Senate Standing Committee on Health

But people who are wishing to call in: our participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 330-8805. And we're all going to take testimony for 15 minutes total today. Today we have 15 bills on our agenda. Eight of those bills are on proposed consent. Those are AB 365, AB 551, AB 1437, AB 979, AB 1057, AB 1282, AB 1309, and AB 1376.

All right, and I see we do have our first author here today. While we don't have a quorum, we can begin as a Subcommitee.

And why don't we start then with summary Member Erwin. Welcome.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Members, I am pleased today to present AB 660. For too long, Californians have been misled by unclear labels on food. Stores offer products with all sorts of different labels, like expires on best before enjoy, Buy, sell by, just to name a few. These labels consistently mislead and confuse consumers. Sell by dates, for example, are meant to show grocers when to rotate stock and they are generally completely meaningless to the consumer. The result of this consumer confusion is staggering, is a staggering amount of food waste, with one study attributing as much as 20% of food waste to these labels. This ultimately costs the consumers money at the grocery store and contributes to climate change as the wasted food rots in landfills. Our team conducted our own survey of food date labels and we found 16 different types of date labels in a survey of 150 items. Of these items, only about 25% of the products use the labels that aligned with the industry's own voluntary standard. AB 660 would end this confusion. It takes the industry's own adopted standard and requires food items that use date labels to use standard terms best if used by to indicate quality data food or used by to indicate the safety of food. I would like to express my continued appreciation to the industry for engaging in productive conversations with our office to find a path forward on this Bill. The amendments outlined on page six of the Committee analysis which I am presenting with this Bill today will add a self. Well, you can read the amendments yourself. We do have them and we will be passing them out since they're author amendments. The amendments that we have taken will remove considerable opposition and I am committed to further amendments specifically focusing on eggs and alcohol to address the concerns raised by stakeholders focused on these provisions. With me to testify in support of this Bill are Nicole Kurian, representing California's against waste, and Andrea Collins, representing the Natural Resources Defense Counsil.

First person, please. I hope this won't hurt. The gin fizzes, right? The gin and the egg.

Just make sure they're fresh.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon chair Members Nicole Kurian and with Californians Against Waste, we are proud to co sponsor AB 660, which will streamline expiration date labels by requiring the use of consistent terminology next to an expiry date to indicate the quality and safety of a food product. As I'm sure you're aware, consumers are bombarded with all type of expiration date label formats. Each term can be used to mean different things when used by different brands, and some expiry dates have no phrase next to them at all. A study by Refed found that standardizing these labels is the single most cost effective way to reduce food waste. 2021 data also shows that households make up a whopping 55% of food waste, by far the largest category of food waste. When broken down by supply chain stage, this is more than waste from all other sectors, including retail, farms, manufacturing and food service combined. In 2017, the industry's two largest trade associations announced that they would implement uniform date labeling using the recommended two phrases and followed with a report entitled Best if Clearly labeled, which found Americans would feel safer about their food, throw less away and save money. With these phrases, they promised large scale adoption and committed to 100% implementation by 2020. The Legislature also codified the industry's proposed terminology as a voluntary standard. However, if you've recently stood in front of your fridge or pantry and squinted at a label, you know that voluntary implementation is clearly insufficient. Further consumer education as to what phrases on which foods mean, what isn't possible until we streamline date labels. Wasted food is a societal, economic and environmental problem. As a state, we throw away 6 million tons of food every year, releasing methane emissions that have a climate impact 86 times greater than CO2. Not to mention the amount of money consumers spend on food that never gets eaten and the cost of dealing with this excess waste. AB 660 simply requires brands to use the current state voluntary standards, which are the same terms that they themselves have identified to reduce consumer confusion and are supported by the CDFA, FDA and USDA. This small change will have huge ramifications and for this reason, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much next person speaking in support.

Thank you, Chair Eggman and Committee Members. My name is Andrea Collins with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and we support AB 660 because it addresses a systemic cause of food waste with implications for our health, our environment, and our economy. Too many of us look at a container of milk, see that the date has passed, and decide to dump it rather than risk getting sick. However, the date on milk is often a sell by date that's meant to help grocery stores with stock rotation. And many of the other dates on food are intended to be an indicator of peak quality. And for some foods, there seems to be a hidden code about how long a product is at peak quality that a few people who are in the know understand. But the rest of us are really left guessing about it. And right now there's no way to know which dates are actually safety dates and could tell a consumer not to eat the food past date. Instead, consumers are left to guess at what information is intended by the date on the package, and more than 80% of Americans report tossing food simply because it's past date. Incomprehensible. Food date labels are a leading cause of food waste in our country. We need a consistent date label system so that people stop tossing good food prematurely, and also so that we have more clarity on which foods are really a health concern. Confusion over these so called expiration dates is responsible for about 20% of the wasted food in our homes, and Americans spend $1300 on discarded food every year. Eliminating confusion over whether food is still good will help keep some of that money in the pockets of Californians. We have enough food, yet 8 million Californians face food insecurity. Food packaging dates are a challenge for food banks and food pantries that help ensure that our seniors, our families, and folks in need of emergency food assistance have enough to eat. People who receive food from pantries may be reluctant to take items that are near or past date because they believe the items are unsafe after that date. Whether that's the case or not, and the need for food assistance in our state is immense. Food insecurity is detrimental to health and mental health, physical health, and with outcomes that include diabetes, hypertension, behavioral challenges in children. And these negative ramifications should make any attempt to improve food security a priority for public health. Additionally, people in food deserts or food apartheid regions, or largely Indigenous Black, Latin and rural communities, and those who are dependent on the emergency food system are purchasing and receiving food that's closer to the date on the label, meaning that they're often more often plagued with the question as to whether or not to toss food. That's past state, making this an equity concern. Furthermore, a larger percentage of their budget is spent on food. So the consequences of tossing that food make a bigger dent in their household finances. Ensuring that all of us understand when food is still good to eat will help alleviate pressure to toss food that could have nourished us. Defining a standard for consumer targeted labels provides clarity on when food actually poses a safety risk, and it reduces the likelihood of discarding good food. For these reasons, we are proud to support this key legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now it's time for others who want to speak in support of this Bill. Just name an affiliation, please.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of the city and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to those who might want to speak in opposition to this Bill. Seeing none now we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator. Okay, you are in opposition.

