Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

It'll work out.

Okay. We're going to call the Senate business, professions, and economic development meeting to order. Obviously, I don't have enough Senators for a quorum, but Senator Archuleta and I are going to hold it down for a bit. Right, Senator, we are prepared, and we know we have at least one assemblywoman who we need to take care of quickly.

So, Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry, would you like to get us started? Obviously, we're a Committee of ourselves. We won't be able to make a motion, but go ahead and present.

I truly appreciate it. And I will also be presenting Assemblymember Joan Sawyers.

Perfect. You are items 1 and 2 on our list anyway, so we're happy to have you here. Go ahead when you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. First, I would like to thank you and your staff for your work on this very complex issue. I started working on Hemp issues because the 2018 farm Bill unleashed a largely unregulated industry.

My first successful legislation, AB 45, was the strictest hemp law in the country when it was enacted in 2021. But today, I'm here to make sure that the law can be properly enforced. Interpreted as the Hemp market grows, we're seeing more intoxicating hemp products that are sold outside of dispensaries without age limits, which should be illegal.

This Bill is another huge undertaking that takes on three issues. Expanding enforcement to crack down on illegal hemp products, closing loopholes that allow intoxicating hemp products, and making sure all intoxicants that are in the cannabis supply chain, meaning full registration, full regulation, and taxation.

I will continue to work with stakeholders, state agencies and committees as we address concerns about the best way to implement these changes. With me today, I have Amy Jenkins from the California Cannabis Industry Association and Tiffany Devitt from the Joint Labor Management Committee.

Welcome. Thank you. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Can you hear me? Okay, Madam Chair.

It's a little quiet. Can you hear me? It's a little quiet. Yeah.

Okay, I'll speak louder.

Nope, you're fine.

Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you, esteemed Committee Member. It's nice to see you. Amy Jenkins with the California Cannabis Industry Association, proud sponsors of this Bill, is essential for reinforcing California's stringent cannabis regulations against the rising tide of unregulated, high potency intoxicating hemp products.

These products are increasingly found in gas stations and retail outlets, averting regulation, taxation, and crucial safety testing. AB 2223 addresses these pressing concerns in the following ways the Bill strengthens enforcement measures against the sale of these products outside license dispensaries.

It prevents the misuse of the 2018 farm bill's definition of hemp by establishing explicit per serving and per package THC thresholds. It prohibits the inclusion of synthetic cannabinoids in hemp and cannabis products, which often carry severe health risks, including cognitive impairment and acute toxation.

By restricting the sale of these products outside the regulated framework, that is cannabis, AB 2223 protects minors from exposure to potent intoxicants, easily accessible online and without age verification. AB 2223 aligns with California's vision for a well regulated, equitable cannabis market.

It upholds the principles of restorative justice and worker protections and prevents the undermining of our legal cannabis market's progressive goals. In closing, as a proud sponsors, CCIA is well aware of the opposition's arguments, such as claims that 2.5 or five milligram doses do not cause impairment. The CBD neutralizes THC's intoxicating effects.

We are here to answer any questions. We would argue that all of these arguments are misleading and hope that you will address questions to us in closing. This is a vital Bill to addressing California's public health concerns and protecting consumers. We urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chairwoman Ashby, esteemed Committee Members, my name is Tiffany Devitt. As the Assembly Member noted, I'm here on behalf of the Joint Labor Management Committee, which is a partnership between cannabis workers and cannabis employers. I'm here to express our strong support for AB 2223.

Central to this legislation is a simple but important principle, which is that medical and recreational cannabis belong in the regulated medical and recreational cannabis marketplace, regardless of whether the THC is sourced from cannabis or hemp. Here's why. Hemp products with NeTHC are vulnerable to misuse, abuse and diversion.

The regulated cannabis market has numerous protections in place designed to protect consumers, patients, and a broader community. The hemp market, as the Assembly Member noted, is a wild west, characterized by frequently adulterated, mislabeled, and highly impairing products that have triggered an increase in youth hospitalizations.

Full spectrum medicinal cannabis products with high quantities of CBD have been a cornerstone of the regulated cannabis market from day one. Our own company has at least 50 or so of such products. I have great sympathy for patients who today are using hemp because medical cannabis is expensive.

AB 2223 addresses this to a degree by allowing licensed cannabis manufacturers to use lower cost CBD inputs. But please understand in closing, that the vast majority of THC hemp products are not medical brands with names like Knocked out, fucked up. That's the brand. Excuse the language. Sauce and El Chapo extracts are not selling medical products.

They're selling hyper impairing natural and synthetic cannabis that is unregulated, untaxed, and untested. We strongly support the Bill and commend the author for introducing it. Thanks.

Great. Are there others in the room who would like to. To do me too testimony in favor of this Bill? Come on forward. Tell us your name, organization, and position on the Bill. This is me too in favor. Go ahead.

Morning, Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association and in support.

Thank you. Hello, Senator Ashby and Committee Members. My name's Nia Moore Withers. I'm with a local nonprofit here in Sacramento called Youth Forward. We are support. If amended, we send in a letter to your staff with amendment to the language for stronger protections for youth. Thank you so much.

Appreciate you, Madam Chair Members. George Miller, on behalf of Weed Maps and in support.

Madam Chair Members of the Committee. Sam Rodriguez, on behalf of good farmers, great neighbors based in Santa Barbara county, we appreciate the majority's leadership in this regard. As a former mayor and also former, we're great in support of AB 2223. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett. On behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and in strong support.

Thank you.

Juliana Voris. On behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Also here, on behalf of the California Narcotics Officers Association, in support.

Thank you.

Alicia Priego. On behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association and also kiva confections in support.

Thanks Shanta Pekin, with the Cannabis Distribution Association, in support.

Pam Lopez, on behalf of California normal, in support.

Kristen Heidelbach, here, on behalf of UFCW, Western States Council, proud co sponsors, in support.

Alex Loomer, on behalf of resources, legacy Fund, with a supportive amend position. We appreciate Assemblymember Aguilar Curry's efforts to tighten the regulations on intoxicating hemp products. Our letter explains why we believe the Bill should be improved to protect our youth, public health and the environment.

Just me. Two testimony. So let me see if there's anybody in opposition that is a lead witness. Okay, come on forward and then, yeah, come on up. All right, you will each have two minutes when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Rand Martin here on behalf of the Us hemp roundtable who work very, very closely with Ms. Aguilar-Curry for three years to get AB 45 adopted. We're here in opposed unless amended position, but I will say that if you count by words, we support 99% of this Bill.

The one piece that is troubling for us is the amount of milligrams of THC that would be allowed in a product. I think the analysis hit the nail on the head relative to the Goldilocks question of what's too high, what's too Low, and what's just right. And we don't know.

We know, but we haven't decided amongst ourselves what's just right, to ensure that we achieve the objective that the majority leader is pursuing, while at the same time not putting the compliant legal hemp CBD industry out of business in the State of California.

It is a substantial business, and we're talking about, in some economic analyses, up to $3.9 billion industry just in the State of California. These are good people who are manufacturing therapeutically beneficial products, not intoxicating products that are intended to help California consumers, and we want to be able to continue to do that.

Let's find the milligram cap that works. To also find number of servings per package that works. Five or four in a package is really small. When you're talking about tinctures, you're talking about four servings in a bottle about that big. You're not going to find that anywhere in the market.

And even if it's four gummies, you're not going to be able to find that either, because it's economically not feasible for a company to make money off of a product that only has four servings. We hope that we can find a solution working with this Committee, with the majority leader and others as we move forward.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Mark Smith. On behalf of Origins Council, we represent 800 businesses in the cannabis supply chain, the majority of which are small homestead cannabis cultivators on a single license, growing less than 10,000 cannabis.

We want to support the Members efforts at enforcement today, our concerns with the Bill, and we have an opposed and less amended position, lie with the other half of the Bill, which deals with integration.

Integration is the notion that you can take products from a hemp plant and you can bring them into the cannabis manufacturing process and you can include them then in what is a cannabis product.

Our concern as farmers is that it is easier and cheaper to create intoxicating cannabinoids by growing hemp, and therefore replace the intoxicants in the cannabis supply chain with those that come from the hemp plant or are derived from the hemp plant. Hemp is not grown as an intoxicating plant.

To grow hemp in California, you pay a $900 fee to either your county ag Commissioner or CDFA versus the cannabis farmers who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to become legally compliant in California's intoxicating cannabis product system. Amendments and Assembly appropriations dealt with synthetic THC intoxicants from hemp.

But we are asking this Committee to consider taking additional amendments that would prohibit the inclusion of naturally occurring THC that occurs in hemp at very Low doses and can be bioaccumulated and concentrated. We're asking for that to be prohibited from being sold into the cannabis supply chain and being used in cannabis products.

Bottom line, as I finish here, there should be no hot hemp in a cannabis product. Period. It is an existential threat to the cannabis system that we have created that the voters have approved through Pop 64. Thank you. And I'll be here to address additional questions.

