Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Alright. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate Business Professions and Economic Development Committee. I do wanna highlight that we are going to be starting as a subcommittee as we do not have quorum. But I wanna make a couple announcements.

Number one, we have 13 bills on our agenda. The following items are proposed for consent. File item number 3, AB 375 by Assembly member Nguyen. File item 5, AB 1587 by Assembly member Ta. And the following item is being considered for vote only.

File item 1, ACR 173 by assembly member Carrillo. Again, just for rules of engagement in this committee, we will accept testimony from members of the public and witnesses at the microphone. Two lead support witnesses and two lead oppositions will follow. They will be timed at two minutes each. And again, the Me Too's will be presenting together both in support and opposition.

They will state their name, their organization, and whether they support or oppose the bill. Other than that, we will bring it back to committee and have conversation there, and the author will close. So with that, I just want to say that we will start with our very first, most technically our file item number two, AB 72 by Assemblymember Jackson. Assemblymember, you could speak at the lectern and whenever you want to begin. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, doctor. Members, of the committee, AB 72, which would create a electric vehicle economic opportunity zone in Riverside County. This is a, district bill, which would direct California's labor workforce and development agency to work with the county of Riverside to make electric vehicle manufacturing jobs and education more accessible in one of the fastest growing regions, in the state. And at the appropriate time, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

I I love that. You have no support and opposition witnesses, so I'll

My present to you, madam chair.

Thank you. Just real quick, any support? Seeing none. Any opposition? Seeing none.

Me too's? Seeing none. Members of the committee?

Perfect. Assemblymember, would you like to oh, sorry. Senator Niello?

My I have a few questions, but I suppose the most important one is, what is the labor and workforce development agency bring to this that locally local local initiatives do not? And what's the nature and form of the economic development organizations in this area?

Sure. First, we are still deciding on whether we are gonna be using GoBiz or whether it's gonna be the Department of Labor, and that's just because they're trying to decide amongst themselves which is the best place to put it.

At the end of the day, what we're saying is is that right now, when it comes to the electric vehicle manufacturing industry or technology as a whole, it is being concentrated in only a few parts of the state to benefit from all of the investments California is putting into, EV infrastructure. But what people don't realize is that Silicon Valley didn't just become Silicon Valley on its own. Hollywood didn't just become Hollywood on its own.

It was due to the tax credits that were being put within those regions to germinate and to make sure that they planted the seeds for what we are seeing today. And what this bill says and what we hope will obviously be replicated in other parts of the state is that regions who have typically not benefited from the billions of dollars that have been invested, in these regions, that it's time for us to make sure that all Californians are benefiting, from that, including the Inland Empire.

And so with this intent intends for it to do is to make sure that there's also economic incentives to ensure that the Inland Empire is benefiting from these and not just having the influx of lower wage jobs.

So Hollywood became a concentration of industry in Southern California because of tax credits?

In many cases, yes. If you follow the If you follow the in thirties and forties.

If you follow that where the investments were. I'd I'd challenge that premise. And Silicon Valley evolved initially really completely organically largely out of commercial developments from Stanford University and to a certain extent University of California also. I'm not aware of targeted tax credits in the technical industry. But but that point aside, what about other lower income communities relative to this effort?

Well, I mean, I think we each low income community has a representative that can do what they need to do to represent their district. And so I was I would just say that, you know, everyone has an opportunity to. But for it to be successful, as a pilot, you have to choose a location as a pilot. And then from there, you can branch out to it once because, you know, it's called a pilot for a reason.

By virtue of adopting this bill, the state will be saying that it wants to advantage Riverside County relative to this effort versus others. Now you say each person can advocate on behalf of their own. Of course local communities can advocate on behalf of their own. So what is the nature of the economic development local economic development efforts in this area? What's the nature of their economic development organization?

Do they have a corporate economic development organization that's a collaboration between the private sector and the public sector there?

In some cases, yes. They do. In some cases. Depending on the city?

Regionally. Like here in the Sacramento region, we have an organization called the Greater Sacramento Economic Council Which works. It is largely private sector driven but with substantial financial contributions in addition to the private sector from public sector entities. Virtually every single one in Yolo, Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Yuba and Sutter Counties. Cities and counties within that. Is there something like that?

Yeah. We have the Inland Empire Economic Partnership.

And is that an incorporated entity that is both supported by

Public and private. Yeah.

That would be the area where you would pursue this sort of policy. It seems to me. As opposed to the state putting its thumb on the scale for this particular area as opposed to Modoc County.

Yeah. I respect your opinion. Thanks.

Thank you. Senator Caballero.

Thank you, madam chair. I'm I'm gonna support your bill today. I I understand where where my colleague is coming from. I I would have liked some consideration of of some demographics that are consistent in the state because I think in rural California, the infrastructure just is not in place for electric the electrification of of our vehicles in vehicle infrastructure and that includes way way beyond passenger vehicles to some of the other changes that we're experiencing.

But also, the challenge with the using Opportunity Zone language is that that's a federal program.

And that federal program has tax credits and tax incentives as part of the program. And I think that's what you were referring to is it's a very prescriptive program that identifies areas by economic factors that would argue that we should be spending or or utilizing resources in in those areas. And, and this, I don't think is necessarily tied to the So anyway, it's just a comment.

I thought the committee analysis did a good job of just identifying it, and then I think it probably makes a lot of sense. I what what you're doing is really important.

But I also think that there are opportunities to look at other energy sources and to do, creative in in, incentives as well, and that's biogas and hydrogen. So we can look at

Oh, absolutely.

At, really, creating economic opportunities in our community. So thank you for

Appreciate it.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. I I just personally wanna say I think that there's a lot of EV programs that are, in my opinion, redundant, and that's at, like, not only the state level, but even the counties are doing it as well as the Federal Government. I think one of my biggest concerns in the state of California is there are a lot of redundancies. Right? Where it's not necessarily about this bill, it's just about the programs.

Right? And I think Senator Caballero and I share this as well as you. For example, I represent the Bay Area, and I will say that there even though we are home to my district, home to Tesla and so many of the EVs, renters are unable to have this because there is no infrastructure. Right? And there has been a lack of investment in infrastructure to potentially go more green and and much more.

And we are spending a lot of funds to have people purchase these types of vehicles yet not enough to actually make it realistic for the average lower income consumer. The example I've given in the last couple of years was that at the Ford f-150 pickup truck was the number one selling car in America for thirty years. It just got surpassed by the RAV4.

They invested heavily in the f one fifty lightning vehicle, and they stopped just because of the fact that, again, the infrastructure and lower income individuals that have these types of jobs where they have to drive and commute, it's not realistic if there's no infrastructure. So I fully support the investment in moving forward, especially in in, you know, district specific areas.

But I I I hope that whoever's thinking about these types of programming really try to make it a little bit more holistic. So I do have an I recommendation. I hope that you take some of the, comments into consideration just moving this bill forward. But with that, would you like to close?

No. I would I would just only say that, we we definitely have to make sure, that as the state continues to invest, billions of dollars into not just traditional EV infrastructure, but also the incentives for us to make sure that when factories are being built to manufacture these vehicles, not just the vehicles, but the batteries and all the other things that come with it, what communities are going to benefit from that?

And are we gonna provide an opportunity for all Californias to benefit from there, from that no matter where they are? And we wanna make sure that we begin to create a program that we can utilize for parts that have been traditionally neglected to ensure that they are part of that benefits and the livable wage jobs that will come from those. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Perfect. Thank you. We're gonna establish quorum if we can have a roll call.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That bill will be on call. We're gonna move on to I could've sworn I saw Irwin. Oh, okay. File item number four, AB685, Assemblymember's Assemblymember anytime.

AB685. I am grateful to you and the committee for staff for the hard work and thoughtful analysis of this bill. AB 685 establishes the Small Business Resiliency and Innovation Fund to strengthen California's small business assistance infrastructure at a critical moment. California's economic success is driven by our small businesses. They create jobs driven innovation and serve as economic anchors in communities throughout our state.

Access to technical assistance and financing remains one of the biggest barriers to long term success for many entrepreneurs, particularly those in underserved communities. AB685 recognizes that California must continue investing in the long term resilience of our small business sector, importantly investing in proven small business support tools, the technical assistance program, TAP, and the capital infusion program, SIP.

This investment is especially important to women owned, veteran owned, minority owned, immigrant owned, and rural small business owned that often face additional barriers to accessing these resources and rely on the technical assistance provided by the programs this fund would support. Recent amendments, updates eligibility criteria for small business technical assistance centers to receive small grants through California Small Business Technical Assistance Program, TAP, importantly allowing the Women's Business Centers to apply as a network.

I want to thank the California Business Development Center Network, the sponsor of this bill, and their partnership and continued support and advocacy on behalf of California small businesses.

Just last week, we received new engagement from additional stakeholders and our teams are connecting on the matter. I am joined today by Danny Fitzgrove, Regional Director of the San Diego and Imperial Valley Small Business Center Network and Nancy Swifts, Chair of the California's Women's Business Center, to testify and support.

Thank you, Senator Wahab, and thank you Assemblymember Solace for your continued support of the small business assistance programs through AB685. AB 685 is a critical funding mechanism. The small business assistance programs, which are the largest of program across the state, are the small business development centers. I oversee the one in the southernmost part of the state, one of five. We serve over 100,000 small businesses every year, providing about 10% of those services in other languages.

