Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

You. Good morning. Welcome to this morning's Assembly business and professions Committee hearing. We have 17 bills on today's hearing agenda, including the following nine bills on consent. AB 225 by Assembly Member Grayson, AB two, AB 232 and 282 both by Assembly Member Aguirre Curry, AB 470 by Assembly Member Valencia, AB 633 by Assembly Member Jim Patterson, AB 826 by Assembly Member Chen AB 878 by Assembly Member Pellerin, AB 883 by Assembly Member Mathis and AB 1341 by myself.

Which is.

My Bill is do pass as amended. We had to amend my own Bill, and I will accept those amendments for each Bill being presented today. We will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room today to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. With that said, we'll begin today's hearing. The only challenge is we need authors of bills.

So if you're sitting here watching this in your office, come on down, present your Bill. I will hold off on calling out people by name for a solid 60 seconds, and then we're going to have some fun with folks. I'm going to start presenting people's bills, and I don't really know the details, so we're going to have a good time. Okay, I guess that's where we are. Mr. Grayson, we could pull your Bill from consent if you want to present, just to kind of keep the.

For the record, Mr. Grayson declined that offer.

That was 60 seconds. So we're going to run through it publicly if Assembly Member Lee, Assembly Member Valencia, Assembly Member Ting, Assembly Member Erwin--most of you are on the Committee, by the way--there he is. Yes. You see? Yes, sir, you can. We're going to start as a Subcommitee. We're going to start with agenda item number 9, AB 783 by Assembly Member Ting. Sure, we might go to you and then we're going to let Valencia go since he's not on the Committee, and then we'll come back to you for Kalra's bill. Appreciate you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the Committee. AB 783 enforces existing law, which requires all single-user restrooms be identified as all-gender toilet facilities or to not have any gender identifications. They can just be simply labeled as bathrooms. I was proud to carry this bill in 2016, AB 1732, that required that all single-occupancy restrooms and businesses, government buildings and places of public accommodation be available to everyone. Compliance in the law has generally occurred all over the state.

Unfortunately, not everybody is complying, so we are coming back to bring greater enforcement requirements on my previous AB 1732. This will require cities to provide written notice to each business license applicant that all single-user toilet facilities be designated as all-gender. I have a witness from Equality California here to speak.

All right, great. Good morning Chair and Members, Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor of this bill. We were also a co-sponsor of AB 1732, which in 2016, established the nation's most progressive restroom access policy and required that all single-user restrooms in the state be universally accessible to all genders.

Designating these restrooms as gender-neutral not only protects trans and gender-nonconforming Californians, but also increases access for women, parents with children of different genders, and people with disabilities who have caretakers of a different gender. Simply put, having restrooms accessible to all genders means less hassle for everyone going about their day. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests the implementation of existing law remains limited in some parts of the state, and many businesses are still out of compliance.

AB 783 is an important but modest step to improve compliance and help to ensure that businesses are aware of their obligation under the law. I also just want to highlight that as this week we celebrate Trans Week of Visibility, this bill stands in stark contrast to the over 400 anti-LGBTQ bills that have been introduced across the country this year alone, many of which specifically target trans people and their ability to safely use the restroom.

In fact, just last month, the Arkansas Senate approved legislation that would impose criminal penalties on trans people simply for using the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. AB 783 presents an opportunity for California to continue to demonstrate a better way, one where trans people are treated with dignity and respect, and where they can be their authentic selves with a community that accepts and supports them. I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Not seeing any other primary witnesses in support. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Why don't we take--that's all right. In the hearing room today, is there anybody who wants to add on in support to AB 783? Anybody who wants to add on? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to add on in opposition to AB 783? Seeing none? Going to bring it back to colleagues for questions, comments. We don't have a quorum yet, so we can't take motions or seconds. Mr. Lee.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think especially compliance, especially for our small businesses, to make sure that they're inclusive for all customers and patrons is so needed, and I want to join my colleague right here, Assembly Member Jackson, being a co-author, if you'll have me. Thank you.

We'd be honored to have you both. Appreciate that.

Mr. Lowenthal.

I'd like to echo the sentiments just shared. I also--thank you so much for bringing this forward. I am a small business owner, would be subject to this, and I think it's desperately needed and would also ask if you would consider co-authorship on this.

Absolutely would be honored.

Any additional questions from colleagues? Seeing none. I'm sure when we have a quorum we'll get to a motion and a second. I want to thank you, Assembly Member Ting, I want to echo the comments of my colleagues, want to echo the comments of your primary witness in support on the importance of this bill and also on the frustration and dismay and anger at what's happening in other states across the country. And when the time comes, I will be proud to support this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So we're going to go to Mr. Valencia real quick, or maybe not real quick, depending on how his bill goes. No pressure. This is agenda item number 5. AB 342.

Awesome. Buenos Diaz, Mr. Chair and Members. Good morning, everyone. I want to start by thanking the Committee team for their diligent work on AB 342, and I also want to communicate that I'll be accepting the amendments outlined on page seven of the analysis. I'd also like to give a quick thank you to Kobe Grossman, who is with my team that's been taking the lead on this specific Bill. This Bill will promote dei diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in historically homogeneous professions.

AB 342 will give the California Architects Board and the Bureau of Real Estate appraisers the authority to request demographic information on race, ethnicity, and gender expression of its licensees. A change in statute is necessary to grant these licensing boards the authority to ask for and collect diversity data. By allowing, yet not mandating, this collection, we can gain a better understanding of the State of diversity in these professions and develop targeted strategies to promote greater inclusivity and equity.

The collection of this aggregated data will be published in reports from the board and bureau, respectively, to the California Department of Consumer affairs. This Bill creates parity with existing authority and ability of other professional licensing boards who are already able to collect this data.

AB 342 is an industry sponsored measure, and with me to provide testimony, I have Mr. Scott Terrell, Director of government relations at the American Institute of Architects California, and Mr. Mike Belote with California advocates on behalf of the appraisal Institute, California Government Relations Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Valencia. And before we get to that, we're going to capture this moment in time to get a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for the quorum.

Call Berman.

Here.

Roll Call

Great. We have a quorum. Please continue with primary witness in support. Perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Scott Terrell. On behalf of the American Institute of Architects, an Association of over 11,000 architects and design professionals in California, and the sponsors of AB 342. As an industry, we recognize that the disparities in demographics within our industry are far too large.