Okay, and then those who are in the room who would like to associate themselves with the opposition. Comments, go ahead. Me, too.

Testimony only, Madam Chair and the team Members. My name is Jonathan Black. I'm the CEO of Cheech and Chong Global holdings company. We recognize much of the values in this legislation.

Sir, I need just. For you to just make a statement of opposition.

Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Michael Ramirez with Delta Bev. We're a $52 million facility at Canoga Park that makes these drinks. And we're opposed. The last amendment.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Joe Devine with Platinum Advisors. On behalf of Charlotte's web and the one hemp coalition, we have a support, if amended position. Have been working closely with the author. Just want to make sure that we do preserve reasonable access for those most vulnerable. California.

Thank you. Thank you, Chris Mao.

On behalf of Cannon Bottle Company, we have an opposing list amended position. As we look forward to working with the author on our concerns.

Thank you, Ted Whitney.

On behalf of the Hemp Beverage alliance, we have an opposed and less amended position.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Did you want to align your comments with any of those particular folks? Are you. No, it's okay. You feel good? Okay. All right, thank you. I know it's difficult on a Bill where you have presenters and opposers and your position. Position is slightly different than theirs.

But thank you for bearing with us on our process to just have two speakers who speak for two minutes each and then everybody chime in. Appreciate that very much. I know sometimes it doesn't quite work out, but grateful for everyone's help.

All right, I'm going to bring this back to the dais and ask my colleagues if they have questions for the author. Go ahead, Senator Becker.

Do you want to take that? Yeah. Do you want to take that one? I'm sure. Experts are better than me.

I have a question about synthetic cannabis, and this is a confusing area, but I'm just trying to get clarity. So I know you rightly trying to get rid of unregulated, intoxicating hemp derivatives. Correct. But what about synthesized, plant identical, non intoxicating cannabinoids? Are those okay?

But I will tell you is that this Bill is far from being done. It's a complex issue, and we've tried to vet it out with stakeholders, patients, the state agencies, and a lot of people are involved in working with us on this Bill.

So. What I believe you're referring to is cannabinoids like CBG, CBN, which occur in the hemp plant and aren't intoxicating. The problem with when you synthesize a compound like, let's say, CBN, and you create it chemically, some of the molecules are going to be identical to the plant derived compound.

But in the chemical synthesis process, you tend to create what are called unknown isomers, meaning molecules that are slightly different than the one you intended to create. That phenomenon is actually one of the biggest issues that the pharmaceutical companies have when they're making products and synthesizing a compound.

The core issue is, is it pure, meaning all the molecules the same, or do you have this sort of unknown stuff? And with the unknown isomers, the safety profile has not been vetted or tested.

So my own position is, in my own belief, having dug into the science of this, is that chemically synthesized compounds are not identical to naturally derived compounds. And to the extent that there's a need or desire for that, it has to be done in a context where the safety and purity can be measured and documented.

What if they are plant identical compounds?

But what I'm saying is when you're manufacturing an identical plant compound, if it's a manufactured compound, you produce non identical compounds. So what I'm saying is the process of chemically synthesizing something like CBG or even delta nine THC, you end up with unknown isomers with unknown safety issues.

So short version, chemically synthesized cannabinoids, even if the target cannabinoid is identical to one that occurs in nature, is not necessarily safe because you have byproducts. Unknown byproducts.

Not necessarily safe but it could be safe.

It could be, yes, absolutely. And the point is that needs to be tested.

I have a follow up to that, too. There are provisions in the Bill, too, that do provide that. If it is determined to be safe or you want to make the case for it to be safe, the Department of Public Health has the discretion to review and vet those synthetically derived cannabinoids.

Okay, so what is the process? They submit it to the Department of Health?

Yes, they could. They could. Theoretically, you could submit to the Department of Public Health that would have the authority to evaluate and determine safety.

And is there like a timeline they have to get back to you?

There's no specified timeline currently in the legislation, but there is a process in place to allow for the vet.

Have they done that in the past?

That I would assume so, but I couldn't verify that at this point, sir.

All right, when we hear the rest of the debate, I may hold off. Just I want to kind of get to the bottom of this issue because it sounds like there's a lot of, it's still, like a little unclear, but thank you.

Okay, a couple other questions from colleagues. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, assemblymember, for bringing this forward. My concern is the consumer at the other end of all this controversy, the seniors who have trouble with their backs, spines, whatever it might be, that are turning to cannabis, but realizing that it's a high and it should just stabilize the pain.

And then to hear that some of these products are being sold at gas stations, can you explain that and see how that ever happened?

So obviously, we want to keep it in a controlled environment, such as dispensaries. They are selling products right now in gas stations, smoke shops online of products that are not pure and that shouldn't be given to anyone until it's been tested. And so that's why this Bill came about is because we put in really strict rules.

But unfortunately, people find loopholes, and that's what we're finding. And it's affecting a lot of young people, adults as well. But it's affecting them, obviously, if it's working in a medical way that it's helping somebody. We're not here to destroy that method at all.

We're trying to make sure it's got to be legal, it's got to be tested, and that's what the bills about. Do you have anything else you guys want to add?

No, I think that so obviously, by passing AB 2223 it would enhance the safety of these teenagers or seniors that are walking in to these establishments and not knowing the amount of hemp that they're dealing with and the after effects.

I guess when we did AB 45, we put a lot of guardrails in that, and obviously people found the loopholes. You can go right now into a total wine place and see THC sold at 10 milligrams in a drink right now. And they're supposed to have labeling on that, that's accurate telephone numbers, et cetera.

And we're finding that they don't follow the rules from AB 45. So this is just enhanced to make sure it's even safer.

My fear is that this is getting in the hands of the wrong people, and we need to make sure we have a method in which we can make sure that we have oversight with the State of California.

Good. And, Madam Chair, I'll be more than happy to move the Bill at appropriate time.

Okay, great. Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. For those of you that have heard previously, I will spare you my rant about my frustration with this whole area. But a couple questions. First of all, I'm under the understanding that you're going to be entertaining amendments, perhaps even significant amendments. Can you give us an idea of what that will be?

Maybe I missed that at the.

No, you didn't miss it. There was a T.A. that came out from the governor's office, I think, a week ago, and there's some suggestions that they have that they would like to see included in the Bill. And so that's what we're going to be adding. Do I have the specific ones right this moment? No, I don't.

It's gotten so out of hand is that I don't know if you had a chance to see what's out on the street and what's happening. I forgot to bring my little.

I was consuming it all weekend.

Oh, you look pretty you're awake. Good.

And I'm a little hungover.

But I, too, am concerned. I'm concerned for my grandchildren, my friends, my neighbors. And one of our test, when we testified in one of the meetings, one of the people said, guess what, my daughter, and she brought in the pack of cigarettes that she bought online. This stuff's got to stop.

And we're harming young people, and they think that everything's fine if you can buy it on the Internet or you can go into a wine shop or whatever, and you can get these products. It's been happening for way too long. We've got to put an end to it.

And I think the Administration agrees with me that we have got to get this under control.

The interesting thing about that is that the same folks that are getting these products that shouldn't be can buy Marijuana on the illegal market just about as easily.

Which that's why we have this in places. We want people to be able to go to a dispensary, make sure it's been tested, and make sure that it's safe for our community.

So there's many people that use it for medicinal reasons and have good friends that go to the shops and make sure they get the right product and hope that it's taken care of.

So we're setting up a regulatory structure where we can hopefully control that, even though the illegal market is still going to be free to operate as it does, because we don't have the resources for enforcement. And that's sort of the pregnant issue here.

This Bill, passed as is, would send it to a kind of a purgatory where it would be totally ineffectual because we don't have the money. There's very significant costs to enforce these things in this Bill, and the money isn't there for it. And until the money is there, it will sit in this ineffective state.

And given our budget problems, I'm not sure that I see the money for enforcement being allocated for this anytime soon. How can you react to that?

I can react to. I will do whatever I can to move this forward and to get it enforced. And I feel like the Administration has been pretty vocal as we've been going through our steps and going through the policy, that they, too, want to make sure it can be enforced.

So we're working with Department of Health, we're working with cannabis control, we're working with all those groups because they, too, want to figure out a way to enforce this better.

We can also use, the local police departments can also start helping us as well, so the Committee did flag for me an issue about the Bill give enforcement authority to peace officers. So we are working with state agencies to make sure that enforcement language and want to make sure that there's meaning to the local enforcement.

So we're going to keep working on this. But I can't walk away from it when we're seeing so many young people getting the product on the streets. And I have families calling me up saying, what are you going to do?

And I know they've touched a lot of you, probably telling you, you got to make sure we get this through. We got to take care of our young people and our adults, the community at large.

Well, we'll see how that comes down in the priority setting of the budget. If you have the attention of the Governor, you have the attention of one of three people that are almost solely responsible for our budget. But I'm bringing up another issue there. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Right. Okay, colleagues, additional questions for the author. Anybody else? All right, would you like an opportunity to close?

