Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development will come to order. Good morning. We continue to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. The participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 6504123-650-4123. We're holding our Committee hearing this morning in the 1021 O Street location. I'd ask all Members of this Committee to report to room 2100.

So we will be able to establish a quorum in the interim, we're going to continue as a Subcommittee. We have 13 bills on today's agenda. We will establish a quorum when we're able to do so. It is unlikely that we will finish all 13 before we have to go to Senate session at 02:00 p.m.. So at that point, if we are not finished, we will recess and we will reconvene upon conclusion of the Senate session.

First item up today is going to be taken out of order with the consent of those before. And that's item number eight, Assembly Bill 1136. Assemblymember Haney. Proceed when ready, sir.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1136, the mixed martial arts Pension Bill. Mixed martial arts is one of the most popular sports in the world. It's an over $1.0 billion industry worldwide, and California is the state where we have more fights and more fighters than any other. This is a sport that has grown tremendously in popularity, and it's one that California takes the responsibility to regulate.

We authorize the fighters, we authorize the fights, we oversee them, we oversee their health and safety. And we have a responsibility to these fighters who bring tremendous entertainment, skill, and revenue to our state to ensure that they are safe and protected when they are in the ring and when they are finished. Many of these fighters have short careers, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they are able to finish their careers and live with dignity afterwards.

AB 1136 will ensure that licensed professional mixed martial arts fighters have access to a pension Fund. AB 1136 would make MMA fighters at 50 years old eligible to receive a pension. The pension fund would be financed through ticket sales, the sale of Sports Paraphernalia, and souvenirs fighters would receive a notice once they are eligible, and annual notices will be sent to the fighters on the status of the pension once they've vested. Specifically, for every ticket sold, $1 would go towards 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. This would expand on current existing law that has enabled licensed professional boxers to have access to a pension Fund. This Bill is necessary for our state as it aims to provide much needed benefits and protection to athletes in the highly competitive and physically demanding sport of mixed martial arts.

There is no opposition to this Bill and it passed the Assembly with broad bipartisan support and has the sponsorship of the California Athletic Commission. Here to testify today are professional mixed martial artist Cat Zingano and renowned MMA referee Mike Beltran. And also to assist with technical questions, Commissioner Scott Wetch from the California Athletic Commission and Tara Welch, their counsel from the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, who wants to step up first?

I think we're going to start with Miss Zingano.

Hello. I am going to do my best to keep this around. Two minutes for you guys.

Thank you.

My name is Cat Zingano and I'm a professional MMA fighter and number one contender at 145 pounds. I'll be fighting for the featherweight title in October. I helped pioneer the first generation of women in wrestling and then again in MMA. I was one of the first four original women fighters signed to the UFC. I'm 41 years old and I'm still competing and winning. I've been ranked in the top five for the last 10 years. I started combat sports when I was 12 years old.

I'm the first mother to compete in the Octagon. I was the first woman to win by technical knockout and the first woman to achieve the fight of the night bonus. Fighting is so incredibly hard. What you see on the cage and on TV is such a fraction of the commitment it actually takes. Being a single mother, my career was different. I've raised my son by my own after my husband died by suicide in 2014.

My career has been complicated in that I have dealt with very public grief and healing. I needed to make adjustments and still find ways to compete and provide. It's been hard to be the nurturer who makes sure home is okay, safe and taken care of. Meanwhile, being the businesswoman and doing dangerous work for minimal return, my circumstances made it hard for me to fight as often as I would have liked. I didn't always have the resources, and fight camp is risky and expensive.

The cost of special food, the constant driving, the private lessons, and the physical therapy, the paying of coaches and managers adds up and can take over the whole winning. There is little room outside of the regiment to eat, sleep and rest. If you get hurt because you are off your game, those bills come knocking as well. Fighting has been my purpose, my expression, and it lets me cope. I've met my best friends. I've traveled the world.

I've shown my son what's on the other side of quitting. And I'm proud of what I've built. I'm asking for this pension because fighters readily do give you their all. Many are currently struggling financially and physically after their impressive and devoted careers. We cannot simply throw them to the side. Spectators have been shielded from seeing the amount of work and effort that goes into both winning and losing.

Fighters deserve a better cut of what they bring to the table and a plan to look forward to, for a plan to look forward to for all that they have done. I am truly grateful for this sport. To be able to set goals and to use it as an outlet has gotten me through some of my darkest days. And I know I'm not the only one experiencing that. Please consider this pension for the longevity and health of our past, current, and future fighters.

Thank you, ma'am. Thanks for coming today. Next.

Hello, everyone. Good morning. My name is Mike Beltran. I'm an MMA referee for the California State Athletic Commission, as well as a referee throughout the country and the world. I come before you with compassion and the passion that I feel for this Bill. Ladies and gentlemen, it is an amazing Bill. One already has been established in 1981 for the boxing pension. Now it's a turn for mixed martial arts. The reason why my heart feels for this thing is because of fighters like Cat Zingano.

That's just one story of many fighters. It's an amazing sport which I actually practice myself, but to actually get out and do it is another thing. And this is what they make a living doing. I do believe they need the justice that they deserve and to be equals to boxing. So there's fairness across the board. I think it's very important that this Bill passes because we are in the State of California, ladies and gentlemen, this state are the trendsetters.

We have the most fights, the most experienced officials. In addition to that, the regulation here is the best. A pension plan for boxers, pension plan for mixed martial arts, which will even catapult us to continuing to be number one in the state and for everyone to recognize how it's done. And California is the place to do it with that, thank you very much. On both sides of the equation, the Athletic Commission, the fighters, everybody here wins because nothing comes out of the General Fund.

It's a win-win for everybody. Thank you very much for your time, and I appreciate you guys giving me the opportunity to come before you. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any other supporters in the-

Mr. Chairman, if I might real quickly, Scott Wetch. I'm here as a newly appointed Senate Commissioner to the Athletic Commission. And Mr. Chairman, we've been working as you know, if this Bill passes, it will go to the Labor Committee. So we've been working with the chair and the Committee and specifically on three issues that you raised when I spoke with you about this Bill. So I'd like to just let you know the progress on that.

We've worked with the Labor Committee towards removing the name of the pension fund so that it no longer refers to it as a pension. Pursuant to our discussion. It also clarifies that no General Fund money at any time in the future will go to support the fund. It has to be self-sustaining.

And among other amendments, the one that I wanted to bring to your attention is we're working on some robust notification processes for all vested athletes so that when they actually initially sign for their license, they'll be notified of how the program works. And then there'll be a program of staying in contact with all vested fighters when they vest and then annually going forward pursuant to the conversations that we had. So with that, ask for an aye vote. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, sir. Any other supporters here in room 2100? Seeing none, let's turn to opposition testimony. Any opposition, lead or otherwise, here in room 2100? Okay. Seeing none. Before I turn to the teleconference service and before I have anyone drift away, let's establish a quorum.

Roth here. Alvarado-Gil here. Archuleta here. Ashby. Becker here. Dodd. Eggman. Glazer. Niello here. Smallwood-Cuevas here. Wahab. Wilk Here.

We have a quorum. Now let's turn to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference. Moderator if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to provide testimony either in support or in opposition to AB 1136, we will take that testimony now.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you're in support or opposition to AB 1136, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. And we have no participants queuing up.

Thank you. Moderator we're going to bring the matter back to the dais at this point. Let me just maybe make a statement. I guess this is a noble effort. We need to make this happen. We need to resolve, as Mr. Wetch indicated, the disconnect between AB five independent contractor status and employees, where pensions are typically thought of as in the employer employee situation, in addition to the items mentioned by Mr. Wetch.

I think when it gets to labor, if it moves out of this Committee, and I'm going to be supporting it, so I hope it does, we need to take a look at the State Treasury, whether that's an appropriate repository for the money. And then the other question that I note that I made to myself as I reviewed the Bill and the analysis is I think somebody needs to take a look.

And it's outside the purview of this Committee on how a martial arts person, or even a boxer avoids tax on the amount of money in the account once it vests. This is not an ERISA pension plan. This is not an IRA. This is something else. And so somebody just needs to address that issue and it can be handled one way or the other, obviously. Okay, colleagues, any questions? Comments? Senator Archuleta yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I commend you for the homework you've done on the Bill. As I looked at it, I see positive after positive. And with your weighing in, as you just did, I can see the success of the Bill because I think all of us, from the testimony we heard, we want to take care of these young men and women and to look at their future as the lady who came up, who mentioned she's a mother and so on.

And of course, by the time she finishes and the pension, however, it's classified, will help her family, will help her children. And I think that's fantastic. And the fact that I'm really surprised that it's taken so long if you tell me that boxing has had this since 1981 and this sport has been around for quite a while as well. But I'm glad that it's finally hitting.

And with the amendments that you've all heard and the fact that the Commission we come together, I think it's again, as we heard, a win-win. So I'm going to move the Bill when it's ready and I totally would support it.

Thank you, Mr.Chair. Knew I could count on you for a motion. Senator. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas followed by Senator.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for this Bill and Ms. Zingano for her leadership in this space and bringing her testimony today. I want to just add one note that hopefully for those who are in the Legislature, Senate, and Assembly who are fighting for good policies, we might one day have a pension as well. So I want to support this Bill to make sure that plug, plug that all workers have dignity and respect. I accept those amendments on retirement.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Niello.

I've opined on pension issues in the past as a Legislator, and I constantly have people say, well, what are you going to do about your pension? And my pension is provided from my private-sector endeavors. Nothing from here. That point aside, the Ledge Counsel has identified this as a tax and for a two-thirds majority. And of course, we conservative Republicans are supposed to take pause at a tax, and certainly I do. But I'm not just totally opposed to something because it's a tax.

This is an amount that's added to the cost of spectators. Spectators attend these events to see the skill and excitement of those in the ring who are pummeling each other. And I think we've seen examples, Muhammad Ali being the most visible of recent times of the impact that these fights can have on participants as they live longer in life.

And it seems only reasonable to me that those who are receiving the entertainment value of the skill that the participants obviously have skill, determination, and could I even say guts, that it's only right that they would have to pay for this potential benefit after their careers are over. So I can certainly support it because of that and the suggestions of the Chair hopefully can overcome some of the problems that have been experienced in the boxers fund in the future. Thank you.

Senator Becker.

Thanks, I'll just associate my comments with some of my colleagues who spent time talking to author. I appreciate the Bill and I think was noted. We need to make sure that for all of our athletes, especially in sports that are high impact, that have a high injury, make sure that we're as much as possible to take care of those athletes down the road. And I think in this area mentioned, my son is a big fan, was watching this weekend. This is an area where that definitely applies. We appreciate your effort, working with the Chair to get through all the details.

Thanks. Any other questions, comments? Okay, so remember, you're on a roll. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and to your staff for your thoughtful consideration and analysis. We are going to address a number of the issues that Commissioner Wedge spoke about, and we'll also look at the two that you raised as well. I also appreciate all of the comments. I do also want to add, this has been a way to provide for a lot of unity among people who participate in the sport, whether they're trainers, referees, fighters themselves.