And as the largest representative of the architectural profession in California, AIA California has made it a priority to champion a culture of equity, diversity and inclusion, as we believe that when our members'cultural, demographic and ethnographic makeup more closely mirror the communities that we serve, the profession will be more effective and better equipped for long term growth. Additionally, when designing livable and sustainable communities, it is vital that there are cultural competencies of the communities that are being served by our Members designs.

The collection of this demographic information is essential as it allows for research to be done to understand attrition and recruitment patterns. From there, the industry can better develop strategies to address any patterns that create barriers to entry. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We've got a motion. We've got a bipartisan motion. And second, Mr. Belot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, Mike Belot. On behalf of the Appraisal Institute Government Relations Committee. In recent years, there has been suggestions of biased appraisals based on race, including a couple of well publicized allegations in California. We take that very, very seriously. An appraisal, it's somebody's biggest investment in their life. And so we see this Bill as complementary. It's going to give us a baseline of how the profession is doing. Many professions already do it. I do it for the state bar.

Anecdotally, I'm told about 70% of lawyers answer the question, but it is voluntary. But it gives us some information and tells us how we're doing. For that reason, I'd ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional, actually, where am I in the order? Let's have primary witnesses in opposition. There aren't any. That's great. Any additional people want to add on in support of the Bill?

Hi, my name is Ellen Medill. I'm here on behalf of the northern and Southern California chapters of the International Interior Design Association. We are the commercial Interior Design Association with global reach. And our California chapters support a combined community of 1500 design professionals across the state in full support of AB 342. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any people want to add on in opposition? Seeing none. We've got the bipartisan motion and second bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments.

Mr. Patterson, thank you. Just quick question. Sometimes this body passes legislation and the Governor signs that mandate that state agencies do certain things, and sometimes those state agencies don't do those certain things, like passing regulations on certain things.

And I was just wondering, do we have any idea if the California Architects board will actually do this, since it's just. We're just authorizing them? Have we had any conversations to make sure they actually do it?

Yes, we have been in conversations with the California Architect Board, and this is something that they've been looking at for a while. So we worked with them on the language for the Bill, and they like that it's voluntary, so they can establish their own timelines for getting it done. But we have been in conversations. Okay, great. Same with appraisers.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson, any additional comments, questions? Got the motion. Got the second. Seeing none. Mr. Ting, I don't think I let you close earlier. I apologize for that. Did you? Perfect. Mr. Valencia, would you like to close?

Awesome. Great. I'd love to see them do it expeditiously. And I look forward to supporting the Bill. Thanks.

Mr. Ting, you can close for me.

There you go.

Okay, just in closing, with a state as diverse as California, it's essential that our built environment and real estate valuations reflect the range of experiences and perspectives of our communities. Gracias. I appreciate your time and I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Valencia. With the amendments outlined in the analysis, I am pleased to support this important Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 342. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to present AB 993. AB 993 seeks to add the Civil Rights Department and the Department of Industrial Relations to the membership of the existing task force on state and local regulation on commercial cannabis activity. The Department of Cannabis Control has the power to take action against both licensees and unlicensed persons for violating of the medicinal and adult use Cannabis Regulation and Safety act.

However, the DCC alone is not the appropriate agency to coordinate enforcement of labor trafficking. The DCC has stated the Department of Industrial Relations is the appropriate entity to resolve issues such as wage theft and workplace violations. And as this Committee knows, the Civil Rights Department is better equipped to take action against perpetrators of these violations. By adding these two state entities to the task force, California can be better equipped, through enhanced communication, to deal with all forms of human trafficking within the cannabis industry.

This measure is author sponsored, has no opposition, and we are committed to working in close coordination with the respective departments to ensure successful implementation. With that, I respectfully ask for an ivote. My Chief of Staff, Minnie and I, were the authors, or she came up with the idea about the wage theft and the enforcement. So if there's any questions, we can clarify. Other than that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Perfect. Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio. Any primary witnesses in support? No. Any primary witnesses in opposition in the room? No. Anybody want to add on in support of the Bill? Name, organization you're with, position on the Bill? No. Anybody want to add on in opposition to the Bill? No. Colleagues looking for a motion, a second, a question, a comment? Got some motions and seconds. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio, for bringing this Bill forward. I certainly agree that labor trafficking and worker exploitation are serious issues, regardless of whether they take place in a cannabis business. And I appreciate you seeking solutions to these issues, you and your Chief of Staff, and I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 993. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

This is agenda item 14. AB 993.

There it is.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 11 votes. It's out. We'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Thank you very much. So I don't see any other authors going to bring it back to Assembly Member Ting to, I believe, present for Assembly Member Kalra on agenda item seven. AB 471.

Thank you. AB 471 will permit the Department of Cannabis Control to issue cannabis catering licenses to allow licensees to serve cannabis or cannabis products at private events. This bill is a reintroduction of AB 2844, which the committee passed last year. Despite recreational cannabis consumption becoming an integral part of California experience for visitors and residents alike, the state has yet to regulate cannabis catering at hotels and throughout the travel industry.

Under existing law, cannabis retailers can be issued state temporary event licenses that allow for on-site cannabis sales and consumption within a limited set of venues and under specific restrictions by the state. However, these licenses do not currently cover situations in which an event host prepays for cannabis and cannabis products to be provided free of charge to event guests.

By creating these catering licenses, AB 471 will create a regulatory environment to help ensure there is a greater safety and oversight of cannabis consumption at gatherings such as weddings and wellness retreats. Here to testify is Jerred Kiloh, President of the United Cannabis Business Association.

Perfect.

Thank you, everyone. The cannabis catering license is an effort to, one, try to expand the reach of retail and cannabis legal. Because what we currently have right now is we have people coming into a building, and I don't think the culture of cannabis is really making it into our kind of legal system.

A lot of these activities are happening outside the regulatory kind of framework, and what we're looking to do in this particular framework is, one, recognize where the liability is in insurance, and once we have a license, activity liability insurance can be gathered. I think this puts a lot of kind of landowners that would be having this event space could put them a little bit at ease because a third party would be carrying that liability insurance.

Plus, what we're doing in this bill is not trying to expand any rights of anyone who's smoking cannabis or ingesting it. Our goal here is to regulate what is already happening and giving people from the catering business an opportunity to offer these products inside their menu or suite of items that we'd usually get at a catering. So they'd be licensed to maybe serve alcohol, to serve food, maybe have a DJ. So, really, this is just kind of normalizing the catering business.