I would like a real quick. You know, I've been working on these issues for six years, and it's constantly a changing marketplace. As I presented the Bill today, I told you it was going to be complex. It is. It will make products and practices safer and make it harder for criminals to sell illegal products.

But that doesn't mean my work's done or our work's done. I assure you that I will continue to work with all stakeholders to implement integration in a way that supports our legal hemp and cannabis industries, further empowers our regulators, and to attack illegal products and protect the public health.

At the end of the day, Members, we need to make sure that hemp products are well regulated and safe for all consumers, whether they are using them for medicinal purposes or just to relax. I commit to you that I will update the Committee on those conversations as we move forward. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. We are one Member shy of a quorum, so when we get one, we will come back to the item. I should have mentioned that the author has been working with me on SB 1498 as well, Senator Niello, which is an enforcement Bill.

And last week, we added this issue into print, which would allow DA's, county councils, city attorneys, and the AG to also help with enforcement of these rules, which should help with some of the offset and would make her Bill more relevant. And it is goes from here to health.

So there are some more opportunities for folks to have some discussion around some of the issues. I should have added that. We'll come back to that when we have a quorum. And then you have a second Bill to present.

I do. Colleagues. Correct. Thank you very much, Members. I appreciate your consideration on my bill. Chair and Members, on behalf of Assemblymember Joan Sawyer, I present AB 1610, which protects cannabis consumers and legal cannabis market by enhancing cannabis testing oversight in California.

More than half the state's estimated cannabis sales still take place in illegal markets, and limited regulations have given way to persistent testing fraud, a risk to patients and consumers, and inadequate tax collection. AB 1610 ensures cannabis consumers have access to safe, reliable, and accurately labeled products.

They require that the Department of Cannabis Control conduct in person audits of every lab at least once every two years. It authorizes quality assurance compliance reviews to ensure compliance with packaging and labeling standards, including heavy metals in the list of contaminants to be tested and requiring any product recall be reported to the consumers online.

With me in support of this bill today is Dale Gieringer, Director of Cal NORML.

Thank you. Thank you, Members of the Committee, Dale Gieringer here with the California NORML National Organization for Reform of Marijuana laws. And basically, this bill is designed to improve oversight of cannabis testing labs. Cannabis testing is like a vital consumer safety feature of California's legal regulatory system.

Currently, all cannabis products are required to be tested by a licensed lab to ensure they don't exceed safe limits for contaminants like pesticides or heavy metals or such, and also to assure that they accurately reflect the potency and contents of the products.

Unfortunately, it's come to our attention that there are some bad apples out there in the industry, testing labs that are breaking the rules and failing to report harmful ingredients or fraudulently reporting the THC potency on their samples.

You may have seen the article in the Los Angeles Times, recently, that reported pesticide contamination in many products tested from certain suspect manufacturers. There's other studies out there have found systematic over statement of the THC potency on certain products. The label does not match the actual potency.

So, AB 1610 would tighten quality assurance oversight testing of testing laboratories in the manner described by the Assembly lady. It would require DCC to conduct in person audits of every lab at least every two years.

It authorizes quality assurance compliance reviews of retailers and micro businesses, as well as testing labs, because sometimes the fraud occurs at the beyond the test lab level.

Sir, we need you to give us your final thought on that.

Okay. Well, I wanted to know that we did amend this bill substantially from what was in the Assembly by omitting a rather costly provision that required blind proficiency testing. We don't think that this provision benefits are equal to the costs and we're therefore dropping it.

But we're open to exploring other possible ways of improving detection of lab fraud.

All right, very good. Are you just here for technical support or...

Technical support.

All right, very good. Is there anyone in the room here in support #MeToo testimony your name organization position on the bill?

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, March and Ash & CannaCraft in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alicia Priego, on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, in support.

Sam Rodriguez, on behalf of Good Farmers Great Neighbors based in Santa Barbara county, in support.

George Miller, on behalf of Weed Maps and support.

Alright, is there any lead opposition in the room who would like to testify against the bill? Seeing no one, is there anybody who'd like to, just #MeToo testimony opposition the bill and or anybody leaning. Great? We will bring it back to the Committee to the dais here. Members, do you have any questions? Colleagues?

All right, would you like an opportunity to close?

On behalf of Assemblymember Joan Sawyer, I ask for your aye vote.

All right, appreciate you. We do need a couple more Members before we have a quorum. Thank you for sending the bills.

Thank you very much for your help today.

Appreciate you. All right, Assemblymember Weber, thanks for being patient. You ready? We've got at least two bills here for you, and then you let me know what all we're going to do.

I'll present the other one.

Okay. All right, so you want to start with your own?

Yeah.

Okay. We'll start with file item three, which is AB 796. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I am here to present AB 796. This bill, as proposed to be amended, would establish certification and training requirements for athletic trainers. This bill additionally would prohibit an individual from calling themselves an athletic trainer unless they meet those requirements.

Athletic trainers are educated and trained to specialize in the prevention, assessment and intervention of emergency acute and chronic issues such as concussions, heat illnesses and sudden cardiac arrest. The American Medical Association recognizes athletic trainers as allied healthcare professionals and are classified as such by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

They are also assigned a national provider identifier number, just like every other healthcare professional, including myself. I see the importance of athletic trainers as they are an integral part of the healthcare team for our athletes.

In fact, not long ago, we witnessed the importance of athletic trainers for those who were watching when Denny Kellington saved the life of Damar Hamlin when he collapsed on the field during the NFL game.

Athletic trainers are so important that in every other state, including Washington DC, they require that their athletic trainers be either licensed, registered or have certification to practice in their state to ensure the safety of their residents.

And then there is California that requires nothing, not even proof that you have education and training to actually call yourself an athletic trainer. As a physician myself, who goes through rigorous licensing process for this state, I know that regulating athletic trainers will ensure the safety of California student and professional athletes.

But more importantly, as a parent of two young athletes myself, I want to ensure that the person caring for them, if they are ever injured, is actually educated in the proper techniques to minimize injury, and that they are not just calling themselves an athletic trainer, because that is what we now allow in California.

There are currently at least 138 individuals being paid as an athletic trainer in high school sports right now that are unqualified. These include chiropractors, people with suspended certifications or licensures from other states and student athletic trainers who did not pass the national exam or complete their program.

And the worst part of all of this is that the students and their families have no idea that the athletic trainer caring for them or their child is unqualified. AB 796 will ensure that if someone is employed as an athletic trainer in California, they are actually trained and certified to do so.

This bill also ensures that individuals that have their license restricted in other states will not be able to come to California and work as an athletic trainer.

With me here to testify and support is Kelci Stringer, wife of former NFL athlete Korey Stringer and the founder of the Korey Stringer Institute, and Nick Harvey, governmental affairs chair for the California Athletic Trainers Association. Thank you.

Welcome. You each have two minutes. Whenever you're ready. Go right ahead. They'll turn it on for you, I think. Go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and esteemed Committee Members. Again, my name is Kelci Stringer and I am the founder of the Korey Stringer Institute. And it is with deep sincerity that I stand here today to speak about the importance of athlete safety and the tragedy that has impacted my life in a most personal way.

My late husband, Korey Stringer, an all-pro offensive lineman with the Minnesota Vikings, passed away due to heat stroke in the summer of 2001. His death was 100% preventable, and since then, I have emphatically dedicated my life to ensuring that no family should have to endure the same tragedy.

Unfortunately, a recent review conducted by the Kory Stringer Institute showed that California ranked last amongst the 50 states in terms of athlete safety. The lack of regulation and standards for athletic trainers was a major factor in California, earning the abysmally low score of 30.8 out of 100.

This low score placed California, again, last out of all 50 states in creating policies to protect athletes of all types, from professional to youth, to collegiate to recreational. This is completely unacceptable and a sad reminder of the work that still needs to be done.

We must work together to ensure that our athletes are provided with immediate access to quality medical care and that their safety is of the highest priority. No one should have to lose a loved one due to conditions that could have easily been prevented.

I urge all of us as citizens and as simple human beings to work together to make sure that our athletes safety is not compromised and that tragedies like the one I endured never happen again. So today and again, California Senate Business and Professions Committee to take the first step and pass AB 796 unanimously.

Because at the end of the day, we are all athletes. Thank you.

Thank you for your work, ma'am. All right, go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee for your time. And I wanted to thank Dr. Weber for authoring the bill that will start a long overdue process of regulating the healthcare profession of athletic training. My name is Nick Harvey and I represent the California Athletic Trainers Association as a governmental affairs representative.

I also work full time as an athletic trainer in Pasadena at Caltech. I am here today in support of AB 796. There are over 3000 athletic trainers working in California and as we have heard already, California is the only state that doesn't regulate athletic training.

An updated version of a statewide study was just released which has data pertaining to athletic training services provided to high school and secondary school students. Some of the key points of this research was California has the second largest number of participants in high school sports in the country.