No. Removing.

Removing. zero, lovely. Anyone want to remove opposition, please come forward.

Exactly. Exciting. Thank you very much. We've worked with. Well, actually the staff has done a fantastic job on this Bill. And Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association, first, there are some issues that are evolving and coming into the Bill clarifying the opt in provision, federal harmonization. Those are all issues that we understand that the next stop will be amended on behalf of the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association and Association of California Egg Farmers. As eggs, they have a plethora of state requirements that actually require the sell by date, including California. And so with that, there's justification to keep that system going with eggs. With that. Thank you very much. And we remove our opposition.

Thank you very much. Good job, Senator and your staff. Anybody else wishing to remove any other opposition at this point, please. Okay, now we'll go to the phone lines, moderators or anybody wishing to speak in support or opposition of AB 660.

Thank you, ma'am. Chair. If we wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll start with line 38. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and stop waste and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 40, please go ahead.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 28, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. It's Dora Rose with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Dora. Next caller, please.

Line 39, please go ahead.

Thank you, chair Members My name is Noah Whitley. Speaking on behalf of Rethink Waste and Compost Coalition, we are in support.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 43, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus. On behalf of Calperk in support.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 33, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. This is Claudia from the Los Angeles Regional Food bank calling in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Thank you very much. All right, that concludes the calls, and I'll be back to the dais for any questions or comments. Okay, we don't have a quorum at this time. I would just like to say I really appreciate this Bill. I am dogged on trying to reduce food waste. And I have a 14 year old that if there's any kind of date, she won't eat another bite. I keep saying you got to sniff it. If it smells okay, it's okay. But she won't go for this sniff test. So I think it's going to go a long way to keeping us healthy, reducing food waste, and making things more consistent and understandable for everybody. Would you like to close?

Thank you, and I appreciate that anecdote. I, too, have a son. He sees sell by and he tosses it in the trash. And when you see a sell by date, it could be good for one more day or it could be good for another two months. So I think this is a really important Bill, and we will continue to work with people that have concerns to make sure that we get this through the egg Committee. So thank you very much. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I don't think you have another one before us today. Or do you? There you go. All right. Congratulations twice.

Thank you.

Okay. But I do see Mr. Gipson here. Mr. Gipson is here on AB 767, talking about paramedicine. Welcome.

Thank you very much, Dr. Eggman, and to the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 767, which aims to continue to authorize local emergency medical service agencies to develop a program to provide community paramedicine services. I want to thank the Committee staff, working with my staff, with suggestions and through amendments, I will be accepting these amendments as discussed. Community paramedicine allows specifically trained, underscore trained, paramedics to perform duties outside their traditional roles to enhance access to care.

AB 767 continues to give local agencies the authority to develop these programs that require the state to authorize and to develop a minimum medical standard. It is a thoughtful and balanced approach that gives local agencies a flexibility while ensuring a high standard of care to be met through each and every program. A study completed after the first pilot program conducted by UC San Francisco shows that community paramedicine program resulted in an overwhelming positive outcome.

For example, assessments of 9482 patients enrolled in various programs found overall improvement of patients well being, no adverse health outcomes, no displacement of other healthcare professionals, and in most cases, saving for both hospitals and health plans resources. In addition, the program from frequent EMTS, users, case managers and intervention resulted in 911 calls reduced load for transportation. Hospice support programs reduced the overall 911 call volumes for transportation to emergency departments for patients from 80% to 28%.

Alternative destination programs also prove successful in diverting nonemergency patients from the emergency room to more appropriate facilities. Among the post discharge follow up programs, hospitals, remissions within 30 days, discharge decreased from eight of the 10 participating areas. Simply put, this is a game changer. We have a lot of stakeholders who support this program. I think the study will bear out that this program, if implemented wider, save lives, save money and do the right thing in our day and age.

With me to provide supporting testimonies are representatives, one from the professional firefighters and the other from the California Emergency physicians. They will both self introduce.

Thank you very much. First person speaking in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Tim Madden, representing the California chapter at the American College of Emergency Physicians. We're a co sponsor of AB 767 and want to thank Mr. Gipson for all his efforts over the years. As Mr. Gipson mentioned, there are several innovative community paramedic programs currently being operated throughout the state, testing out the idea of using paramedics in expanded role. These programs, as Mr. Gipson has noted, have shown promising results to date.

With the regulations for community paramedicine programs only becoming effective in November of last year, no new programs have been established. We believe extending the sunset to allow for new programs to be set up and pursued will provide a better picture of the benefits of community paramedicine on our healthcare system. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next person speaking in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, we too would like to thank Assemblymember Gipson for bringing this measure forward and don't want to be redundant of Mr. Madden and the author. So we would just say that this will allow local jurisdictions to leverage trusted community resources and firefighter paramedics to deliver additional resources to community members and fill gaps in care.

As Mr. Gipson said, it doesn't replace other workforce, but it help fills gaps and connects in a patient-centered approach that help connects patients with the right care at the right time. I think, as many of you know and will likely hear from us, there's challenges in the pre-hospital EMS system with regard to ambulance-patient offload time and other stressors.

And we think this is one tool, part of the solution, while connecting patients with the right care at the right time to alleviate the burden on some of the systems. So, for those reasons, we appreciate your consideration, and aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else speaking in support? Now it's just a time for name and affiliation.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Connie Delgado, on behalf of the California Emergency Nurses Association. In support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Brandon Marchy, with the California Medical Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Ryan Souza. On behalf of Leadingage California, in support.

