Assembly Standing Committee on Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact

Hang on. Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Good morning, and welcome to this morning's Assembly Economic Development Growth and household impact committee hearing.

To ensure members of the public and the media have access to our proceedings today, This hearing will be streamed on the assembly's website, and members of the public can provide testimony in person here in Room 127.

All witness testimony will be, in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing. If any member of the public in the room would like to testify on a bill, I will ask to approach the microphone in the appropriate time.

To preserve the safety of everyone here and to ensure the public's access to the discussion, please follow the directions of our sergeants.

I would like to welcome the two newest members of our committee, Assembly Member Murasuchi, which he will join us later today, and Assembly Member Rodriguez. We are going to begin today's hearing as a subcommittee until we get quorum.

So with that, we have five bills on the agenda and one ACR. The following two bills and one ACR on the consent. File item number one, AB 2048 Calderon. File item number four, AB 2583 Hoover, and file number six, ACR 129 Haney.

I will allow primary witnesses here in the room today to speak for two minutes with two primary witness per per their side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, organization they represent, and position on the bill.

Primary witnesses and support must be of those the author or two other otherwise have registered support position with the committee. And the primary witnesses of opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee.

Other support and opposition will be stated in the standing mic when called upon, simply state their name, affiliation, and position.

K? So with that, we're going to wait for our authors to show up, and then we will proceed. So I know our Sergeants are calling our Members. Yep. Yep.

K. Good morning, everyone, again. Now that Mr. Fong is here, we're gonna continue the our committee. With that, we are gonna continue as a subcommittee.

So with that, Mr. Fong, if you wanna join us, we're moving forward with agenda item number five, AB 2745, with our amazing Assembly Member, Mr. Mike Fong.

inclusive approach to international trade and investment. It updates the five year strategic planning process to include consultation with a global partnership advisory body and review in a public hearing.

It also also it also authorizes the designation of regional trade hubs across California to connect local businesses to global markets. These updates will strengthen California's global economic leadership and support businesses across our state to compete internationally.

And here to testify in support of Assembly Bill 2745 are Pat Fong Kushida, President and CEO of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, and Kate Gordon, CEO of California Forward.

Thank you. Thank you, miss Fong.

Good morning. Am I on? Yes. Pat Fong Kushida. I am President and CEO of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, and I have been in this role since 1998.

So I'm the oldest person here.

I'm sorry. Yeah.

But, anyway, really do appreciate, Assembly Member of Fong's support, but we represent the interests of over 722,000 Asian Pacific Islander owned businesses here in California. And we're sponsoring this bill because it's essential, we believe, to upgrade, California's current trade plan.

At the end of the day, you're right. The world has changed dramatically since I started back in 1998. And this has really been such a passion of our chamber.

We have done many, many trade missions internationally, the most recent to Japan last year. And so, you know, as Assembly Member Fong stated, you're right. We really wanna help California. We're the fourth largest economy here.

We wanna make sure that we have the toolkit to continue in that growth, creating good jobs, strengthening local and regional supply chains, driving innovation, and increasing the state GDP by opening new economic opportunities in the 95% of the global market,

which is obviously lies outside The United States. Right? So, you know, we haven't fully realized our potential. We have so much opportunity to be able to really be that front door for international California. So I respectfully respectfully include your Aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. It's great to be here. I'm Kate Gordon. I'm the CEO of California Forward. We're a statewide think tank focused on building out a more sustainable, resilient, and inclusive economy across every region of the state, and it's that focus on regions that brings

us here and to our strong support of this bill. California is incredibly diverse economy. You all know that from different regions of the state. Our regions have unique assets and opportunities to build out strong economies.

The California Jobs first program, which was a program I was honored to help drive when I was in the governor's office before this job, has has let every region of the state figure out its unique assets, its opportunities, and how to build out those economies across the state.

And each of those regions has these incredible opportunities, whether it's aerospace and defense or bioeconomy or the battery supply chain or AG tech. These are incredible but very different opportunities across the state.

but also importantly to bring in more foreign direct investment into our companies and communities.

Regions have the ability with support from this bill, which provides regional trade focused technical assistance hubs across all those regions. Our regions have an opportunity to both drive more exports of the incredible innovation and products and services that we create in this state,

That's particularly important given our state budget challenges, but also just the reality that we need to be building out a more domestic resilient economy in the face of these global shocks.

And so we really support this bill because of its ability to really help enhance and make more regional what GOBIZ currently has in its trade and international, services and in the work that's being done, across the state now on trade.