Nearly 8 million and nearly half are enrolled at schools that do not employ certified athletic trainers. This number is higher than it was five years ago. Almost 10% of the high schools in California are hiring unqualified personnel to provide athletic training services. This number is higher than it was five years ago.

These negative trends simply reflect the lack of access to healthcare services and are a part of the reason California is ranked last in the most recent 2023 high school sports safety policy ranking put out by the University of Connecticut and the Korey Stringer Institute.

Simply put, regulation of athletic training will help establish, develop and maintain safety standards for youth sports for college and professional athletic programs and all Californians, and AB 796 looks to start that process. This bill will ensure that the title of athletic trainer is protected.

It will help ensure that the person calling themselves or employed as an athletic trainer providing healthcare services and and or medical advice to that high school student or parent is educated and certified following already established national standards.

And though passing this bill will be a great step forward to ensure public protection for Californians, it is a small step forward, but in the right direction. The CATA will continue to work to ensure that athletic trainers are held to the same regulatory standard of other healthcare professions in California because Californians deserve it.

Thank you very much for your time, and I humbly ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Are there others in the room who would like to offer their support through me too yestimony? Your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Awet Kidane with Lang, Hansen, Giroux, Kidane, proudly representing the Los Angeles Rams in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Reed, licensed physical therapist and certified athletic trainer. I'd like to thank the Committee, the author and sponsors for their work on this bill. And we are happy to remove our opposition and support the bill.

Good morning. Lindsay Gullahorn with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Occupational Therapy Association of California. We are also pleased to remove our opposition and are in support. Thank the author and the Committee for their work on this.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the National Football League in support.

Good morning. Pete Youngman with the National Basketball Athletic Trainers Association in full support of 796. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr. Ky Kugler, CATA President. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your vote today and the rest of the Committee in support of AB 796. Dr. Weber, thank you as always.

Hello. Dr. Jamie DeRollo. I am the CATA parliamentarian and work at Modesto Junior College in full support of this.

All right, thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room opposed to AB 796 that would like to come forward and provide opposition testimony? All right. Is there anybody in the room who doesn't want to be lead opposition but would like to voice a concern? All right. Seeing no one, we'll come back to the dais.

Colleagues, do you have questions for the author? Go ahead, Senator Archuleta.

Okay. I think I may be the only one on the dais who had, who has a son who played football for USC and very proudly wears his Rose Bowl ring and witnessing practices and what you have gone through.

Madam, my condolences to you and your family, but with all the years my son went through high school ball into college and played for USC, as I mentioned, and looking to the trainers, the personal relationship that he had with the trainers, working with Rodney Peete next to him, oftentimes in the same locker, side by side.

So my son has told me over the years how the trainers were always there for him, but I'm just so surprised that establishing a certification versus a licensing. We haven't gotten there yet, and I think we have to, from what we've heard about you and all the testimony that we need to start looking for not just certification, but truly licensing these professionals that will take care of these athletes.

And whether it's one injury or one death, it's just too many. So I'm so proud that you're bringing this together, bringing us all together to put this bill on the table for us. And I think it's way, way overdue. And so thank you. And again, I will make the motion when it's appropriate.

All right. I don't see any other, any other questions. Do you want an opportunity to close, Assemblymember?

Well, I want to start by thanking the chair.

Hold on. Before you thank me, let me get a quorum for you so we can get a vote. Thank you, Senator Becker. All right, let's. Let's call the roll and see if we can establish a quorum here for the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee.

Ashby? Ashby, here. Nguyen? Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil, here. Archuleta? Archuleta, here. Becker? Becker, here. Dodd? Eggman? Eggman, here. Glazer? Menjivar? Menjivar, here. Niello? Niello, here. Roth? Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

All right, great. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Now we can actually take a vote on your bill. Go ahead and close.

Now I wanna thank the chair, also the previous chair of this Committee. Cause we've met to discuss this bill. I want to definitely thank the sponsors and all those who came and spoke in support. This has been, in my opinion, should have been a simple, simple bill. Right?

But we have definitely faced some uphill battles, some uphill challenges, which we will continue to fight because I agree with you, Senator Archuleta, this is definitely something that should receive the same respect, but also scrutiny that we do, other professions. You know, we always boast that California leads.

We say, as California goes, so does the rest of the nation. And unfortunately, in this instance, we are not. We are not leading. We are actually behind. We are actually at the very bottom. I will repeat what I said at the beginning.

Every other state, including Washington DC, has requirements that their athletic trainers be either licensed, registered, or have certification to practice in their state. It is shocking and extremely disappointing and concerning that this state has required nothing and that the inaction of this state has placed our most vulnerable athletes in harm's way.

California has been the subject of many national discussions, news and research articles because we have chosen not to do the right thing and our young athletes have been paying the price.

Since the 1980s, there has been an effort to require licensure or registration of athletic trainers, and every time those efforts have been blocked. Every time an athlete has been harmed by someone falsely claiming to be an athletic trainer, part of the blame goes to us for our failure to act.

But we can change that today with the passage of AB 796. Passing title protection for athletic trainers is the first step to ensure the safety of California athletes. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. The families of California are better off because you're here in the Legislature. Let's, you have a motion from Senator Archuleta. Let's call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to Senate Public Safety Committee. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Becker? Becker, aye. Dodd? Eggman? Eggman, aye. Glazer? Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Niello? Niello, aye. Roth? Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

So that's 7-0. We'll leave it on call for our other colleagues to get here. Thank you very much and thank you to your witnesses. Thank you for your life's work. We appreciate you. Assemblymember Weber, would you like to move on to your next bill? AB 2166

I would.

Okay, let's do that. Whenever you're ready.

All right. Good morning again, Members. I'm here to present AB 2166, a bill to increase the diversity and training when individual is on path to receiving a barbering or cosmetology license. California's current cosmetology curriculum falls short in preparing beauty professionals to serve individuals with varying hair textures and types.

An estimated 65% of the US population have curled, curly or wavy hair, yet our state licensing authorities do not require substantive training and competency for styling textured hair.

This institutional gap in knowledge can result in damage to the hair of clients from varying cultural and ethnic backgrounds, as well as such individuals being unable to obtain appropriate services from licensees. The absence of inclusive hair education not only perpetuates narrow beauty standards, but also has practical implications for professionals and for beauty industry as a whole.

For these reasons, AB 2166 would require courses in hair styling, barbering, or cosmetology to include instruction for providing services to persons with varying hair types, including different textures, thickness and curl patterns, or wave patterns. Additionally, the bill would require examination for licensure to include questions about textured hair.

There is a cap of curriculum hours of 1000 hours and currently none of those hours are dedicated to training on textured hair. This bill is sponsored by the Professional Beauty Association, which includes Estee Lauder and others. With me here today to testify is Tippi Shorter, a celebrity stylist, and Myra Reddy from the Professional Beauty Association. Thank you.

Thank you very much for carrying this legislation. I can't express how much it means to an entire industry as well as clients that are looking to provide to receive services.

And this legislation very much reflects access for individuals to be able to receive services in an establishment that can be inspected by licensed beauty professionals that are properly educated, trained, and held accountable through their occupational license. We believe all individuals should have that access and be able to receive services from trained individuals.

We do realize that we are working with a 1000 hours curriculum, so I do want to mention that this legislation does come with the support and help from the Professional Beauty Association as well as the Texture Education Collective that is working to help bring states into this legislation. The Texture Education Collective does provide a texture mastery program.

This program is free, so it's a free service that we welcome all schools to join and sign up. So far, 7000 students, 800 instructors in over 166 schools have been trained through this free texture mastery program. They train for cutting, coloring, professional services, styling. They provide two mannequin heads with different texture hair.

They also provide materials, talking points on how you approach clients. Everything that a school would need to have support at no cost to the school.

This program is done within current state hours by interweaving all of these materials into the current curriculum as opposed to just singling out a couple days of a program to offer texture hair education.

So when we're washing or coloring or styling, you're utilizing both mannequin heads and you're having a chance to interweave this into your everyday, every hour part of your curriculum so that it becomes customary, becomes more natural and the ability for the students to pick up on that information and to feel more relaxed, to approach clients with different textured hairs comes to fruition to them before they graduate from school.

We certainly don't want students that are already paying for a program to have to come out of school and reinvest additional funding to seek more training because they weren't fully trained to begin with.

This legislation will help, especially with there being a growth of 8% in the beauty industry, with nearly 90,000 openings for new licensed beauty professionals to enter into the states. Here in California, we have 54% of employment-based establishments are owned by women, 64% by minorities.

And these 15,000 employment based establishments would welcome the opportunity to hire individuals licensed beauty professionals in California that had this specific training. So thank you so much for considering this legislation, and we hope that we can bring this type of leadership to the state of California to provide additional education and training within existing hours in existing programs. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning, and thank you so much for having me. And I'm really excited to be here with this really important cause. My name is Tippi Shorter. I am a licensed hairstylist. I received my license 30 years ago in Southern California. I'm also an educator and a celebrity hairstylist.