Thank you very much. Anybody speak in opposition to this Bill today? Now would be the time to come forward. Seeing none. Anybody wanting to remove anything? Okay, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator are there any callers in the queue speaking in support or opposition to AB 767?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press 1, then 0 at this time. Madam Chair, I have no one queuing up to speak at this time.

Thank you very much. Now be the time to bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments they may have. Okay. We don't have a quorum at this time, Mr. Gipson, but I also want to thank you for bringing this forward. This is, I think, an important piece of legislation, and I know you've been a leader in this space. I had the ill fortune of spending most of last night in the emergency room at our local hospital.

And I will say, and we didn't have to experience too long a wait time to my firefighter friends, but I could, with my trained eyes or untrained eyes, could visually see there's a lot of folks filling up an ER in the middle of the night who, there were a lot more services that could be provided for them, I think, in a more cost effective manner. So whatever we can do to relieve the pressures on our hospital emergency departments, I think, is incumbent upon us to do.

Would you like to close? And we will move this Bill when there's a quorum present.

I thank you for your comments and just respectfully ask an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we have, I see Assembly Member Calderon here. Thank you very much. Presenting AB 904, dealing with doulas, which I did not use last night.

I'm glad you're okay, Senator. Good afternoon, chair and members. I want to begin by thanking the Committee staff for working with my staff on amendments for this Bill. And I will be accepting all the Committee's amendments. Assembly Bill 904 requires private healthcare plans to develop a maternal and infant health equity program by January 2025. This program aims to reduce racial inequities and birthing outcomes through the use of doulas. California faces stark racial disparities in birthing outcomes.

Black, Indigenous and people of color are more likely to die of pregnancy or birth related complications. Research shows that Doula services can prevent negative birthing outcomes like preterm births and cesarean sections by providing support throughout pregnancy and childbirth. The Medi-Cal program started covering doula benefits on January 1, 2023. However, they are not yet covered by private health plans. Some commercial health plans, like Blue Shield of California and Healthnet, have sponsored doula pilot programs throughout the state with participants reporting positive health outcomes.

AB 904 would make California one of the first states to expand access to doula services for people insured through private health plans. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there people speaking in support today of AB 904?

I don't have any witnesses.

Okay. No witness in support. Okay. All right. That was good. You're just going to take it on yourself. I like that. But I do see somebody approaching the mic throwing a sister lifeline. Go ahead.

Kelly Beam with Healthnet of California in support.

Thank you very much. Anybody else speaking in support at this time?

Molly Robson, Planned Parenthood affiliates, California in support.

Thank you very much.

Karen Stout, speaking on behalf of Neighborhood Pro-Choice California and the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Senators, Michelle Taran Wolfwork with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in strong support.

Nice to see you, Michelle. All right, anybody speak in opposition to this Bill today? Now would be the time to come forward. Want to express your support for your opposition? No?

Okay.

Going to the phone lines moderator Are there any calls on the line? Looks like we have some on the line for AB 90. Four. Moderator thank you, Madam Chair.

And if you wish to speak in support of opposition at AB 904, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll start with line 31. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. This is Sandra Pool, Western center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Line 30, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in Support. Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Line 42, please. Go ahead.

Hi, this is Sarah McClovia Rizzi, a local doula to the San Gabriel Valley in support.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Thank you very much. Okay, now, we'll bring it back to the Committee if anybody has any questions or comments. No? Okay. I think we'll agree you've identified a real problem with disparities and trying to find ways to be able to approach them with services. So would you like to close?

Yes. Again, I just want to thank your Committee staff for helping us work through this Bill. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We had a lot of doula conversations in the office on this. All right, we'll take that up when we get a quorum.

Thank you very much. All right. Now we're looking for authors as well as Health Committee Members. Looking for cell Member Connolly, Jackson. Carillo. Carillo. And Santiago.

Thank you, Senator.

You know what would make them come really fast? Give them 5 minutes. If they don't show up each vote, knowing of all the bills does make them come really fast. And.

Assembly Member Jackson, welcome. You're here to present today AB 1079? This may be a record. We have a social worker presenting to two others. Oh, now I lost one. Oh, three!

Okay, please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Committee Members, let me start by stating that I will be accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the Chair and Committee staff for working to continue to improve this measure. AB 1079 seeks to create a Hate Crimes Intervention Program within the California Department of Public Health, to implement research based community interventions in conjunction with leaders and organizations and communities most impacted by hate crimes.

The Bill also empowers the California Civil Rights Department to create and carry out statewide media campaigns to discourage discrimination against individuals or groups based on immutable characteristics. We all remember the various commercials that we've grown up in: 'Only you can prevent forest fires', 'This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs'. Right? And 'love is love is love'. We must make sure that we go on the offense when it comes to anti-racism, anti-hate, and anti-zenophobia.

In 2021, California saw a horrific surge in hate crimes, reaching numbers unseen since the aftermath of 911. In 2021, there were 1763 bias events, a 32.6% increase from 2020, the highest number reported since 2001. Anti-black hate crimes, the most frequent of all hate crimes, both now and even since we ever began to track these numbers in 1991, that even increased by 12.5%. Anti-aapi hate crimes even skyrocketed by 177.5%. Hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation rose by nearly 50%, and antisemitic bias events increased by 32.2%.

Alongside historic increases in hate crimes and hate violence, white supremacist propaganda distribution incidents and events reached all time highs in the United States in 2021. In fact, it is hard to believe that California had the 6th most incidents of white supremacist propaganda distribution in the country, nearly doubling in 2021, California was second in the country in white supremacist events and third in incidents of white supremacist propaganda distribution on college, University, and K-12 school campuses.