And I was able to go to a fight, and they brought me to the locker room before the fight and told the fighters that we were working on this effort. And their eyes just lit up, not because of the funds that they could have maybe expect many years from now, but because of the recognition of what they do and the support for them and their health and safety and well-being. And so that's also what we're doing with this effort and appreciate your support. Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. The motion is due passed to Senate labor, public employment, and retirement. Please call the roll.

Roth aye. Nguyen. Min. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Becker aye. Dodd. Eggman aye. Glazer. Niello aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wahab aye. Wilk aye. Nguyen aye.

Bill has nine votes we'll hold open for absent Members. Thank you, sir. Now.

Oh, good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 528, which will authorize a public or private cemetery to allow for the co-burial of deceased humans and their deceased pets. Approximately 16 million Californians have a furry friend, with these pets becoming an integral part of their day-to-day lives. While pet owners have a variety of options when it comes to caring for their pets in life, they only have one option when it comes time to lay their pet to rest in California. While several states like New York, Florida and Virginia allow human and pet co-burials in California, owners can only cremate or bury their pets in a pet-designated cemetery. Instead, AB 528 will allow for human and pet co-burial while also providing public and private cemeteries with the flexibility to create policies that best fit the individual needs of their cemetery and of families. With AB 528, families will have the opportunity to keep their furry family members, furry family members close to them in death, just as they were in life. I was already having problems saying it twice. Finally, I would like to thank the committee and the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau who helped shape the language in the bill today. And I look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders to further strengthen the language in the bill.

Any witnesses in support?

Hello, Nickolaus Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation, in support.

Any other support witnesses in room 2100? Let's turn to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise in room 2100. Seeing none, let's turn to the teleconference service moderator. If you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to AB 528, we will take them now.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition to AB 528, please press one followed by zero. And Mr. Chair, nobody is queuing up.

Okay, let's bring the matter back to the deus. Let me start off. Assemblymember, perhaps you could sort of address some of the proposed amendments because, as I understand it, those were not items that you wanted to entertain today. One of them being, for example, a delayed implementation to give the bureau time to establish regulations. I mean, they're sort of outlined in the analysis.

Yeah, we were still in discussion with that. Certainly we are open to a delayed implementation. We would like to see if a year works so that we don't lose this opportunity for a full two years, but certainly open to it.

That's fine. Obviously, I don't negotiate amendments from the deus, and you know that, too. I was just curious as to whether you were going to continue to work on those as the bill moves forward?

Certainly.

Okay, colleagues, any questions or comments? Okay, I've got Senator Archuleta, of course. Okay.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assemblymember, it calls for separate section or designated area, but we're not talking about an immediate close proximity because there's other families that we have to, I guess, be concerned with as well. They may not be pet lovers like myself or someone else, but having a designated area in a separate area in the same location, and I don't see a problem with that. Would you clarify that, please?

So a lot of these regulations are not real specific because we want to make sure the cemeteries are. First of all, it's voluntary, and then the cemeteries are going to decide exactly what the appropriate spacing is for the families that already have loved ones there. So it does say that it has to be a separate section, and a lot of that will be left up to the cemetery.

And would that be under the umbrella of the bureau or the cemetery themselves?

The regulations will be the regulations, the types of disposal that are allowed, the types of pets, the number of pets, the number of pets per decedent and is all going to be decided by the cemetery.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Senator Alvarado-Gil, followed by Senator Eggman. And then Wilk.

Hi assemblymember, my question is around the definition of pets, and I understand in this bill that there is not a definition. For the purpose of your bill, would you be taking any considerations around service animals in terms of being looked at differently than pets under the law?

And this is again, something where we wanted to have flexibility for the cemeteries to decide that, but we hadn't considered service animals. Certainly they should be elevated, right?

Correct. Yes, correct.

So we will again continue discussions on that issue. I appreciate you bringing it up.

Of course. And then the other types of animals that I would also ask you to consider in this bill or moving forward are service animals that serve as public officers, animals that work in the public service sector as well. So I think with pet being all-encompassing, I'm concerned that we may be neglecting the acknowledgment of service animals and working animals.

Well, certainly appreciate that. We will clarify.

Thank you.

Thank you, senator. Senator Eggman.

My staff has no breaks on this. They think it's a privilege at its finest. So what prompted you to bring this? And can you talk about the complications, like the pet dying at the same time as the person and multiple pets, and I have two dogs and two cats. Who gets to come with me?

Well, you certainly are not going to if the person dies first, you're certainly not going to kill the pet.

But this bill has remained silent on that.

There is flexibility that they can either be... if a pet dies before the owner that they can be cremated and those ashes could be buried with the pet or could be buried alongside with the owner of the pet or could be buried alongside in a completely different container.

And I guess my other question is.

That's how it is with a family plot also.

Yeah. So the chairs asked you to take some amendments because it sounds like there are some questions on the types of pets. And my concern was more like what if it's a giraffe or something, right? Are we bearing a giraffe in human remains area?

And again, a lot of that this is completely voluntary for the cemetery, and we want them to be able to go through the regulations to determine what is appropriate for their cemetery.

Okay, but then back to the chair's question about giving some time for the regulations to be developed. Wouldn't that make sense? And isn't this the last policy committee that you have before the floor?

Well, we have a year, and if it takes two, then we're certainly happy to go to the bureau and see if that's how long it takes. We did not hear that. We heard that from the committee and not directly from the bureau.

Okay, well, I'll certainly be watching on the floor to see the shape it comes in. I think there needs to be a little bit more lead up time for. You're happy to do it.

We're happy to do it. We are happy to do it.

Thank you, Senator Wilk, followed by Senator Niello.

So this bill is going to cost me money because now I'm going to have to change my last will and testament. So thank you for that Assemblywoman Irwin. And like everybody else, I'm very excited about this. I think it's a great idea. You're probably going to have to amend it. So I'd love to be added as a co-author, if you're open to that.

Oh, certainly.

And happy to vote for that. And most of the people know that my wife has left me for the summer to go to our place back east, and I'm not upset about that, but I'm upset she took the two dogs. So I'd rather be buried with my dogs than my wife. So with that, I'm happy to support your bill today.

Wilk is in a good mood today, Senator Niello.

So in this committee and in the Judiciary Committee, it's always interesting because we consider so many different ideas. And sometimes I say to myself, I never thought of that. And when I saw this bill, I never thought of that. It never even occurred to me. I've had pets, but certainly never occurred to me that they would be buried with me. And it isn't a big deal for me, but I know with some people it is. People are passionate about their pets. But other than that, what I like about this bill is it is not heavily regulatory. You're leaving it up to the cemeteries to make, I think, virtually all the decisions. As an example, what if it were a giraffe? Well, the cemetery should decide whether or not they could handle a giraffe. And if they can't, they say, no, not a giraffe, but your chihuahua is more than welcome. But circumstances are going to be different at each cemetery. So as we review amendments that might encourage the bureau to get more involved with defining these details, I would urge a very light hand on that because again, each cemetery is quite different. And I would suggest nobody is more sensitive to the interests and the feelings of family members of those who are already interned there than the cemetery itself. So I would encourage a very light touch on the regulatory approach.

And I do appreciate you bringing up who knew that this was a thing, but it was actually a bill that was suggested by a staff member of mine who found out that her dear dogs, who maybe she likes better than her husband, I'm not sure, could not be buried with her. So this is really organic from our office and her lived experience.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Moved by Senator Wilk. Okay, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Bill has been moved by Senator Wilk. The motion is due, pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

Roth. Aye. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Becker, aye. Dodd. Eggman. Glazer. Niello. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Wilk. Wilk, aye.

Bill has eight votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members.

Thank you very much.

Let's move to item number one. Assemblymember Grayson. Proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the Committee. AB 225 seeks to better inform and educate potential homebuyers of risk associated with wildfires, climate change and sea level rise by updating the state's Residential Environmental Hazard booklet. Since 1989, sellers and retailers have been able to provide the Residential Environmental Hazards Booklet to make buyers aware of hazards common to properties located in California.

This disclosure provides some liability protection for sellers and their agents while also assuring buyers have the information they need to make an informed decision about natural hazards when purchasing property. This booklet is provided to buyers of single-family properties in order to disclose common hazards such as asbestos, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, mold and Radon, among others. Since its inception, the booklet has been updated three times.

The first update was to include a disclosure on lead, the second, completed in 2005 to include mold, and a third time to include carbon monoxide. As the effects of climate change continue to manifest themselves in the form of sea level rise and an increasing number of wildfires, it is imperative that consumers be provided with the necessary information on these issues when purchasing a home.

AB 225 is a timely measure that will help consumers make what is in many cases, the biggest purchase of their life by providing them with more information about the latest risk potential homebuyers or homeowners may face in the future. This measure has no known opposition, is sponsored by California Associated Realtors, and at the appropriate time would ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Any witnesses in support?

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Jennifer Speck. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, proud sponsors of AB 225, we'd like to thank the author for his leadership on this issue and respectfully ask for an aye vote. I'm here if there's any technical questions on the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. Any other witnesses in support here in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's turn to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise. Any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Let's move to the teleconference service. Moderator if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to AB 225, we'll take them now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, if you're in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 225, please press One followed by zero. One followed by zero at this time, and we have no participants queuing up.

Thank you, moderator bring the matter back to the deus colleagues. Questions or comments. Senator Archuleta.

Yes, Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a real estate broker, I've been working with and dealing with the environmental hazard reports for years upon years. And it's always a comfort to the buyer to sit down with his agent to go over the issues that are there, as you had mentioned. And of course, this feeling to the seller that knows that they're disclosing everything, material facts, and this falls in that group as a material fact.

With the wildfires that we had, the climate change that we're all experiencing, and of course the sea level rise, these are things are so important, as you had mentioned. So, as a real estate broker, Member of CAR, I'm honored to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator, any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Mr. Grayson, you're on a roll. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Okay. Bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is to pass to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth aye. Nguyen aye. Alvarado-Gill aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Becker aye. Dodd. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Niello aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wahab aye. wilk aye.

Bill has 11 votes. We'll hold door open for absent Members.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, sir. Let's now move to item number four. AB 782. Assembly Member Mckinnon.

Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you Chairman members. Today I am presenting AB 782, which will ensure that pharmacies in California are able to continue flavoring children's medicine to make it more palatable for consumption. Pharmacies in California have been flavoring children's liquid medications for decades to successfully help millions of children take the prescribed medicines. Flavoring of children's medications has been authorized by the California Board of Pharmacies since 2014. But the Board is poised to reverse its long standing position by adopting new regulations pursuant to AB 973 passed in 2019 that would, in effect, repeal the exemption of flavoring of medications. To prevent California pharmacies from losing the ability to flavor children's medication, I have introduced AB 782, which codifies the Board of Pharmacies regulations that the practice of compounding medications does not include the process of flavoring children's medications. In Committee with me to testify in support of the measure is Sonya Frosto with 10 Acres Pharmacy. And my second witness is Aaron Norwood. Thank you.

