Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Alright. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate Business Professions and Economic Development Committee. Seeing that we do not have a quorum yet, we're gonna start as a subcommittee. But I have a couple of announcements, just for everybody to understand what we are doing.

We have eight bills on our agenda. We have a number of bills on consent. File item number two, which is AB 2085 by Assembly member Alanis. File item number four, AB 1733 by Assemblymember Lee. File item number five, ACR 129 by Assemblymember Haney.

File item six, ACR 164 by Assemblymember Baines. And file item seven, AB 166 by Assemblymember sorry. ACR 166 by Assemblymember Avila Farias. In this committee, we're gonna basically do it this way. We're gonna hear from, the author, and then they have either two witnesses in support and also potentially two witnesses in opposition.

They will be speaking at that lectern, mic over there. They will be timed at roughly two minutes each. We are very strict. I like to make sure that people stick to their two minutes and move on. The Me Too's that come in will state their name, their organization, and whether they support or oppose.

Both support and opposition come at the same time. We would like for you guys to be quick about it. And at the same time, we're gonna then go to members of the committee if they have any questions, comments, any concerns, any thoughts that they may share, we will close with the author and then move on to a vote. Again, we are going to be moving as a subcommittee. So we're gonna start with file item number one, AB 277 by assembly member Alanis.

So whenever you would like to present, please do so.

Madam chair, I wonder if I could just add one message at the beginning of this hearing that Sure. Today is Senator Archuleta's birthday. Oh. Oh, yes. Happy birthday.

Well, thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Just keep them coming, Lord. Yeah.

Happy birthday. Alright. Assembly member, if you'd like to begin.

Well, thank you, madam chair and senators. Good morning. I want to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I'll be accepting the committee amendments today to fix a technical error in the language. So thank you. AB 277 would require unlicensed employees who provide behavioral health treatment to undergo a background check.

Current law requires background checks for school employees, volunteers of youth service organizations, and licensed health care professionals. However, there is currently no background check requirement in state law for employees of behavioral health companies, such as registered behavioral technicians, or RBTs. Data shows that children with disabilities are more likely to be abused and neglected than their neurotypical peers. Additionally, many children with developmental disabilities are nonverbal and less likely to report abuse when it occurs.

A B 277 increases transparency in the hiring process, and parents and guardians feel more comfortable trusting their children in the hands of behavioral health care workers.

A B 277 passed through the assembly with no opposition. And today with me is Rachel Blucher, who will be testifying on behalf of CalABA.

Hi. Good morning, chair and members. Rachel Blucher on behalf of CalABA. We're the California Association for of Behavior Analysis, cosponsors of AB 277, which mandates background checks for individuals providing behavioral health treatment in behavioral health centers, facilities, and programs. Cal ABA is the Professional Membership Association representing over 31,000 practitioners of behavior analysis in California.

Our members provide ABA services across a range of settings including homes, schools, clinics, and community environments. Many of our members provide behavioral health treatment to individuals with developmental disabilities such as autism and intellectual disabilities. We recognize the importance of implementing clear and enforceable safety measures within behavioral health services to protect individuals we serve, particularly children and individuals with disabilities. By requiring employers to conduct background checks, AB 277 aligns behavioral health settings with existing standards of other health care and educational institutions.

This legislation will promote employer accountability, strengthen public trust, and most importantly, enhance consumer protection.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other in support witnesses? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to Me Too's. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to committee members.

Seeing none okay. Senator Archuleta.

Yeah. I just for clarification, there's a good number of people that are in the profession. They'll be able to now go through the system and we can do a background check on them as well as those that are coming in to the industry.

That's the way I say it. Yes.

I'm sorry? Yes. Okay. Good. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly member, I always appreciate you and I working together on protecting children. So I always appreciate you bringing bills like this forward. Would you like to close?

I I also agree with you on that. Thank you very much. Respect for the astray vote.

Alright. We do not have quorum yet, so that bill will, you know, be waiting for somebody to make a motion when it's appropriate.

I appreciate it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

We're gonna move on to, file item number three, by AB 1382, Assemblymember Castillo.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee members. I'm here to present AB 1382, the Ethics Over Aesthetics Act, which would prohibit the sale of genetically modified animals where the genetic modification is for cosmetic purposes. While investments have been made to further genetic research for potential beneficial medical advancements, some companies have begun the development of genetically modified cats, dogs, and other pets with altered appearances to fulfill consumer demand for designer traits, despite unknown long term health risks.

These genetic modifications run the risk of prioritizing aesthetics over the well-being of the animal, as well as drive consumer demand for novelty pets where there already exists a pet overpopulation crisis. I want to clarify that this measure will not inhibit genetic medical research aimed at benefiting society and is explicitly curated to target animals genetically modified for the sole purpose of sale.