This really brings that to the regional level and really focuses on those diverse opportunities. And so we think that that piece of the bill along with the stakeholder advisory boards that can bring real world,

real economy experience into the trade into our trade and international opportunities in the state, make this an incredibly strong addition to what the state currently has and will drive, frankly, significant more investment into the state. So thank you so much for hearing us out. We really support the bill.

Thank you so much. K. Thank you for the, support. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable and strong support. Good morning. Craig Schoeller on behalf of the Port Of Long Beach in support.

K. Thank you. Seeing no member support, anyone in opposition? Any key witnesses or anyone in general, public? K.

Seeing none, let's bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions from members of the committee? No? Okay. K.

It's a motion. Second. Okay. Well, first, we're gonna let our author and we don't have quorum yet, so we're gonna we'll wait for them, Mr. Soria, but we'll we'll entertain that soon enough. With that, Mr. Fong, thank you for your presentation today.

Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Members. As you heard from our speakers, this pretty much modernizes California's international trade investment strategy to ensure that we remain competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. And without a respect, we ask for an Aye vote.

K. Thank you so much, Mr. Fong. Again, we're gonna wait for quorum, but, again, I wanna thank you and the witnesses. You know, I am witness of, the great work that, is being done in this, work. I know the importance of,

California being the fifth largest economy, so we look forward to, recommend this to an Aye vote, and we'll take that as soon as we'll we have a quorum.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah. And we're right on momentum of convene. I know I see Assemblywoman Maria Annamarie Farias.

If she's ready, we'll be ready for her. If not, we'll wait a couple minutes. Okay? You know, this committee, we're ready. So making up.

It's the right thing to do.

And then k. Good morning. Again, we're gonna continue with our next, author. Again, we are still working as a subcommittee until we have quorum of this committee.

So with that, I'm gonna ask, assemblywoman, Avila Farias to please, join us in her presentation of today's bill, which is item number three, AB 2366, Avila Farias. When you're ready.

My apologies for being late. That 880 corridor sometimes presents some challenges. And then I'm walking in the Chris, Yeah.

Is your microphone?

AB today, I'm here to present AB 2366 would require state agencies proposing administrative regulations to assess potential for adverse economic impacts on businesses and individuals in California, particularly coast coastal living.

California is one of the highest cost living states in the nation due to rarity of factors, including complicated regulatory network, high energy prices, and significant housing shortages.

While existing law requires agencies to consider economic impacts for for certain regulations, these analysis have not adequately communicated the true cost or regulations of experience by everyday Californians.

By requiring the cost of living analysis, AB 2366 would take real life experience of Californians into account when creating regulations.

Testifying with me today is Brenda Bass on behalf of the New California Coalition and Sarah Bridges with CMTA, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.

Welcome.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Brenda Bass with KP Public Affairs here on behalf of the New California Coalition, a proud cosponsor of AB 2366.

NCC is one of the state's fastest growing business civic groups focusing on finding policy solutions that grow our economy, sustain our environment, and address social inequities. AB 2366 fits those goals.

It's no secret that California is facing an affordability crisis. There are many factors that contribute to this, but one that cannot be ignored is tied to the regulatory process. In recent years, state level agencies have imposed new regulations that have a consequence of

increasing the cost of basic goods for Californians, be it the price of water, fuel, housing, food, and energy. However, these costs are often not fully considered during the rule making process, meaning that their impacts on the state are not investigated and understood.

AB 2366 builds upon the existing Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis or SREA process and must evaluate and consider when undertaking a rulemaking.

Cost of living is also added to the list of factors that the Office of Administrative Law must evaluate all regulations for when approving or rejecting proposed regulations.

To assist state agencies and OAL with these tasks, the bill charges the LAO with developing guidelines for determining the cost of living impacts, which then the agencies at OAL can apply to their decision making.

Together, this will ensure that a proposed regulation's financial impacts on everyday Californians will be directly and adequately disclosed and analyzed.

This will provide a new layer of transparency to the rule making process, meaning that better policy can be developed and negative cost impacts can be avoided. AB 2366 is a meaningful step forward to making California a more affordable place to live and work.

For these and other reasons, we will urge your Aye vote on AB 2366. Thank you.

Chair Solache and Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sarah Bridges with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association representing 45,000 companies and their 1,200,000 employees.

California manufacturers are operating in one of the most challenging cost environments in the country, facing high energy prices, increasing regulatory complexity, and intense interstate competition for investment in jobs.