How are you?

Okay, witnesses, please proceed.

Hi.

This is my first time ever doing this. I'm super excited. My name is Sonya Frosto. I'm a small business owner here. I own 10 Acres Pharmacy in the Land Park Curtis Park area, and we opened our business in August 2020, so right in the middle of COVID. And one of the things that we first implemented in our pharmacy was flavoring. And we did this to our community because we have a lot of families that live in that community, and so we wanted to make sure that their kids would have the opportunity to get flavoring, because we all know when they get sick, no one wants to really take their medications. So we continue to add this to our services. We don't charge our patients for it. It's definitely an opportunity for them to get involved with the pharmacy. And one of the things that we really like about it, other than the families coming in and requesting it, is that our children have an opportunity to participate in flavoring decision making. So we have a little kind of a little will, and the children can choose, based on their medication, which one that they want. Cherry, watermelon, grape, all those sorts of things. And we've had several children participate in this, and it gives them the opportunity to, like, I'm going to take this medication, and I'm going to take it because it's flavored with something that I want. So they're participating in the process of taking their medications. We've had several children over the past few weeks and months that have had severe ear infections. If any of you have grandchildren or children, you understand. And they have come in with multiple types of different medications that you mix. And because they're able to choose what type of medications that they have, they're less likely to not take the medication because they enjoy the flavor of Flavor RX. As a small business owner, it's very important to me that Flavor RX stays in my pharmacy because it's one of the things that I can draw parents and family members in, therefore allowing me to build a relationship with my community and help serve them when their children do get sick. So I'm all in support of Flavor RX. Thank you.

Thank you. Great job. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Aaron Norwood on behalf of Flavor RX. In support of the Bill. Flavor RX is proud to partner with over 3000 pharmacies, community and independent like Sonya's, making medicine time easier for parents and children. We'd like to thank the Assembly Member for her leadership on this issue and ensuring that the community pharmacies can continue to offer medicine flavoring services. As the Assembly Member indicated, this is just a Bill that would resolve an unattended circumstance of a Bill a few years ago that could result in flavoring only being offered at compounding pharmacies. AB 782 will just codify the Board of Pharmacies existing regulation that says that compounding is not or flavoring is not compounding. Happy to answer any questions and urge your support for the bell. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support? Witnesses in room 2100? Seeing none, let's turn to opposition. Any opposition witnesses, lead or otherwise in room 2100? Opposition witnesses? Okay, let's turn to the teleconference service moderator. If you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to Assembly Bill 782, we will proceed with them now.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you're in support or opposition to AB 782, please press one followed by zero and we will go to line 25. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members, Katie Layton on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition, in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

Okay, let's bring the matter back to the Deist colleagues. Any questions or comments? Senator Eggman.

Let's give one more reminder. One followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to AB 782. We have no other participants queued up.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward and for the Land Park pharmacists for coming and talking about this great job. Do you know the Mary Poppins tie to this? Do you know that tie? Well, when they developed the polio vaccine, they put it on a sugar cube. And so when they were working on Mary Poppins -Spoon Full of Sugar. When Mary Poppins when they were writing that thing, the composers, they couldn't get a good catchy song. And his son came home from school and he said, you get your shot. And he said, just with a spoonful of sugar. So that's just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. Yeah. There you go. So with that, I'd move the Bill.

Wow. Any other questions? Any other questions or comments, colleagues? Okay, so my Member, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Okay. The Bill has been moved by Senator Eggman. The motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth. Aye. Roth. I Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen. I Alvarado Gill. Aye. Alvarado Gill. I. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta. Aye Ashby. Ashby. Aye Becker. Becker. Aye Dodd. Eggman aye. Eggman aye Glazer Niello. Niello. Aye Smallwood Cuevas. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye Wahab. Wilk aye. Wilk aye.

Bill has 10 votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members.

Item number two Assembly Bill 481. Assemblymember Carrillo, Dentistry, dental assistance. Morning.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'd like to start off by thanking you, Mr. Chair, and the Committee staff for the opportunity to take the amendments from the Dental Board of California to resolve outstanding policy implementation concerns and hopefully earn your support. And that also brings the board to a support position.

I'm proud to present Assembly Bill 481, which will create new paths to becoming a registered dental assistant and expand the existing duties of dental assistance, both increasing access to care and making the career ladder more attractive. Dental care, just like other healthcare fields, are facing a workforce shortage that only got worse actually throughout the pandemic. Currently, there are two ways to become a registered dental assistant through education programs or on the job training.

However, affordable education programs are often hard to come by, and on-the-job training can take a year and a half to complete. AB 41 would create a new pathway to registered dental assistant licensure, allowing dental assistants to receive pay while training for the RDA license. In addition to a pathway through regional occupation and adult education programs, California has three classification for dental assistance unlicensed Dental Assistance, registered Dental Assistance, and Registered Dental Assistance in Extended Function.

This scaffold of dental assisting professions creates a career ladder that allows individuals to advance their skills, responsibility and compensation as their career progresses. This Bill isn't about shutting anyone out. Workforce shortages means that California needs an all of the above approach, and that is what this Bill does.

It maintains the highest standards of care and access that Californians expect by ensuring dental assistants are able to fully be trained and licensed quickly to meet workforce demands, while at the same time reinforcing the growth opportunities in the dental assistant career ladder and diversifying the profession. Here to talk more about the need of this Bill and answer any technical questions is Jessica Moran, Legislative Advocate for the California Dental Association, and Mary McCune, Policy Director for the California Dental Association.

Welcome. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association here today as the sponsors of AP 481. As the Assemblywoman mentioned, California has set precedent of having the most expansive classifications and scope of duty practices for dental assistance in the nation. This creates a unique career ladder for those who wish to advance a career in the profession. The role of dental assistant cannot be understated, as they are often referred to as the right hand of the dentist.

The preferred ratio of dental assistance per dentist in an office is two to one. However, recent data from the Dental Board of California shows that nearly half the state's 58 counties are not currently meeting that threshold. The workforce shortage impacts access to care, as dentists are not able to see as many patients due to the lack of dental assistance. AB 41 aims to address the workforce shortage by creating three new pathways to licensure.

These new pathways are innovative in that they expand opportunities for on the job training, meeting individuals where they are in life, and in turn, diversifying the workforce. The Bill will also make some necessary and overdue changes to the dental assistant scope of practice. The scope of practice for dental assistance is unique in that each permitted duty must be individually delineated in statute. AB 41 will clarify and modernize the scope of practice duties for all levels of dental assistance to reflect new technologies in the profession.

I'd like to close by thanking the many stakeholders, including the Dental Board, for their input and collaboration in drafting this legislation. While addressing the workforce shortage is going to take a multipronged approach. AB 41 is an important piece of the puzzle to expand the dental assistant workforce. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today, and my colleague Mary McCune here is here for technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support in room 2100?

Good morning, Chairon Members. Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Read and Associates. On behalf of the California Dental Hygienists Association, the Hygienists are pleased to come on board in support. We really appreciate all the work that the author and sponsors and stakeholders have done on this Bill. So anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Other support witnesses? Name, affiliation, position on the measure, please.

Gary Cooper, representing the California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. In support. Thank you, sir.

Mike Scott for the California Association of Orthodontists in strong support. Thank you, sir.

Any other support witnesses in room 2100? Now let's turn to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise, in room 2100. Any opposition witnesses seeing none. Let's move to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to this measure, we will take them now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you're in support or opposition to AB 481, please press 101 filed by zero and no participants are queuing up.

Thank you, moderator. Bringing the matter back to the dais colleagues. Questions or comments? It's been moved by Senator Wahab. Senator Archuleta.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. I love the diversity opportunities in our communities. We know that as we are expanding and reaching out for more dentists, for more people to get involved, young men and women who will look into that field, and as you know, in some cases, it's a beginning of a career that will expand with time and education and economically can really make a difference.

So I really appreciate this and the fact that if they're not able to financially to pay the tuition and stay in school like some others, but the on the job training will provide that opportunity equally as well. And I'm so glad you brought it forward and I'm happy to support it.

Thank you, sir. Any other questions, comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member, you're on a roll. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I, like every Californian I know, loves going to the dentist, but actually it's been proven that a great smile can actually create a lot of self-confidence in an individual. And that requires us having the opportunity and ability to have that workforce available, especially for low-income communities. I would also say that there's an opportunity as this Bill moves forward. As we look at the dentistry profession, there is a huge need for pediatric dentistry, especially those that deal with the medical community. And so there's always an opportunity to do more. And with that, I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Becker aye. Dodd. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Niello aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wahab aye. Wilk aye.

Bill has nine votes. Bill has 10 votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members, ma'am. Next up, item number five, and item number six, starting with five, AB 1059. Assemblymember Friedman.

Hello, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1059 prohibits the sale and distribution of juvenile products, mattresses, and upholstered furniture that contains fiberglass and also restricts the use of flame retarding chemicals in adult mattresses. While the original focus of this Bill was just fiberglass, as the Bill moved forward, we became aware of other flame retardant chemical issues with mattresses. In 2018, AB 2098 was signed into law, which banned the use of flame retardant chemicals in the foam part of mattresses, which is essentially the inner part of mattresses, but still allowed flame retardant chemicals on the other components of mattresses in order to eliminate any regrettable substitution problems that might arise from banning the use of fiberglass, we're extending that ban to the rest of the mattresses so that they're not substituting one harmful product with another. Both the federal government and the State of California have set standards that limit flammability with mattresses as we should have, and for a long time, toxic flame retarding chemicals were used to meet these standards. But in recognition of their health impacts, the laws and regulations were changed at both a federal and a state level to prohibit the use of these chemicals. We certainly don't want to be lying on something that we know is toxic to humans and has bad health effects. We don't want kids chewing on mattresses that have this. And so what happened was some companies started substituting fiberglass for flame retardants. Now, fiberglass, like asbestos and other chemicals can cause a lot of harm. If it gets into your lungs, it can cause irritation, it can cause a lot worse effects. It's made out of silica sand, limestone and recycled glass and soda ash, and it has a lifespan of over 50 years. Now, sometimes people will unzip mattresses and unintentionally expose themselves and others to these chemicals. Sometimes it leaches through and it's been detected outside of mattresses on the surface rather than just inside. And certainly it's a hazard to people who are dissembling mattresses for recycling efforts. Long term exposure to fiberglass is associated with lung disease, including pulmonary fibrosis. And short term inhalation to fiberglass can cause lung inflammation and bronchiolitis. Fiberglass fibers can cause visual changes, bleeding and scarring if they get embedded in your eyes. We don't want this in your mattresses. I know none of you want this in your mattress, and it's absolutely not necessary. Only 13% of mattresses have the fiberglass. Mattresses now are made very safely using other kinds of thermal barriers with latex, with wool. There's a lot of natural materials that are now being used. And so we know that this is unnecessary, it should be banned. Our mattresses should be safe. And we have been working very closely with the International Sleep Products Association since the Bill's introduction. They share our goal of getting rid of fiberglass for mattresses, and they've been great to work with. As the analysis points out, the remaining issue for them is whether to allow an exemption for mod Acrylic fibers. At this time, we're not comfortable with adding that because New York State has banned it, and we're still trying to get more information about the reasons why. But we're going to continue our conversations with big mattress on this. Testifying in support of our sponsor environmental working Group is Bill Allayaud and Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council. And I would request your I vote so that we can all sleep better.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I am Bill Allayaud with Environmental Working Group. I think the Assembly Member laid out the issues here. I want to say since the last Committee I'll testify in that this has been an unusually good working relationship with what could be an opponent, and they aren't opposed. In my 29 years of lobbying, it's been one of the best. And we're sharing science, sharing our experts, and trying to find solutions. And this is an industry that's innovative. They've done the bed in a box. I don't know if any of you have opened a cardboard box and had a mattress appear. They can do that. And they're doing a lot of things on innovation, and they're very aware that consumers don't want toxic chemicals in mattresses. So we've come to agreement on fiberglass, and we're working on the last one, that one fiber chemical called mod acrylics, and we're close on that. We hope to resolve this by appropriations. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thanks for your effort. Next.