And this year, what we've done is CTAI, which is a travel industry association in the cannabis space, is also working with CalTravel to see that this is a necessary need for tourists to be able to have a safe, comfortable place to not only learn and be educated but also be a part of the culture of cannabis. And so respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support?

Emelia Zamani, CalTravel in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses? In opposition, seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on? In opposition, seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments, motions, or seconds. Dr. Baines.

Just a quick question. So we know that events like this, there will be alcohol also served, as you had alluded before. So, this will be in addition to alcohol use. So marijuana, as an addiction specialist, my concern is marijuana on top of alcohol use and the safety of people getting home after events like this. Has that been addressed in this Bill?

Yes. The goal here is so that you do have someone who is licensed, just the same way that you would not serve someone too many drinks of alcohol and let them leave. This is an opportunity to give education.

You can go to a wedding, and someone in a plastic baggie marked with a sharpie on it could give you a joint, or you could get something that's prepackaged, gives the milligram dosage on the outside of the package, has child-resistant packaging, all in relation to California's cannabis laws. And here you are as an adult over 21, being able to access it while given some information. I think that is where we all run the risk of taking too much.

But I think having someone who's educated to guide you through that, I think is kind of the imperative of this bill.

So you're saying that there will be people that will watch out at the event licensed that will be responsible for people not getting home safe?

Well, I think the point is they're going to have to get liability insurance, and it's going to be in everyone's best interest to make sure everyone gets home safe because I think that's the whole reason, is to take that liability off the landowner and put it onto the caterer.

Thanks.

Got it.

Yeah.

Mr. Grayson,

Thank you. And I do want to share concerns with my colleague. For me, having the cannabis and the alcohol both at the same event, I think it's important to exercise the greatest of care. And also, the point about having someone there: it's one thing for a caterer to be serving and providing at the event, but for that caterer to be certified to be able to educate.

I'm not sure if that's a provision that's in the bill, that the caterer would be in a place where they actually can provide counsel and educate. Is that going to be part of the responsibility of a caterer?

No, there is no license that's going to go directly to the education. I think in the regulatory process, we could put a minimum amount of either classroom time or time that could go towards it. But we're not looking to have this be certified education services.

You would be like a bartender where if someone wanted to come in and get a drink, you would tell them the best way to make a Manhattan and what you have available and tell know, in this particular case, if you've never used cannabis, here are some of the things you should look out for, and here are kind of normal dosing requirements. And all that is on California's cannabis packaging as well, dosing requirements, especially with edibles.

So it is an education opportunity, and if there needs to be something in the regulatory process that adds a little bit more of an education requirement, I'm sure we could do that.

I really appreciate your openness on that because that's important. The other thing that I am concerned with is we have testing for if a person's driving under the influence, we have testing for alcohol. We have something they can blow into. I don't think I can stand to be corrected, but I don't think we're quite there yet with being able to test whether someone is truly under the influence of cannabis while driving. And I'm not sure. I'm not educated enough for sure, in this area.

And that is the mixture of the two where one person maybe would blow under the limit, but under the influence of cannabis at the same time would be more impaired than if they were over the limit in alcohol. I'm not sure. Again, open opportunity for you to educate.

No problem. Currently, there's not an impairment, kind of, for saying when you're driving under the influence for cannabis yet. I think when it comes to body weight and what your tolerance level is, it's not just like alcohol, where it's a percentage inside your bloodstream. This is the number of receptors that would be filled by cannabis. So I do see your point, but name one concert you haven't been to where someone was smoking in the crowd as well as drinking a beer.

I think we're all adults in this. I think with a little bit of education, adults will be able to understand. You go slow first, and you kind of move from there. So I think this is an opportunity to at least see what's happening in this space, regulate it, tax it, and take data from it so we can see should we expand upon it or contract it. I think this is an opportunity.

I appreciate that, but you give humanity way too much credit if we were all adults.

Sounds like a philosophical issue. Dr. Baines.

I appreciate that comment. I just wanted to say, again, I understand what you're saying; you know, we, as legislators, have to take a responsibility, and I voice my concerns about marijuana on top of alcohol, in addition to not being able to catch it, there is no device that's going to be able to catch how much marijuana is on your system, and we're going to have people drive home.

So again, I would highly recommend there be some sort of clause or liability thing for people making sure that they get home safely after events like this.

Mr. Patterson?

Yeah, thank you. I mean, I may have gone to a concert or two where that is happening. Red Hot Chili Peppers is my favorite band, by the way. I have some concerns because, having worked in this environment for a while and working on DUI legislation, and I know there actually is a DUI standard for if you're impaired under anything and you're driving, that you could get a DUI for that, although it's harder to prove because it's not a 0.8 or whatever the standard is.

But when there is an accident, and unfortunately, this happens in all our districts, and then there's a death and things like that, or maybe there's not a death, which they're able to measure the amount of alcohol in the person's system, and that's used as evidence to enter the court that the person was driving under the influence and caused fatalities and things like that.

So I am a little bit concerned that what people do on their own time under the laws of California, which authorize people to do these things, is within their purview. But I do get concerned about that. We know it's going to happen. We know people are going to drive under the influence after having cannabis. They do it already, and it's harder to prove that they were under the influence.

And so I have a lot of concerns with having more events in communities like that, even though it comes with local approval. I just don't know how law enforcement is going to be able to hold somebody accountable that unfortunately killed somebody for being under the influence of cannabis after also drinking alcohol.

I think in this particular event, you actually now have a responsible party, and that's kind of what we're trying to say is at a wedding or at an event, who is the responsible party to make sure someone gets home safe? Well, now, we do have a responsible party. This caterer who's providing cannabis and or alcohol, one or the other or both, now is the responsible party.

And I think that's a good opportunity for us to look at the liability of this so that we can make sure people get home safe and having that responsible caterer there, that is the one person who would be responsible, finally.

Would you mind, Mr. Chair, if I just go in on that a little bit?

The floor is yours, sir.

Okay. Thank you. So, yeah, unfortunately, in my district, there was recently a DUI accident with four individuals who were killed in a high-speed accident. And I've seen the lawsuits and the criminal proceedings as a result. And I do think there's debate over what the responsibility was for the licensee, you know, providing the alcohol. And so. And I've seen the litigation that's come out. You know, it's not going to bring those people back, and so I don't think anybody loses their license right there.