What our members consistently experience is not just the impact of any single regulation, but the cumulative effect of many decisions made across agencies.

AB 2366 directly addresses these challenges by improving how regulations are evaluated before adoption.

First, the bill requires agencies to analyze cost of living impacts as part of every regulatory analysis. For manufacturers, this is critical. When regulatory decisions increase electricity rates, fuel costs, or logistic expenses, those costs don't stay isolated.

They flow through our members' operations, impacts their hiring decisions, and ultimately can raise prices for consumers, making it harder to grow jobs and keep production in California.

Second, the bill strengthens accountability by requiring independent review from the LAO, the legislative analyst office, by establishing a consistent statewide methodology for evaluating cost impacts.

This adds an important layer of accountability and ensures that the real world impacts on industries like manufacturing are not underestimated or overlooked.

Third, the bill requires agencies to pursue less costly alternatives when significant impacts are identified. This is especially important for manufacturers that rely on complex systems such as energy use, emissions controls, or production processes where rigid one size fits

all mandates cannot can be both costly and operationally impact impractical. Flexibility and compliance can make the difference between companies choosing to maintain operations in California or shifting investments elsewhere.

Finally, the creation of a regulatory economic burden tracker is a critical step forward. Manufacturers experienced the cumulative impact of regulations across multiple agencies and business facets.

This tool provides much needed transparency into how those costs stack up across sectors over time. At its core, AB 2366 ensures that regulations are not just well intentioned, but well informed, ensuring they are grounded in economic reality and mindful of competitiveness.

For these reasons, we respectfully support AB 2366 and ask your Aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses of support in the room? K.

Thank you. Are there any what is in opposition in this bill? No? Seeing none? K. We're gonna move on to bring it back to the committee for any questions. Mr. Wallis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanna make the offer to bring the member forward. I think it's a really important step in addressing California's affordability crisis and increasing government transparency, whether at the pump, in the grocery store, or on utility bills.

Things have just gotten too expensive for Californians, and I don't think it's any secret that a lot of that's due to regulations. So requiring state agencies to consider the impacts of their regulations could have a tremendous impact on California's cost of living.

So thank you for bringing that forward. I'd love to move it at the appropriate time, and we're still on a subcommittee, but would also love to be added as a coauthor if you'd have any.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wallis. Anyone else? K. Seeing none, I'm gonna have the author go ahead and close.

Thank you, Chair and Members. As we illustrated today, how important this bill is to really streamline bills and make sure that we don't create bills or legislation that have unintended consequences. And it starts with the financial impacts of our community.

So I would appreciate and I support of this bill, and I appreciate it.

Thank you, Assemblywoman Avila Farias. We're gonna go ahead and pause for a second and then take quorum. So with that, secretary, could you please call the roll?

[Roll Call] We have quorum.

Thank you. We have established quorum. Thank you, member Rodriguez, for joining us. And, again, we wanna welcome you formally to our committee. This is your first committee.

We did that earlier. We wanna make sure we did that in person, so thank you. We're excited to bring your background and your leadership to this committee. And with that, Senator Wallace is moving the bill. Second by, Vice Chair Castillo.

With that, we're gonna go ahead and, take a roll call.

File item number 3 AB 2366, Avila Farias pass and re refer to the committee on Judiciary.

[Roll Call] We'll go ahead and leave it open for additional votes.

And some comments, Ms. Avila Farias. Just again, thank you to the Member for bringing this forward to our floor, to our committee, and for coming to addressing this important issue, particularly as it relates to the cost of living and facing Californians today.

This bill raises thoughtful considerations about how we can better support our communities while improving accountability and outcomes. I also wanna acknowledge the concerns raised by opposition.

These perspectives are important, especially as we evaluate how this proposal would impact affordability, implementation costs, and any unintended consequences for residents and businesses.

We as we consider this measure, we will be, critical to strike a balanced approach, and one of the meaningful addresses of cost of living pressures while also ensuring the policy is practical, effective, and sustainable over the long term. So thank you.

Thank you again for your time. K. With that, we're gonna go ahead and and move with the consent calendar.

Moved by Ms. Soria, seconded by Mr. Wallace. Secretary?

On the consent calendar, file item number one, AB 2048, Calderon. Due pass to appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. [Roll Call]

File item number 4 AB 2583 Hoover due pass and re refer to the committee on privacy and consumer protection with recommendations to consent calendar. [Roll Call]

File item number six, ACR 129 Haney to be adopted. [Roll Call] We'll go ahead and leave the consent calendar open for additional votes.