Thank you, chair and Members. I am Jordan Wells on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, and we're a nonprofit that advocates for an equitable, circular economy. I also sit on the State's Mattress Advisory Committee, which advises the Mattress Recycling Council as it implements the statewide mattress stewardship program that was created by law passed by the Legislature in 2013. We strongly support AB 1059, which would ban textile, fiberglass, and mattresses upholstered furniture and juvenile products, and restrict the use of flame retardant chemicals in adult mattresses. The first pillar of achieving an equitable and circular economy is to design waste and pollution out of the system, which is far less expensive than having to pay for cleanup. Flame retardants and fiberglass negatively impact human and environmental health, and they also complicate the recycling system, adding challenges for recyclers and increasing costs as stipulated by Terry McDonald, who also sits on the Mattress Advisory Council and represents the largest mattress recycler in Northern California. AB 1059 will protect consumers and recycling workers from harmful additives that also make recycling more expensive. I want to thank Assembly Member Friedman for her leadership and respectfully ask for a aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support in room 2100? Name, affiliation, and position on the measure? Only, ma'am.

Suzanne Hume Clean Earth for Kids. Strongly support.

Thank you. Thanks for joining us. Any other support witnesses in room 2100? Name, affiliation, and position on the measure?

Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Lauren D Valencia, representing the International Sleep Products Association, whose Members are the mattress manufacturers. We do have a support if amended position, and we are working very closely with the author and the sponsors and really appreciate this ongoing conversation about the remaining fiber. And we do look forward to finding a resolve, but do thank everybody again for the conversations. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. Any other support witnesses in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's turn to opposition witnesses, lead or otherwise. Any opposition witnesses in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's turn to the teleconference service moderator. If you would, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to Assembly Bill 1059. We'll take them now.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, as he stated, if you're in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 1059, please press 10 at this time. Let's go to line 43.

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

We'll go to line 27. You are open.

Sydney Anna Halario, Environmental Intern for Cleanearthforkids.org, Strongly Support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Final reminder one followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to AB 1059, please go ahead. Line 18.

Kelly Williams, a human health intern with cleanearthforkids.org and I strongly support AB 1059.

Thank you, ma'am. Next please.

And Mr. Chair, we have exhausted the queue.

Good. Colleagues, questions or comments? Senator Becker.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for your work on this Bill and toxic chemicals generally. This is an important area to get right. I remember when I was first running, I got an earful from a furniture, basically a retail store, but they said that California had mandated certain flame retardants, I think, early on. And then really they realized those were not healthy mandated warnings, but people still had to have them. So there's sort of a history here where we kind of have to sort through it. But I have a lot of faith in you and environmental working group and I appreciate that you've been working with- it's nice to hear about a positive working relationship here in this case with the manufacturers, and I'll move the Bill when time comes.

No problem. Not true. I'm wondering what role the Safer Consumer Products program has had with this. It's a program that's tasked to analyze exactly these sorts of things. Have they concurred with the proposal?

Thank you, Senator. Any other questions or comments, colleagues? Oh, Senator Niello, I'm sorry I wrote your name down and cellophane man. I'm easily forgettable.

Well, unfortunately, what we have found is that a lot of our regulators in California are very slow to know. For instance, PFAS has been studied and allowed for many, many years, even while its negative effects on the environment and on human health is known. So in this particular case, I'm not sure, but certainly they haven't acted to ban fiberglass.

So they haven't weighed in on it.

That I know of.

Okay, seeing no other hands up Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just I once again want to thank the International Sleep Products Association for caring so much about public health and for the efforts of their Members and their willingness to make their products as good as they can possibly be.

Roth. Aye. Roth. Aye Nguyen Alvarado Gill. Archuleta aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby. Ashby aye. Becker. Becker. Aye Dodd. Eggman. Eggman aye Glazer Niello. Smallwood Cuevas. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye Wahab. Wilk aye. Wilk aye.

Okay, the Bill has been moved by Senator Becker. The motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Bill has seven votes. We'll hold the row open for absent Members. And your next item, number six, AB 1399.

Thank you.

Veterinary medicine.

So many of you have probably used telehealth for yourself or for a family Member. In fact, if you have a baby who's got a rash, these days you can actually ask for a telehealth appointment. Put your baby up to the screen and show it to the Doctor, who will then tell you, hey, you should bring Junior in, or hey, all you need to do is put a little diaper cream on that. But except during COVID we don't allow the same practice for animals. In California you're not allowed to use vet telehealth to treat your animal and we know that in California we have huge access issues with people who are either themselves not capable of going to the vet. Maybe they live too far away from a veterinarian. Maybe they have mobility issues. Maybe financially it's difficult for them to take their vet out all the time who would absolutely use vet telehealth and we know that because during COVID we did allow the use of vet telehealth and we saw access increase in people actually using that service. And so this Bill with several guardrails around it to protect the animals and protect consumers would allow for the use of vet telehealth by licensed vets in California, vets who are licensed within the State of California if they so choose. It doesn't force any veterinarian to use vet telehealth. It certainly doesn't force any consumer but it would open up that option for somebody who for a variety of reasons either can't go or feels that their pet is better served by staying at home because of the issues they might have, anxiety or illness or mobility issues for that pet. So we believe that we have been working very closely as much as we can with the veterinary industry to address their concerns. I want to be very clear that this Bill is being sponsored by the ASPCA, by the Humane Society, not by industry because they see a need for access, for opening up more safe access for people to be able to employ different tools to care for their animals. We amended the Bill in June to address many of the opponents concerns and we look forward to continuing to work with them in good faith to address any legitimate concerns that they have. I'm a pet owner. I have a rescue dog and I have a horse and I know that there are times when rather than put my 120 pound dog into a car I might want to ask the vet whether I really should be bringing him in. I know with my horse. I can tell you a little secret from a lot of horse owners. Given the cost of having vets come out, because it's all house calls, there are a lot of times where horse owners will say, we're going to keep an eye on this for a few days, when, believe me, there are times where I'd rather just get a vet on a zoom and show them what's happening and let them make the decision about whether I need to make that call for them or whether it really can wait a few days. So this is something that would really access more care for animals, not less care. We know it's safe because it's been done in several other states and there's been no reports of harm because of this practice. So I would respectfully ask for an I vote when the Bill is up for a vote. Looking forward to the conversation. Testifying in support this morning is Brittany Benesi with the ASPCA and Dr. Christine Long from Modern Animal.

Please proceed when ready.

Good morning, or now. Afternoon, chair Roth and Members of the Committee. Brittany Bennett. On behalf of the ASPCA. Every year, thousands of animals needlessly suffer, experience premature death or are relinquished to our shelters due to the existing gaps in veterinary care access, AB 1399 will offer a lifeline to these often overlooked pets and their families. The ASPCA recently released survey data wherein two out of three respondents who had had trouble accessing vet care in the past two years said that their pet would see a vet more often if telehealth were available. With California's unreasonably stringent regulations prohibiting the use of telehealth to establish a relationship and requiring a new in person exam for every new ailment, it is clear we are leaving a key tool out of the vet care toolkit and one that, as Assembly Member Friedman noted, is being safely deployed in other states. And this tool is safe and effective. As the Assembly Member said, there has not been a single report of harm tied to telehealth. AB 1399 requires that vets who practice telehealth be licensed in the state that they are able to see or refer a patient to a local or nearby vet when needed. Prohibits the prescribing of controlled substances without an in-person exam and includes robust informed consent provisions. For the one in three pets who are currently not receiving regular vet care. and for all of those who are having trouble accessing it, whether you live in a vet desert or underserved area, have mobility problems or lack of transportation, are unable to take time off work, or simply have a pet who gets stressed going to the vet, this Bill will improve access to vet care for your animal, and California's licensed vets should be trusted to use it. We're grateful to Assembly Member Friedman and Assembly Member Lowenthal for recognizing the urgent care needed in California. AB 1399 will not replace in person exams. It will empower licensed California vets who want to to offer medically appropriate care via telehealth, a lifeline to California's pet owners and our beloved companions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Christy Long. I've been a licensed practicing small animal veterinarian since 2007. I am Vice President of medicine for modern animal, which is a small animal veterinary practice. We have six practices in the Los Angeles area and four in the Bay Area, serving 26,000 humans and 22,000 animals. We provide preventive care, diagnostic testing, surgery and dentistry for dogs and cats of all ages. I started Modern Animal because of the difficulties of accessing and of providing quality veterinary care in America for both the consumer and for the veterinarian. My field has not. Kept pace with the growth in pet ownership, and we're under tremendous strain as a workforce to ensure access to care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we were inundated with patients and had no available appointments for weeks. During this time, the California Veterinary Medical Board relaxed its interpretation of how a veterinary and client patient relationship, or VCPR, could be established in the interest of reducing unnecessary interactions. During the year and a half where this restriction was waived, we reduced the number of visits to the clinic that a patient and its owner needed to make, providing more availability for those who actually needed to come in. Our licensed veterinarians made these decisions in cases where it was appropriate, based on assessment over video, using their skills and their knowledge to do so. Our clients deeply valued the ability to discuss their pet's issues without having to come into our clinic unless absolutely necessary. We do not have a single substandard patient outcome related to utilizing this new temporary authority. Unfortunately, as the pandemic was winding down, the Veterinary Medical Board reinstated the pre pandemic rules governing the establishment of the VCPR. As a result, even if I examine a patient in person tomorrow and a new problem crops up on Wednesday, I would have to see that patient and its owner in person again in order to render a diagnosis and prescribe treatment regardless of my medical judgment. California regulations are again preventing me and my doctors from helping both the patients we know and the ones we don't yet know. As a veterinarian, I took an oath to the protection of animal health and welfare and the prevention of animal suffering. Trust me and other California veterinarians, dozens of whom had already expressed their support for this Bill, to use our schooling, experience and licensure to make a decision that is in the best interest of all concerned as to when care can be delivered by electronic means and when it should not be. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? In room 2100. Name, affiliation and position on the Bill only, please.