I received my license, as I mentioned, 30 years ago in Southern California. And while graduating beauty school, like many others afterwards, I did have to reinvest into my education to learn how to work on waves, curls, and coils. And the assumption would be, because I've got curls, I know how to do them.

That is not true, and I did not learn that in beauty school. When investing in my education and enrolling in cosmetology school, my hopes, and just like other students, the hopes, are that you graduate feeling set up for success. And I do know that the facilitators and educators there are doing their very best.

But unfortunately, without texture education and the text testing, stylists like me have to continue to spend money on just basic education on how to work with the beautiful waves and curls that I actually see on this podium behind me. Without this education, this usually leads to unfavorable experiences.

I'm sure many people in this room with waves, curls and coils can speak of an experience of going to a hairstylist and not having the best service possible or even being turned away because the stylist isn't adequately trained on how to work on waves, curls and coils, texture in general.

At the end of the day, hair is hair, but it does come in all beautiful fabrics, and that's straight, wavy, curly and coily. And I do believe in order to be a hair stylist, stylist must learn how to work on all hair. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, is there anybody who would like to come up and support? Please state your name, affiliation.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Paula Treat on behalf of Estee Lauder, wholeheartedly supporting.

Norlyn Asprec representing L'Oreal in support.

Jennifer Hutter here for California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology in strong support.

Seeing no more, any lead opposition, please come forward. Anyone who would like to oppose, please come forward. Seeing none. Colleagues? Questions, comments? Seeing none.

Well, I just want to thank the author for this bill and to continue to build on Crown Act and the protection, particularly the civil rights protection of our hair, and having access to making sure that no matter the texture, the fabric, the style, that you have access to professionals who know how to do it and do it well.

It's about beauty, but it's also about civil rights and protecting all Californians, no matter hair texture. So thank you for what you're doing. Thank you so much for this important bill. Thank you.

Senator Niello?

You think I'm going to make a comment about my own hair? I said, don't do it. Don't do it. This is a service that clearly I do not need.

But although when I was younger, I did have wavy and curly hair, but in the analysis that I have, it indicates that this type of hair represents about 65% of the population of the country. What kind of a marketplace is it that would not train to meet 65% of the demand?

Yeah, that's a great question.

And I think what has happened is that those who have an interest or they have a high clientele, they have had to bear the burden of going and having extra classes and paying out of their pocket to learn how to properly manage this type of hair, which they should not have to do, especially considering that the vast majority of the population does have curly, wavy, a different kind of textured hair.

So they have been receiving that training, just not within their initial education, and they've been having to pay more out of pocket to get that training.

Thank you.

Mm hmm. Sounds like we're on Member questions. Any other questions for the author, Senators? All right. Sorry. Appropriations needed to borrow our quorum for a minute, but we're back now. Would you like to close?

Yes. Want to definitely thank the sponsors. You know, when you look into the audience, everyone here has different texture and hair, and everyone's hair is just as valuable, just as important, as the other one person who sits next to them.

And I should be able to go to a hairstylist, and they are trained in having to deal with my hair, just like they have been trained in dealing with your hair. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 2166.

Thank you. All right. Was there a motion?

Motion. Here we go.

Lots of motion. Senator Becker, we'll have you move that bill and then we'll take the roll.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Alvardo-Gil? Alvarado-Gil, aye.. Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Becker? Becker, aye. Dodd? Eggman? Eggman, aye. Glazer? Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Niello? Niello, aye. Roth? Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wilk?

I got nine on that. Is that what you got, too? All right, nine to zero, but we'll leave it on call for the other Members who are coming back. Thank you to your witnesses. Thank you so much. And those in the audience who participate in that discussion.

All right, Assemblywoman, so do you want to take up this item nine here for Mr. Gibson?

I will do AB 2862 on behalf of...

That is... Yes. Okay.

So, good morning again. I do want to start by apologizing. I just received this information, so I will do my best with Assembly Member Gipson's bill. So thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2862, which...

Madam Chair.

Hold on just a moment. Yes.

If I may, just because this bill has some, a lot of questions, and if you just got it...

It really does.

Is this the last hearing that it can be heard in?

So it is double referred to Judic. I know there are many questions on this bill, and really, God bless this Assemblywoman for being willing to take it on, but I...

Yeah, I asked if there is another hearing, but I guess this is the last opportunity because it goes to Judiciary.

I'm not sure that would be... Yeah. Can you give me just one moment here? Okay. Okay. We're going to recess for just a moment.

Assemblywoman, with you acting as a representative here for Assembly Member Gipson, as you've heard from the Committee staff, there are many questions about this bill, and I'm reluctant to put you on the hot seat. The bill is also double referred. So the reason we took a break is to talk to the judiciary staff. We're running out of clock and we're running out of field here for some of these bills. So with your permission, on his behalf, I think what we'd like to do is pull the bill today, put it over to next week. But it is going to give us a, as our Pro Tem would say, a "crunchy timeline."

So we want to just encourage the author and the folks who are working on the bill to be in contact with both the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee staff, as well as the judiciary staff during that concurrently, over the next week, so that the issues in both of those committees can be resolved. I'd love to give you an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Member and then we'll pull the item as ... with colleagues.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will definitely make sure to relay that information to the Member. I do think it is best that he be here to answer the questions of this Committee, but also to prepare for judiciary. So I thank you and your staff for doing everything that you can to ensure that the bill does get heard when the author is able to be here.

You are very kind to have offered to help and to help him get through this. We appreciate you very much. Thank you so much for presenting your bills and helping us with his. So that being said, we will pull item nine, AB 2862 on behalf of Assemblymember Gipson. We will add it to the Business, Professions and Economic Development agenda for next week. But for those, if he would like it added back on that date, and it will also then be up next week in judiciary.

And so folks will, will need to pay attention to both committees at the same time moving forward. All right, then we will move on. And let's see, we have--the next item up is Assemblymember Haney, who is not here. And after him is Assemblymember Ward. But I believe Assemblymember Ward, you're going to present both of those bills, is that correct? All right, come on forward. Which one would you like to present first, Mister Haneys or your own?

I'll stay in final orders. We'll be with Assemblymember Haneys, AB 2115.

Great. So we'll start with 2115. Go ahead. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Senators, AB 2115 will transform California from a state with the most restrictive methadone laws into a state that leads in accessibility for methadone treatment. Methadone is proven to be the most effective treatment for people with opioid addiction. It helps them to change their lives and and the transition to sobriety.

It works by easing the debilitating symptoms of opioid withdrawal for people who have quit drugs like heroin and fentanyl. It also reduces the likelihood of dying from an opioid overdose by more than 50%. However, fewer than one in 10 people in the US with an opioid addiction are currently enrolled in treatment and thousands are dying each year.

Now, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Federal Government relaxed many of the methadone restrictions. These relaxed restrictions led to a higher rate of enrollment and increased patients access to medication. So, learning from that experience, California, we know, continues to have some of the outdated methadone policies which are more restrictive than federal regulations.

And this Bill, AB 2115, will make sure that California methadone regulations are aligned with federal law. With me today in support of the Bill are Doctor Jeffrey Hom, the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and Doctor Liz Johnson, an associate Professor of addiction medicine and emergency medicine.

All right, thank you both for being here. You each have two minutes. Go ahead when you are ready.

Good morning. Chair Ashby, Vice Chair Nguyen, Members of the business, professions and economic Development Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 2115.

My name is Jeffrey Hom, and I'm a senior physician in behavioral health in the San Francisco Department of Public Health, where I care for patients with opioid use disorder, also known as opioid addiction. As you all know, we're in the midst of a profound public health crisis nationally and in California.

During the first 4 hours of this hearing alone, five more Californians will die of an overdose. Fortunately, like other chronic illnesses, opioid use disorder can be effectively treated with medications. Methadone is the most well studied of these and reduces the risk of dying by 50%.

Despite this, fewer than 5% of nearly 1 million Californians with opioid use disorder are treated with methadone. We must increase access if we are to turn this crisis around and save lives. AB 2115 will help do this.

This Bill will allow for Clinicians to provide 72 hours of methadone to patients to treat their acute withdrawal symptoms while referring them to an opioid treatment program. AB 2115 simply aligns California law with federal law, which was recently updated to meet the needs of people with opioid use disorder.

Other jurisdictions have implemented this federal law and increased referrals to opioid treatment programs. I understand there are concerns about methadone safety. As a primary care Doctor, I appreciate that every medication must be prescribed thoughtfully for the right dose, for the right illness in the right dose.

But multiple studies of 72 hours methadone have only shown increases in linkage to treatment. Making methadone more accessible works and saves lives. And that's what this Bill will do. As a Doctor, I've seen the health consequences of opioid use disorder, and I have talked with families who have lost loved ones to an overdose.