Great. Thank you. And I do see that we have our next author here, and we're are moving to item number two, AB 2243. Mr. Haney, thank you for joining us. When are you ready, Will?

Are you start? Yeah. Anytime. You're welcome to our committee, Mr. Haney. Yes.

Patient and develop a long term road map for how a state bank could be used as an additional financial tool. It is to complement, not replace existing financing mechanisms and help the state manage public dollars more strategically and address financing gaps

in areas such as housing infrastructure, climate resilience, and local economic development. With me to testify in support of the bill is Sylvia Chi with the California Public Bank Coalition and Will Brieger with Climate Action California.

Welcome. Welcome.

Members. Will Brieger from State Strategies here for Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento. We advocate for pragmatic climate solutions. AB 2243, as you heard, creates a commission to explore whether and how to create a bank owned by the people of

California. The bill is modest in what it requires, but it's big in what it could accomplish one day.

The bill instructs the commission to create a plan for what I call a greed free bank that prioritizes the public good by financing affordable housing, building decarbonization, home hardening, and lending to small businesses in areas that private banks have been

historically absent. Small businesses as as you all know, employ almost half of California's workforce. In the next decades, California needs to do some really big things, And that includes transitioning our entire economy to be lower carbon and powered by clean energy.

So that's why climate groups like this bill. It's a financing tool we need. Private banks have come and gone. We've seen the Great Depression wiped somehow. We have the savings and loan debacle in the nineteen eighties. We had a meltdown in 2008.

Meanwhile, in North Dakota, a state bank has been around since 1919 and has returned a profit for North Dakotans every single year for a hundred plus years.

During the Great Depression, when farmers in North Dakota couldn't even get loans for seeds, the bank bailed them out, helped them.

When there were foreclosures on farms in North Dakota, the bank was able to buy those farms, hold on to them, and sell them back to the farmers when they could afford it.

If North Dakota can do it, I think California can create a commission to explore this kind of possibility for Californians. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Hello. I'm Sylvia Chi representing the California Public Banking Alliance. We are a network of 10 cities and regions across the state from Eureka to San Diego working to advocate for public banking. I'd just like to briefly address some of the misinformation,

that's been spread by the Bakers Association. First, as has already been discussed, this bill does not create a bank. It creates a commission of appointed experts in banking, public finance, and other relevant areas to oversee the creation of a detailed and

rigorous analysis and road map to help California lawmakers determine if the state can responsibly reduce costs, manage risk, and keep more public dollars working locally through a state public bank.

The opposition noted that there's have been multiple studies that have evaluated public banks, but no public banks have been established following those studies.

And while it's true that in the previous decade, Washington and Massachusetts completed studies about public banking, and both states have yet to create a public bank.

Neither of the studies covered the state of California, current economic conditions, or the scope of detailed analysis and planning proposed in AB 2243.

The opposition further omits mention of the banking lobby's well funded advocacy efforts to stop states from establishing public banks. The bank banking lobby also says that AB 2243 bypasses is regulatory review by the state's financial regulator.

This is a complete fiction invented by the opposition. The bill does not create a bank, does not authorize operations, and nothing in the bill suggests bypassing regulatory review of capital requirements, governance structures, experience and integrity of the bank's

management team, or viability of the business plan. In fact, the bill requires the creation of a business plan, which would be subject to regulatory scrutiny. Any future bank would still require approval and oversight by appropriate regulators.

In addition, the the bank lobby noted that or stated that establishing a California state public bank would cost billions of dollars, and any hypothetical benefit will take decades to realize.

This is a presumptive conclusion and is offered without any reasoning or grounded in reality. So and it distracts from the fact that the bill we're discussing today is meant to answer that question.

AB 2243 creates a rigorous process to answer questions about capitalization levels, timelines for return on investment, and near term versus long term costs and benefits, including the opportunity cost of maintaining the status quo.

So this bill requires actual answers, not just fact free and ideologically driven assumptions from bankers. Finally, the opposition also says that bill would take away liquidity used by banks and credit unions to make loans into their communities.

This is a fabrication that bears no relation to the actual legislation. AB 2243 does not take away any deposits from banks and credit unions.

Rather, it creates a plan to help lawmakers evaluate how a state bank operating under a wholesale model could better leverage public resources to support partnerships with local financial institutions, community banks, credit unions, and CDFIs using

participation loans to expand their balance sheet and capacity to do more of the lending they're already doing in communities.