And I also, unfortunately, we have four people that died, so I'm not sure I totally buy that argument. I understand what you're saying in terms of, right now, people at, like, a concert that I go to might be partaking already, and now there's somebody out there who's kind of liable, maybe, but I don't really think that happens in practice. I think it happens on occasion, but I don't think that's really the normal process.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Lowenthal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to thank you for bringing this matter forward. I support it wholeheartedly. I'm the owner of two restaurants with bars where we serve alcohol. I've been the owner of a 48-licensed tavern location. And what's interesting is that alcohol is the only drug that we have where we have to explain why we don't use it. As a matter of fact, what we're not considering here for everybody is thinking about the compounded effects of drug of marijuana and alcohol is what about giving those consumers a choice so that they don't have to drink alcohol and still want to be festive of a legal drug that consumers want, have voted for and supported? I think that for the people who are hosting this event, I certainly know people, many people, who don't drink alcohol and do consume cannabis, and that's part of their lifestyle, and they do it responsibly.

And so, I think that we need to consider that population when thinking about this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. I'm going to go to Mr. Jackson, then Mr. Grayson, and then others, possibly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I think we have to understand some context here, because right now, there are no regulations, there are no safeguards. So this stuff is happening whether we like it or not. And this begins, I believe, a journey of a set of laws and practices that we can begin to get a better handle on how we can make sure people are staying safe. So, I don't think this is opening up a can of worms. The can is already open. It's broken.

It's free rein right now. So I see this more of: We're beginning the process of creating more safeguards, and this could be just one of many possible down the road as we get a handle on how people's behavior is happening in public spaces and things like that. So I just want to make sure that when we're having this discussion, that we're understanding that this is putting more safeguards into a practice that's already happening.

And so I thank the author and his proxy for bringing this to us and understanding that there's many more things we probably should be doing down the road. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Grayson.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. And the point was well taken. As far as my fellow colleague who's a business owner and does catering and things of that sort, I brought out a really great and interesting point that there are some folks that have gone away from alcohol but, as in his words, want to still be festive.

So I'm not sure if that is built into the bill, that you could have a choice one way or the other, or if you're going to do both, then there has to be some oversight of that. You have a very open mind. I will support this bill today so that it can have more conversation with the understanding that I may vote differently on the floor if changes aren't incorporated into it. So thank you.

I think it's the cornerstone of this bill is to give that choice and let the adult make that choice, and also make the host of that decide if they want to have alcohol and cannabis at their event. They're the ones who might have to deal with the drunk and stoned uncle instead of just the drunk uncle. We realize that. And everyone's going to have to take responsibility to the host, the caterer, and the people at the event.

Thank you very much.

It's scary how real the drunk uncle is at weddings, Mr. Flora. He's good. Personal experience. Any additional questions or comments? Looking for a motion or a second? Got a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Appreciate that. Thank you to the author. I know we heard a prior version of this bill a year ago. Thank you for including all of this committee's amendments from that iteration. Happy to support the bill again today. Madam Secretary. Please call a vote.

AB 471: the motion is do passed to the Committee on Governmental Organization. [Roll Call]

That bill has nine votes. We'll hold it open for absent Members. Might have said that wrong. We'll find out if I get in trouble. Assembly Member Lee, I believe you're an author. Item number one. AB 38.

Morning. Thank you, chair members. Presenting AB 38. Today. AB 38 limits outdoor night lighting on state buildings and structures, including state parks and lands, to promote safety for people, ecosystems, and other wildlife.

Move the Bill.

In addition, this reform conserves energy and reduces our carbon footprint.

Artificial light at night has increased an unprecedented level of globally and in California. This has resulted in a disruption of circadian rhythms in plants and animals, which harms our ecosystem. Excessive artificial lighting also has detrimental effects on humans. Teens and adolescents who live in areas that have high levels of artificial light at night are more likely to have mood and anxiety disorders interrupted by sleep patterns.

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, including limiting artificial light at night. To address this issue, AB 38 will acquire all outdoor lighting fixtures on state buildings and structures, including state parks and lands, who have an external shield to direct light to where it is needed and be equipped to shut off device. The sensor reform promotes the safety of migratory birds, ecosystems, and people.

And with that, I'd like to introduce my witness testifying support, Michael Siminovitch, a lighting Professor at UC Davis. And this bill has no opposition.

Thank you very much. And it has a motion. The bill's got a motion. Bill's got a second.

Good morning. My name is Michael Siminovitch. I'm a professor at UC Davis, and I'm the Director of the California Lighting Technology Center. I also hold the Arthur Rosenfeld and Dell Chair for Energy Efficiency. And I'm very pleased to be here this morning to provide educational input based on over 20 years of research at UC Davis on exterior lighting, it is our strong contention that as much as 50% of the light that we produce here in California is totally wasted.

The egregious waste of energy and resulting cost burden to the State of California can be largely eliminated by using both lighting controls and appropriate shielding, as outlined in this bill. There are two important outcomes that can be realized by more careful and prudent application of light. First is the very large cost savings due to energy efficiency, and second is reducing the negative biological impact that light has on humans and other species at nighttime.

The application of adaptive lighting controls outlined in this bill will reduce the light during periods of vacancy using scheduling sensors and dimming. This has been broadly demonstrated to be cost-effective. We often see 50% to 70% savings in energy when we do these kinds of technologies. When applied to parking lots, pathways, wallpacks, we can see tremendous savings. We've already broadly demonstrated this at multiple institutions, universities, state buildings, and has helped inform codes and standards here in Title 24 and at a national level at ASHRAE.

The application of shielding that's outlined in this bill is a simple, Low-cost addition to the lighting hardware, which will limit light above the horizontal. Light going above the horizontal into the night sky is totally wasted, and we're paying for this shielding requirement, which is critically needed, as it is currently outside the current regulatory purview. In closing, as educational input, we believe that the measures proposed are cost-effective, proven broadly available today, and would limit this 50% light that we're seeing.

It offers the potential for significant cost savings to the state of California. State of California's building should be a leadership model for all of us for sustainability and cost savings. I thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support seeing maybe one, or do you want to add on just as a me too? Got it. That's the term I've been looking for all morning, so let's go with toos. Me too is in support.

Michael Jerrett, on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity, in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is No Whitley, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. We are in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any. Me too. Witnesses in opposition seeing none. We have a motion in a second. I think I'm not making that up. Yeah, we do. Any questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Assembly Member Lee, would you like to close?