Izzy Swindler Rusha Yoder Andrew Schmelzer Lang on behalf of Cal Animals, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Paula Treat, lifelong dog mom in support.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

Good morning. Barbara Schmidtz on behalf of the San Francisco SPCA and we support this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of co sponsor, San Diego Humane Society. In support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nicholas Sackett for social compassion in legislation, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dan Okenfuss with CFILC and also representing many pet owners with disabilities, in support.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Good afternoon. Norlain Asberg representing the Veterinary Virtual Care Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Salomon Stupp. I represent the Lizzie Initiative for Pet protection. I wanted to express my support if amended position on AB 1399 my amendments would be into section four to protect the public's right and people with disabilities to care for their pets and service animals. Clients must be explained when long acting drugs are administered in outpatient settings, that long acting drugs can cause long acting adverse effects. When providing demanded consultation, I have requested that the term verbally, in writing, or by electronic mail, or by video technology be added into section four again, to protect the public's right and people with disabilities to care for their pets and service animals. These amendments allow for full compliance with the Americans with disabilities act. And I want to remind that this Bill takes care of a correction that had to be done, because when Section 4829.5 was being negotiated between me and the CVMA, the CVMA took all the language protecting people with special needs, and it simply wiped out that language. So it's important that these people have a presence in the care of their pets and service animals. I would like to work with the authors in advocating for passage of AB 1399, and I appreciate that part of my suggestions have been included. Thank you very much for your leadership to the author, and thank you to all the Members and the Members of the staff of this Committee.

Thank you, sir. Next, please. Okay, let's turn to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise. Start with the lead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Dr. Keith Rhodey. I'm immediate past President of the California Veterinary Medical Association, and I'm a small animal veterinarian in Woodland. The CVMA has an opposed unless amended position on the June 28th version of AB 1399. Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for spending time with the opposition lobbyists last week. We appreciate your leadership and your interest in narrowing the Bill and limiting the areas in which telemedicine can be used. We also want to thank your consultant Alyssa Silva and Assembly Member Friedman for conversations held to date. As the CVMA has been cautioning for weeks. If this were just a Bill about brick and mortar veterinary offices engaging with clients via telemedicine, CVMA's position would be different. Instead, this is a Bill being driven by out of state telemedicine app companies like Dutch and Chewy, who have been trying similar legislation in other states. As an example, many of my colleagues received this email on Saturday from the owner of Dutch saying he's working with the sponsors, asking veterinarians to call him to today's hearing in support of the Bill and wanting them to inform him directly of their intent to do so. Each of your offices was given a copy of a news article talking about the decline of Fuzzy, a telemedicine company in San Francisco. The company just went belly up after an $80 million infusion of capital, leaving pets and consumers without recourse and their workers without a final paycheck. According to employees, these are real world consequences associated with this risky Bill. There can be no doubt these app companies are looking to take business away from hard working veterinarians in your district, and we question if they care more about animals or profit margins and boosting subscription memberships. The app employees likely won't live here in California, and they will be diagnosing your dog or cat from the comfort of another state. All the while they will be guessing over videolink what is wrong with your pet, a pet that they have never seen before, and they will be allowed to prescribe drugs in perpetuity. Veterinary medicine is complex. I personally recently saw a dog that was slowing down and the owner was sure it had arthritis. Instead, my physical exam revealed a large tumor in the spleen that had just started to bleed. This is pretty serious stuff. The CVMA has requested most of the amendments that appear in your analysis on page 14, and we are grateful to see them highlighted. Our Association is prepared to roll up our sleeves and get to work, but we will seriously need the help of this Committee to get to a place of compromise. This is a heavy lift made heavier by the influence of the Telemedicine app companies. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Good afternoon, honorable Chairman Members. My name is Jessica Sieferman. I'm the Executive officer of the Veterinary Medical Board. First, I'd like to thank Committee staff Alyssa Silva for her very thorough and thoughtful analysis. We'd also like to thank Assembly Member Friedman and her team for their willingness to engage in thoughtful discussions about this very important issue. The board is grateful that author did accept many of the board's requested amendments. However, one significant concern remains, and as such, we maintain our opposed and less amended position. The board is very much in favor of Telemedicine, as veterinarians have been using telemedicine for years as a tool to provide care within an existing veterinary client patient relationship. As noted in the Committee analysis, that VCPR can only be established with an initial hands on examination. That hands on examination is critical to diagnosing conditions in animal patients, primarily because animals cannot speak and do not exhibit pain like humans. Prior to me joining the board, we had a boxer that we got as a puppy when my son was born. When my son and boxer were eight years old, our boxer heard her paw while we were camping. A few days later, she started limping and I took her to the vet. Now I am a stupidly, busy, full time working mom of three, someone say a workaholic. And I would have jumped at the opportunity of using telemedicine rather than take a full day off work to go to the vet. I would have loved to have used my phone to show a video of Roxy limping, zoom in on her paw, get some meds and move on. However, if I had done that, the veterinarian would have never been able to put his hands on Roxy and feel a mass on her chest that we had missed. She would have never been properly diagnosed with bone cancer or given the treatment she needed to ease her pain that she had been masking for months. My boys worshipped Roxy. They rolled around with her and wrestled on a daily basis. None of us knew she had a mass or that she was in pain. We thank the Lord our veterinarian didn't listen to me when I kept pointing to her paw, which ended up being incredibly minor. And instead, he placed his hands on Roxy. This Bill, as written, would allow an animal to go their entire lifespan without ever receiving a hands on examination. Well intentioned consumers will focus on what they know and see, thus controlling what the veterinarian knows and sees. Unless provisions are put in place to require a hands-on examination for prescriptions within a certain time frame, which my board is requesting 14 days, animals will ultimately suffer. For these reasons, the board respectfully urges your vote no on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name, affiliation, and position on the measure, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Christina DeCaro, representing the American Veterinary Medical Association. And of course, also here for the. California Veterinary Medical Association. Opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Missy Johnson, also a lifelong dog owner, including two adorable pups that I got during the pandemic. But today, I'm here on behalf of Covetris, which is a global animal health company that provides products, pharmaceuticals, and services, including telehealth services, to all animal health facilities in opposition.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Let's turn to the teleconference service moderator. If you would, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to this measure, Assembly Bill 1399, we will take them now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you are in support or opposition, to AB 1399, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. And let's start with line 11, please. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with Shagatar, Antoine, Schmelzer and Lang. On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, both in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next we'll go to line 26. You are open.

Good afternoon, Elizabeth Oreck. On behalf of Best Friends Animal Society, we are in full support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

We're going to go to line 31. You are open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Nikole Bresciani, and I'm the President and CEO of the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA, located in Pomona, California. And we are in strong support of AB 1399.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 52, please go ahead. 52, your line is open. One more shot. Line 52. Let's move on to line 39, please go ahead. Line 39.

Next, please.

Okay, we'll go to line 15. You are open.

Good afternoon. This is Dr. Barbara Hodges speaking on behalf of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association and our approximately 1000 California Members in strong support of AB 1399. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Line 17, you are open. Line 17. Line 17, go ahead.

Judy Hire from San Francisco calling in support of this very important Bill. Thank you.

Next.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 42, please go ahead. Go ahead, 42.

Just a few minutes.

We can hear you. Please go ahead.

Am I on?

Yes, please proceed.

I don't know what line I'm on. This is Dr. Jennifer Scarlett, a licensed California veterinarian in support of 1399.

Thank you. Next.

Line 30, you are open. Line 30? Next, please. Go. Line 51, you are open. Line 51. Are you hearing me Mr. Chair?

We are hearing you. There's some thought that the callers are not being told their line number is that

I'm listening to them.

Whoever's on must be something wrong with it. We can hear you, so proceed.

Hello?

Yes, please proceed.

Okay. I'm sorry, I wasn't given a line number. My name is Kristen Kessler, I live in Ventura and I'm in support of the Bill. Thank you.

There must be a technical difficulty with that. Operator sorry about that. Everybody. Go ahead and hit 10. Again. If you'd like to re queue and we'll go to line 33. Line 30, please go ahead. Line 30. Let's try line 16. We do. Go ahead, 16. We can hear you. Are they hearing me, do you think?

Moderator I have no idea. Calling all cars.

Thank you. Next.

We're not getting a number.

Let's start with you, ma'am. We can hear you. Please proceed.

I hear the operators given it. I don't know. I'm so sorry.

This is Sharon Barenbiom in strong support of Bill.

Thank you for your patience. Next, please.

Let's go to line 17, please go ahead. 17. You are open.

I wasn't given a number, but I'll go can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

Okay. Judy Hire from San Francisco calling in support of this very important Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Let's try line 33. You are open. We have other operators logging in to try to give the line numbers. We apologize. Some sort of glitch right now. Line 39,

If you're hearing this, regardless of your line number, you can proceed.

Yeah, please go ahead. We have five different operators trying and they're not hearing any of the operators giving them the line number. Let's try line 57. Please go ahead.

Yes, I'm in support. I'm in San Diego.

Your name?

Brian Evans EVM.

Thank you, sir. Next.

Mr. Evans, can I ask you really quickly, did you get a line number? Did you hear the operator? All right, we'll try line 50.

They gave you a number.

Oh, good deal. Okay, 58, please go ahead.

This is Kate Hurley, can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am. Please proceed.

I'm the Director of the UC Davis Shelter Medicine Program, and as a licensed California veterinarian, I'm in strong support of AB 1399 to allow myself, my colleagues, to provide care by telehealth to pets and people that are currently going unserved. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, please.

Let's try line 10.

Dr. Monique DeSanto, California. Licensed veterinarian in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

I think we are back. I'm going to give the instructions again. Mr. Chair. Again, sorry about the inconvenience there. Go ahead and hit 10 if you're in support or opposition to AB 1399, if you weren't able to do so already. One filed by zero, and let's go to line 33. You're open. 33,

please proceed.

Hear you. All right. Let's try line 30. Please go ahead. Line 30. You are open. All right. Please go ahead. Line 39. Please go ahead, 39. You're open.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Please proceed. Yes.

Yes. Sarah Radigan. Licensed California Veterinarian. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. I think we are back. Line 60, please. Go ahead. Anybody else hit 0. Line 60, please. Go ahead. And

My name is Karen Lee. I am a licensed California vet representing Glendale Humane Society, and I am in full support of AB 1399. Thank you.