So, this bill lays out a careful and deliberative process that requires independent experts and public input to ensure that the commission develops a plan for a state public bank that's grounded in facts and data informed by the needs of Californians.

On behalf of the California Public Banking Alliance, I respectfully request your support of AB 2243.

Thank you. Are there any other, witnesses in support? And support. Thank you.

Good morning. On behalf of my name is Goli Saba. On behalf of California Public Banking Alliance and more than a 110 organizations representing communities, workers, and small businesses, we strongly support, Aye on AB 2243.

I've also been given permission to add #MeToo in support from the California Federation of Teachers. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Doug McPherson on behalf of Indivisible California, State Strong and 86 indivisible groups representing 80,000 constituents across California. We strongly urge your Aye vote on AB 2243 State Bank. Thank you.

Thank you.

Glenn Garfinkel on behalf of Climate Reality Silicon Valley chapter in support.

Megan Shumway with Sacramento 350 and the Climate Coalition of Sacramento, in strong support.

Nancy Price, cochair of the Alliance for Democracy that has many members in California, and also we're a, co convener of the Massachusetts Public Bank Alliance in strong support,

also representing the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, is in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Brett Garret representing the California Alliance for Community Energy, also Santa Cruz Climate Action Network and the Climate Alliance of Santa Cruz County in strong support of AB 2243. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alicia Dienst, social worker and member and a volunteer leader of the Sacramento area congregations together. We're strongly in support of this bill.

K. Thank you. Are there any, witness any key witnesses in opposition? K. Sir? You're gonna.

Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. Assemblymember Haney accepted amendments verbally, but it wasn't they weren't in the analysis. It's not very clear what those amendments were.

So before I testify, can I make sure I know what the amendments were so my testimony is on point?

Mr. Haney will be working on those at the next committee. Just wanna put that on record for now. Is that correct, Mr. Haney? Just wanna make sure. Yeah. Okay.

Go ahead. Just so far.

So this bill looks like a study bill, but I want to make sure the committee knows it really does have substantive provisions. 8857, which is the 2019 law that is that allowed local public banks, it provided a 7 year window for local public banks to apply for a

charter to the California DFPI. That sunset doesn't expire until January 2029. There's still two more legislative years to extend the sunset if this legislature wants to do that, but there is certainly no evidence that the sunset should be eliminated. No public banks have been created.

Second point, section 62706 b 2 is the first step towards meeting the requirement that local public banks have FDIC insurance. This bill the proponents want the state, not the FDIC, to ensure the deposits in local public banks.

That's what that provision is about. It's framed as a commission to rearrange the state's banking and lending functions. Section six two seven hundred I specifically mentions a depository bank.

A depository bank is a bank that accepts deposits that directly competes with banks and credit unions. This has been studied. San Francisco has studied it. Massachusetts has studied it.

Washington State has done a study of all the studies, and no public banks been created because they all say the same thing.

It costs millions or billions of dollars to capitalize a public bank, and the break even point is in the distant future if it ever breaks even. We have some recent experience here with the Cal account Blue Ribbon Commission,

which was a commission to study bank accounts for folks who don't have bank bank accounts. It cost $4,000,000. The study came back and said it's gonna cost hundreds of millions of dollars for the state to subsidize this with general fund money.

Last year, the legislature appropriate another million dollars to go back and revise the study. And so we're still working on this. It is we spent $5,000,000 studying bank accounts only for the 4% of people who in California who don't have a bank account.

If the real purpose of this bill were the consolidation of the of this government's banking functions, it would be hard to oppose.

But it does seem to us like the real goal here is to eliminate the sunset prematurely and have the state ensure the deposits of local public banks.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in the opposition?

Good morning. Sharon, representing health care, representing health care, credit unions and respect wealth opposition.

Thank you. K. Seeing no one else, we'll get back to the committee. Are there any questions from committee members? K.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, thank you to the author for for bringing this measure forward. There's been previous proposals to create a public bank for California that I did not support for many of the, I think, reasons that were raised by the opposition.

My understanding though with this bill is that you're taking a different approach and weighing trade offs, understanding what it would actually take to structure a public bank.

And I guess to the opposition recognizing that there's been studies been done in the past, I think we are at, you know, a different point in time.

So I don't think that the fact there's been previous studies means we shouldn't, you know, explore this possibility. However, I do wanna make sure that we're not just kind of handing over the keys to this commission to make the decision.

Because I think my working hypothesis is that the study might come back and say, actually, no. This isn't the right answer.