This is a modest proposal. In order to protect our species and also to gaze up to the heavens and wonder about our place in the universe. Certainly, ask you for your aye vote.

I need to do more gazing into the heavens, Assemblymember. Thank you for your bill. With your commitment to continue working with stakeholders on additional amendments, I am happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 38. The motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has 10 votes. It's out. We will keep the roll open for absent Members looking for authors. While we look for authors, let's move consent.

Got a motion? Second. Got a second. Madam Secretary, let's take the roll on consent.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

The consent calendar is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Let's also, if we could get a motion and second on agenda item number 9, AB 783 by Assembly Member Ting, which was presented when we were in a Subcommitee and didn't yet have a quorum. Got a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on agenda item number 9.

AB 783. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman. Aye. Flora. No. Alanis. Alvarez. Bains. Aye. Bonta. Chen. Aye. Dixon. Gibson. Grayson. Aye. Erwin. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lowenthal. Aye. McCarty. Mckinnor. Nguyen. Aye. Patterson. Ting. Aye.

That bill has 10 votes. It's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now we need authors. Present--Assembly Member Irwin--if you're ready, I am. We both look surprised. Don't know if that bodes well for us. We'll find out. Agenda item 11, AB 834. You have a bipartisan motion and second, Assembly Member Irwin. No, not really.

I'll cut this really short. Currently, California BMP code specifically prohibits podiatrists from having more than a 49% ownership of any practice with a physician. This means that a podiatrist, in spite of their at least 11 years of education, can never be an equal partner. Even if both parties agree it's in the best interest of the practice. AB 834 removes this impediment and allows podiatrists and physicians to have equal ownership in a medical practice. With me here in support of the bill is Ryan Spencer, representing the California Podiatric Medical Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the California Podiatric Medical Association. I had this, but I guess now I'll just simply ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Well done. Appreciate that testimony. Any additional witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any add-ons in support? Any add-ons in opposition or tween-ers? There it is.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Soares with the California Medical Association. We're currently in oppose unless amended position, but we want to thank the author and the sponsor for working on amendments with us to address our concerns. We look forward to further conversations and changing our position to neutral at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And just want to confirm with the author-

-We do have amendments that we are taking.

Appreciate that.

Your amendments that we're taking.

Even better. Appreciate that. Any additional witnesses? Support, opposition? None. Bipartisan motion, second? Comments, questions from colleagues? Seeing none. Would you like to close, Assembly Member Irwin?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the author and stakeholders for working with us on this bill. I believe the accepted amendments address concerns around the partnership structure, but look forward to working with the author and the stakeholders if further refinements are needed. With that, I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 834. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman. Aye. Flora. Aye. Alanis. Alvarez. Bains. Aye. Bonta. Chen. Dixon. Gibson. Grayson. Aye. Irwin. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lowenthal. Aye. McCarty. Mckinnor. Nguyen. Aye. Patterson. Aye. Ting. Aye.

That bill has 11 votes. It's out. We'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Just a public safety--service announcement for folks. If you're wearing a mask, don't take a cough drop with menthol because you blow the air up right in your eyeballs and you start crying, which is currently happening. I know, it's very emotional. I do, I do. Thank you. It's a good thing you're on the Committee. We are looking for Assembly Members Haney and Garcia.

Assembly Members Haney and Garcia, if you are in the building, please come. What room are we in? To Room 1100. As quickly as possible. You have a bunch of colleagues that are very patiently awaiting your presence.

Staff for Assembly Members Haney and Garcia. Go find your Member. Go find them. Y'all have tracking chips--or it feels like it sometimes.

Assembly Member Garcia, good to see you, my friend. Here to present on agenda item 17, AB 1395.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I want to begin by thanking the Committee staff for the analysis that was put together. Today, we're proud to introduce AB 1395, a bill that will revise licensing requirements for the doctors and dentists from the Mexico program. I'm going to stop there. I know we do have an aye recommendation, and I'm going to ask my witnesses to be brief in regards to this bill.

The original bill that created the Doctors from Mexico Project, AB 1045, was signed by Governor Davis in 2002. It took us 17 years to finally implement. That's another story. But we're here for AB 1395. Of the 30 doctors under this pilot program, which is a three-year medical license, they must meet very, very specific criteria in order to be able to participate. One of those requirements is to go through the same licensure process that one goes through in California.

You must have an ITIN or a Social Security number in order to get medical license. We need the medical license in order to get visas, in order to be able to enter under that three-year visa process with the federal government. We were very lucky that of the 22 doctors that we currently have under this program, the IRS mistakenly issued ITINs to 17 of them.

You're not supposed to get an ITIN unless you have worked in the United States of America prior to applying for an ITIN. However, we have seven doctors, eight doctors left. The IRS is no longer issuing those mistaken ITINs, and now they're taking three to five months to issue an ITIN. So we will definitely run into problems of being able to have the remaining seven enter, because none of them are dual citizens. Of the 22 that have come in, five are dual citizens.

They already had their Social Security number. We needed another 17. Those 17 went through the process correctly. Very important. The doctors that are here, most of them have started working since April 2022. They've seen over 75,000 medical encounters. That comes out to over 25,000 new patients. They're getting acclimated to the process where the federal government requires, or would like to see four medical encounters per hour. Dr. Bains is very familiar with that process, having worked at Clinica Sierra Vista and-

-There you go--and a foreign medical student. So she understands how the Fed system works. The clinics have to do peer review. These doctors are being monitored very closely, regardless of the fact they're here under this program. We want to point out to our colleagues or our friends, Mr. Flora and the others, that the growers and shippers of Monterey County endorse this bill. If you had read their letter, you would have seen how strongly in support they are. They're bringing in a number of H-2A workers who do not speak English. These H-2A workers are coming in legally under the federal government's guidance.

And if you could just wrap up whenever you're ready, that'd be great.

We'd greatly appreciate your aye vote. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman. I want to introduce Dr. Eva Perusquia, doctor who is working at Clinica's del Valle de Salinas. Very important for you to note: she is a fellow under the American College of Physicians, which is a very, very big honor. Only one out of every three that take the exam pass it. Go ahead.

Good morning. I'm Dr. Eva Perusquia, and I'm very proud of being here with you to speak in support of AB 1395. As Mr. Torres said, I'm proud that in 2021, I received the honor of being a fellow of the American College of Physicians.