My name is Magda Shermer. I'm a licensed veterinarian and strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Next, please. Nobody else is queued up, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Moderator and thank those on the line for their patience. Okay, let's bring the matter back to the dais and my colleagues. Assemblymember, let me just ask first, there were some amendments suggested starting on page 13 of the analysis. My apologies. Yes, we are accepting the amendment, and I want to thank you and your staff for your hard work. Okay, perfect. Let me just ask a quick question before I turn it over to my colleagues listening to the conversation.

Is there a difference between the use of the telehealth for an initial exam in terms of limitations where the veterinarian has never seen the animal, as opposed to the use of telehealth for animals where the animal was previously seen by the veterinarian, perhaps for another condition? Yeah, I'll let one of the did that question make sense? Yes, I think so. Yes, I think I can speak to that which seems to go to the question about somebody in New York holding themselves out to care for sure.

I mean, I think the Bill provides that any veterinarian providing this type of service would be licensed in the State of California and subject to all the rules and regulations associated with that. Right. I think where this kind of comes back to me and to my veterinarians, there are many of us practicing together in a practice. All of our medical records are kept electronically. We can access the medical records of patients that have been into our practices, but that we have not seen. Right. Personally, another veterinarian who I work with may have seen that patient.

That's a slightly different situation than what I've asked about. Because the animal has been seen in the facility, there are records there that someone can examine as opposed to an initial visit Telehealth.

Yeah. I think it comes down to the veterinarian being able to determine if this is an appropriate use of telemedicine, if this is a situation where we can prescribe some treatment or some additional thing.

You made the point around, like using a little bit of diaper cream for a baby, something similar to that, or trying some treatment versus that this animal needs to come in right. And be seen and have a physical exam done. Not being a healthcare provider of anything, let me just try to ask a question that makes sense. Is there a way to craft language that would describe what would be appropriate for a veterinarian to do on one of those initial telehealth visits.

As a veterinarian, I think I'm going to say that I would like to be the one to make that distinction, to be able to decide. There are many things I can look at over video, for example. I can look at the color of a patient's gums. I can watch the patient walk. I can ask the owner many questions about actually what's been going on at home. And that's something that I use, whether the animal is in front of me or not. Right.

So much of this is observational. Obviously, we know that owners don't always know exactly what their pet is doing when it's doing something. But as an experienced veterinarian, I can usually guide the conversation to get the answers to the questions that I want. So I would probably not be in favor of language that stipulated certain situations, but would instead rely on the experienced veterinarian to make the call. I'm the one with the license. I'm the one that swore to protect animal health and suffering.

So I want these animals to be cared for in the best way that they can. And many times that means they do need to come in, but not always. And I suppose the board could deal with some of that through the regulatory process. I think so.

Okay. Senator Archuletta.

Thank you. I think there's one element I've got to share with you that we haven't touched upon, and that's the family, the children. I've raised five and the love of the dogs that we've had over the years, and that anxiety of not being able to get to the veterinarian on time or the access and so on, that never stops, and I think it's even worse now. So I see that modern technology has taken us to this point, and I know personally we just lost a dog that we had for a number of years, and we had personal contact down the road towards the end.

I think just to be able to get to the doctor would have made us feel a lot better, but it just took forever, it seemed like, to get in, but it was terminal, and it wouldn't have helped anyway. But just that anxiety of the families. This opens up a new world, I think, not just for the pets, but obviously the family. I can see why so many families would be comfortable with this.

My concern is the outsourcing outside of California, and that anyone who thinks they can come in and share in the care and maintenance. And I know that you've got to be licensed in California, but having the neighborhood veterinarian or someone that one can refer to one so the family can feel close to and then getting that pet dog, cat, whatever it is to that veterinarian as soon as possible.

Because I think there's nothing greater and I think you would agree with me, Doctor nothing greater than having that animal there with you to examine and feel and really know what's going on and then to go on and proceed in the future. But I think that's where responsible ownership is all about and a relationship with the doctor over time. I'm going to support the Bill, and I will ask to move it forward at the appropriate time.

But I think there's some amendments that I'm sure you're still working with that will make it even better. But I thank you for the Bill and all the animal lovers that are out there. God bless you. And they are family, and we must find every way to continue to watch and take care of them. And thank you, doctors and all of you who are in the industry.

Thank you. Senator Eggman.

So I do have some of the concerns that the Chair raised and Senator Archuleta raised just about outside folks with an app. So I'm going to support the Bill today and appreciate that and appreciate people have to be licensed in California, but just want to keep working on and see if we can make sure that I know that's not your intention, but that we can work on that before it gets to the floor.

Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, because we fly together a lot, I'm a big dog lover, and we did talk about this Bill. And as you know, I have a wife with cancer, and she meets with her oncologist through telemedicine, although she spent but her doctor knows her. She spent time with the doctor. Doctor knows her intimately. If there was something, they would come back. I didn't realize that you could have a pet go through its entire life potentially without any in person visit.

I guess that's how this is lined up. So like you to address that. And if it is, it is. Then the other thing is so they're licensed in the state, but let's say they're living somewhere else. If something went south and you wanted to sue, where do you sue?

Well, thanks for the questions. First of all, in terms of an animal possibly never going to a vet, that's the situation right now. We have tens of thousands of pets across the state that never, ever see a vet because people either live too far or it costs too much money, or they themselves have a physical issue that makes it difficult for them to bring their pet in. And we know that, and we know that access has gone up when we allowed for TeleVet. So is it optimal? No, it's not optimal. But is it better than the status quo? It is.

There's nothing that requires anybody to ever take their cat to a vet. There's nothing in the law that says you have to do that, and many people simply don't. So we know that it's prohibitive for many people, for a variety of reasons, to see a vet. And this just opens up the possibility that now they'll be able to get care.

And because these vets are licensed in California and are subject to all of the same licensure requirements and the same ability to be censored by the board, they also will be inclined that when they feel that there's a question of giving that referral, you know, you really need to bring this animal in. Because their license is on the line and both legally and in terms of just licensure, they have certain standards that they have to meet.

Not to mention that I trust vets, those vets who called in, I trust them to make that decision and make that call when they see the animal. This just gives many of these owners a chance to maybe have for the very first time a relationship developed with a veterinarian. So in terms of who you would sue out of state, given that these vets are licensed here, I would think that there is a legal way of knowing kind of who they are and how to reach them.

But the world isn't perfect. And as much as I'd love for there to be a vet on every corner and for everyone to always go in all the time on a regular schedule, it's just not going to happen. So I don't think we should let that image of the ideal situation stop us from addressing the very real access issues that many, many people have. And that's what this Bill provides for.

So at some point, can we get an answer to that question? Because I think it's a legitimate question how you would sort of sue someone out of state.

We can ask judiciary. I would think it's the way that you would sue over any was it going to service next? No. But I'm saying we can get you an answer from someone about how that would like that. Certainly their license would be at stake. So at the very least there would be an issue with licensure. And I would think that I don't know, but I would think that if you're licensed in California, there's some sort of insurance or bonding requirement that provides for something in case you just get sued as a know, you are sort of running a California business at that point. Yeah.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments? We still have the board here, don't we? Perhaps you could address my initial question on whether the board has the authority through the regulatory process or some other process to try to define what goes on during I call it the initial initial telehealth visit where no prior contact has been had with the California licensed veterinarian.

The board does have general rulemaking authority to further define any of our statutes. But to your question about I think you had talked about listing specific Ailments that would be appropriate or wouldn't be appropriate in telehealth, correct?

Yes, I would caution against that just because when you get that prescriptive in any kind of regulations. Things change. Ailments evolve, and a lot of times it depends on the patient itself and the circumstances surrounding it. So when you start listing off certain conditions or certain ailments, you're going to run the risk of leaving things out unintentionally and that aren't covered, or you get too prescriptive and things might change to where in that condition, it might be appropriate or not. It really depends on the circumstances. And so regulations themselves might make it more challenging in the future.

But if the board believes that to be an issue, the board could then take that on within the context of describing unprofessional conduct I assume. We can do regulations that further define unprofessional conduct, but as far as listing specific concerns right. No. As I said, I'm not a healthcare provider of anything, so I leave that to those who are. But the board could deal with that. If it is an issue. We could write regulations.

Yeah. That would obviously impact the fiscal a bit, too, but yeah.

Any other questions Colleagues?

I was also texted by somebody that because they're licensed in California, if you were to sue, you would be suing a California business because of the licensing.

Okay. No other questions? It's been moved by Senator Archuleta. Assembly Member. Would you like to close?

I really appreciate the robust discussion. Clearly, everybody here is on the same side, the side of the animals, and I do think that this is a tool we should allow. You heard the interest in the vets calling in. That didn't come from me. There's a lot of interest from many of our veterinarians of offering this tool to their clients. And I would request an I vote. The Bill has had wide bipartisan support. It received 76 votes in the Assembly, I believe. On the floor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Okay, moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gill. Archuleta aye. Ashby. Becker. Dodd. Eggman aye. Glazer. Niello aye.Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wahab. Wilk.

Bill has four votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Okay. Next item is item number seven. Assemblymember Lackey AB 1126. Thank you for your patience.

And Senator Niello is gone, but I wouldn't want him to go into shock thinking we don't have a cannabis Bill before the Committee. Please proceed when ready.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to present AB 1126, which will protect the sanctity of the cannabis universal symbol. And thanks to Alyssa from the Committee for working on the amendments that I will accept.

The state has advised consumers to look out for the cannabis universal symbol to discern whether or not a product has gone through the requisite regulatory process that ensures it's ready for safe consumption. However, bad actors in the illicit market have begun mass production of envelopes emblazoned with the universe's symbol in order to pass off their illegitimate products as authentic. And they're passing some of those containers out so you can actually see them.

They're already widespread throughout the market, and we've seen the rise of intoxicating hemp products that have a concentration much higher than is available in the regulated cannabis market. These products are capable of harm that is not found in the strongest of cannabis products. If we do not move to protect the universal symbol by extension to the consumer, we'll undermine the legitimate cannabis market, which badly needs enforcement tools to protect the integrity of their products.

California has led the nation in promoting cannabis legalization, but we're dragging our collective feet as it comes to making moves that promote the life force of the industry. This market needs tools to frustrate the attempts by the malevolent actors to denigrate the integrity of products sold in California. AB 1126 protects the cannabis universal symbol from perversion within the illicit market. It's a consumer protection measure that will mitigate the risk of intoxicating hemp poisons that's actually impacting more people. I have Karen Woodson from Kiva, Confections.

The California Cannabis Industry Association. She's an industry expert who has seen the entire evolution of California's legal cannabis market. She can answer any questions that you may have.

Good afternoon. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chairman Roth, Members of the Committee. Thank you, Assemblyman Lackey, for the leadership that brings us here today, and thank you to the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. My name is Karen Woodson. I work with Kiva Confections and our distribution division Kiva sales and Service.