While there are serious efforts to combat hate crimes through the California Department of Justice, we must double down on the fact that racism is a public health crisis. Therefore, we must also address it from a public health lens. Joining me to testify in support is Teresa Drenick, the interim Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Central Pacific Region.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Eggman and Vice Chair Nguyen and Members of the Senate Health Committee. My name is Teresa Drenick, and I'm here on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League. First, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Jackson for sponsoring this very important Bill. Founded in 1913, ADL is a leading anti-hate and civil rights organization whose mission is to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and secure justice and fair treatment for all. ADL is a leading advocate on hate crime legislation and hate crime prevention.

We know that hate crimes are message crimes. They are uniquely devastating and harmful, as well as deeply personal, both to the targeted individual as well as to the entire community who shares that individual's protected characteristics. We know from experience that the criminal justice system and penalty enhancements are but one singular tool in combating bias motivated conduct. True impact and lasting change require a holistic, multipronged, community and importantly, victim centered approach.

This is why ADL is proud to sponsor AB 1079, which would establish a Hate Crimes Intervention unit to develop research based strategies to address hate and create the California Ad Council to develop a media campaign advocating against bias, discrimination and hate. AB 1079 recognizes hate not only as a public safety issue, but also as a public health issue and a public health crisis. Because hate and bias can deny access to resources, certainly increase stress and anxiety, and, overall, impact quality of life for individuals and communities.

This approach prioritizes education, community building and victim support. Although California is home to many diverse communities, the true impact and scope of hate in the Golden State is often underestimated. According to newly released FBI data, in 2021, reported hate crime incidents across our country increased to 10,840 incidents. That is the highest level recorded in more than two decades. In California, in our own state, we saw a 33% increase in reported hate incidents, and that is the highest since 2001.

A Hate Crimes Intervention unit and Public Awareness campaign would develop a holistic, community based approach to addressing this troubling rise of hate in the Golden State. We urge you to support AB 1079, and I thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you very much. Anybody else speaking in support of this Bill today? Just other people wishing to speak in general support, now would be the time to come forward. Okay, seeing none. I want to move to anybody wanting to speak in opposition to this Bill today.

Greg deGiere with the Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration. We're support if amended and we thank Dr. Jackson for his leadership on this and very important Bill. We completely support the provisions for providing mental health services to people who are victims of hate crimes. Research shows that people who are victimized because of hate crimes suffer worse and longer lasting trauma than people who are victims of identical crimes committed for other reasons, and they need this kind of support.

We very much also support the intent of the ad campaign portion of the Bill. Our problem is that as the Bill as drafted leaves the door open for using a formula that will exclude any ads that specifically address anti-disability hate crimes. We know that's not the intent, but that is the language of the Bill. We've been having some good discussions with Dr. Jackson and his staff. We've narrowed the differences.

We now agree with him that the baseline for allocating the percentage of ads should be the state DOJ figures because they are the most timely figures, so they will reflect spikes that should be addressed in the ads. The one exception to that is that the state DOJ figures on anti-disability crimes are useless because people do not report those crimes to the police, and the police do not take them seriously.

So if you believe that the official statistics, there are virtually no anti-disability hate crimes in California, which we know is quite false. So we would like to see some mechanism, and we're open to whatever mechanism it may be, to make sure that there are some ads that specifically address crimes against- hate crimes against people with disabilities. With that, we thank Dr. Jackson for his work, and we hope that the Bill goes out today so we can continue to work on it.

Thank you very much. Anybody else speaking in opposition? Ish?

Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Anybody speaking in support and or opposition to AB 1079?

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press 1, then 0. We'll go to line 30. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez of the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 45. Please go ahead.

Crystal Kidos on behalf of the California Faculty Association and the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Okay, thank you very much. Now would be the time to bring this back to the dais. Anybody has any questions or concerns? Okay, so, honestly, I think this is a really interesting approach that you're taking. I think a public ad campaign makes sense. You're right, there are attacks and a vitriol and anger just kind of bubbling up like wildfires everywhere. And I think some of those catchy campaigns at least help and continue to raise awareness.

And again, I just want to make the point that we have, now I keep losing one, but 1, 2, 3, 4 MSWs here. We're going to become as ubiquitous as attorneys up in this building. Okay, would you like to close?

Give us more time, and we're working on it. It's been indeed an honor to work on a Bill such as this. And of course, we've had in a heightened sense. And I began my work in anti-racism after the murder of George Floyd and doing work in Riverside County.

But it's also been one of the privileges of my lifetime to be able to work with an organization such as the Anti-Defamation League to make sure that we meet this moment in history that calls a new generation to do its part in addressing anti-hate, anti-xenophobia, and anti-racism. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And we'll do that as soon as we get a quorum. And again, calling Health Committee Members to come on down. Thank you, Dr. Jackson. Assemblymember Santiago, and you're here on AB 1487. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. In the interest of time, I will be brief and allow for the witnesses to present. Today I'm presenting AB 1487, which would establish the TGI Reentry Fund. This fund, upon appropriation, would provide grants to reentry programs that will address the challenges of TGI people who face being released from incarceration. I have two witnesses for me who will self-introduce and testify. Thank you.

Thank you very much. First person, please.

Senator and staff, my name is Terry Jay, Program Coordinator of the reentry programs with the Translatin@ Coalition that provides comprehensive, supportive, and direct services to our TGI, transgender, variant, and intersex people. I am the coordinator of five reentry programs that are working with those who have been incarcerated in prison, immigration detention, county jails, and workforce development program for those who have been affected by war on drugs. The goal of these programs is to provide intensive case management in preventing recidivism.

The Translatin@ Coalition is working with California Transgender, Gender-Non-Conforming and Intersex Policy Alliance (CPTA), and Assembly Member Miguel Santiago. We are asking to establish the Transgender Gender Variant Intersex Wellness Reentry Program and be appropriated of $5 million that will help our TGI people exiting from California State Prison. Having a culturally understanding guide in reentry programming can help TGI people fund affirming community networks, housing, sustainable employment, and access to health care. That includes affirming health care and mental health resources.