I've been working in the Mexican pilot program since April 2022, but the legislation would have allowed me to enter the US earlier and begin serving patients, because as a Mexican citizen that have never worked in the US, I was extremely fortunate--by mistake--to be issued with an individual ITIN, or a Social Security number. I would not have been able to receive my three year old medical license under this pilot program in other way.

We all need our medical licenses to apply for an O-1 or H-1B visa from the US government to work as doctors in the US. I'm now an O-1 visa recipient. After being selected for this unique program, it took me more than five years to enter California and finally begin working. AB 1395 will allow the remaining seven doctors to arrive in California by the summer, when the need of health care is always most significant in the farmer communities living here.

And I was selected by Clinica De Salud del Valle de Salinas, a federally qualified health center in Montreal County. Clinica has 13 health clinic sites in its network and is the county's largest healthcare services provider. As you know, Monterey County ranks third in the state in employing farm workers. Without AB 1395, my colleagues from Mexico may never enter the US because of the delays the Internal Revenue Service in issue the ITIN, and the fact that they have never worked in the US.

In the time I've been here, I've worked with all kinds of patients, regardless of their language and culture. However, those who have been impacted the greatest are the ones who do not speak English. As I arrive, I have a great reception from the patients I have been serving. They were surprised when they know that we were Mexicans. Their joy is knowing they won't need translators to express their symptoms, feelings or beliefs. Joy of being with someone who understands their culture regarding the food, the family, the work, and the way of living.

Thank you, Doctor. If you can wrap up, that would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you. And if you weren't able to present any testimony, you can submit it also in writing.

Okay. My 22 colleagues who work in front of the other health centers and I are very proud of being selected. And these experiences have underscored that if we cannot speak the patient's language and understand their culture, it is complicated to diagnose the illness and develop the proper and most effective treatment plan.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Doctor. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anyone want to add on in support of the bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eduardo Martinez, on behalf of the Ultimate Health Services in support.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Dennis Cuevas-Romero, on behalf of the California Health Plus Advocates in strong support of the bill.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support? We're also looking for motions and seconds. Got a motion and a second. Any questions, comments from colleagues? Questions or comments? Yes, Dr. Bains.

I'm sorry, I'll be brief. I just have to say thank you so much. As a foreign medical student, as someone that speaks Spanish and Punjabi and English, it is so important that we recruit physicians that are culturally, linguistically competent. So, thank you guys for this bill very much.

I'm giving the motion to Dr. Bains? She gets the motion. Absolutely. Any additional questions, comments? Colleagues? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you again for your aye recommendation. Respectfully ask for your aye vote and welcome anyone who would like to add on as co-authors at this time.

Thank you. You got takers? Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward, which will remove barriers to participation in a program that hopefully will help a little with California's physician workforce shortage, but in a very important way. Happy to recommend an aye vote on the bill. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 1395. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman. Aye. Flora. Aye. Alanis. Alvarez. Bains. Aye. Bonta. Chen. Dixon. Aye. Gibson. Grayson. Aye. Irwin. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Lee. Aye. Lowenthal. Aye. McCarty. Mckinnor. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Patterson. Aye. Ting. Aye.

That bill is out.

We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you, Assembly Member. And last but definitely not least, Assemblymember Haney. Agenda item number 15, AB 1136.

Committee on business and professions I'm here today to present AB 1136, the mixed martial arts pension bill. AB 1136 will ensure that licensed professional mixed martial arts fighters have access to a pension fund. The pension fund will be financed through ticket sales, the sale of sports paraphernalia and souvenirs. This would expand on current existing law that has enabled licensed professional boxers to have access to a pension fund. Licensed professional MMA fighters currently do not have a pension Fund, though boxers do.

This leaves MMA fighters vulnerable to financial insecurity, especially as hospital bills for their injuries continue to affect them post retirement. As professional athletes, they undertake immense physical and psychological training and endure injuries and risks, yet they have no guaranteed pension plan for their commitment to this physically taxing combat sport. I would also note that California is the state with the most fights and the most fighters for MMA. AB 1136 would make MMA fighters at 50 years old eligible to automatically receive a pension.

This pension fund would be financed through the ticket sales, sports paraphernalia, and souvenirs, at no cost to the state. Specifically, for every ticket sold, $1 would go towards the MMA Fighters pension fund. MMA fighters would become vested between 12 and 14 fights, which is around 39 scheduled rounds at commission regulated MMA events.

In the last several days, we've received a dozen support letters from various organizations in the mixed martial arts and boxing community and we will submit those letters to the committee clerk, but wanted to update the committee members that we are in receipt of those letters also, in regards to amendments, thank you to the committee for your thoughtful consideration of this bill. And I agree and accept the amendments that you've proposed. This is an issue of basic fairness.

These are fighters who put their bodies on the line for entertainment, for a sport, and they deserve to be able to retire with dignity and have support when they finish their careers. I'm very grateful to have two witnesses here in support of the bill. The first is Commissioner DeMars from the California State Athletic Commission, and the second is UFC mixed martial arts champion Urijah Faber.

And we also have the bill sponsors Andy Foster, the Executive Director, and Ken Swenson, the counsel for the California State Athletic Commission. So I'll turn it over first to Commissioner DeMars.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. Just a little background. I was the first American to win the World Judo Championships. I was President of California Judo Incorporated, President of the United States Judo Association, Athlete Development Director for the United States Judo Federation, Southern California Judo Black Belt Association. So in that I've known a lot of these fighters since they came up to my hip, and many of them went into mixed martial arts.

In addition, I have an MBA and a PhD in Applied Statistics and Psychometrics and founded multiple companies. So I'm not just some dumb jock. And given that, I have some thoughts on this pension fund. First of all, according to the Federal Reserve Consumer Finance survey, the average person under 35 has saved up $13,000 for 40% of the population. Lower end of the income distribution. They're not in any retirement plan whatsoever.

And I was talking to my daughter Rhonda about this, and she said, "mom, when people are fighters and they're young, they're not thinking about if they're investing in Apple or FTX. They're thinking about, are they paying the rent? Are they paying the car payment?" So the average payout of about 19, $20,000 that goes to a boxer is way more than people would have saved up most.

And the reason I said athletes, people under 35 have saved an average of $13,000 is MMA is not a long term profession. To be the oldest UFC champion ever in the top 10, you only need to be 37. To be one of the top 10 oldest fighters in the UFC ever, you only need to be 43. And people like Manny Gamburyan, Karo Parisyan, who started when they were young, they're retiring even younger.