But I've also seen how well people do when provided with the rights supports. Recovery is possible. But we must ensure people across California have every opportunity to start this life saving medication. And so I ask that you support AB 20115. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

I'm going to keep it pretty short because that was just an amazing testimony, but good afternoon, chair and Assembly Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. My name is Doctor Elizabeth Johnson. I'm an Assistant Professor of emergency medicine and addiction medicine at UC Davis Medicine Medical Center.

I'm also a staff physician at a methadone clinic right here in Sacramento. As an emergency physician, each shift, I witness the profound impact that the fentanyl and opioid epidemic has in our community.

My year long fellowship, in which I studied exclusively addiction medicine, impressed upon me the critical role of early intervention of this disease with treatments such as methadone, and I've seen it personally save hundreds of lives. Methadone is safe.

Methadone is an FDA approved medication to treat opioid use disorder and has been proven to reduce the risk of overdose death by more than 50%. Just as a background, there are very few interventions in medicine that have a 50% mortality reduction. It's truly a miracle drug.

As a physician at a methadone treatment program, I've seen countless instances where California's antiquated regulations create unnecessary obstacles for patients battling opioid use disorder, hindering their access to this life saving treatment. I strongly endorse Bill 2115 which enhances patient access to methadone, bringing these state practices in line with federal safety standards and current research findings.

This legislation is crucial for improving outcomes and addressing the opioid crisis effectively. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your work, too, and our communities. We appreciate you. All right those in the room in support with me too testimony. Go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Karen Lange, on behalf of San Francisco Mayor London Breed in strong support and sponsorship this morning. Thank you.

Thank you. Kelly Brooks. On behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support.

Great. Thank you.

on behalf of the County of San Diego in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, I'm Jennifer Alley, the Executive Director for COMP, the California Opioid Maintenance Providers Association. We have a concerns position on the Bill. Okay, I may address the Committee. I don't believe there's any formal opposition.

Thank you very much. So, the California opioid maintenance provider's been advocating on behalf of patients and providers for 30 years to ensure access to high quality, evidence based medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. And our COMP Members operate about 120 facilities and serve about 40,000 patients daily.

Are there any, is there anybody here in opposition to the Bill? That would be lead testimony. Go ahead. All yours.

Our Members strongly support the intent of expanding access to medication for individuals with opioid disorder. And we appreciate working with the sponsors and the author staff on the amendments. We have compromised on that are in the Bill.

However, we have one significant issue that's remaining, and this Bill will create an untested program, and that thus it's crucial to evaluate its safety and efficacy, as well as ensure that it doesn't create any unintended consequences.

As such, we request the Bill be amended to require data collection regarding the number of unique patients receiving medication in the program, number of repeat visits by patients, number of doses dispensed to each patient in total, and the number of facilities accessing to treatment and community treatment programs, we think it's critical to determine how this approach to facilitating access to opioid use disorder treatment in the community actually works.

And thank you very much for your time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you. Please do hang out in the front there in case somebody does have a question for you. Is there anybody else in the room in opposition that would like to offer me too testimony? No? Okay, we're going to bring it back to the dais and ask my colleagues if they have questions for the remember, stand in author here. Go ahead, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. You know, when I think of the methadone, I think of an ongoing treatment with a patient that's over a number of months and. But when you're talking about the emergency can you walk me through a patient who comes to you through the emergency? Then eventually, I'm assuming we'll get into a program.

Yeah. So through a program that you may be familiar with called the California Bridge program, we've been working tons at getting patients, meeting patients where they're at. So meeting them in the emergency Department and starting treatment for opioid use disorder, like suboxone or methadone in the emergency Department.

So what that would look like is a patient would come into us with opioid withdrawal or wanting to get help for opioid use disorder. We would start them on methadone, for example, give them a dose there, watch them, make sure that they're not too sedated and that it has the desired effect.

And then they would be seen by somebody called a substance use navigator, which is essentially a specialist in connecting patients from the emergency Department to outpatient resources.

So from there, depending on what time they come in and if it's on a weekend, they would be able to, they would actually schedule an appointment at a methadone clinic the next day. They would arrive there the next day, get their second dose of methadone, and then go through the methadone treatment program from there.

And you truly called it a miracle drug.

In terms of very few things in medicine really have a 50% mortality reduction.

So the way I try to kind of teach fellows in residents is that treating opioid use disorder or treating somebody who has an unintentional opioid overdose in the emergency department should not be something cool that we do at fancy academic centers.

It really should be standard of care, because not offering that to them is like not offering them aspirin for a heart attack or antibiotics for sepsis, because it really does save lives to that amount.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, one more. Senator Becker.

Yeah. I just want to thank the author for this Bill.

I think this is a critically important treatment, and I really appreciate the work that we've now done over several years, and this Bill will extend that to make this more available and some of our trips to another country who actually went and visited a mobile clinic and saw the, you know, how it works there.

And I just believe this is really important. So I appreciate it.

All right. Seeing no other comments, I just make one comment. Also appreciate the Bill, appreciate the witnesses here who are doing the hard work every day out in our community to serve folks. And this Bill is double referred, so it'll go to health next.

And to the extent that you have some request data collection is a pretty reasonable one. I'm sure the author will work with you, but I also think the Health Committee staff would be a good group for you to speak to in that regard.

Usually the medical community loves collecting data, so I can't imagine there'd be too many ruffled feathers around that. But we wouldn't do it in this Committee at this point. Is there a motion on the Bill, Senator Becker, did you make a motion?

I will make a motion.

Okay, so you have a motion from Senator Becker. Would you like an opportunity to close assemblymember?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And on behalf of Assemblymember Haney, I'm also happy to be able to pass back some of the feedback as well, and continuing to work with the sponsor and other supporters as well, on making sure that data collection is an opportunity that they can vet.

We, of course, don't want, you know, excessive administrative burdens that are otherwise going to sit back and complicate the implementation of some of this important activity. Because what we've seen here in the California landscape is ambiguity for some of these patients, ultimately resulting in less patients having access to methadones because of some of the existing intense requirements.

Like standing in line every day to receive a single dose of methadone. It's often dissuading some of the patients from care, and they have to spend far too much of their time getting enrolled and then staying enrolled than other aspects of their recovery, like finding a job in stable housing, which is interrupted.

So this Bill will make sure that patients can easily access treatment, remove ambiguity for providers, and prevent unnecessary deaths. And on behalf of Assembly Heaney, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Great. Motion from Senator Becker. Let's call the roll.

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

Senator Wilk, this is the Haney Bill. Do you want to.

Oh, I love that Bill. Aye.

Okay. Wilk? Aye.

All right. Well, with Senator Wilkes enthusiastic participation, I think we're at 90. We'll put it on call for Mister Haney and come back to it when we have a full audience.

All right. You have earned the right here to present your own Bill. Go ahead.

Thank you, ma'am.

I'm grateful. Well, Members and Madam Chair, thank you again for a chance to present Assembly Bill 2832. It would enable the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and the California Department of Food and Agriculture to take ownership of contracting with international entities in support of California small businesses.

Due to the state's restrictions on payment and contracting, both departments must rely on third party fiduciaries when conducting some of the following activities, handling contracts with trade show organizers paying via wire transfer or credit card, which is standard and expected payment for trade show organizers, paying in foreign currency, which is standard and expected payment for trade show organizers.

Some of these restrictions result in added financial costs as well as the limited flexibility and autonomy when conducting business with international entities. This bill will provide meaningful public contract code exemptions to allow both departments to enter into contracting and procurement agreements for international affairs.

This much needed change will make it more efficient to utilize existing economic development and trade promotion accounts and specify grant funds for the benefit of supporting California exporters. We do not have any support or opposition witnesses on file, and with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to voice support or opposition? You can come up to the mic now. Great, seeing no one. Colleagues? All right, opportunity to close, Assembly Member.

Would respectfully request for your aye vote.

Great. I just need a motion. Moved by Senator Eggman. We'll take the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, that's 8-0, but we'll leave it on call. Assembly Member, we'll get a few more Members down here. Thank you so much. And thank you for helping us move our agenda along. Assembly Member Ward, we appreciate you. Assembly Member Nguyen, you're up. All right.

All right. Good morning. I think it's still morning, right? Yeah, about 30 minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Did you know that, if you are looking to sell your home, there is a formal agreement that needs to be had with a listing agent? However, the same cannot be said if you're looking to buy a home.

AB 2992 requires an agreement between the buyer's agent and the buyers. Without legal protection, buyers and brokers are susceptible to potential disputes over compensation, legal uncertainties, and conflicts of interest. Here to speak in support of this bill is Anna Buck, Senior Legislative Advocate for the California Association of Realtors.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, representing nearly 200,000 real estate professionals here in California. We are pleased to be the sponsors of AB 2992. And I'd like to take this time to highlight the numerous benefits buyer broker compensation agreements offer homebuyers, real estate agents, and the market as a whole.

First and foremost, these agreements, which are currently statutorily required in 18 states, provide clear and defined roles and responsibilities between the buyer and their agent. This clarity helps to establish trust and ensures that both parties are on the same page from the outset.