Funding programming like this reduces recidivism and further traumatizations. Organizations like the Transgender Variant and Intersex Resources (TGIJP) in the Bay and show that resources TGI communities will reach the gaps to problems the state want to fix and some don't even know how to exist, like discriminatory housing, unsafe transitionatory housing programs, and unmet mental health needs. The truth is that TGI people's reentry experiences are not considered.

Some lose friends and family members from their transition and have no one to rely on, and some have been in a system since they were young and no way of surviving. This is why we are asking to invest $5 million to grow TGI reentry programs to give people a second chance and truly live life with the love they are seeking from a community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person speaking to support please.

Senator and Staff. Hello, my name is Alberta Franklin and after spending 23 years in California State Prison, I've been out for a year and nine months. I come before you today to let you know the importance of establishing and appropriating the $5 million to the transgender Gender Variant and Intersex Wellness Reentry Fund. This Fund can impact the lives of recently released individuals and those who are about to be released.

My greatest fear upon being released was being reincarcerated, but I felt as if I only had three choices as a transgender ex-offender. One, return to prison, homelessness or death. And that is not something anyone should have to go through. After serving almost 25 years in California State Prison, the mental health issues that are faced by the TGI community is something I have dealt with first-hand, but I have been one of the lucky ones.

While receiving my AA degree in prison, one of my professors introduced me to the Translatin@ Coalition. I was about six months to be released and they wrote me and told me of their reentry program that I might qualify for the second day I was out.

I did go to the Translatin@ Coalition, and for the first time I felt relaxed because of the ease of getting along with the managed case managers there, one being Terry Jay. When I was first given housing through my parole agent, Weingart Downtown Skid Road. Entirely depressing, but the organization placed me in their traditional housing, the Hope House. This had a positive effect on my mental state of mind and within weeks, Translatin@ Coalition gave me an internship with pay.

With my internship and my AA, I was feeling positive. I worked hard and was soon able to be given a position at Translatin@ Coalition as the Hope House Coordinator. After proving my capabilities in the new affirming environment, I was promoted to front desk associate and soon became a certified HIV counselor tester. I was the first to pass my test and inspired others of my staff to get their certification as well.

All this was made possible because of a TGI organization that was there when I really needed it. This TGI Reentry Fund will indeed go a long way in helping those whose family want nothing to do with them because of their gender identity. As in my case. Let us look for others that need help. This fund could address mental health concerns and give well deserved hope. I would like to also thank Assembly Member Miguel Santiago and the CTPA. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thank you for investing in yourself.

Thank you.

Anybody else speaking in support of this Bill at this time, please come forward. Name and affiliation.

Good afternoon, Ryan Suz on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, in support.

Thank you.

Noah Bertelt. On behalf of ACLU California Action, in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in support.

Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, in very strong support.

Thank you very much. Anybody speaking in opposition to this Bill today? Now would be the time to come forward. Seeing none, let's go to the phone lines. Operator? Anybody on the phone lines?

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 30. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support.

Thank you. Any other callers?

Madam Chair, we have no one else queuing up to speak at this time.

Okay, thank you very much. Now it's time to bring it back to the Committee. Nothing? Okay. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote, Madam Chair.

Okay. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I think it's an important Bill. Obviously, we've seen some signs of success already, and I see there's no actual appropriation, but there's creating a fund to be able to push this through later when there's funds. Okay, thank you very much. And we'll take this up when there's a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Assemblymember Carrillo, you are here on AB 1432 healthcare coverage.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, I'd love to present Assembly Bill 1432, which would require out of state health insurance carriers who provide coverage to California residents and whom are currently exempted from state laws to comply with California State laws pertaining to coverage of abortion and gender affirming care. This change is consistent with California Constitutional amendment, which provides reproductive freedom as a right. Currently, there is an exemption for policies issued outside of California to an employer whose principal place of business and majority of employees are outside of California. This exception is a major concern because since the US Supreme Court overturned the five decade old constitutional right to obtain an abortion, there has been a wave of anti choice legislation across the nation. And there has also been a growing number of states banning gender affirming care. We should do as much as we can to ensure that California residents and workers have access to these health care services, regardless of where their health insurance policy or certificate of Health Care Service plan contracted is issued or delivered. AB 1432 is a priority to the Legislative Women's Caucus and the future of Abortion Council. This Bill is sponsored by the California Department of Insurance and Equality California. With us today to testify in support are representatives from our co sponsors, Josephine Figueroa, Chief Deputy for the California Department of Insurance, and Craig Polisher, Legislative Director for Equality California. For any technical support, Stacia Hodges with the Department of Insurance is also available. Thank you.