We serve everything from refugees and recent migrants to main street businesses as they're accessing capital, trying to develop and grow their businesses, to our innovative economy as well, really trying to be able to support those businesses and continue to grow through equity investments and so forth. Couple of things we're super proud of, of those equity investments, over 27% go to women or people of color.

Like I said, about 10% of our services are provided in a language other than English, providing services in over 20 different languages across the state of California. This funding is critical because it's needed to augment funding that has either sunset or gone away due to federal administration charges, where we're faced with the continuous demand and high need of small businesses as they're facing economic pressures today, but don't have the type of support that they had during the pandemic.

And so this is that type of funding to be able to augment what we receive from the state to provide, in particular, the access to capital that they need, providing, tens of thousands of hours of access to expert level advisors.

The new amendments, actually broaden the program in terms of its actual support and clarify particular things, allowing different types of nonprofits, public educational institutions, municipalities, or any other program that happens to be running a small business assistance program, ensuring that our small businesses receive the high quality support that they absolutely deserve. And so we thank you for your support for this bill.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead support witnesses? Lead support. Yes. Two minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Wahab and members of the Committee. My name is Nancy Swift, and I'm the Chair of the California Women's Business Center's Network in strong support of AB685. The network is made up of 21 centers operating independently across California. And while each of our centers is deeply rooted in its community, we all work together as the state's only coordinated small business assistance program specifically for women. The collective model works for our communities.

California Women's Business Centers create $79 in local economic benefit for every dollar invested. And since 2019, California Women's Business Centers leveraged approximately $278,200,000 in capital, including loans, grants, and equity against 12,400,000 in TAP. We're especially proud of that capital. 65% of that capital went to women of color owned businesses. That return really matters.

76% of our clients are women. More than half of them are women of color. Many of them are immigrants. All 40% are rural based entrepreneurs. These are the underserved entrepreneurs that Solachi mentioned, member Assembly member Solachi mentioned earlier.

The impact of the centers goes beyond dollars though. Since 2024, our childcare business clients addressed an economic development need and helped assisted our childcare businesses to increase the childcare slots in California by 12,013. So I'm here today, one, to say thank you to Assemblymember Solace for your continued leadership on this critical issue and united with our fellow business assistance programs because demand is outpacing resources and TAP has been oversubscribed.

For example, women's business centers have received only 60% of the funding that they're eligible for in the last two years. Thank you very much.

Alright. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? Opposition. Two minutes.

We are not in opposition. We're taking a no position. If I can speak for two minutes?

Yes.

Madam Chair and senators, Cal Agent has reviewed the June 3 amendments to AB685 and has some concerns regarding the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria of the Small Business Technical Assistance Program. We are also concerned that the bill's enactment will not result in supplemental funding for nonprofit operatives of technical assistant programs as intended by the author.

Currently, there are no provisions in the bill to ensure that the 26,000,000 will serve as a supplement rather than a replacement for the SBTAP funding proposed in the Governor's proposed budget and the Senate and Assembly budget bills. We contacted the author's office and met to discuss our concerns. Additional meetings are planned.

We appreciate the author's openness to addressing these issues. In addition to speaking with the author, we shared our concerns with committee staff and sponsors of the bill. We will continue to keep the committee informed of any developments as we are engaged in good faith discussions with the author about potential amendments. Cal Asian Chamber is holding off on taking an official position on the bill at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition? Two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Joeine Cannetti, President and CEO of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. First of all, let me say we appreciate the the author's commitment to strengthening support for small business. We have worked with him, since he's came to the to the legislature and and are proud to call him a friend, and all the work he's done to help underserved, entrepreneurs and and especially our emerging diverse community. So we and we look forward to working with him even further.

We were proud to support AB 685 initially. However, following further review of the June 3 amendments, we have moved to a neutral, no position at this time as we work with the author and our technical assistance part partners on potential improvements. Although the June 3 amendments may appear technical on surface, they have significant implications for resource access and eligibility. Our perspective is focused on ensuring the bill continues to expand access in a way that is inclusive and effective on the ground.

We want to ensure the program continues to include trusted community based non profit providers, reopening eligibility under SBTAP will help maintain access to culturally competent bilingual assistance for all communities and entrepreneurs who rely on it.

We believe strong clarity and guardrails are needed to ensure program integrity, particularly in maintaining safeguards like the prohibition on using state funds to match other funds and by clearly defining or codifying in a new program structures. It is critical that these investments grow the ecosystem rather than swift, rather than shift existing resources, ensuring funds are directed through established programs or clearly authorized ones and that they are explicitly supplemental will help move us in the right direction.

Our goal is simple, to reach a place where the bill is fully, where the where this bill fully delivers on the promise, and we can once again, be be strong supporters of the bill. And, again, thanks to member Solachi for all his hard work and his his team's work on this.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Alright. Do we have any me too's both in support and opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. And we'd like to do this part pretty quick.

Chair, Senator Dean Grafilo with Capital Accuracy here on behalf of County of Los Angeles in support of AB 685. Thank you.

Morning, madam chair. Chris McCailey here on behalf of Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support.

Gustavo Gonzalez on behalf of NorCalES BDC on support.

Discover Galsky on behalf of NorCal SBDC support.

David Nelson on behalf of the National Small Business Advocacy Council in support.

Sarah Dotto with Cameo Network, and we support.

Laura Colrow in on behalf of the California Association for Local Economic Development in support.

Susie Pryor on behalf of the Central California Small Business Development Center, Opportunity Stanislaus, and the the Monterey County Business Council in support.

Preet Alawalaya, NorCal SBDC in support.

Danny Fitzgerald with the San Diego and Imperial Small Business Development Center in support.

Alan Archuleta here on behalf of the Veteran Business Outreach Center in support.

Christina Rico on behalf of the Small Business Development Centers of California in support.

Alright. Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we're gonna move to the committee members. Committee members, Senator Caballero.

Assembly member Solachi, could you address the issues that were raised in regards to the amendments taken in June?

Yes. Thank you, Senator Caballero. We actually, you know, this is a first experience for me to have a a bill that was supposed to be a a a great bill for all. And, of course, I got some advocates at the end that had some concerns. But early through the weekend, my staff, worked through through these amendments, and we're still working through them.

As you saw, they're they're not fully opposing, but they're definitely has shared concerns, and we're definitely addressing them. And So we are continuing those discussions. Again, when you have friends on both sides that are that are supposed to be supportive of an issue that supports small businesses, so we are definitely addressing them as we speak.

Thank you for that. I appreciate that. And I it's not unusual to find out at the last minute that you've got some opposition. But I I wanna recognize you and thank you for doing doing this. There is a report out by a professor at UCLA that has analyzed small business data in the state of California using California data, using state data.

And what's amazing about it is that his analysis is that, the small businesses created in the state of California, a majority of them are immigrant, small businesses or immigrant families that start a small business. It's a way to economic success. You control your your your future. And that the those small businesses, contribute to the economy significantly so that because of them, we are the fourth largest economy in the world.

And if you extracted that information from the growth of our business sector, that we would be the eighth largest in the world.

And so significant contribution to our state and it's important to recognize that the more that we have resources to to back them up because our laws are different. The kinds of responsibilities they have as business people is different and it's good for them to have the resources necessary to be able to help them along. So, thank you for for the bill and at the appropriate time, madam chair, I will move the bill.

Thank you. Give me two seconds. Alright. We have That's a comment. Yeah.

No. I was gonna go to you.

Oh. I thought you were in conclusion.

I just have to write her down for motion. Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

Well, thank you. You're so efficient, madam chair. Thank you for that. And I wanna thank the author for for bringing this forward and appreciated the conversation and discussion and your willingness to work with all of parties involved to to get this over the finish line. I I I sit on sub four.

We just voted to support TAP in our Budget senate sub four committee because we know how important small businesses are as my good colleague from Madera laid out. I also wanna say that it's not a either or, it's a both and. And especially now, I think about the small businesses in my district. I'm currently doing a project with BizFed, which is a business academy. A lot of these business are preparing for the Olympics.

A lot of these businesses are now trying to gear up in the next week the final touches and making tremendous investments, extending themselves to be ready for the World Cup.

So if we want to ensure success, we wanna make sure that the majority of our business community sees a return from having 15,000,000 visitors come to, Los Angeles, to California, in a couple of years for the Olympics, and the thousands of folks who will be here in the next couple of weeks, we have to prepare small businesses to engage.

And certainly, we know technical assistance is important, but those grant funds and the flexibility of those funds will go a long way to ensuring that we get all of the tax revenues, sales tax revenues that we can to come back to the state. So this investment is really about making sure that California sees a return in on investment, and I wanna thank you for for bringing this issue forward.

Senator Nilo?

Thank you, madam chair. I am supportive of the bill and I will be voting yes be under the understanding that you will be talking with both the Hispanic as the as well as the Asian Chamber about their their concerns. A couple of questions. Why is it urgency?

Obviously, the the support at this point of of supporting our business directly, we wanna make sure we get this as soon as possible to them.

I get that but if this bill goes through the regular process and the governor signs it, that will happen by somewhere around October. Whereas regular approval, the bill would become effective just two months after that. And I asked the question because you have a significantly higher threshold of approval if there's any particular hiccup. It would be unfortunate for it to fail by virtue of not getting the 27 votes when the difference in implementation time is two months. So I'm just wondering why the

It's a fair concern. I mean, fair concern and feedback and I definitely will bring it back to our our sponsor bill as well and and see if there's any change. But for now, that's where it remains and we'll definitely take the feedback.