When a buyer signs a representation agreement, their agent has a fiduciary duty and is committed to working in their best interest, providing dedicated service, expert advice, and advocating on behalf of their clients throughout the home buying process. Moreover, buyer broker agreements promote professionalism and accountability within the real estate industry.

By formalizing this relationship between buyers and their agencies, agreements set clear expectations for the level of service to be provided. This professional commitment ensures that agents are fully invested in their client success, leading to better outcomes for homebuyers.

Agents are motivated to leverage their expertise, market knowledge, and negotiation skills to secure the best possible deal for their clients. Furthermore, buyer broker agreements help to protect the investment of time and resources that real estate agents dedicate to their clients. The home buying process can be lengthy and complex, requiring significant time investment from real estate professionals.

When buyers commit to working exclusively with one agent through a buyer broker representation agreement, it fosters a collaborative relationship built on mutual respect. This partnership encourages agents to go the extra mile knowing their hard work will be rewarded and ultimately leads to a more successful and satisfying home buying experience for the client and the agent.

From a market perspective, buyer broker agreements contribute to a more stable and transparent real estate environment. They encourage fair competition among realtors and other real estate agents, as buyers are more likely to select professionals based on merit, expertise and the quality of services provided.

This competitive dynamic drives excellence within our industry, raising the standard of care and service that all buyers expect to receive. In conclusion, buyer broker representation agreements are a vital tool in enhancing the home buying experience. They foster trust, professionalism, accountability, reduce conflicts of interest, protect the investment of agents, and contribute to a more competitive and transparent real estate market. Thank you for your time, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

All right, is there anyone else in the audience in a me too position that would like to come forward and support the bill with your name, organization, and position?

Hi there. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of Zillow in support.

Great, thank you. Is there anyone in the room in opposition to the bill? All right then, we'll bring it back to the dais. Colleagues, questions? All right, I do have one comment, and it sounds like you have a motion from Senator Wilk. As you saw, I'm sure, in the comments from this committee staff, we do have two concerns. One is the placement, which section of the code this should be placed in, whether it's the civil code or where you're currently proposing it to be placed. And then the second piece is navigating the current and pending lawsuit.

However, I believe both of these issues are better resolved, or more appropriately resolved in Senate Judiciary, which is where you are double referred to next. I will see you there should you successfully leave this committee. But I do think that you should be prepared to deal with those two issues as you head to that committee, should this group body decide to send you on. Okay. All right. Would you like an opportunity to close, Assemblywoman?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing that up. And, yes, we're in conversation with that committee as well. This bill has no opposition, bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. You have a motion from Senator Wilk. We'll take the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, 9-0, but we'll leave it on call. A few Members still to come. Thank you, Assemblymember. Have a great day. And we are--we're gonna take up consent calendar for those of you who might be here for item 12. The item was pulled by the author. That was AB 2980 by Low. That item has been pulled. So we'll go ahead and take up our consent calendar. Great. This is item 2 and--no, 5 and 6. Sorry, 5 and 6.

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

All right, that's 9-0 on consent. We'll leave it on call for the other Members. And then we have--while we're waiting for our last Assembly Member--we have items 1 and 2 that still have not been voted on, and we can take those up. Let's go to item 1, which is Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry, her cannabis industrial hemp bill. Is there a motion?

I have a motion.

All right, Senator Archuleta moves the bill. Let's take that up.

Motion is do pass to Senate Health Committee. Ashby. Aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Becker. Dodd. Eggman. Aye. Glazer. Menjivar. Aye. Niello. Aye. Roth. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wilk.

Okay, that item has six votes. We'll leave it on call. Let's take up item 2. This is Mister Jones-Sawyer's bill. We also need a motion here.

I'll move it.

Moved by Senator Becker. This is AB 1610, file item 2.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Ashby. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Becker. Aye. Dodd. Eggman. Aye. Glazer. Menjivar. Aye. Niello. Aye. Roth. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wilk. Aye.

All right, that's 9-0 on item 2. We'll also leave that one on call. That's it for our items that haven't been heard other than item 12, where we wait for Mister Alvarez. I think we might have a few Members who weren't here for file item 3, which was Assemblywoman Weber's athletic trainers bill, AB 796. Maybe we could open the roll on that and add a couple more folks if they would like to jump in. This is item 3, AB 796.

Okay, motion is do pass as amended to Senate Public Safety Committee. Current vote: 7-0. Chair voting aye. Nguyen. Aye. Dodd. Glazer. Roth. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wilk. Aye.

Okay, that one sits at nine now. We'll leave it on call and go to file item 4, which is Weber again, AB 2166 barbering and cosmetology. Currently nine votes on record.

Okay. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Dodd. Glazer. Roth. Wilk. Aye.

All right, that one's at 10. Just did consent. The Haney bill, I don't think we have any additional folks, or Ward. He did. He came in late. All right, so we will wait for Assembly Member Alvarez. Okay.

Welcome, Assembly Member. All right, we are on your item here, AB 2996. Whenever you are ready. This is our last item on file today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the committee for your patience getting over here. Thanks to the staff also for working on the spill and the analysis. Just very briefly, my interest in this started as a result of the housing crisis. There's still, unfortunately, other hurdles such as insurance hurdles that make it difficult in obtaining property insurance in order to build housing. And so there was a specific project in my community, 5000 units of first time home buyer opportunities and condominiums that actually to this day has not broken ground as a result of the insurance situation.

So this bill is before you, which attempts to, essentially would utilize the bond market through the Infrastructure Bank, the IBank, to extend payments that are due as a result of potentially an assessment as a result of participating in the FAIR Plan, which we know is already oversubscribed.

So this bill allows the opportunity for the market to utilize a new tool, hopefully incentivize folks from staying in the market, perhaps returning to the market. A little small part of the overall insurance crisis that you all are well aware of. So I respectfully request your aye vote. And Mr. Dunmoyer will be my only witness today.

All right. Thank you. Welcome. You have two minutes. Go right ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators. Dan Dunmoyer, President and CEO of the California Building Industry Association. Thank you, Mr. Alvarez, for that presentation. I'll just amplify a few comments here. As Mr. Alvarez said, his district has a great project called Otay Mesa. We have about 4000 condominiums, which is the most affordable and attainable for sale housing in California.

It's about half the median price. According to the California Association of Realtors, the median price for a home in California now is $904,000. So this is a home product for $500,000. So the question is kind of why is CBI getting into the insurance business? As you know, when you buy a home, unless you pay cash, it's principal interest tax and insurance. And when insurance is not available, you really can't sell homes.

You can't resell old homes, but you also can't sell new homes. We have broad based support from this. And because of that, it's not just homebuilders, but this also. This bill will expand the capacity of the fair plan to take on more risk, which we're asking for as the Commissioner works out his sustainable strategy. And so this is a stopgap measure to make sure the FAIR Plan is more solvent or at least has greater claims paying capacity. This is a tried and tested approach.

The IBank that's before this committee. For those of you who know Mr. Vargas, now Congressman Vargas. In 2002, an identical concept was floated and that concept created a backstop and a funding mechanism when the workers comp market in California collapsed after it was deregulated.

Over a billion and a half dollars in bonds were floated successfully and every claim was paid. So our goal in doing this is to expand the FAIR Plan. The great part about this, this is an optional tool. The FAIR Plan can use it, and it would use it if there's a major fire and the FAIR Plan was to prove itself unable to pay claims under its current claims paying capacity.

So the only last thing I'll say is there are currently 10 fires burning in the State of California as we sit here today. So we hope this tool is never used, but there's a 50% chance it will be used this year. Let me conclude by just saying we do have a broad based coalition of 26 groups. To best of my knowledge, no one's opposed to it. And I would ask for your support today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody in the room who'd like to provide me too testimony in support.

Good morning, Chair and Senators. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau, in support.

Thank you.

Indira McDonald here on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Thank you. All right, anyone in the room in opposition of this bill, please come forward. Seeing no one, we'll come back to the dais. Colleagues, do you have questions for the author? Senator Eggman.

Thank you. Can you, the witness or the author, talk about, so that the IBank is about infrastructure, right. So this is taken a step away from infrastructure. And how do you respond to that?

I would say that it doesn't take away. So all the costs of administering this program would still be on the insurance market. It would not be a cost. There would be no associated costs that would be drawn down from the existing IBank structure. I would also say that it's an additional tool. It's not taken away from any work they currently do.

It would allow for IBank to be the conduit, if you will, of issuance of these bonds, which would be the way in which you could amortize essentially the cost of a potential wildfire or other major disaster that would then...

And then the FAIR Plan is on the hook for the bonds?

No, they would be allowed to issue the bonds, but all of the responsibility and all of the potential cost and risk. Thank you. Would be on the private insurance market. And it's written that way specifically. And there were more, I think, technical amendments made in order to make that absolutely 100% clear.