So I wanna make really sure that this very explicitly comes back to the legislature for a final review and decision, and I've chatted with the author about, about my concerns before committee.

So I wanna make sure that you are committed to amending the bill to clarify that it will come back to the legislature, that the commission will not be empowered to make a decision without legislative review.

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, go ahead, Chair. Yes. Absolutely.

The we will make it entirely explicit that any decision related to implementation of any of what is in the report or the plan or the recommendation would be up to the legislature.

And, really, this is about studying the issue about developing some different options of potential plan and how this would actually be implemented if we did it. But any decisions to actually implement it are created

would be left with the legislature, and we'll make that explicit as well.

Okay. Thank you. And based on that, I will be happy to support the measure today.

Thank you. And and and through the one one piece of the the amendments I know and with respect to the opposition, because I know that this was not stated, there was an aspect of the bill that would relate to the sunset of the additional local public licenses,

and that's what we're committed to to removing in the next committee. So that that part of the the opposition concern is is is no longer gonna be on the bill once we take the step to the next committee.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Haney. With that, more questions to Ms. Soria?

I just wanted to make some comments. I think I echo some of the similar comments made by Assemblywoman Petrie Norris. I do appreciate you making, you know, public clarification on the amendments. I do sit on banking committees.

I wanna see the amendments prior to, you know, the committee obviously being heard.

So I will support today. I do see the value in studying the issue. But, again, I think very strongly feel that we, the legislative body, should have a role in figuring out if whatever comes out of that commission is actually where the direction that the state wants to go in. Thank you.

Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Soria. Ms. Rodriguez?

Yeah. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I'm looking forward to seeing the amendments in banking. I'll be supporting it today, but reserve my vote in banking, you know, till we see the amendments.

We do need to see creative ways to improve our state's finances, so I'm looking forward to seeing that amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Rodriguez. Anyone else? K. With that, Mr. Haney, would you like to close?

Thank you.

Yes. Thank thank you so much for those comments and and look forward to continuing to to work with you all as this moves forward.

I really it's about studying a a very important opportunity to save money for Californians to make sure we make investments in in these priorities in our state that I know that you all are working so hard on as a committee.

And so look forward to to doing that in a responsible way with with information that can help us make that decision and appreciate the work together and respectfully ask for your vote.

So thank you, Senator Haney, again for bringing forward AB 2243 and for your opportunity to, thoughtfully reexamine the role of state banks. I also wanna acknowledge the concerns raised by opposition groups, particularly around the extension of existing, timelines.

With that in mind, as you are willing to work with the banking and finance, committee to amend the bill, and by removing the language related to the public bank licensing provision.

I would like to I would like to be purchased for the measure, and thank you again for your work on this. K?

With that, do we have a motion? Moved by Mr. Rodriguez. Second. Second by Ms. Soria. At this point, we'll have a roll call, please.

File item number 2 AB 2243, Haney due passed, and we refer to the committee on banking and finance. [Roll Call] We'll leave it open for additional votes.

K. Thank you. Thank you. K. We're gonna go back and take some additional votes.

Okay. So let's go over

So we we'll do the recall first for the absent Members. Yes. K. Do you have any votes? Hold on. I think I think you're fine.

Okay. So so let's do a a roll call for absent Members.

K. Roll call for absent Members. [Roll Call]

Okay. Let's go ahead and go over file item number five, AB2745 Fong. Due pass as amended to appropriations. Can I get a.

Thank you. [Roll Call]

Okay. And then I'll do your absent votes. File item number two, a B no. You did.

File item number 3, AB 2366, Avila Farias. Due past and we refer to committee on Judicial. [Roll Call]

Consent calendar. [Roll Call] Thank you.

Good. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you. everyone. Thank you. Thank you.

Can someone check if Ms. Petrie Norris is coming back? Because we're gonna close the meeting. Thank you.

How many. We're gonna go ahead and continue with our next votes.

Okay. File item number 2 AB 2243Haney, do pass and we refer to committee on finance. [Roll Call]

K. That's a out on a 7-0 vote. Referred to oh, that's out. Okay.

Out on 7-0. Just wanna get in the right

File item number 3 AB 2366 Avila Farias due pass, and we're referred to the committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

And that's out on a 7-0 vote.

K. File item number 5 AB 2745 Fong due pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

And that's item on 7-0 vote.

And then the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Consent calendars are approved. Good. Thank you, everyone. Have a good morning and the rest of the day. Meeting's adjourned.