Yeah. And my support or lack of doesn't isn't related to that. I just it's curious as to why we'd have an urgency on an implementation time frame of two months or three months or whatever. The other is the proposal here not withstanding, I think that probably every small business supporter of this as well as the two chambers that have concerns would be inclined to agree that the statement that state imposed regulations are probably the biggest challenge to any business in the state including small business.

And, it would seem to me that, if we are gonna support a program where we're actually allocating money in this bill, which is, a little bit unusual, but, nonetheless, that we're allocating $26,000,000 for this assistance to small business.

And yet we don't really have much movement in terms of relaxing the regulatory, environment in the state of California which most affects small, most severely affects small businesses rather than large businesses. Such things as wage and hour laws, and meal and rest breaks. Not that there's anything wrong with the idea necessarily, but they are very prescriptive. And, big businesses have a much easier time, tracking and dealing with that than small businesses do. It's quite a burden and, are ever increasing, minimum wage requirements.

All of those things. I think if you ask most small businesses, would they rather have a significant, relaxing of those regulations versus direct assistance like this. And I'm not saying that's the choice, but if you gave them that stark choice, I suspect they'd take the former.

So I just like to make the case for that that, regulatory burdens most severely affect small businesses, and, might not be in such a need of this sport if they're able to operate a little bit more unfettered with some guidelines from the state, but not quite so prospect prospective, prescriptive, excuse me. Senator

Choi.

Thank you, chair and assembly member Solace. Thank you for introducing this bill to spur small business activities to maintain resilience and innovative ideas. Small business is a backbone of our state economy and we need to push them as much as possible. When you speak of small businesses, I wonder what criteria, if you have set any criteria of selecting who's going to be eligible, If you can elaborate on that and whether they many as stated a while ago, many small businesses are run by immigrants.

And immigrants means that many people may not be accessible to this kind of funds.

So whether how are you gonna let them know of this availability of the funds and then also whether there will be bilingual, trilingual, different kind of materials will be produced for the general public, especially especially in growing population with a lack of fluency in English will have access to that, the available funds. And my last question would be once they are selected, how you're gonna oversize your performances after the fund has been provided. There is the logistics giving the money away.

There has to be performance measurements. And so if you can also define small businesses, meaning that who are the small businesses, have you defined those terms?

Thank Thank you, Senator Choi. I'll have our technical response

from Yeah. Thank you, Senator Choi. So small business, that's such a hard definition because I think for every definition there's 10 more definitions. But typically these follow kind of a very, very broad definition of who the small businesses are that are getting the assistance from the programs like the small business development centers, the women's business centers, other programs like community development financial institutions that provide that type of support. And so that's very broad.

And so we typically it's looking federal definition, which is, in simple terms, under 500 employees or under certain revenue thresholds depending on what type of industry that they're in. And so helping all of those, as well as people that are entrepreneurs that have yet to start a business. And I appreciate your question in terms of the languages because that's something that's super important.

I know in in our area in San Diego, over 15% of the services we provide are in a language in other than English, of course, Spanish being one of the predominance, Arabic, Mandarin, Tagalog, etcetera, as well as other languages that we're ensuring these small businesses are able to do it. Migrant business owners, we particularly work with them very, very closely to be able to provide that service.

And I really appreciate your last question on, in particular on ensuring this. So these funds, the way in which the state administers this program and this is to augment that is on a reimbursement basis. So we have to spend the funds. We submit a request to reimbursement to the governor's office of and economic development through the California office of small business advocate and show those expenses were used specifically for the service.

The amendments talk about that how the the original intent of this program of tap and then the capital infusion program that goes back even further, all were around ensuring that type of capacity and all those responsibilities showing the funds were spent correctly.

Thank you.

Who's going to do that oversight?

The California office of the small business advocate as they do today.

It's already Okay.

How many how many businesses do you think estimate that will be eligible for this fund if it passes $26,000,000

So the small businesses don't receive the funding. It's the small business assistance programs, nonprofits, public educational institutions, multiple other organizations. I don't know that exact number of who how many would be eligible. Right now, the current number of recipients, I want to say, is around 80, and all of those would remain eligible and there's probably a number that would probably increase along with that as well.

Okay. Based upon your answers, I'll be supporting. Thank you. Thank

you. Thank you. Senator Archuleta.

A follow-up question to your to your witness. In our communities, in our district, we have chambers of commerce. Montebello Board, Chamber of Whittier, Downey, whatever it might be. They're operating, some of them, really in a shoestring. Would they be eligible because of the type of business they run to promote small businesses?

They may be. Each each one is gonna be on a kind of a case by case how how they're particularly funded. I know we fund a number of them through our programs at the small business development centers. So, for example, I work with the Asian Business Association, which in essence is a Chamber of Commerce in San Diego. We've worked with, other his other chambers of commerce, like the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Jose, and and others.

And so depending on what they're currently funded to be able to do or they're able to work under an existing program or partner with a women's business center or a small business development center, we all do work with them as well.

So this would open up a door, I'm thinking, to them across the state?

It keeps the door open as it is today. And so this provides additional clarification on what it is. So let's say one of those chambers of commerce is funded from their county or their city to provide small business assistance. Now they would be eligible. That's the addition too.

Okay. Thank you, madam chair.

Alright. And then I I do have one comment at least. Our local, small business groups in Santa Clara that have historically been working to, obviously, Santa Clara County is, you know, Silicon Valley, if you will. What we have seen is a lot of these programs that have been working and tied with the Federal Government have updated their paperwork, and we have been flagged by our small businesses where the small businesses actually sign on whether they give a lot of information.

And I wanna make sure that all our senators who work on these issues know this.

I've already elevated it last year, but they sign a lot of information off. Many of them, many of the small businesses, largely undocumented individuals as well, or different statuses, give a lot of this information that's largely turned over. And this is at the federal level and they sign as, you know, under a declaration of perjury. So I do wanna make sure that there is clear information on all of the documentation that we are talking about.

If that is something that you can potentially incorporate, just as like a heads up warning, you know, any type of, information that that that is gonna go out if you apply for some of these technical assistance.

So that that is just my comment. It's not directly related to the build, but it is absolutely important especially as we are, you know, we we mentioned all these ethnic chambers. Right? And yet, we are not doing the best to kind of forewarn them that your information will be handed over to the Federal Government, you know, if you were seeking a grant, if you were seeking this information. This is a 100% what we have been informed.

And so I just wanna just make sure that we kind of state this. Right? Where is the information held? Things like that. With that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. And to all the senators today, I I wanna just first begin by saying, as a former executive director of a Chamber of Commerce, the last seven years of my life before coming to the legislature in Lakewood, this is why we were our Senator and I overlapped at one point. The work that we did there with the small business community, Lakewood is a next to a a bigger chamber, which is Long Beach Chamber, a much larger chamber.

But I say that because I think when we we introduced this bill, it was exactly that.

So how do we how do we bring help and support to our our small community, our small businesses? And to address your earlier comment, it was actually a originally wildfire response to how do we help these businesses that were directly impacted in the wildfires. And so that was where initially the conversation started. And to my commitment again to our two chambers I spoke today with concerns, we are definitely in conversations.

This is a bill that I I think that it it brings collaboration and unity amongst amongst our business community and small business community.

So I'm committed to doing that and working with with folks to make sure this comes out in in full support. But again, thank you all for your comments as we do address businesses that are that are providing services that are that are women owned, that are veteran owned, that are that are, you know, that are minority owned. And to your point last Senator, madam chair, I will take that feedback and and and put that to the discussion as well.

Thank you.

With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

We have Senator Caballero who has made the motion. Can I get a roll call vote?

Motion is do passed. The Senate appropriations. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, Aye, Choi?

Aye.

Choi, Aye. Archuleta?

Aye.

Archuleta, Aye, Adegine? Aye. Adegine, Aye, Carriero? Aye. Carriero, aye.

Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar. Aye.

Menjivar, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Smallwood, Cuevas.

Aye. Smallwood, aye. Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Amberg.

Alright. That bill's on call. I do wanna highlight that we're gonna go to file item number one, ACR 173 by Assembly Member Carrillo. This is vote only. Could I get a roll call for that?

Motion is to be adopted.

Could I get a motion? Senator Menjivar.

[Roll Call]

File item three, AB 375, AB 1587, and, you know, Senator Strickland has made the motion.

[Roll Call]

Two, AB 72, by Assembly Member Jackson.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Labor and Retirement. Current vote six to zero, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

It's 8 to 1.

I just wanna make sure he

Yeah.

So that item is out 8 to 1. And then I since we already have quorum and everyone's here, let's let's go over file item number four again. Absent Members.

That motion is due pass the Senate appropriations. Current votes 10 to 0. Umberg?

Alright. That file is out 10 to 0. Senator Umberg has stated he will not be able to attend today. We're gonna move on to another, bill, file item number seven, AB 1760 by, Assembly Member Arambula, which will be presented by, Assemblymember Solache.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators on behalf of Assemblymember Arambula, who can be here today. I'm presenting his bill, AB 1760, makes important technical and substantive updates to California's Dental Practice Act as were approved by the dental board between November 2024 and February 2025. This measure modernizes the business and professions code by aligning statute of current board policies, correcting outdated references, and removing obsolete licensed pathways.

