that come through here.

Are we leveraging them the best we can to serve the needs of our population? And are we making decisions that are maybe more long term investments that we can make because it's for the overall benefit of our of our budget over the long term?

I think that's the question. I think it's a fiscally responsible thing to do for us to keep more of more of our money, and not give it away.

And instead, if we use it, use it for the needs that we have, whether that that's climate infrastructure, housing, etcetera.

We have an infrastructure bank, the ibank, which provides financing for infrastructure and economic development projects, but that does not operate as a full public bank.

There are examples in many places, municipalities, North Dakota, many countries, etcetera, that we can look to. And, again, many of the questions that were put forward and the concerns, those would be considered by this commission who would then lay out some of the

considerations, some of the recommendations of potential road map, but any final decisions would be left to the legislature. So they're not going to move forward with this unless we take what they provide us and say, let's do that.

And some of the things they may provide us may be some additional public financing opportunities or it may be a full public state bank, and it may give us some some some ways forward.

But the goal is to leverage the 300 that we bring in and make sure that that's used to keep as much of that as possible here and not paying it away in in the interest to national banks and also have it reflect the priorities that we have in our communities.

Yeah. I appreciate that, and I think there's a lot of baby steps sometimes.

Yes.

A lot of baby steps.

Might be a small expansion in some ways at the ibank. I mean, there's there's other things we can do.

I've I've tried to put a number of programs under the iIbank and, you know, I think important programs both for the state and for the public.

And I think having some flexibility and opportunity to do creative kinds of loans where maybe there can be a lower interest rate if it's small businesses or or we're talking about hospital loans that we've been doing for distressed hospitals.

I mean, there's a lot of support that flows out through the state that I think with more control and more flexibility in how we do that, we could actually really make a big big impact and a big difference for folks in our community,

especially those who are struggling in an on tight budgets and and really, you know, need some creative solutions to go forward. So thank you for your creative thinking on this and happy to support it today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions? I wanna thank the Assembly Member for bringing this bill forward, finding new models to make our financial system work, I think, is a positive for the ecosystem as a whole.

And we have to get very creative when it comes to the emerging technologies and the access to capital and the size and scale that our economy is now growing in. And because of that, I'm happy to support the exploring of this concept.

Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you again. Appreciate your work with us on this. And, again, the goal is to to complement, not replace the in any existing financing mechanism so that we can better manage our state dollars and use them for the benefit of the public and to do it in a thoughtful, deliberate way.

And there's a huge, huge coalition of folks all over the state, public banking coalition who wanna see this happen, and I hope we can move forward and and explore this. And I appreciate your work on it. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2243. Haney, due you pass to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. That bill is out. Thank you. Next, we have AB 2350 by Assemblymember Mckinnor. The motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations.

Miss Mckinnor, you're open. Stand up and ready for

Good morning. Still morning. Yes. Mr. Chair and Members, I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and thank the chair and committee staff for the work they did on this bill.

AB 2350 sets guardrails on rent now pay later financial services for rental housing so that predatory lenders do not continue to profit off backs of high rent burden, hardworking, and all too often, low income Californians.

Rent now pay later loans with high interest rates and junk fees can be harmful. Rent related financial products, especially for low income consumers, working families and individuals that use these products can be saddled with thousands of dollars in additional fees

and interest payments every year. This problem for renters has resulted in companies leaving families and individuals at great risk of eviction.

Furthermore, these predatory practices expose working people to potential financial risks from dubious credit reporting while lenders market these products as a helpful option to pay rent.

I appreciate the constructive conversation my office has had with stakeholders on this bill and remain committed to final language that will protect renters and engage lenders.

Unfortunately, my lead witness was not able to be here today. With that, the I have some support, the California Democratic Renters Council, LA Voice, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and consumer attorneys of California. And with that, I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, miss McKennor. Are there any additional witnesses in support that would like to state their position, name, and organization?

Hi. I'm Allison Snow, City of Lemon Grove. And, as I said before, I run the Housing Rights Legal Clinic at the University of San Diego, and for thirteen years, ran the consumer protection division at the Legal Aid Society of San Diego.

We have a crisis every day in San Diego. There are 25 cases set for trial at 08:30AM.

There's no way to be able to hear all those cases in one day. Everybody's shoved out into the hallway. They have to negotiate with landlords. 85% of those tenants aren't represented. And as a mayor, I see the end result.

And trying to struggle with homelessness and get people housed again is just an absolute terrifying cycle. We have families that are working two jobs per parent, four jobs, and still not enough to pay the rents in this town.

But Kennersville will help provide some much related needs. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any opposition in the room that would like to make a statement? Please approach. You have two minutes.

Mr. Chair and Member, Scott Govenar for the American Financial Services Association and the California Financial Services Association. Certainly, we're opposed to the bill in print. My members aren't in the rent now, pay later space.

We saw the analysis. We haven't seen the language and welcome the opportunity to work on this to narrow it to exactly who we are going after here and not impact the entire sector. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Lindsey Goldhorn on behalf of the American Fintech Council. Respectfully oppose unless amended.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments by committee Members?

Move the bill.

We have a motion in a second. Thank you. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. You and I have a a long standing working relationship and have very much appreciated your approach to legislating. It's tenacious and gets things done.

And throughout these conversations, I was very appreciative of your focus on ensuring that the goal, which is to protect consumers with this new and emerging model, is there. And very much appreciate you, accepting the committee amendments.

And because of that, I'll be supporting the bill today and look forward to this bill's success. With that, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2350. McKenna, due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. We will hold the role for absent members. Actually, assembly member Herbedian joined us, so we are good to go. Thank you, members. And We will now call the roll for the absent members that missed some votes. Madam secretary, please.

[Roll Call]

With that, the committee on banking and finance is adjourned.