Furthermore, in an effort to address the concerns expressed by opposition to the bill, we have amended the language to exempt the sale of GloFish from this ban. These amendments satisfy their concerns resulting in the removal of their opposition. With me today to provide testimony is Nick Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs for Social Compassion and Legislation. Nick Sackett, Director of Legislative

Affairs for Social Compassion and Legislation.

Nick Sackett, Good morning, Chair, members. AB 1382 addresses two issues: preventing the exacerbation of the pet overpopulation problem and the questionable ethics of modifying animals' genes for the sake of novelty. California animal shelters euthanize approximately a quarter of a million animals every year. There are not enough homes for all the animals being bred, And the public pays for that to the tune of about 400,000,000 per year to operate animal shelters.

And that doesn't include the millions that nonprofit rescues spend every year to save animals.

The last thing we need is for a novel pet, such as a glow in the dark rabbit, to become the latest fad on TikTok, leading these animals being bred at a pace that puts profit over their well-being and later dumped on the side of the road after the photos have been taken and posted on social media. Thousands of impulse buys later and after the novelty wears off, the public is the one that will will foot the bill along with the animal to suffer.

California Fish and Game regulations only regulate aquatic transgenic animals with the regulation silent on mammals and birds. From 2003 to 2016, the Fish and Game Commission banned the sale of genetically modified fish. At the time of the initial vote, one commissioner was quoted in the LA Times as saying, For me, it becomes a question of values.

Under what circumstances do we want to monkey around with the genome of an organism? To do it for a pet seems rather frivolous. This bill will ensure that California does not encourage this burgeoning and frivolous industry. It will reduce the burden of regulating this industry from both the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and it will save untold dollars that our state will incur if we add to our overflowing shelters. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

You. Do we have any other support witnesses?

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association as well as Humane World for Animals, both in strong support. And thank you for the bill.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none, do we have any me too's? Seeing none, we're gonna move to the committee members. Seeing no commentary, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. So again, we do not have quorum. We will make the motion when it's appropriate. Thank you. We're gonna move on to file item eight, ACR 173 by Assembly Member Carrillo.

Good morning, madam chair and committee members. First, I wanna start by wishing Senator Accelat a very happy birthday. Happy birthday, sir. I'm here to present Assembly Concurrent Resolution 173, which recommends to formalize in the sister state relationship between the State of Jalisco in Mexico and California. As my colleagues know personally from their own bipartisan legislative trips to Mexico, our State in Jalisco share longstanding cultural, economic and demographic ties.

Those ties between our two States represent their past and a collaborative future together in policies ranging from agriculture and labor to technology and education. This resolution emphasizes diplomacy independent of federal policy shifts, emphasizing collaboration and respect instead of confrontation and threats. The resolution also purposely calls on immigration protections because that's the reality on the ground being imposed upon our State at this time. It is hard to see a shift away from celebrating the historical contributions of immigrants or State's agriculture, infrastructure, and culture.

That shift should not be why when it's needed most who are saying the least.

But that doesn't need to be the case. We can rightly raise concerns when they are warranted. And we can respectfully agree to disagree on policies. But when there is an understanding of the need to respectfully work together as a binational level, something we evidence ourselves in our legislative visits, let's do that as well. I ask for your support and I vote for ACR 173.

Our states and people so much we can accomplish together between beginning with the World Cup, which is less than ten days away. Thank you, manager.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in support? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, any me too's? Seeing none, members, would you guys like to comment?

Senator?

Thank you, madam chair. I was ready to support this resolution not unlike the item before which is on consent until I reached the last whereas when it states to address the recent mass deportations. Now, I think you know and many people know I am not anywhere near a Donald Trump apologist. But this year and last year, we seem to be blaming almost every problem that we have in the state on the admit current administration.

And, while I'll agree that there are some things well to be criticized.

And with regard to immigration, we do have mixed messages coming out of Washington DC on this relative to mass deportations versus, criminal deportations. But when we say recent, there were more deportations under the last year of the Biden administration than there were in 2025. So I guess two things. Number one, you could have made that clear or just not said it at all. And either way, in the former, I may have been able to support it.

In the latter, I definitely would have been able to support it. But I can't because of that. I'm not gonna vote no. I'm gonna abstain. But I just think that that the comment is pointed.

It didn't have to be made. And again, there have been significantly more deportations, not just in the Biden administration, but in prior admin Democratic administrations before that than there was in 2025. So I it it's a statement that really didn't need to be made in the context of the message that you're trying to portray. Okay. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you for those comments. Assembly member, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an eye vote at the appropriate time. I don't know if we have quorum now, but when that's appropriate.