While these changes could traditionally be addressed during the board's next sunset review, waiting until 2028 would leave unnecessary statutory barriers and inconsistencies in place for years.

AB 1760improves the board's ability to administer and enforce a dental practice act efficiently and effectively. Advancing these updates now promotes good governance, legislative efficiency, and most importantly, continued practices of California dental consumers. With me today to testify is Brad Nelson with the Dental Board of California.

Two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Brad Nelson, who's the legislative and regulatory specialist for the Dental Board of California. The board is proud to sponsor AB 1760. We'd like to thank Assemblymember, Arambula, for his leadership on this important measure. The board's mission is to protect and promote the health and safety of California dental consumers.

AB 1760 is a noncontroversial, technical, and substantive cleanup bill that consolidates routine, but important updates to the Dental Practice Act. It contains provisions approved by the board in public meetings over the past year and a half to fix outdated language, resolve minor inconsistencies, and improve administrative efficiency. Key elements include technical clarifications to licensing pathways, updates to dental auxiliary training and standards, as well as other housekeeping changes needed to align statute with current regulatory practice.

These fixes help the Board operate more effectively, reduce unnecessary delays, and maintain a high level of consumer protection. Lastly, I would like to specifically thank Committee staff for their kind assistance and guidance in preparation for this meeting.

Therefore, the Dental Board of California respectfully requests your aye vote on AB 1760. Thank you.

Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition? Seeing none. Me too's?

Seeing none. Members of the committee? Seeing okay. Senator Archuleta moves the bill. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I'll quickly ask for an angle.

Alright. We have Assembly Member Archuleta who has made the motion do pass to judiciary. Can we get a roll call?

Motion is due passed to Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call] That's 10 to 0.

Alright. That is 10 to 0. That bill is out. We're gonna thank you. We're gonna move on to file item number six, AB 1637 by Assemblymember Colazo.

I do wanna just flag to everybody again that we have a number of bills still left. So if we can keep our comments pretty short, we can kind of move through this a little bit faster. Assembly Member, whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assemblymember Jessica Caloza, thank you so much for your work and Members of the committee for this opportunity to present AB 1637 today. Thank you as well to the Committee consultant and staff and sponsor, for their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill. Trust is the foundation of patient care. Without it, diagnosis can be questioned, treatment decisions can be compromised, and ultimately, lives can be put at risk.

AB 1637, the Just What the Doctor Ordered Act, protects patients by ensuring that physicians are solely responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their medical records. Our physicians, doctors, and surgeons are experts. They create diagnoses, treatment plans, and notes that guide patient care. Yet under current law, anyone, including those who are not licensed physicians, can alter these records. This creates confusion, undermines accountability, and threatens patient safety.

Accurate medical documentation is foundational to safe and effective patient care, and AB 1637 draws that clear line of responsibility. It ensures that physician authored notes, diagnoses, and treatment plans remain just that, physician authored. It ensures that these critical documents cannot be modified by anyone else other than the authoring physician. We've seen the consequences of failing to protect medical records. A traveling physician in Kern County, for example, working with autistic children had their notes changed by the district supervisor, not the treating physician.

These edits were made out of concern for the clinic's reputation, compromising patient care and trust. And with rapid expansion of the electronic health records or EHR systems, the guardrails in which documentation is created, stored, and accessed has become unclear. Through though EHR has improved coordination and efficiency, it also puts patients at risk and creates uncertainty about who's responsible for the information. And hopefully AB 1637 will fix that. With me testifying in support of AB 1637, I have Doctor.

Melissa Aguirre. And for technical assistance, Gary Cooper with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, also known as UAPD.

Fifth. Minutes. Thank you. Madam Chair, Gary Cooper, representing UAPD. We are the proud sponsors of AB 1637, and Assemblymember Colosa did a very good job of explaining it.

It's rather hard to believe that in today's society, we have a situation where anybody can go in and change, the notes of a physician as she had commented that trust is the backbone of the relationship between a physician and a patient. This is something that has been lingering out there for a long time and has not been addressed.

It's kind of a sad situation where a physician can be charged with, you know, unprofessional conduct for not providing competent notes, but somebody can go in and change the notes and nobody pays any attention to that. So with that, I'm going to ask certainly for a support and I vote on this bill. But with me today, we have doctor Aguirre from Fresno who has her story to tell and I'll I can guarantee you that you will pay attention and wanna hear what she has to say.

Thank you and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Our next speaker, you will also have only two minutes.

Thank you. Hi. Good morning, distinguished chairperson and members of the committee. I'm Melissa Aguirre, a board certified pediatrician who's been practicing for twenty five years. For the last ten years, I've worked as a physician at the California Department of Education's Diagnostic Center.

We provide multidisciplinary evaluations for the state's most vulnerable children struggling at home and in school. The clinical documentation is crucial because in many cases, it ensures that children receive essential services, like specific therapy for abuse or subspecialty medical care. My medical reports are used by families, healthcare providers, and schools to secure this assistance. These reports serve as my only legal record documenting my evaluation of the children and the justification for the diagnosis and treatment plan that I recommend.

My medical license and board certification require that I adhere to a certain standard of care in documenting medical findings.

Currently, however, these medical findings are being altered or deleted by my administrative staff who lack any medical training. This is happening because the administrative staff at the Department of Education feels they have the right to alter, restrict, or remove my clinical assessments at will. When administrators override a physician's findings or omit information from them, it creates three critical risks. The first is patient harm. It prioritizes administrative interest over the mental and physical well-being of children.

The second is legal integrity. It jeopardizes the accuracy and integrity of the medical record, and the third is professional liability. It forces a physician to choose between risking their job and risking their medical license. No doctor should be worried that upholding their ethical requirements may cost them their job. Medical documentation must remain the sole purview of the qualified physician who examines the patient.

Therefore, I urge you to vote Aye on a B1637. Thank you for your time and attention. I welcome any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Do we have any me too's? State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We are strong, supporters and cosponsors of the bill. Thank you.

Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.

Brendan Rippicki with the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support.

Seeing no other speakers, we're gonna move on to members of the committee. Seeing none, I'm sorry, Senator Choi.

Thank you. I wanna have a simple question that is I appreciate this important deal, but I have the confidence that once the physician records evaluation of the diagnosis by the doctor about the patient, and then I know helping nurses can open the file for easily, but I don't know whether they are allowed to have access to that.

And other than helping nurses in the same room, who else other than the physician, just mechanically speaking specifically, who can go into their system and open up and alter the patient records. I just wonder why this is happening.

Thank you so much for your question, Senator. It's a really good one. Really asking who else, you know, who is also involved in patient care can can add to to the record. So we took some, recent amendments that allow certain authorized individuals to make edits, including scribes, medical assistants, and other personnel acting under the delegated authority from the physician. So this allows that, physicians who assume the care of the patient and supervising physicians who oversee trainees, for instance, can make, appropriate additions or modifications.

So we we know and understand that there might be other personnel involved, but it ultimately

will will tighten up who will have more limitations or access to the patient record?

Correct. Correct. So, ultimately, it's it's physician's responsibility, and we already took some amendments to clarify some additional language because we know that, for instance, when you're treating a patient, there's multiple staff who who are involved in that patient's care. So we are able to add some clarifying language.

Will will trigger that entire hospital or any medical center patient records will have a very restricted access other than the face the doctor would not be able to open up the patient's record and play with that.

Got it. And and just to clarify, and I'll turn to doctor Aguirre in a second. This wouldn't this would this would be about making edits to the actual physician's notes, not about restricting access. Just a Yeah. Okay.

Doctor may enter the record anytime and make a different edit edits or additional comments. So there will be no problem. But none other than the doctor itself, who else will will have access to that? That's my question.

Right. Oh, to the witness.

Go

ahead. So, this is addressing the issue that administrators who've not seen the patient or examined the patient, they don't like what the record says. And so they remove portions of the record or alter portions of the record to suit the needs of the organization, which, puts in jeopardy not only the child or the person being evaluated, but also the physician, because we are liable for what is documented regardless of whether someone else changed it or deleted parts of it.

We are liable to the medical board and therefore, we can be held, as unprofessional and lose our license over those changes that we may not even be aware of and that's been happening to me. And so, this when I researched it, there weren't any specific laws that said, an administrator couldn't do this to a physician, even though it's standard physician's records, right, for a patient they've seen, but it's Harabedian.

And this law would protect physicians who already hold the responsibility for that medical documentation to have the authority over that medical documentation

as well. It's surprising to hear that, but your bill will tighten up the the confidentiality of the patient record only, tighten tightening the access to the patient record other than the primary doctor. I want to support that. That's important.

Thank you. Senator Archuleta.

Yeah. Before you you leave the witness, please.

Alright.

Upon discovery of this negative action, is that the medical board will take action? Is that a misdemeanor that that individual will be facing? What action will be taken once this is discovered?

So for this law, it's a misdemeanor. And that is a good question. My understanding when I went to the medical board with this concern was that because my administrators are not physicians, that the medical board could not take action against my administrators, and they recommended I go up the chain of command to the governor, to address this issue because it was so egregious.