Thank you very much. First person Speaking of support, please.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Craig Pulsar on behalf of Equality California Proud co sponsor. As you all know, California has some of the strongest protections in the nation for abortion and gender affirming care. Yet access to these services is under attack across the country like never before. Following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, most abortions are now banned in over a dozen states, and this year alone, at least 18 laws have been enacted restricting access to gender affirming care for Trans youth, care that is backed by decades of research and supported by every major medical Association. In fact, just yesterday, a federal court blocked Arkansas's ban on gender affirming care, concluding that it was unconstitutional and violated due process and equal protection rights of Trans youth. No one in our state should be subject to these discriminatory and unconstitutional out of state laws. But under existing law, insurance provided by employers located out of state with out of state insurance contracts may not cover abortion or gender affirming care. AB 1432 is an important and necessary step to ensure that all California residents have access to the essential health care they need, despite the discriminatory actions of other states. And I respectfully urge your. aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next person Speaking in support, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Josephine Figueroa, Chief Deputy Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance. Under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo LaRara, we are proud co sponsors of AB 1432. I first would like to thank Assemblymember Carrillo for authoring this important measure. Body autonomy and integrity are under attack throughout the United States. We have all heard about the bans on abortion and gender affirmative care, and these attacks are only getting worse. Abortion is outright banned in thirteen states, with another 12 states limiting access between six and 22 weeks. As of March of this year, 30 states have either restricted gender affirming care or considering laws that do. Nine states have enacted legislation bans on gender affirming care for youth and young adults. Several proposed bans would limit access for youth up to age 26. The Missouri Attorney General issued an order restricting gender affirming health care for minors and adults. We must ensure that these egregious laws do not find their way into health insurance coverage for California residents. Although California does have strong consumer protections in place regarding abortion and gender affirming care in health coverage, there are certain instances where California residents and their dependents are not afforded protections found in state law. AB 1432 seeks to eliminate this loophole to ensure that California residents are afforded these protections. AB 1432 is just one step we can take to recognize a person's ability to make decisions about their own body, which is fundamental to the ability of a person to fully enjoying their rights as a state. We have a duty to protect California residents from the laws of other states that police their bodies and the bodies of their loved ones. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricadolara, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anybody else speaking in support? Now would be the time to come forward with just your name and affiliation.

Ryan Souza on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and APLA Health, in support. Thank you.

Karen Stout on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice California and the California Nurse Midwives Vice Association in support.

Thank you very much.

Noah Bartelt on behalf of ACLU California in support. Thank you.

One moment, Mr. Bartelt.

Yeah.

I understand you're my nephew Matyas Kisiday's friend from Stanford.

Indeed I am, yes. You're...

Welcome. Welcome to the Capitol and your internship. ACLU. Next person, please.

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Senators, Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on Status Women and Girls in support of AB 1432.

Thank you very much. Next person, please.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Thank you very much. Okay, anybody speaking in opposition to this bill, now would be the time to come forward.

You can Manson.

Chair and Members, my name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council, and we are opposed to AB 1432. I just want to bring up two important points that hasn't been brought up so far. First, California state officials just agreed last month to pay out $1.4 million to taxpayer money to cover the attorney fees for violating the First Amendment rights of four churches. One of the cases was Skyline Wesleyan University Church versus California Department of Managed Healthcare.

They filed a lawsuit back in 2016 when the California Department of Managed Healthcare decided on its own to require all health insurance plans to cover abortion, with no exceptions for religious organizations opposed to abortion. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no exemptions in this bill for religious organizations. So I'm not sure how you're going to avoid being sued again. So, love, have that question answered.

Secondly, this bill mandates that insurance cover the medical transitioning of minors with drugs and surgery that you call gender affirming care, as though those treatments are well established, harmless ways to treat kids with gender dysphoria. Yet at the same time, countries not known for being conservative are turning away from these treatments because of the terrible side effects and scientifically unreliable research on these treatments. Sweden, Finland, Norway, England are all turning away from gender affirming care for minors, and these are not red states.

We delivered to your offices yesterday a summary of the research showing the scientific evidence has not shown that cross sex treatments are beneficial to children or adolescents. Here's a quote from Sweden's National Board of Healthcare, which it says, "deems adolescents that the risk of puberty suppressing treatment and gender affirming hormonal treatment currently outweighs the possible benefits based on continued lack of reliable scientific evidence concerning the efficacy and the safety of both treatments." Here's what England's national service said.

They determined that gender incongruence usually does not persist into adolescence and that psychological support and watchful approach are generally recommended instead of social transitioning due to the risk, and that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones will only be allowed for minors in a research study. So I guess my point is the science is not settled, and you can't simply dismiss these countries reversing course on gender affirming care as motivated by hate. That claim is not going to work anymore. So I plead you to honestly deal with these concerns. I would love to hear what you think about what's happening in Europe. So thank you.

Next person speaking in opposition. Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines now. Moderator, are there any calls on AB 1432? Now it's just your name and affiliation, please, and your support or opposition.

And if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll start with line 30. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 49, please go ahead.

Penny Harrington from San Diego County in opposition.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

And Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Okay, now be the time to bring it back to the dais. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I move the bill and thank the author for bringing this forward. To make clear that in California, insurance companies can't discriminate no matter where they're headquartered. I do just want to say, I know there's always the sort of right wing forces that want to basically have LGBTQ people disappear. They just literally want us to evaporate or go back in the closet or whatever it is they want to do with us.

And they try to make it only about trans kids. They were only worried about trans kids. Of course, trans kids should have access to health care just like anyone else. But we saw today a very right-wing court, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that employers can fire LGBTQ people or not hire them solely based on the fact that they're gay or lesbian or trans. So this fight goes well beyond health care for trans kids.

Health care for trans kids is incredibly important. But this is a broader fight, and as much as the opposition tries to claim that it's some very narrow concern they have. It's not. They want all of us to disappear. And bills like this are incredibly important. And so thank you for bringing it forward.

Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator, for your comments. At the end of the day, no matter where an insurance company is located across the United States, California has the strongest protections for reproductive freedom in the entire nation. And Californians should not be subjected to laws of other states when receiving their health care. Respectfully request an aye vote.

We'll take that up when we have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we have Senator Member Connolly here. Welcome. And you are here for our final presentation of the day, if I'm correct. I think I am AB 935, so I'd encourage my healthcare Committee Members to come on down. Please go ahead.

Thank you, chair and members, good afternoon. In 2022, 63% of California voters via Proposition 31 upheld the state law, Senate Bill 793, prohibiting tobacco retailers from selling most flavored tobacco products. SB 793 was groundbreaking and covers flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, and tobacco product flavor enhancers in retail locations, including stores and vending machines throughout California. Despite the overwhelming support from voters to ratify SB 793, flavored tobacco products continue to be sold in many stores across the state, which allows many teenagers to continue accessing these dangerous products.