I'm also here on behalf of the Manufacturers Association to urge support for 1126. As stated by Assemblyman Lackey, the fraudulent use of the California universal symbol is on the rise. As you guys have all been provided with samples of that you can see on each of those illicitly produced and provided packages. The universal symbol is there. It's widely used by non licensees to legitimize illegal cannabis products intoxicating hemp products and even the emergence of mushroom chocolates.

Consumption of these unlicensed products poses significant health and safety risk to consumers. Trading on the 2019 evaluation vaping crisis, which resulted in 2000 deaths, it was largely believed to be associated with unlicensed products produced through an illicit channel. Unfortunately, nothing currently in statute explicitly prohibits the misrepresentation of the unlicensed cannabis being nothing explicitly prohibits misrepresentation of the universal symbol on unlicensed products, including deceptive use of the universal symbol.

The symbols used by consumers to not only indicate the product contains cannabis, but also confirms that the product meets important safety standards like quality and potency. In fact, a consumer bulletin warning about the dangers of copycat cannabis products from the Attorney General urged consumers to seek out the universal symbol as the indicator of licensed and legal California products. AB 1126 provides important enforcement tools and supports the legal market and aims to protect consumers from unlicensed businesses. For those reasons, I urge your aye support today.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support here in room 2100?

Chairman Roth, Members. Eddie Franco, Vice President of the California Cannabis Industry Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Yes, Dale Geringer with California Normal on behalf of California's Cannabis Consumers, strongly in support of this Bill to end consumer fraud.

Richard Miller, medical cannabis patient in the State of California, asking for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's move to witnesses in opposition. Lead or otherwise in room 2100. Any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Let's move to the teleconference service and try this one again. Moderator if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or in opposition to Assembly Bill 1126, we will take them now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And for those of you who wish to comment on this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. Only one time. Mr. Chair no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay, let's bring the matter back to my colleagues on the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments? Senator Wilk?

I just comment. I want to thank you for all your work in this space. The illicit market is just devastating the legal market. And it's not only killing people's investment, but it's also putting a lot of other just normal people at risk. We've had people murdered in our district because of the illegal grows, all kinds of environmental damage.

And so I really appreciate all your work that you're doing in this space. And I moved the Bill when appropriate, which I'm hoping is now.

Thank you. Senator Wilk seeing no other questions. Assembly Member would you like to close?

Yeah, I would just say that I would appreciate your aye vote. I don't plan to ever be a consumer of this product, but that's irrelevant to the point. The point is we have many thousands of people who rely on things like this symbol.

And the illicit market is controlling the industry right now. And there is very little to combat this illicit market that is taking over. And we need to take advantage of opportunities like this to actually support the legal market. And I hope that we can earn your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wilk. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. Please call the roll.

Roth aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby. Becker. Dodd. Eggman aye. Glazer. Niello aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab aye. Wilk aye.

Bill has six votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Let's move to item number nine. Assembly Member Berman AB, 1257.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. And I hear this is support-support. Today I'm presenting three sunset bills. One of those bills is AB 1257. The Dental Hygiene Board of California sunset Bill.

This measure addresses a number of issues raised in the Board's 2022 sunset review report, which was followed by a comprehensive sunset review hearing in early 2023 by both Senate and Assembly BNP committees. With me today I have two witnesses Anthony Lum, Executive Director for the Dental Hygiene Board of California, to answer technical questions, and Jennifer Tannehill on behalf of the California Dental Hygienists Association in support. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Witnesses in support? It is support, support.

Good afternoon, Chairman Roth and Committee Members. I'm Anthony Lum, the Executive Officer of the Dental Hygiene Board. I want to thank Assemblymember Berman and Senator Roth for cochairing Bill AB 1257. And this Bill not only extends our Board operations until January 1, 2028, but it also provides some tools for us to operate more effectively and efficiently. So I ask for your approval and am available for any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Great job. Any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Reed and associates on behalf of the California Dental Hygienists Association. The CDHA supports AB 1257, which extends the sunset of the Board, as we just mentioned. There's one outstanding issue for them that they would like the Legislature to continue to think about and look for a solution on, which is issue five from the sunset background paper. And this relates to registered dental hygienists in alternative practice known as APs and Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas.

So CDHA requests that the Legislature amend BNP code to allow AP Hygienists who have dental hygiene practices in the dental deserts to keep those practices open If this designation, the DHPSA designation, is removed. The DHPSA designation is meant to draw providers to the area. These areas lack access to oral health care, and they're known as dental deserts.

Currently, the statute allows AP high dentists to have brick and mortar practices in these dental deserts where they provide dental hygiene care, referral to dentists, and care coordination for patients. However, there's no language in statute allowing the AP to keep the practice if the DHPSA designation is removed. And so this uncertainty in statute is impeding AP hygienists from investing in and opening dental hygiene practices in those areas.

And a survey of APs indicates they would be incentivized to invest in the areas if the risk of losing the practice was removed. So it's imperative APs are not deterred from opening practices in these areas, especially because those areas are the ones that need them the most. The statutes should be fixed so APs who already have practices in those areas can at least keep those practices open if the designation is removed. It's a pretty simple fix. Anyway, CDHA looks forward to continuing to work with the Legislature on this issue and other stakeholders. Thank you.

Well, I agree, and if the author agrees, I'll be happy to work with him on that issue. Next, please.

Hi. Mary McCune with the California Dental Association. CDA is actually in a neutral position, but we did want to extend our appreciation and gratitude to both the DHBC CDHA, and especially the Committee, and believe that the Bill, in its current form, appropriately incorporates elements from the DHBC's sunset review report and appropriately eliminates other ones that are not appropriate for a sunset review vehicle, and we just wanted to extend those comments to the Committee today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses in room 2100? Let's turn to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise in room 2100. Anyone? Seeing none. Let's move to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you'd please prompt anyone on the line wishing to testify in support or in opposition to AB 1257, we'll take them now.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Perfect. Colleagues, questions or comments? Been moved by Senator Wahab. Seeing no other hands. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Becker. Dodd. Eggman. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Niello. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye.

Bill has six votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Item number 10, AB 1263.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and senators.

I'm delighted to present AB 1263, the sunset Bill for the Bureau of Automotive Repair. This Bill extends the sunset date for the Bureau to January 1, 2028, and makes additional technical changes, statutory improvements, and policy reforms in response to issues raised during the Bureau's sunset review oversight process. We will be taking amendments as outlined on page 11 of the analysis, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Any witnesses in support in room 2100?

Good afternoon, Committee. Patrick Dorais, chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair. Appreciate the opportunity to have participated in the sunset review process this year, and I am here to answer any technical questions that anyone might have on the Committee regarding the Bill.

Thank you for joining us. Any other witnesses in support in room 2100? Okay, let's turn to opposition witnesses in room 2100, lead or otherwise. Any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Let's move to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would please prompt anyone on the line wishing to testify in support or in opposition to this measure, we'll take them now.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Moderator, thank you. Bringing the matter back to the deus. Colleagues, questions or comments? Senator Wahab, once again moving the Bill. Assemblymember, would you like to close? Oh, I didn't see your hand, Senator Niello.

Thank you. As a licensee of this board, out of an abundance of caution, I will not vote.

Thank you, sir. Now your close.

I appreciate the discussion and stakeholder engagement on the Bill and respectfully request your aye vote for everyone except Senator Niello.

Okay. Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is due passed as amended to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Becker. Dodd aye.

Eggman. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Niello. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye.

Bill has six votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Your final measure is item number 11, AB 1264, acupuncture.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully present AB 1264, a sunset Bill relating to the California Acupuncture Board. This Bill allows acupuncturists to hire acupuncture students as assistants, allows the board to perform site inspection and examine records, and extends the board by four years and makes other technical changes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, witnesses in support in room 2100? Seeing none. Let's move to witnesses in opposition in room 2100. Any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Let's turn to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or in opposition to Assembly Bill 1264, we will take them now.

Once again, for those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. At this time, press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, once again, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

We're on a roll. Colleagues, questions or comments? Okay. Well, I think I'll take Senator Archuleta this time, Senator Wahab. Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

I'm grateful for the overwhelming enthusiasm for the Bill. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Enthusiastic Committee. Moved by Senator Archuleta, the motion do pass to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Becker. Dodd. Dodd, aye.

Dodd, aye. Eggman? Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Niello? Aye. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Wilk?

Bill has six votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. Item Number 12: Assembly Bill 1448. Assembly Member Wallis: cannabis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I have before you today Assembly Bill 1448. AB 1448 will enhance local enforcement mechanisms for unlicensed cannabis activities.

Since California voters made recreational cannabis legal in 2016 with Proposition 64, the Legislature as well as state and local jurisdictions have struggled to drive unlawful operators out of the cannabis market. Rural communities have been inundated with unlicensed and unregulated cannabis that is undermining the health and safety of residents and irreparably harming our lawful regulated cannabis businesses. Illicit cannabis operations are highly profitable endeavors that frequently engage in worker exploitation, water theft, illegal pesticide use, environmental degradation, and tax evasion.

Under state law, local jurisdictions can impose penalties for commercial cannabis violations through the judicial process, but any net recovery goes to the state, making this mechanism unattractive for local governments. Counties and cities often use code enforcement when dealing with unlicensed cannabis activities. However, the penalty structure is primarily designed for ordinary zoning and building violations. This is not always well suited to deter large scale illegal commercial cannabis operations.

AB 1448 will encourage localities to use the statutory penalties under Business and Professions Code 26038 by allowing a 50/50 state local split of the statutory penalties recovered by local jurisdictions as originally enacted by the Legislature in the Medical Cannabis Regulations and Safety Act. Revenues from these actions will provide a much needed source of funds to reinvest in illicit cannabis enforcement. AB 1448 is supported by CSAC, the League of Cities, RCRC, the California Cannabis Industry Association, and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.

These supporters are committed to do as much as possible to support the legal cannabis industry by shutting down unlicensed cannabis activity. We'll be striking Section Two, which has intent language for an administrative procedure for local governments to swiftly address illegal cannabis activities and replace it with intent language. While we finally have acceptable language, we don't have it in the right Committee, so we're moving forward with only Section One of the bill.

I appreciate Mr. Chair, the Committee, and the Committee Staff help in sorting out the various procedural issues with our bill, and with that, I would like to introduce my witness, Sarah Dukett, Policy Advocate for RCRC and sponsor of AB 1448.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Sarah Dukett with the Rural County Representatives of California in strong support of AB 1448. Like Assembly Member Wallis stated, this was what was originally intended in MAUCRSA, and it would allow local jurisdictions to keep 50 percent of those proceeds when we move forward with these statutory penalties to essentially pay for our enforcement efforts, which is primarily General Fund, sometimes grants.