So, I am not sure who will be, the agency that will ensure that this is adhered to, but I I do understand that it will be a misdemeanor. So it'll be illegal for an administrator or anyone, to alter a physician's

Well, I can see the potential fraud in this, which I think would be obviously a misdemeanor. But I could also see if anyone in the medical field who does it for whatever reason should be facing the board.

Yes. So if it's a physician, if it's another physician or someone who does it, then the medical board would be responsible would be the entity that would take action in that situation. If it's an administrator, I am not certain who would be the

Thank you.

Overseeing agency.

Thank you. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you to both Senators for your thoughtful questions, and thank you to Doctor Aguirre for sharing your experience as well as to, mister Cooper for sharing his work at UAPD. AB 1637, ultimately, it's about trust and it's about responsibility and it's ensuring patient care, and so I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by, Senator Caballero. Can we get a roll call?

Motion is do passed to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

10 to 0. That bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

We're gonna move on to file item number eight, AB 1785 by Assembly Member Hoover.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1785. This bill simply allows for pseudoephedrine medications to be sold by using an online retailer. Over the last 20 years, during the methamphetamine epidemic, most states added requirements around these common cold and allergy medicines, such as Sudafed and Claritin D, to prevent them from being used to make methamphetamines.

These products are required to be kept behind the pharmacy counter, and the amount sold is tracked to ensure that large quantities are not purchased by a single individual to later be made into an illegal drug.

This bill will still keep those same guardrails in place as if it were purchased over the counter, but will expand to online sales of these medications. This will greatly improve individuals who are sick, elderly, or live in rural communities. With me today is Trent Smith with Consumer Healthcare Products Association. I would like to pass it to him for more information. Thank you.

Two minutes.

Yep. Madam Chair, Members, Trent Smith on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the sponsors of the bill. So as the Assemblyman has outlined, everything that's in current law today regarding the sale, monthly sales limitations, proving year of age, all remain in place.

What's happening now in other states, there's between 30 and 40 other states that already allow this practice. There is software that is available now where you can, and it's used by state and federal governments to verify a person's age, identity, etcetera.

So the online retailer would still be required to meet all of the requirements outlined in law by using one of these technologies. So we think it's a good development for people, again, who live in rural areas and may not have access to a pharmacy nearby or if you're laid up in bed sick and don't want to go out. So we would ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none. Opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Can we move on to me too's? Seeing none. Members of the Committee? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Senator Strickland moved the bill.

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

Alright. 10 to 0. That bill is out. Thank you, Assembly Member. We're gonna move on to file item number nine, to our very patient Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, AB 1973.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. In the years since the Dobbs decision, California has led the nation in protecting reproductive freedom. But even though with those protections, gaps in access to care still remain. The reality is simple.

We already have a workforce that is trained, is qualified, and ready to provide this care, but they are restricted in the ability to do so. Nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician's assistants, also known as advanced practice clinicians or APCs, receive extensive education and training. They're already safely providing a range of reproductive health care services in California today.

However, current law puts outdated limits on what these providers can do, regardless of their training or their patients' needs. These restrictions mean patients are turned away or forced to wait longer for care. And for patients, delays have real consequences. Longer travel, more time off work, higher cost, and even missing the window to receive care altogether.

AB 1973 is about fixing these issues. It updates state law to allow APCs to practice to full extent of their training and proven competency. This bill is a common sense update that, one that allows the state to fully use a skilled workforce that patients trust.

At a time when access to health care is under pressure nationwide, we should be removing barriers, not maintaining outdated ones. AB 1973 ensures patients get timely care from providers who are already trained, competent, and serving their communities.

With me today, I have Dr. Mastey, an OBGYN with Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte, and Bethany Golden on behalf of Asmara Gebre, a certified nurse midwife, and Angela Pontes, who's available for technical questions.

Two minutes each.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Nimi Mastey, and I'm a board certified OBGYN and complex family planning specialist. I serve as the associate medical director of complex family planning at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.

In my role, I train and work collaboratively with advanced practice clinicians, including nurse practitioners, PAs, and certified nurse midwives, to provide high quality evidence based abortion care. I'm here in strong support of AB 1973. As you know, abortion care is safe and common.

At Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, our APCs have been trained in providing this care in California for many years. Our affiliates' clinicians participated in a landmark research study that showed that trained APCs provide high quality abortion care to patients with equivalent safety, competency, and patient satisfaction outcomes as their physician counterparts.

Having personally trained many, many APCs, I can attest that they are essential to our state's reproductive health care system and provide excellent patient care. As California faces widespread OBGYN and primary care physicians shortages, care provided by APCs is more critical than ever.

Even with California's legal protections for abortion, many people in our state live in areas that still lack access to abortion care. The need is most acute in the lowest income in more rural areas within our state. Within California, our Planned Parenthood affiliate has nearly 30 health centers that stretch from the Bay Area through Bakersfield.

Despite covering such a large part of our state, we still see patients traveling up to three or more hours for abortion and miscarriage care due to the widening maternity and abortion care deserts we are facing. This limited access to providers further exacerbates existing health care disparities.

People who already face barriers in accessing care are disproportionately harmed when abortion is out of their reach. The current restrictions to the provision of procedural abortions by APCs creates artificial limits based on gestational duration and techniques that are not based in science.

These restrictions impede patient access to evidence based care provided by trained APCs. By removing these restrictions, AB 1973 would expand the capacity of existing abortion providers in the state and address disparities in abortion access. I respectfully urge your support.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Hi. My name is Bethany Golden. I'm a certified nurse midwife and the co-director of the Reproductive Health Service Corps. I'm gonna be reading the testimony of my colleague, Asmara Gebre, who can't be with us today. Good morning, Chair and Members.

My name is Asmara Gebre. I'm a certified nurse midwife with eight years of practice at San Francisco General Hospital, an associate clinical professor at UCSF, and founder of the Black Centering Group Prenatal Care and the Black Midwifery Fellowship in California.

A $3.5 million state funded program named in tribute to the black women who provided full scope reproductive care, including abortion care, long before it was criminalized. I'm here in strong support of AB 1973. Physicians have trained me and supportive physician colleagues have collaborated with me throughout my career. That consultation is how midwifery works, and it is how AB 1973 works.

I manage obstetric emergencies in my daily practice. Transfer and consultation protocols are not abstract to me. The bill preserves them for care beyond the first trimester. Through Black Midwifery Fellowship, I provide abortion care up to 13 weeks and 6 days. I have a clinical foundation to be trained beyond that, but current law prohibit it, so I step back and my physician colleague takes over.

The training pathway exists, and the physicians willing to train me exist, but the statute is what stops me. Patients come to midwives for continuity, for cultural concordance, for a relationship that spans pregnancies. If a patient I have cared for needs a procedural abortion beyond, currently, law forces me to hand her off to a stranger. Many of our patients do not need different providers. They need continuity, and the law says otherwise.

California was the first to codify advanced practice abortion care in 2013. Because we were the first, the limits were narrow. Colorado, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Mexico have since safely allowed trained APCs to provide procedural abortion beyond the first trimester.

California can do the same. The evidence shows that APCs provide abortion with safety and patient satisfaction equivalent to physicians, and this bill maintains rigorous in person training, no online shortcuts, and the same physician consultation I've relied on. ABD aligns with the law with our current training.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses?

Two minutes.

Doctor and Senators, thank you. My name is Mindy Hertzell with Sierra Pregnancy and Health. I'm a registered nurse certified in inpatient obstetrics and I'm here in opposition of AB 1973. This bill would allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform second and third trimester abortions, the most complex surgical procedures any of them would be permitted to perform by a wide margin.

As a nurse, I have a moral and ethical obligation to advocate for my patients, not just those in my care, but any person whose health may be affected by the policies and laws that we make. In this case, that means women and their pre born children.

We know the babies won't survive these procedures, but the risks are serious enough that the woman may not either. Lawmakers also have an obligation to advocate on behalf of the people. Proponents say this bill addresses disparities in women's health care. Those disparities are often due to substandard care.

While that can be attributed to many different reasons, the solution is not less qualified care. Placing women in the hands of providers without adequate training and experience for these high risk procedures does not close the gap. It widens it.

This bill does exactly what you say you're against. It creates a two tiered system where the least experienced providers perform the highest risk procedures on those least able to advocate for themselves. This is not equity. It's not advocacy, and it directly contradicts the values this body claims to uphold. I urge a no vote, respectfully. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition? You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Dr. Vansen Wong. I am an OBGYN physician with 31 years of experience as a clinician and administrator, having been in charge of abortion services and OBGYN department for the largest healthcare company here in Sacramento.

I vehemently oppose AB 1973. It will endanger the lives and health of pregnant women throughout the state. APCs presently perform first trimester procedural abortions, and it is the first trimester abortions where a study did document equivalence in terms of safety for both APCs and physicians.

However, a second trimester procedure is an entirely different one, with higher risks of life threatening complications such as hemorrhage, intestinal perforation, and sepsis. Therefore, any claims regarding that AB 1973 is safe is pure speculation. The qualifications and training of APCs in this bill are vague and lax.

A physician's assistant, for example, with absolutely no experience in women's health would be eligible to provide abortions after a training program. A current provider of second trimester abortions can be the sole judge of the competency of a new abortion provider.

This bill begs for a standardized pathway to ensure that all new practitioners are sufficiently trained and are competent abortionists. There is no quality review in this bill. If we don't collect statistics on complication rates, how will we know if AB 1973 has created a system of safety or one of danger? To summarize, AB 1973 is fundamentally flawed.