AB 935 will explicitly authorize the California Department of Public Health and the Attorney General to enforce the Flavored Tobacco Ban pursuant to business and Professions Code Section 2295 0.5, which is also known as the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids or STAKE Act. Consistent with other tobacco enforcement efforts, AB 935 will also replace the subdivision from the Health and Safety Code, which makes violation of SB 793 a misdemeanor and criminal penalty.

Instead, pursuant to the STAKE act, it will become a civil penalty to retailers, their agents, or their employees who are in violation. The cost of implementation will be minor, especially when compared to the cost of health care for those with smoking related illnesses. Preventing the next generation of Californians from becoming addicted to smoking should be a priority for all of us who care about the public health of our state and the wellbeing of our children.

SB 793, in some, can help achieve this goal, but only if the law is properly enforced, and AB 935 will make explicit enforcement by CDPH and the AG, in addition to local agencies, to ensure compliance and protection of public health. So with that, I'll now pass it to George Osborne, who represents the bill's sponsor, Union of American Physicians and Dentists.

Mr. Osborne, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members George Osborne. Pleased to be here. And thank Assemblymember Connolly for bringing forth this measure. This is such an important issue. Both the Legislature and California voters supported the passage of the flavor tobacco ban. So we need to ensure that it's being enforced properly, because as it stands, these lethal products are still falling into the hands of teenagers, which is inexcusable and unacceptable. Assembly Member Connolly well stated the case for AB 935, and I won't bother you to repeat his comments.

So on behalf of UAPD, we respectfully request your support for AB 935. Thank you.

Thank you. Nice to see you. Next. Anybody else speaking in support at this time, come forward. Name and affiliation?

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan. On behalf of the American Heart Association, in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Ottomagden Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association in support.

Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association in Support.

Thank you.

D'Artagnan Bird asked me. California in support.

Thank you. Anybody speaking in opposition to this Bill today, that'd be the time to come forward.

John Winger, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience alliance, we don't have a position on the Bill. Just want to thank the author and his staff for the continued conversations around the Bill. We're happy to see more statewide enforcement and having some clear just, we've had a lot of compliance issues at the local level with different interpretations of what's banned and what's not.

And so we want to continue to have some conversations about putting something in the Bill to where we get some clear guidance from the state on what exactly is banned and what's not before we put civil penalties on our station owners. And so we look forward to the conversations, and we'll keep your staff apprised of those conversations as well.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, anybody else? Okay, now we'll go to the phone lines for anybody speaking in support or opposition to AB 935. And if anyone wishes to speak in support or opposition of AB 935, please press one, then zero. We'll go to line 32.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you.

Line 47, please go ahead. John Mob, a 2018 President of the San Francisco we're in Medical Society, which is in. Thank you. Next caller and Madam Chair have no one else in the queue ready to speak. Thank you very much. Now would be the time to bring it back to the Committee. Comments, concerns. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and the author, for bringing this forward to us. I was the original co author, I mean, one of the co authors to SB 793. And I've done a lot of work in the space, primarily because as a teacher, I recognized the different ways that our children are sort of being entrapped into using some of these devices, namely the use of flavored tobacco that was either bubble gum and cotton and all these other flavors that are strategically targeted our kids.

So I just want to say thank you for bringing it forward. And I think that this Bill, the original SB 793, works if there's enforcement, which I think is extremely important. So thank you for that. And I want to be added it as a coauthor, and I want to move the Bill when it's appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. So there's a motion on that Bill. Can we call the role, establish a quorum?

We can.

Okay, let's do that.

Wait 1 second, Senators. Eggman? Here. Eggman, here. When? Here. When? Here. Glazer? Gonzalez? Grove? Here. Grove, here. Hurtado? Limon? Menjivar? Here. Menjivar, here. Roth? Roth? Here. Rubio? Present. Rubio, present. Wahob? Wiener? Present. Wiener present.

Thank you. We have a quorum. Would you like to close, Assembly Member? zero, Senator Grove, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with what my colleagues said. I think we need to address the issues over this particular subject matter, flavored tobacco with our kids. I do have a concern, though, and this is my concern because I heard it from a lot of my. What is private? My Sikh community, my Sikh community, the Punjabi community owns several of these convenience stores, and they're in different jurisdictions.

And so there is a problem that they see in the Bill that this can be enforced or interpreted by different jurisdictions. And so I guess. Are you working with the convenience stores to address that issue?

It sounds like that's the issue Mr. Winger was bringing up as.

Right? Yeah.

Okay. So since you are in this Committee today, I had to run out of rules because they're like, you're not there, you're not there. And so I needed to ask you that question. Their huge concern is they operate in different parts of the state, same type of convenience store, Shell station as a Taco Bell or Subway, things like that. But they have huge concerns.

Know, in one jurisdiction they might say it's this way, and then in another jurisdiction they might say it's this way, and then they get fined or taxed or feed on. They get fined for compliant, not complying where it's just confusing. So is there a way to uniform it?

So I would actually argue that issue is the very impetus for this Bill.

Okay.

Because it literally, under the current system, is reliant on whether a local jurisdiction decides to enforce and if so, how this is really designed to bring it back to a more uniform statewide level. Now, there still may be some issues we have to continue to work through as part of that, and so we are working with groups on that. But I think literally the issue you're teeing up is why the spill came about.

Okay, well, I don't run a convenience store. In the real world I run a job placement company, but I don't run a convenience store. So, I understand that it's just my constituents and they're reaching out to me saying this is not good for them because they operate in multiple jurisdictions. So, I'm just trying to convey a message. And like I said, I don't run a convenience.

No.

And I appreciate it. Those concerns are long standing. I mean, basically, since the original Bill, SB 793, has been enacted, which we all agree is great policy, there has not been uniformity, or for that matter, even enforcement to begin with in many cases. So this is really designed to bring that uniformity standards and more consistent enforcement to the process. That's the nature of the Bill.