And with traditional code enforcement, most likely you're going to see fines about 100 dollars a day, maybe 1,000 dollars a day if they have something special for cannabis, but it's not really large enough to deter some of the really egregious, illicit cannabis production that's going on in California. So this would help incentivize locals to use this, and it's a win-win for both the state and locals.

We are unaware of any city or county in the State of California to actually use the statutory penalties because it goes to the state, so it will help us deter illegal cannabis operations, but there will be a benefit with 50 percent of the revenues returning to the state, which currently you're getting zero. With that, I'm happy to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses in room 2100?

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Siskiyou County in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Ada Waelder on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Eddie Franco, Vice President of the California Cannabis Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses in room 2100? Now let's move to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise, in room 2100. Any opposition witnesses? Seeing none, let's move to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to this measure, we will take them now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. We're going to first go to line 55. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. This is Elizabeth Espinosa on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the County of Riverside, in support. Thank you.

We'll now go to line 53. Your line is now open.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County. Also in support.

And finally, line 63.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ashley Walker on behalf of Monterey County Board of Supervisors in support.

Next, please?

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay, bringing the matter back to the dais. Colleagues, questions or comments? Senator Wilk?

Great bill, and I move it.

Okay. Senator Archuleta?

Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. Obviously, we're talking about enforcement, and do you think by doing this, we can get the cities to enhance their participation with not only code enforcement, but local sheriffs, police officers, everyone else? Do you see a push in this right direction because as my Colleague had mentioned, the illicit traffic, the illicit activities are rampant, and we've got to do something. Is this the door opener?

Yeah. We think this bill opens the door and it's just another tool in the toolbox that can help combat these illicit operations.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no other hands, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Move the bill.

It's been moved by Senator Wilk. The motion is 'do pass to Senate Judiciary.' Please call the roll.

Roth? Aye. Roth, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby? Becker? Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye.

Dodd, aye. Eggman. Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Niello. Aye. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye.

Bill has eight votes. We'll hold her open for absent members. Final item, item number 13, Assembly Bill 1565. Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer, California Cannabis Tax Fund.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I present AB 1565, which would establish ongoing funding to support local cannabis equity applicants and licensees beginning the first editorial year. In November 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, which legalized adult recreational use of cannabis and established a new taxation structure. Historically, support for equity applicants and license holders have been lacking. As additional jurisdictions are creating equity cannabis license programs to help those disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs to enter the industry, it is imperative that the state provide more resources to get these businesses up and running.

The cannabis industry has a high financial bar of entry, with the average upfront cost of operating a dispensary ranging from 80,000 to 250,000. When justice involves Californians see this industry boom based on the very product that resulted in their incarceration and create generational wealth for those who do not look like them, what do we expect them to think?

If we want to talk about equity, we cannot allow disadvantaged communities that have already suffered due to the unjust criminalization of cannabis to now miss out on the profits of its legalization. By failing to provide further support for equity licensees and applicants, these businesses are pushed into the illegal market. Ultimately, we also fail to keep the promise of Proposition 64 in helping to begin to undo the damage of cannabis criminalization.

That is why AB 1565 provides upfront support to help reduce barriers to entry, further combating the illegal market, and ensuring equity for applicants and licensees. Additionally, AB 1655 takes a balanced approach by ensuring that funding for youth programs, environmental protection, and law enforcement is not subsequently reduced. With me to speak in support of this bill is Dale Gieringer, executive director of California NORML, and Eddie Franco on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. And thank you to Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer for introducing this bill, AB 1565. I speak for California NORML, a nonprofit organization that's represented marijuana consumers in this state for 50 years. I'm here in support of AB 1565 to ensure continued support for cannabis equity programs. This bill will provide the Department of Cannabis Control with $15 million a year from the Cannabis Tax Fund for grants to local programs for equity applicants and licensees.

The authors of Prop 64, unfortunately, didn't foresee that the new regulations and taxes they imposed would pose substantial barriers to entry for disadvantaged minorities and equity applicants lacking access to capital. As a result, we see low-income applicants have been hard-pressed to compete with multistate operators run by wealthy investors with access to venture capital. To address this problem, the Legislature passed the California Cannabis Equity Act in 2018, which authorizes grants to local governments to assist designated equity applicants and licensees with loans, fee deferrals and waivers, and other assistance.

While Prop 64 authorized dedicated funding for a host of worthy programs from the Tax Fund, it did not include equity programs. AB 1565 would address this oversight by ensuring continued guaranteed funding in future years. The funding starts in 2028, 29 when Prop 64 allows such adjustments to the cannabis tax allocations, and it's designed not to detract from other important programs funded by the tax. As you know, the War on Marijuana has had a disproportionate impact on minorities and disadvantaged communities.

AB 1565 would address this problem by ensuring that tax monies paid by California's cannabis consumers help businesses that are owned by those who have been most unfairly impacted by the War on Drugs. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members. Eddie Franco, vice president with the California Cannabis Industry Association. I know we're coming up on time, so I'll keep this brief and just mention CCIA has been a proud and long supporter of equity legislation and programs since the inception of commercial cannabis. This bill is particularly important because as more jurisdictions come online and therefore more equity programs come online, making sure that we have a solidified pot of funding for these programs going forward is crucial. Thank you to the author for his work on this measure and continue to work on social equity in the cannabis space. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support in room 2100? Name, affiliation, position to measure.

Mr. Chair, Senator, Dean Grafilo with Capitol Advocacy here on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support of AB 1565. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Richard Miller, medical cannabis patient, in strong support.

Thank you, sir. Next.

Mel Assagai for the Greater Sacramento Urban League and the California African American Chamber of Commerce. Both very grateful to the author, in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Sara Noceto on behalf of Origins Council, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support in room 2100? Seeing none, let's turn to witnesses in opposition, lead or otherwise in room 2100. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the measure? Seeing none, let's turn to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals waiting to testify either in support or in opposition to Assembly Bill 1565. We'll take them now.

Thank you much. If you're in support or opposition to AB 1565, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. Mr. Chair, nobody is queuing up.

Okay, let's bring the matter back to the dais. My colleagues, questions, comments? Question? It's been moved by Senator Wahab. She's quick on the switch today. Senator Archuleta, followed by Senator Niello.

Yeah. Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. And we hear about the illicit market and so on, and I applaud you for bringing this up because it gives minorities an opportunity to get into the industry. And I've got that. But you've got to have, and if this goes through, this funding that you're going to have, you've got to have a portion for policing, working with cities to shut down these illicit markets or we go nowhere. It's got to be able to stop this illicit market. Is there any monies allocated in this funding at all for that?

So there's existing money already allocated for law enforcement to deal with the illicit market. This doesn't touch it at all. We don't reduce it at all and we're going to continue to continue funding it as we move forward to 2028, 2029. But it is very important that we do it.

As these people realize that we all of us who support law enforcement, all of us who support legalized Marijuana, who supports legal businesses, when the illicit market realizes that we're all coming together to actually fight them, that it's not just one entity, it's yours and all of them. But we've all got to pitch in that to enhance the ability to get the code enforcement, law enforcement involved, shut them down. That's the key. Because if we don't do that, the other side won't be able to open up and there won't be a market for those that you're trying to help.

Yeah, and I agree. And that's why one of the bills I did last year was when it comes to people who rent to these illegal operations, that we find them an exorbitant amount of money so that we make the landlord stop them from renting to them. Because we've got to work on every aspect, every angle to stop it and to stop it cold.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Archuleta. Senator Niello, I didn't want to disappoint you by not having cannabis bills today.

When are we going to form that Cannabis Committee?

We're just going to tack another word under the we got a long name for this committee. One more won't make a difference.

Okay. With absolutely no opposition to the equity program. Not at all. But with a significant concern that you're asking me to put myself in place of a Legislator five years from now, which I hope to be, but I would still have to win another election to get there. And we are making a decision on the basis of what conditions will exist five years from now. And I'm just not terribly comfortable with that. I understand the intent. I agree with the intent. And depending upon how conditions exist five years from now, the Legislature can make that decision.

And I wish we could do it right now, but as you know, the California Cannabis Tax Fund, we can't make any changes until 2028. Otherwise, I would love to begin it today, if I could.

Thank you, sir. Colleagues, further questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion on the bill by Senator Wahab. The motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth. Aye. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Becker, aye. Dodd. Dodd, aye. Eggman. Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Niello. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye.

The last 10 votes we'll hold her open for absent members.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Let's put out the call for other members of the committee.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to open the roll starting with File Item Number One: Assembly Bill 225. Current vote is eleven/zero. Chair voting aye.

Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye.

Bill has 13 votes. That bill is out. File Item Number Two: Assembly Bill 481. Current vote is ten/zero. Chair voting aye.

Alvarado-Gil? Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye.

Bill has twelve votes, twelve/zero. That bill is out. You'll tell me when Eggman's not on anymore, right?

Okay, yeah.

Next item is File Item Number Three: Assembly Bill 528. Current vote is eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

Alvarado-Gil? Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Eggman? Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Wahab?

Hold the roll open for absent Members. File Item Number Four: Assembly Bill 782. Current vote is ten to zero. Chair voting aye.

Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye.

Vote is thirteen/zero. That bill is out. Next item, File Item Number Five: Assembly Bill 1059. Current vote is seven to zero. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Alvarado-Gil? Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Niello? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye.

Vote is ten/zero. That bill is out. Next item: File Item Number Six: Assembly Bill 1399. Current vote is four/zero. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Dodd? Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Wilk?

Dodd, aye.

Dodd. Dodd, aye.

Vote is eleven/zero. That bill is out. File Item Number Seven: Assembly Bill 1126. Current vote is six to zero. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye.

Vote is thirteen/zero. That bill is out. Next item: File Item Number Eight: Assembly Bill 1136. Current vote is nine/zero. Chair voting aye.

Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye.

Current vote thirteen/zero. That measure is out. Next item: File Item Number Nine: AB 1257. Current vote is six/zero. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye.

Current vote thirteen/zero. That measure is out. File Item Ten: AB 1263. Current vote is six to zero. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Niello? Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye.

Current vote is twelve to zero. That matter is out. File Item Number 11: Assembly Bill 1264. Current vote is six to zero. Chair voting aye.

Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Eggman? Aye. Eggman, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wilk?

Is that it? Vote is twelve to zero. That matter is out. File Item Number 12: Assembly Bill 1448. Current vote is eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Eggman? Aye. Eggman, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye.

Vote is thirteen/zero. That bill is out. Item Number 13: Assembly Bill 1565. Current vote: ten/zero. Chair voting, aye.

Nguyen? Eggman? Aye. Eggman, aye. Niello?

Vote is eleven/zero. That matter is out. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we've closed every--I just want to make sure we've closed every item but Number Three. We're going to call the roll on Number Three again, and we're going to close it out. It's Assembly Bill 528. Current vote is ten to zero. Call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Eggman? Wahab?

Ten to zero. That matter is out. We have finished the--we have finished the agenda for the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee for today, and this hearing is adjourned.