There is no requirement for specialization in women's health. There is no standardized training required for APCs, and there is no monitoring of the outcomes for APCs. It is a recipe for disaster, injury, and death. Please do not pass this bill.

Appreciate it. Do we have any me too's in support or opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Jen Chase on behalf of the University of California in support.

Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support. Thank you.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council in strong opposition.

Angela Hill with the California Medical Association with concerns, and thank the author and staff for working with us.

Sumaya Nahar on behalf of the California Academy of Physician Associates in support.

Kathy Mossburg on behalf of the Essential Access Health in support.

Sosan Madanat here on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association, proud co-sponsor in support. And also here to provide a courtesy me too in support for the ACLU California Action. Thank you.

John Vogelsang, a retired board certified OBGYN in strong opposition secondary to patient safety.

Brendan Repicky on behalf of TEACH, Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare. We're a co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we're gonna move to Members of the Committee. Seeing... Senator Caballero.

Assembly Member, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Could you address the concerns that have been raised in regards to the standardized training and monitoring outcomes and those kinds of things. I mean, I think we all are concerned about safety. And so, if we could address that, that would be appreciated.

So the reality is is APCs receive extensive training and are equipped with to provide these and are equipped to provide these procedures. And, in fact, research shows that both APCs and physicians have comparable low complication rates.

The medical community generally agrees that abortion safety is primarily tied to a timely access rather than the provider type. Nothing in this bill would allow an APC to do anything beyond their scope, training, or clinical competence. This is already existing law.

The bill removes artificial legal barriers that prevent APCs from serving individual patient needs. And APCs would still be providing care that they would be trained to do as it goes forward. So there's nothing that's gonna change from this law. Just cleaning up something that's from an old bill as well.

Any other Member?

I'll move the bill when the time's right.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I do wanna ask, Assembly Member, that there have been a lot of people that have reached out on this particular bill raising concerns about safety in particular. I just wanna make sure that we do have guard rails that we are working with opposition to kind of address their concerns as it pertains to client safety. So I just wanna highlight that. But with that, would you like to close?

Yeah. Yes. I would. Absolutely. We're gonna continue to work on this bill. There has been some, a couple of things that have come up, and we wanna make sure that we get those addressed before moving forward. I think we need to be, obviously, safety is the foremost thing that we have to do.

We absolutely share the goal of achieving and ensuring patient safety, strong coordination of care. We are continuing the conversations with stakeholders to clarify the process for complex cases or emergency situations. And it's, and at it's core, the bill is about aligning our laws with reality. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I have a motion from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Could we get a roll call, please?

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

We're gonna move on to File Item 10 by Assembly Member Pellerin, AB 2025, followed by Assembly Member Pellerin again on AB 2697. Assembly Member, whenever you are ready.

We're debating the order. Good morning.

Good morning.

How are you?

I'm good.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'd like to ask the chair for permission to display props, which I already have. It says wait for permission. Okay. Existing law requires for real estate sales that digitally staged images be labeled and the original be made available to consumers.

Today, I ask that you help me extend the same requirements to rental listings. Given the high competition in the rental market, it is not uncommon for renters to commit to a unit without visiting it first in person. So right here, I have a couple of screenshots of a Zillow listing for an apartment in Sacramento.

At first glance, it may not appear that it has been staged using AI tools, but upon close inspection of the curtains and the angle of the floor, you can clearly see that these elements were added using these AI tools, along with the rest of the furniture.

And so when you compare the staged photo with the original photo, you'll see in that left-hand side, there's actually a pop out that is completely obscured by the curtains in the staged photo, and if you look underneath the TV, there's a cabinet, and that's right close to the door to get in, and it's unlikely there really is enough space for furniture like that to be put in that location. So it raises the question whether that room could actually function with something in that position.

Now these might not be a deal breaker for a renter, but these facts about the property are only revealed because we have access to the original image. So AB 2025 prevents consumer harm by requiring that digitally altered images used in rental listing advertisement include a disclosure that the images have been altered using these AI tools and that the original photos be accessible to the renter for images that are posted online.

The bill has no opposition and enjoyed enthusiastic bipartisan support in the Assembly, and my office is working closely with the California Apartment Association and Zillow to ensure that the language is implementable for their platforms, and I've certainly appreciated their collaboration. So with me to testify in support is Becca Cramer, on behalf of Consumer Reports.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Thank you. Becca Cramer with Consumer Reports. We're proud to support AB 2025, which would put in place some common-sense guidelines around the use of generative AI images in rental real estate listings. Generative AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can decrease staging costs for agents and landlords, but it also has the potential to be used to fool prospective renters about key features or problems with listings.

Fake images can be a deceptive inducement, wasting would-be tenants' time and money in visiting apartments they otherwise would have avoided if marketed honestly. People moving from across the state or country may need to make actual decisions based on online listings and may be in for a nasty surprise when they show up and find a wholly different property than the one that they thought they were getting. The use of AI in rental listings, including deceptive AI, has exploded in recent months.

WIRED published an article called, quote, Real Estate is Entering its AI Slop Era late last year, and other major outlets like Slate, Yahoo, and the Atlantic have also published such investigations. Popular real estate Reddits are packed with complaints from consumers who had been duped by AI generated images of rental listings, and even the National Association of Realtors published a story entitled, Are You Catfishing Buyers with Picture-Perfect Real Estate Photos? in realtor news in February.

AI-- or AB 2025 does not prohibit the use of GenAI in rental listings. Instead, if a landlord uses images that have been materially, digitally altered, they merely need to first label the images as altered, and second, provide links to the original unaltered photos.

The bill reasonably exempts minor alterations, such as color balancing and cropping, and only applies to images that materially change elements, such as fixtures or utility poles outside the window. These basic rules would help create a more transparent marketplace for prospective renters and help honest landlords who don't--

Thank you. Thank you.

All right.

We're gonna move on to any other support witnesses. Oh, look at this.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I just wanna let you know, we appreciate the bill and its direction. We're working with the author to make sure that there's clarification so that we can implement it correctly and give proper advice. So thank you very much. Great.

Thank you. We're gonna move on to opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to MeToos. Seeing none, Senator Archuleta.

Yes, thank you. As a licensed real estate broker and a member of the California Association of Realtors, I back this bill. I think it's a great bill, and I think it's a consumer-oriented bill, and I can see why everyone is so excited about it because it's clarity. All of us who have friends, relatives that are renting, they wanna be able to to know exactly what they're getting, and so I think this is fantastic, and I approve it, and I will move the bill.

Thank you. We have Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse me. I'm going to appear to be, policy-wise, schizophrenic, and let me explain because I opposed your bill last year--

Okay.

--and-- AB 723, I think it was, largely because there's already laws against misrepresentation and I thought it was redundant. I've changed my mind. I think I'm allowed to do that.

Yes, you are.

And I just want to explain that if it wasn't happening, there wouldn't be a need for it, number one. Number two, it does seem logically transparent to-- essentially we're giving owners of properties the leeway to make their property look better digitally enhanced, but to show that they are indeed doing that by the alternative pictures and also with the discussions of my staff who is highly encouraged tell me when they disagree with me that they disagree with me, and that is very helpful. So, I'm gonna be supporting the bill this time, and I just wanna make it clear, I'm not schizophrenic; I've changed my mind.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Thank you. We have a motion. I don't see any other senators speaking. Would you like to close?

Certainly. A picture is worth a thousand words, I've got two of them, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Genuinely appreciate this bill. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Can we get a roll call, please?

Motion is do pass to Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protections. [Roll call]. Eight to one.

That bill is out.

8 to 1. We're gonna move on to file item number 11, AB 2697. Again, Assembly Member Pellerin.

Thank you so much, Chair and Members. Under current regulations, licensed cannabis retailers can offer curbside pickup as a remnant of the Covid pandemic adapt adaptations. Despite this, licensed retailers generally cannot provide that same service to customers who are sitting in their car at a drive through window. AB 2697 addresses this regulatory inconsistency by allowing drive through cannabis sales subject to local jurisdictions approval.

Restrictions in the bill provide that these sales be done through a fixed pane security window and security drawer and available for walk in storefronts only.

AB 2697 will expand access to legal cannabis products while strengthening the legal market's ability to compete with the illicit market. And with me testifying in support are Annie Aubrey representing Chuck's Wellness, a small independent retailer, and Amy O'Gorman Jenkins representing the California Cannabis Operators Association.

Thank you. Hi, Members. My name is Annie Aubrey. I'm the owner and operator of Chuck's Wellness Center in Placerville, a small independent retail dispensary. I'm here today in support of AB 2697, which proposes a modest but important improvement to cannabis retail operations through the lens of both safety and consumer access.

At its core, this bill is about improving access. A significant portion of our customers rely on cannabis as medicine, including seniors, veterans, and individuals living with chronic conditions that affect mobility, exactly the population this regulated system is meant to serve. For many, even simple tasks like exiting a vehicle or navigating a retail space can be physically difficult or prohibitive. We see this multiple times a day when our staff will assist customers into the store, which highlights a clear and ongoing gap in accessibility.

A drive through option removes that barrier, allowing patients and consumers to access what they need in a way that is dignified and consistent with their health needs.