Okay, thank you. And then I have a question on, so say the Bill passes, gets signed by the Governor, and enforcement is there, and there's a fee or penalty for something that happens to a convenience store, a seller, or somebody who sells this product. Where does that money go? Does it go the General Fund? Is it part of Prop. 56 monies? Not part of it, but like that, where it goes back to people with lung issues, doctors, medical recipient?

It does. And I have a specific answer to that question. I'm looking for my notes right now.

Because I anticipated cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund.

Thank you. Yes. So the very kind of goals that you're stating would service through that Fund.

So Medi Cal rates or Medi Cal providers that know providing kids health care? I guess so. It would go back to those individuals?

It would go into this Fund and then be dispersed pursuant to law.

Okay. And then does that include funds that are collected by locals? Yes, it does.

Pursuant to this?

Yes. Okay. So if a local enforcement agency collects this money, it still goes back to this one Fund?

Yes. Per this statute.

Okay. And I apologize again. I'm bouncing between committees, and I may have missed a lot of stuff, and I do really apologize. Is there an estimate about what those.

Funds would be in terms of what the enforcement efforts would engender in terms.

Of fine monies or accumulating that Fund?

We don't have an estimate of that.

That's okay. I was just curious. Okay. I appreciate your. Thank you very much.

Very good.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Got them all. Would you like to close? Yes.

So thank you all for your consideration and really thank you to the broad coalition that's come together to support this important effort. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. And just for clarity, Fund is unable to provide a revenue estimate at this time for those because we don't know how many it's going to be.

Thank you, chair.

You're very welcome. Okay, so we have a motion, which is very exciting, our first time. We'll be able to call the role. Clerk, would you please call the role. I'm sorry. And the motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance.

Senators Eggman.

Eggman. Aye. Min Glazer, Gonzalez. Grove. Not moving. Hurtado. Hertado. Aye Limone. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Roth. Roth. Aye Rubio. Aye. Rubio aye Wahab. Wiener.

Aye.

Aye.

Wiener, aye.

Thank you very much. We'll hold that open.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now, if we could get a motion on the proposed consent calendar, it'd be fantastic. Thank you very much. So that is consent calendar. Today is AB 365, Aguar Curry, AB 551, Bennett, AB 1437, Irwin and Quirksilva, AB 979, Alvarez, AB 1057, Weber. And that is with amendments, AB 1282 Lowenthal, AB 1309 Rayes. And AB 1376 Carrillo, with amendments moved by Senator Grove. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That is eight to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members moving on so our on-time members can move on with their business. AB 660 by Irwin. Move the Bill by Senator Menjivar. And that is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Agriculture. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Five. And again, that was community paramedicine. The food. I thought we were doing Gibson. Okay. AB 767. Gibson. That is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Do we have a motion on that? Thank you very much. Senator Wahab moves that item. If the secretary. If you could please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is eight. We will hold that open for absent members. Absent members, come on down. Moving on now to AB 904 Calderon. That is do pass, as amended and re-reffered to the Committee on Appropriations having to do with Doulas. Is there a motion on that? Thank you, Senator Wahab. Moved by Senator Wahab. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, let's move to Jackson. File item 10, AB 1079. And that is do pass, as amended. Thank you very much, Senator Menjivar, as amended and rereferred to the Committee on Judiciary. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

70, we'll hold that open for absent members. Moving on to file item 14, AB 1432. Assemblymember Carrillo. That is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Wiener, move that Bill. Do we have, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, moving on to file item AB 15, AB 1487 Santiago. Is there a motion on that? Senator Wahab moves that Bill and that is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

7-0. We'll hold that open for absent members. Thank you all very much. Who were here throughout the committee. We appreciate you. Please call the absent members one more time. We'll leave this roll open for about another five minutes or so.

Okay, let's reopen the role on AB 660. Irwin. And again, that is do pass. And re-refer to the Committee on AG. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

6 now. Thank you very much. And then on the consent calendar, let's call that one again.

Senators Glazer, Gonzalez, Limon. Wahob, Wahab aye. I also need her on 935.

And now on file item 7, AB 935. Connolly, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Governor and Finance please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

Thank you. I really appreciate it.

All right, so let's open these rolls one more time. Maybe Senator Limon will squeak in here. But first, we have on our consent calendar we have a motion on that already. And we'd have the secretary please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Okay, now moving on to AB 660 Irwin. Which is do pass. And re-referred to the Committee on AG. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Okay, moving on to file item 5. AB 767 Gibson. That is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That's 10-0. We'll hold that open. File item 6, AB 904. Calderon, do pass as amended. And re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

10-0. Will hold that open. File item 7, AB 935 Conley, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Governor's Governance and Finance. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

9-0, hold that open a little while longer. AB 1079 Jackson. Do pass as amended. And re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

9-0, hold it open. Moving on file item 14, AB 1432. Carillo, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

9-2, we'll hold that open and finally file item 15, AB 1487 Santiago, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

On the consent calendar. Secretary, please call the roll.

Senator Limon. Limone, aye.

12-0 that is out and the roll is closed. AB 660 Irwin, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on AG Secretary.

[Roll Call]

9-0 that bill is out the roll is closed. AB 767 Gibson do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

11-0 that bill is out. The roll is closed. File item 6, AB 904 Calderon, that motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

11-0 that Bill is out. The roll is closed. File item 10, AB 1079 Jackson, Dorian, do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

[Roll Call]

Okay, file item 7. AB 935 Connolly, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Governor and Finance. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

10-0, that is out, moving on to file item 14. Yes, file Item 14, AB 1432, Wendy Carrillo, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

10 to 2, that bill is out and the roll is closed. File Item 15, AB 1487. Santiago, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Secretary.

[Roll Call]

10-0, that bill is out. The roll is closed. That concludes this committee hearing of the Health Committee. Thank you.