And it's not just that people want to win sometimes it's what they need to do. I talked to a young man who was 19, who was going pro. And he said, "AnnMaria, my dad lost his job. My mom's never worked outside the home, and my sister's little kid. I need to be a man, support my family." So whether you agree or not, these are decisions people are making.

And one of the arguments I heard against the bill is, "do we want to encourage people to do a dangerous sport?" Now, there's been a number of studies that asked athletes if you could take a legal drug and in five years you'd die, but everything you did, you'd win, would you do it? And anywhere from six to 50% say yes. And there's been some critiques of that. Well, I can tell you I was at the Olympic training center.

I was one of those athletes in that 50%. And if there had been a column for yes, in a heartbeat, I would have checked it. Now, we could argue that I was an idiot 20, which I could not dispute. But the point is, having a pension fund at 50 is not going to be the deciding factor in whether somebody does a dangerous sport or not.

But it is going to be the deciding factor in whether or not they can pay their medical expenses at 50 or 60 that are going to be exacerbated. I mean, I've had this thumb replaced. I've had a knee replaced. I've had I don't know how many times my knee has been drained, most recently last week. And that money would have covered all those copays since I was 50.

So what we're asking for is covering the cost that people incur from the ticket sales that come literally on those athletes backs. And you may not think that people ought to be doing MMA, maybe some people don't. But you know what? One thing we believe in California, you have the right to do what you want with your body as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else.

And so we may as well take that money we're making off those kids' bodies and put it away from them so when they're older and all broken up, maybe they can afford all those expenses. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Hello. Thanks for having me. She forgot to mention Ronda Rousey's, her daughter is one of the pioneers for the sport, and world champ, and pretty famous and smart on her own accord. So a lot of knowledge on that side. Looking at this, it says the average career for an athlete is 10 years, and on average, 20 fights before retiring, which is a lot of combat, especially if you pack in all the years of hard work.

I was a mixed martial artist starting at the age of 23. Before that, I was wrestling at UC Davis, where I graduated in human development. And my mom wasn't super pumped when I decided to get in and start fighting as a career. But I was following my passion. I was an adult, and I was going to do what I wanted. And it was illegal in California at that time, as you may know, 2003, it was illegal.

So I was fighting on Indian reservations because it was fun, and I thought it would be good at it. And I believed in the sport. And what happened was we had some great people that got behind the sport, namely the Fertitta Brothers and Dana White, that decided to make this more regulated and safer and along lines of boxing. And that's what happened. I came in in the rogue years of the sport because I loved it as a college educated guy and just not thinking about anything.

I didn't have health insurance. I was working at Inc. Downtown, and I was coaching wrestling at UC Davis. And I started little businesses to fund my career, and luckily, was able to be intelligent enough to fund my own passion, which turned into a real job some years later when the Fertitta Brothers decided to put some real regulation behind this thing, millions and millions of dollars, and turn into what it is today, what you may see today.

So the idea of having a pension is amazing at 50 people that have been contributors to their community. I've filled the arenas here multiple times. Fighting at the old arena, at the new arena, put a lot of dollars in the community's pocket. And so that, I think, needs to be considered. We've got great leadership at the commission that understands who should be getting this and who should not. We've had long talks about that, about who would be eligible and who is deserving.

And so I've got faith in the fact that the money will go in the right place. And boxing, boxing is a sport that should really have these pensions. I mean, these people, especially on a boxer's career that starts as a young kid that goes all the way to until their retirement, they're sacrificing their body for their passion, but also for entertainment.

And I'm sure some folks here in front of me have watched a boxing fight and enjoyed it and maybe paid for a ticket once or twice or bought some paraphernalia or whatever.

I realize I interrupt you at my own peril, but if you could wrap up, that would be great.

So you have the foot in the door. And I'd like some more creative ways to get that fund robust so that guys can get more. I'm an entrepreneur as well, and I've talked to Andy. I'd love to be somebody that can help contribute with ideas on top of supporting the bill.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Anybody want to add on in support to the bill? Name organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill?

My name is Andre Fili. I've been a professional fighter since 2019. It's been my entire life. I'm from Sacramento. I love the city, and I think that it's a real hub for fighters and they'd really benefit from this.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support? Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Did we have, we have a motion in a second. Bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments. Some of them were Chen.

Thank you. Mr. I really appreciate know I'm a big fan of MMA, and I think the State of California has benefited from the mixed martial arts phenomenon that is really the most popular sport in the world right now. I certainly appreciate the author who bring this to our attention in legislative caucus, and so I will be happy to support this Bill.

I know that there's some contention in terms of the differences between the boxers receiving a pension right now in the State of California as well as MMA fighters. Let me just say that there was a time where the best fighter in the world was the heavyweight champion in boxing. That has shifted, obviously, and the physical, emotional, psychological trauma that MMA fighters have to go through is, quite frankly, second to none.

So with that said, though, I do have a question for the author as well as the folks that are sponsoring it, that the pension fund right now for MMA fighters is being sponsored, proposed by ticket sales. Right. So there is a difference between that and boxers. If you could kind of elaborate on the differences between boxers pension fund right now and MMA fighters in this proposal's pension fund, how is that different?

So I can also ask the Athletic Commission, who may be able to address this.

I believe that the pension fund for boxers is also funded through ticket sales. This will also allow other types of funding opportunities, including paraphernalia, other ways that funds that come through these are events that are regulated and overseen by the Athletic Commission. So we have that authority, and we would then be extending the authority for them to have these fees to go into the pension fund to MMA fights.

Just to add something in there. Mixed martial arts is a lot different structure than boxing as far as the business goes. Boxing, there's something called the Ali Act that supports open bid on bouts and UFC and mixed martial arts is not the same in that factor. So it's a whole different animal when it comes to the business of the sport. I'm not sure what the funding is for boxing, but we have to get creative to bridge that gap. There's no unions for us. There's nothing really.

So it's kind of the kindness of the promoter's hearts if they want to throw a bone here and there, but nothing's set in stone.

Mr. Chen, thank you for having us. The box and pension fund is funded through tickets. It's 88 cents per ticket. We're in the process of running a regulation to increase that up. And so, as Assembly Member Haney pointed out, the idea for this one is a dollar a ticket.