It also helps prevent avoidable situations, such as leaving pets in hot cars or requiring customers who may be unwell to enter an enclosed space, situations that create unnecessary risk and discomfort for both customers and staff. A drive through model addresses this gap in a controlled, compliant manner. It reduces physical barriers, supports ADA conscious principles, and creates a more inclusive retail environment without changing who has access, only how that access is provided. Additionally, and equally as important, improving access through regulated channels helps strengthen legal market.

When access is easier and more accommodating, consumers are more likely to choose licensed retailers over illicit or unregulated alternatives.

This supports compliance and advances the broader goals of California's cannabis framework. This is not an expansion of access. It's an improvement in how safe regulated access is delivered. It's a practical, common sense solution that ensures the system works for the people it was designed to serve. Thank you for your time and support for a B622697.

Yes. Two minutes.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association. We went we represent 500 licensed operators. You've just heard testimony around the patient access piece, and I want to briefly speak to some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the market integrity issues that haven't yet been covered.

So really, this is about operational flexibility within a highly regulated system. It does not expand who can access cannabis as Artie articulated. It just allows retailers with local approval to serve existing patients and customers in a more efficient manner. And importantly, this bill may actually improve safety. Today, curbside track transactions are already permitted.

This means employees are regularly required to leave a secured premises while carrying product and at times cash into parking lots. AB 2697 provides an additional mechanism to attain product, but requires a fixed, secure transaction point keeping employees inside and reducing exposure to theft. On ID verification, nothing changes. The same strict age verification requirements apply. On law enforcement visibility, there is none today inside dispensaries nor is it required.

And finally, and most importantly, on local control. The bill fully preserves it. No jurisdiction is required to allow drive through operations unless locally improved. AB 2697 is a modest, practical update that improves safety, supports regulated businesses, and better serves consumers without compromising any of the safeguards this legislature has already put in place. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses?

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers in, respectful opposition to the bill, which would permit cannabis users to avoid entering a cannabis dispensary where they must present ID and have their ID confirmed in proper lighting. By allowing customers to remain in their vehicles throughout the purchase process, the bill will result in less effective enforcement of our cannabis control laws. As you know, our state has not enacted a similar law permitting drive thru window liquor sales and for the same safety related reasons.

This bill prioritizes speed of sale over public safety while undermining current safeguards designed to prevent illegal sales and protect the public safety.

Potential harms caused by this bill include limited ability to verify properly the identification of the person, reduced capacity to detect signs of current intoxication, and increased risk of sales illegal sales to unauthorized persons. In person in car purchases could also enable, rapid commission of escape and robbery instance, although that's less of a a likely concern, but it is a a real one. The legislature has advanced numerous bills this year to address the skyrocketing increase in DUI collisions and deaths plaguing our state.

Unfortunately, this bill would work against those efforts by encouraging cannabis sales to drivers directly in their vehicles. If approved, however, the bill should at least be limited to handicap drivers.

For these reasons, we remain opposed to the bill and respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to Me Too's, both in support and opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Zoe Schreiber here for California Cannabis Industry Association and Highlands Dispensary in Livermore in strong support.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the committee. Sam Rodriguez on behalf of Good Farmers, great great neighbors based in Santa Barbara County, and Doug Dispensaries of Northern California in strong support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Chair Members. Baltazar Cornejo here, with Brownstein on behalf of Kiva Confections in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other Me Too's? Seeing none, Members on the committee, Senator Archuleta followed by Senator Niello. Sorry. Senator Arreguin. Sorry.

Thank you. I just wanna follow-up on a comment that was made by the opposition witness. My understanding is that all the existing requirements for adult use would still apply for someone who purchases cannabis products through a drive

through window. You'd have to present your identification to verify that you meet the meet the age requirements. Correct?

Correct. Correct. And and it applies to the curbside as well.

Yes. Correct.

Yeah. Same exact requirement.

The implication was that that retailers would not be complying with those requirements, and there's already a curbside process as you described. And so I just wanna get that clarification. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Niello, again, apologies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the significant frustrations I've had since I've been, back here for my second visit with the legislature is voting for all sorts of proposals in the cannabis industry recognizing that it is the law and it's competing unfairly against the illicit market and helping it to survive as was demonstrated by the will of the people. I oppose that proposition because I oppose the legalization of Marijuana. But more importantly, the proposition was written to avoid any opposition. It was written to please everybody.

And when you do that, you're gonna end up with a dysfunctional policy that is bound for, unintended consequences. Plus it sets up a legal, portion of an industry competing with a well established and strong illegal industry without any legitimate way to combat that illicit market. Meaning we do not apply the resources, to enforce that. I think it's time to assess the effects, the, significant unintended consequences of the legalization of Marijuana, which has not just happened in California but in other states too. Just two examples.

And if I have time I could come up frankly with dozens of others, I'm quite sure. But a Mass General Brigham, that's a health organization in Massachusetts, a study found an almost four fold increase in cannabis use among 12 to 17 year olds, quote, presenting for a psychiatric emergency, end quote, since 2018. Fourfold increase. Another study shows a clear age related association between cannabis use disorder and subsequent psychiatric disorders diagnoses.

These are really serious problems that have created, have been created specifically because of the legalization of Marijuana.

Doesn't even enter the, area of, increased traffic accidents and the like. Now we can't change it without going back to the people. But I think we should have a serious discussion, a serious analysis of the obvious, Aye, I'm going to say unintended negative consequences. I don't think that the writers of the proposition cared about. I think these could have been predicted.

They just wanted recreational use to be legalized. And again, we've seen it across the country. We're even seeing our current president now, advocating that by downplaying the classification of Marijuana at the federal level. We have seen significant negative consequences of this legalization both here as well as in other states. And I think it's time for us to take a, to have a serious analysis of that.

And whether or not we want to develop a proposition to go back to the voters and either reverse it or somehow, reform it so that we don't continually deal with problems that we do. I will be opposed to this particular bill, not opposed to the other two, but these comments relate to this bill and the next two.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Yeah. I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward and and and I I agree that our, legal market, our dispensary and small business owners are really having to trudge uphill uphill against an ridiculous amount of taxes and fees that no other industry has to sustain.

And so I absolutely agree we need to do more to deal with the illicit market, But we also have to do everything that we can to make sure that this industry, which is one of the few industries that actually had an increase in employment in terms of bringing on a new workforce, in terms of expanding opportunities for communities to to earn unionized wages. And so I think we I wanna support this bill. I'm happy to move it when it's forward.

But I think we need to really see the value of this industry. And as California, we need to stand up and support these business owners as much as possible. And with that, I will be supporting the bill today. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, does somebody remember, would you like to close?

Well, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote, and I too and I the dispensary owners have really great security around their facilities. And selling to children and getting it into the hands of the children is something they are very much opposed to as well. And anything we can do to continue to have the legal industry, we want to do. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas moves the bill.

Motion is due passed. The Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] 7 to 3.

7 to 3, that bill's out.

Thank you so much.

Alright. We're gonna move on to file item 12 and 13. These are our two final bills by Assemblymember Irwin. We're gonna start with file item number 12, AB 2249. Assemblymember, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2249, today. Ten years ago, voters passed proposition 64 legalizing the recreational cannabis. In those ten years, California's poison control system has received roughly 5,000 calls involving children exposed to cannabis. And the stories behind these calls are often the same.

Young children in critical stages of brain development have unintentionally consumed products that look like candy or sweets. All because the pie packaging tells them to. But these products actually contain up to a hundred milligrams of THC. The consequences of these poisonings can be severe and result in hospitalizations and in some cases, the need for a ventilator. In response to this trend, I asked the joint legislative audit committee in 2024 to request a review of the Department of Cannabis Controls enforcement of youth advertising and marketing restrictions.

The state auditor's findings were clear. Existing law is too vague and the vagueness is allowing products that appeal to children to remain on the market. In a review of 40 legal cannabis products sold on retail websites, the auditor found that more than half, 23 products, contained features that were likely to appeal to children. Even industry stakeholders agree with us.

The California Cannabis Operators Association, who recently moved to support on this bill, acknowledged in a white paper that the current standard, is for what is attractive to children lacks clear definitions, thresholds, or objective criteria.

AB 2,249 addresses the statutory gap. First of all, the bill establishes a clean and enforceable definition of what makes a cannabis product and its packaging attractive to children. Second, the bill requires the Department of Cannabis Control to develop a publicly available rubric so licensees know exactly what is compliant. Third, it creates a process for licensees to request a written determination on proposed packaging from the department providing certainty before the products ever, reach the shelf.

And I want to note that that pro, provision came as a direct recommendation from the industry.

I'd like to express appreciation to the industry groups that have acknowledged this problem and have engaged in good faith conversations. My office has worked closely with these stakeholders and I am committed to continuing these discussions to see if we can address any other concerns, while meaningful meaningfully protecting children. With me to testify today is Amy O'Gorman Jenkins representing the, California Cannabis Operators Association and Chris Applegate from the State Auditor's Office to testify about the audit itself.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins here again on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association. I'm very pleased to be here in support of AB 2249. Our support position did not come lightly and not without considerable internal debate and discussion. As some of you will remember in 2003, we were here having the same debate, and we strongly opposed that prior version because we believed it imposed overly broad restrictions on the industry without achieving desired outcomes.

Two minutes.

However, over the past several months, we've been working diligently with, assembly member Erwin and her staff, undertaking a very collaborative process. For our part, as mentioned, CCOA is which is our acronym. We developed a white paper, The Packaging Problem, where we analyzed a hun hundreds and hundreds of products and did evaluate in some in some cases where we where there were some clear advertising and marketing concerns. We also saw a substantial gray area and felt that we needed to develop more clear objective standards.

So, what emerged from that work was a fairly simple conclusion, protecting youth and preserving the ability of legal businesses to communicate with adult consumers are not mutually exclusive goals, nor is the goal of trying to keep these products goal of trying to keep these products out of the hands of children.

AB 2249 is a targeted measure. It focuses on imagery and marketing practices that raise a legitimate youth appeal concerns, while preserving the ability of legal businesses to use branding, communicate while preserving the ability of legal businesses to use branding, communicate product information, and compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace. While some may continue to disagree about the precise contours of cannabis packaging and advertising, we believe the negotiated amendments substantially improve the bill and represent a meaningful compromise.

In closing, I want to personally thank the author for her willingness to listen, adapt, and refine the bill in response to stakeholder feedback. For these reasons and in light of the collaborative process undertaken, we are proud to support this bill today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Chris Applegate with the California State Auditor's Office. We don't have a position on AB 2249, but can report that it represents implementation of a few of our recommendations. Last August, we issued a report relating to cannabis packaging and advertising being attractive to youth. We found that while these determinations may be subjective, there were many cases where we disagreed with DCC's determinations that packaging was not attractive to youth pursuant to their existing regulations.

This included situations where packaging included Cartoon Smiley faces and Cartoon Images of foods like cookies and ice cream cones. DCC's regulations, while prohibiting Cartoon Images, don't define that term, and DCC staff informed us that the regulations are subjective and that they wish they more clearly defined packaging that is attractive to children. We therefore recommended the legislature create statutory language further defining these elements that being prohibited, which this bill bubble or other attractive fonts. Additionally, given the inconsistent nature of

enforcement and subjectivity we saw, we also recommended that DCC subjectivity we saw, we also recommended that DCC complete implementation of a rubric for determining whether products violate these regulations and make that available to the public and to licensees, which this this bill also implements by requiring the adoption of this rubric and regulation by 07/01/2027. And finally, despite existing regulations, we saw many packages still contain images and elements that could be attractive to children.

We noted that Oregon has a system that allows licensees to submit their proposed product packaging to the state and for a fee have it evaluated for compliance with existing laws and regulations. For those who don't voluntarily engage in this review, they're required to use the state's preapproved plain packaging.

We believe that this type of system was worth the state's consideration and therefore recommended that the legislature consider a similar system for pre approval, which this bill does partially implement by requiring DCC to develop a process allowing a fee based submittal of proposed packaging for review to DCC.

We believe the language in this bill implementing several of these recommendations can address many of the findings from our audit report and improve the process, and I'm happy to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Mark Smith on behalf of Origins Council representing small and independent cannabis farmers across rural California. We wanna be clear. We support the goal of the bill. The state auditor identified real problems, and they deserve a real response.

We also appreciate recent amendments to the bill, which we believe are a significant step in the right direction to precisely define imagery, which is truly attractive to children. We remain concerned, however, that other parts of this bill continue to adopt a categorical approach, which would sweep up a wide range of appropriate and non problematic design elements. The most significant of these are proposed categorical prohibitions on images of fruits, vegetables, and mythical creatures.

For small cannabis farmers, many of whom grow diversified organic crops in addition to small scale cannabis gardens, agricultural imagery of fruits and vegetables are a core part of their identity and brand. Our letter includes several examples of produce, including carrots, squash, grapes, peaches, and beets currently being used in cannabis packaging, branding, and marketing in ways that are not remotely targeted towards children and accurately reflect the farm on which they're grown.

For small operators, this is not abstract. Their branding reflects who they are and what they grow. It's often the only thing that differentiates them from larger competitors and from the illicit market. And the harder truth is that most businesses don't have capital to rebrand. This bill would wipe out years of investment overnight and overnight and permanently affect the ability of small operators to compete in the legal market.

We believe recent amendments to 2249 offer a way forward. The updated definition of cartoon in the bill thoughtfully does not categorically prohibit whole design categories, but instead points to specific features that can be used in ways that are attractive to children. Notably, however, this nuanced approach is not applied to the bill's current categorical prohibitions on fruits, vegetables, or mythical creatures. There is a significant difference between a cartoon image of a unicorn or a fairy.

Thank you.

Thank you. We remain in opposition to the bill and ask for further amendments to remove our opposition. Thank you.

Do we have any other opposition speakers?

I will be quick. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Zoe Schreiber. I'm the Vice President of California Cannabis Industry Association, in here to opposition of AB 224. We appreciate Assemblymember's Erwin's collaboration to date and meaningful progress reflected in the bill, and we hope continued dialogue resolve a few outstanding concerns before the bill progresses.

CCIA shares the Origins Council's concerns on fruits, vegetables, and mythical creatures. We also wanna highlight a concern CCI has raised throughout the process that deserves the committee's attention. Section one, subdivision e three includes language broad enough to effectively prohibit a wide range of leading edible products. This language holds licensed cannabis businesses accountable for what businesses in the noncannabis food industry choose to market to children. A licensee's compliance depend not on their own conduct, but the marketing decisions of unrelated food products.

That is not a standard. That is a moving target. We look forward to continued engagement with the author's office and welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns directly.

Thank you. Do we have any other me too's? State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, both in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair members, Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of Kiva Confections, we remain opposed unless amended, but appreciate the work of the author's office and staff in continuing discussions. Thank you.

Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support.

Good afternoon. Jackie Anderson on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, can we move to committee Members? Committee Members? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

No. I just wanna emphasize again, we oh, I'm I truly appreciate the collaboration from all the stakeholders. This has been hours and weeks of of time to try to get this exactly right. And as you can imagine, it is quite complicated to define exactly what is attractive to children. But when we hear these reports of young children that end up in the emergency room because they picked up a cannabis product that looked like candy, we know that we need to to to to act.

And I think with this bill, we are moving forward.

Do I have a motion? I move. Senator Strickland moves the bill. Can I get a roll call, please?

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

That bill is out; nine to zero. We're gonna move on to the final item, File Item Number 13: AB 2532 by Assembly Member Irwin. Before we begin, I just wanna make sure that we have all members who have voted on all bills. Perfect. This is our final bill. You can begin.

Yes, thank you. Part of the promise of Proposition 64 was creating a legal cannabis market where products are sold safely, responsibly, and transparently. Since its passage, California has continued refining our laws on cannabis to ensure that we regulate products in a way that protects public health and consumer safety, but one of the clearest gaps in that framework, as shown in the State Auditor's report on Department of Cannabis Control, is how we regulate cannabis beverages.

Under current law, cannabis edibles must be delineated into standard serving sizes so that consumers can measure and consume them responsibly. There is no similar requirement for cannabis beverages, which can be sold in containers with 100 milligrams of THC when the serving size is 10 milligrams, with no way to know how large a serving size is.

These beverages are frequently packaged and marketed like ordinary drinks with names like Root Beer and High Soda Pop on the beverage container. Unlike with a brownie or gummy, though, consumers may not realize they are ingesting multiple servings of THC in one sitting. This creates an increased risk of accidental overconsumption.

The consequences of THC poisoning can be serious, including paranoia, vomiting, panic attacks, and more. AB 2532 will establish reasonable safeguards on the sale and marketing of cannabis beverages to ensure that consumers are provided products that they can use responsibly. Consumers should not have to guess to determine how much cannabis they are drinking from a single beverage container. With me to testify today is Kris Applegate from the State Auditor's Office, testifying about the audit itself.

Good afternoon, again, Chair and members. Kris Applegate with the State Auditor's Office. We, again, don't have a position on AB 2532, but can report that it appears to address one of our legislative recommendations. Again, one aspect of the findings of our report related to serving sizes for cannabis beverages, specifically, we saw several products from 4 ounce energy drinks to 16 ounce root beer cans that contained 100 milligrams of THC, which represents 10 servings of 10 milligrams of THC.

However, these containers contain nothing that would allow a consumer to measure out a single serving size to safely consume. Even when we did find a can that contained lines to mark 10 servings, the can was opaque and therefore did not allow the consumer to actually utilize those measurement marks.

As a result of these findings and to ensure that beverage consumers can properly identify a single serving, we recommended that the Legislature consider either requiring easy understanding of measurement sizes, such as by requiring included measuring devices, as we saw in Washington State, or to establish a cap on the amount of THC in one cannabis beverage container to 10 milligrams or one serving.

This bill would address the recommendation and the findings that led to it by requiring for cannabis beverages that a container contain unobstructed and conspicuous lines, delineating individual serving or portion sizes, as well as a requirement that a consumer be offered a measuring instrument that allows them to measure a single serving for consumption. This would be an improvement over our current process and helps to mitigate the concerns that we saw in existing containers throughout our audit. Happy to answer any questions about the report.

Thank you. Any other lead support witnesses? Seeing none, can I get any opposition witnesses? Seeing none.

Move the bill.

Senator Strickland moves the bill. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just appreciate all the stakeholder input.

Thank you. With that, we have Senator Strickland who has made the motion. Can we get a roll call?

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]. It's 10/0.

Ten/zero. That bill is out. We are going to adjourn our meeting. Again, appreciate everybody working together.