And certainly we would in the future be able to look at other ways to create more funding sources for it. But right now we want to create it. And certainly we have this initial way to seed the fun.

Thank you, Mr. Chen. I should note that Mr. Chen himself has some athletic accolades. We had a very difficult conversation before.

I know which one not to mess with you.

That wasn't from fighting. That was from opposing the chair, which I'll never, ever do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Haney, for bringing this forward. I'm very supportive of it today. I am curious, though, is it retroactive for some of the fighters that have retired in the past? It does retroactively help them out as well.

It is not retroactive currently because there's no funds in it. So we have to begin to start to collect funds from ticketed events. So it's moving forward. I will say that I would like to see us ultimately find ways to support fighters retroactively, as well as fighters who are fighting now. But since we don't have any funds in it, we have to begin to collect those before we can provide for these fighters.

No, and I appreciate that and I would just encourage you as we move forward. I mean, we have a lot of conversations about pensions in the State of California. Right. It. And so setting up a new one, which I am supportive of. And I think you're going about the right way. Let's just make sure that there's enough money in there to do it right the first time.

Yeah. And I want to commend that the Athletic Commission, they take this incredibly seriously. They had a task force that came forward with this bill idea and they are going to continue to watch it closely as well as I think we're going to ultimately have to look at the boxers pension Fund and make sure that it's fully funded and it has the support for those folks as well.

I appreciate that very much. Thank you for bringing it forward. Assemblymember Dixon yes, hi.

I had no idea about this situation until I looked at this bill. I question though, the average pension, as you mentioned, I mean, it's $30,000 or something like that. I wouldn't call it a pension, but the investment in whatever you want to call it, I think is a worthy intent. What I would like to see you consider, I don't know if this is an amendment necessarily, but to encourage people to save for their future life expenses when they're no longer performing that particular role.

There are private 401 and different kinds of pension systems where individuals can also contribute to their retirement plan. I would hope that the federation would look to help these members of the federation to prepare for their future when they will have bodily injury issues. And I don't think $30,000 is going to adequately cover that. But they should be encouraged as all businesses have employee programs that they self fund.

So I think a contributory fund by ticket sales, by the consumers or the ticket holders, that's a great creative idea, but I think individuals should be encouraged and the plans from the organization be created, that's a business owner's job, to help them self Fund their retirement, if that's really important. So thank you.

I agree. I run a team here in Sacramento, and we have fighters from all over the world, and management and everything encompasses it. And we do encourage. I had great leadership that can convince me to do that from the age of 27. And so we're trying to educate the next generation. Absolutely. And great insight.

First of all, I just want to say how supportive I am of this. I do have some open ended questions for all of you. Has there been an effort to unionize in the past? Is there a current effort to unionize? The third part would be, if there is an effort to unionize, assuming that this does pass and become law, what would happen under that? In that case.

There has been an effort to unionize. It's basically just a thread on a forum, and that's it really. The powers that would like to not have you have a union, have a lot more money and equal passion. And so I think more likely and more moving it towards something like boxing, where the aliac goes in favor, would be a better thing than a union almost, because it's a really strong uphill battle and fighters can't really fight for that until they're done and out.

But there have been quite a few efforts that have been snuffed in the past, and I don't really know what that looks like because it's just a different animal. But the Ali Act would help out a lot.

And I also would say that there are other sports where there are unions and they are able to negotiate for those pensions in their contracts. And so I do hope that ultimately that will be something that these fighters have. I will say that having this pension fund under the Athletic Commission allows for another avenue for investment into their future retirement.

So you could see a union representing fighters who say if they fight a certain amount in California, that we want to make sure that this amount is invested into the pension fund. So the two things I don't think are in conflict actually can run parallel if that is something that happens.

Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for adding a little controversy into a Kumbaya conversation. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you. Just a question. What stops, I'm five foot seven and not exactly strong, so UFC fighting hasn't been my.

I'm 5'5" and a half

But I'm not going to fight either of you. Yeah, today, actually. I'm going to leave as soon as possible after the vote. Why can't just ticket prices be increased? A dollar and then a pension Fund created? Why does the state have to make this happen, basically?

Well, we manage the pension fund for boxers, so we invest it and we have sort of an ability to do that directly. Certainly it'd be great if the promoters did this themselves, but they haven't done that.

So we regulate these fights currently. We're the ones who allow them to happen. And so we have a responsibility to these fighters, both their safety when they're in the ring and then when they're done. So essentially what we're doing is we're requiring that additional increase in the amount of tickets and we're taking that and putting that in a pension.

And so certainly the promoters could do it themselves, but we are the regulators of these fights, and so we're going to do it directly and we obviously have the framework to do this that we're doing for boxers.

All right, thanks. Well, I appreciate that. No matter how I vote, I hope I walk out safely. We'll see.

So many thoughts. So many thoughts. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues?

Honestly, there's not a threat to anyone. Please vote your conscience. Everybody stay here.

Security, you will get a pension.

Zero, no, wait, you don't.

Assembly Member Haney, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Appreciate all the support and comments and the support of these legends here. This is the right thing to do, and I'm glad to hear so much support for it. And it's also, I think, the beginning of a longer conversation to make sure that all the folks who participate in these sports are taken care of in the ring and afterwards.

Thank you, Assembly Member Haney. I want to thank the author and sponsors for working with us on this bill. Martial artists and boxers work in essentially the same industry, so parity in their retirement benefits make sense with accepted, clarifying amendments. I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote. Where have you been. Just because you show up, think we haven't been working. Good to see you, Mr. Gibson. I'm happy to see you.

AB 1136, the motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media. [Roll Call]

That bill is out.

As Assembly Member Haney was so confident it would be out, he left immediately. We'll leave the roll open for any absent members to add on. With that, let's go through the roll so that colleagues can add on to bills they weren't here for with the initial vote. Consent?

Yeah, on the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

On AB 38 Lee. [Roll Call]

On AB 342 Valencia. [Roll Call]

On AB 471 Kalra. [Roll Call]

On AB 783 Ting. [Roll Call]

On AB 834. [Roll Call]

On AB 333 Balnca Rubio. [Roll Call]

On AB 1136, oh. AB 1395 Garcia. [Roll Call]

Okay. And then I need to call out which one it'd be. 471 is out. How many votes? With 14 votes. Thank you, everybody. Yes, we're good. We have one member who isn't here, who I'm texting with to try to figure out what's up. Okay and with that, this hearing is closed.