Okay. Just another way for the FAIR Plan to be able to fund payouts.

Correct. Instead of all at once. If you go for a bond, you can pay it over time, and it hopefully becomes an attractive tool for the market to not leave California.

And do we, and we have faith that we've tested that there will be a bond market for insurance?

I think I'll defer to Mr. Dunmoyer and the history of, as he referred to in his testimony.

Yeah, you're spot on. The key questions there. So again, this was tested as an insurance mechanism in 2002 through 2010. So you're correct, Senator. It's historically viewed as an infrastructure bank, but we as a state have used it effectively, as the Assembly Member said correctly, 100% of the cost is borne by insurers.

Why this is a benefit to them. Again, amplifying the comment. Within 30 days, upon lack of funds in the FAIR Plan, the insurance industry has to write the billion dollar checks. This allows for the IBank to pursue the bond market. And in floating, it's like instead of paying a mortgage in one day, you pay it in 10 years.

So it basically reduces how much is paid quickly, which keeps the market more stable. To your last question about the availability. It has worked to the tune of a billion and a half dollars in the past. The market is the market. But right now the IBank is in very strong position.

It's only capitalized 2 billion and has capacity of 15 billion. So we are not over capitalized at this point in the IBank. Again, Wall Street is Wall Street. But right now, money has proven to be available for bonds like this and we're hopeful that they would be able to place it. If for some reason they don't, then there's not the tool, but there's no risk to the FAIR Plan because the insurers bear the risk.

Thank you.

Okay, first, Senator, Senator Eggman, did you get your answer sufficiently? Okay. And then we have Senator Niello and then Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dunmoyer, you indicated that this tool, if needed, but wouldn't be used if not needed, which implies that we hope we don't need it. Tell us what happens, if this is not passed and the circumstance comes about where it would otherwise be needed, Talk us through what happens.

Well, Senator, there's a technical term we use in the insurance world. Having worked there for 25 years, it's called the death spiral. So this is how it works...

Sounds fun.

I know.

Yeah, we have that as well.

If, in fact, the FAIR Plan were to run out of funds without this backstop mechanism, then the FAIR Plan assesses the member companies, which in English means State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, etcetera, and immediately have to pay within 30 days. Now, smaller companies are the ones you need to be worried about, a smaller carrier.

So a small California based company like Paddocks Association could go insolvent. We saw that after the Paradise Fire. So without this mechanism, the ability for insurers to pay over time, they have to write a big check out of surplus today that jeopardizes the claims they'll have in that fire, but also jeopardizes their ability to pay the FAIR Plan. By using this instrument, you effectively loan, over 10, 20 years, this money.

And it means companies have to pay a smaller amount over time, which means they don't have to non renew as many policies. They don't have to go bankrupt. So it is, in a sense, a bridge to keep the program working well. But without this mechanism, there's going to be immediate payment and the smaller carriers will go bankrupt.

The larger companies, still, in order to keep their surplus proper to their risk, will have to start non-renewing more companies, non-renewing more insureds. And that's going to result in what I just described as a death spiral. So this mitigates it. It doesn't stop it, but it does mitigate that from occurring.

Death spiral. Sounds lovely.

I know.

But thank you for that.

All right. Senator Archuleta?

Yes. I guess I've got some comments. I'm thinking that you have become, IBank is a pillar to the industry, the real estate industry, because then the other, of course, would be the insurance industry. And what we're trying to do in California is build housing and so on, and one begets the other.

Without the housing, then we're in trouble. Without the insurance to provide for that housing and construction and maintenance. And then, of course, backing of the FAIR Plan. You know, the IBank has got to be the mothership, I guess, in this case, to make sure that California stabilizes its insurance situation. And I guess that's it in a nutshell. That's it.

I would also add, Senator Archuleta, that I think we often read the stories about homeowners being dropped and those, that's the very common story we all hear from our own constituents. I think, at least I know I have and every other Member of the Legislature I've spoken to.

What we don't hear are the stories of those who don't even get housed because the housing cannot get built. And that's what this bill, this bill is really. How this issue came to me is how do we provide opportunities to make it more attractive so that individuals can go in and build those units that are not being built today. And there's a potential tool that could be utilized.

If they feel that this can help minimize their risk, they might say, I want to participate in this as a potential solution. If I get hit with that multibillion dollar assessment, if that wildfire does occur, at least I have to 10, 20 years to pay it out. Therefore, I continue to stay in California and I continue to be able to insure products like building new housing.

And I'm glad the IBank has been proactive. And with that, I'll move the bill.

Thank you. Senator Dodd.

Yes. Assembly Member, when I read this bill over the weekend, I just, you know, I've been involved a lot in the insurance space and, you know, in the Legislature over, since the fires, 2015 to 17. And this is just proactive. This is something that's so necessary.

I really appreciate the sponsors and just the vision this had on this bill because it's incredibly important. Hopefully we don't need to use it, but boy, to have it in case we need it is incredibly important. Well done.

Thank you.

Okay, other colleagues with comments? All right then, Assembly Member, opportunity to close.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the discussion and the interest in trying to help a little bit with the insurance crisis and building and the housing crisis. Two things at once. Appreciate and would love to have your support on this bill.

All right. And did Senator Dodd, did you make a motion? Senator Archuleta. Okay, Senator Archuleta gave you a motion. We'll call the roll.

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

All right, that is 11 to zero, but we will leave it on call, Assembly Member.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for hustling over to help us out. Appreciate you. Okay, colleagues, that's it for our agenda. I know a few of you still need to vote, so what I'm going to do is run through our roll here twice.

And so hopefully, if there's anybody left in the building, Senators who'd like to add on or vote, you can make it down by the second time that we run through. All right, we'll start with file item one, AB 2223 by Assemblywoman Aguiar Curry.

Motion is due. Pass the Senate Health Committee, current votes, six to zero. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair not voting. [Roll Call]

Which one?

Aguiar Curry.

Not voting.

Okay, so that sits at eight. We will leave it on call. File item two, AB 1610 by Jones Sawyer.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee, current votes, nine to zero, with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Okay, that one sits with 11. We'll leave it on call. Next up, file item three, AB 796 by Weber.

Do pass as amended to Senate Public Safety Committee. Current vote is, nine to zero, with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Dodd, Don I. Glazer. Roth. Smallwood. Cuevas. Smallwood. Cuevas, aye.[Roll Call]

This is her athletic trainers bill.

All right, that one sits at 11. We'll leave it on call. Next up is also Weber, AB 2166. This is her barbering and cosmetology Bill.

Motion is do Pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current votes, 10 to zero, with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that one sits at 11 as well. We'll leave it on call. Next up would be our consent calendar. Items which are items 5 and 6 by assemblymember Chen.

Current vote's 9-0. [Roll Call]

All right, that also sits at 11. We will move to file item seven. This is Assemblymember Haney, AB 2115. His controlled substance Bill.

Motion is do pass to Senate Health Committee, current votes, nine to zero. [Roll Call]

All right, that one sits at 12, but we will close the roll and send it on its way to Health Committee. Next up, file item eight. This is assemblymember Ward, AB 2832 is economic development Bill.

Motion is do pass to Senate governmental organization Committee. Current vote is, eight to zero with chair voting aye. Vice Chair not voting. [Roll Call]

All right, that's 11-0. We'll close it out and send it on its way to government organizations. Next up, file item nine was pulled, by the way. And 10 was also pulled. So file item 11 by assemblymember Nguyen. AB 2992, real estate law.

Motion is do pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Current votes, nine to zero with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

We're sitting at 12 on that one and we will send it on its way out. That is out. Next up, file item 12 by assemblymember Alvarez. AB 2996 is his fair plan association has an urgency on it.

Motion is do pass to Senate Insurance Committee. Current votes, 11 to zero, chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that one's out as well. 12 to nothing. Go back to the top of the order. This is gonna be our last go through. All right, file item one. AB 22, Hi guys. AB 2223. By Assemblywoman Aguiar Curry.

Cannabis industrial hemp, current vote is eight to zero, chair voting aye. Vice Chair not voting. [Roll Call]

Alright, that is a 9-0 and that is out. That item moves on to health, I believe. All right, file item two by Mister Jones Sawyer. This is his cannabis Bill. AB 1610.

Motion is do pass to Senate preparations Committee. Current vote, 11 to zero. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, 12-0. That one's out and on its way to appropes. Next up, AB 796, file item three by Weber athletic trainers.

Motions do passed as amended to Senate Public Safety Committee. Current votes, 11 to zero, with chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Great. That item has 12. It's on its way. Next up, file item four, also by Weber. This is her barbering cosmetology. AB 2166.

Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote, 11 to zero, chair and vice chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar has 12. Both bills out and on their way. File item seven. Assemblymember Haney. AB 2115 controlled substances. Did you already vote on this one, Senator Glazer?

Great. 12-0, that is also out. Consent calendar items 5 and 6 by Chen above 1862 and AB 2107.

All right, I think that's it then. Don't believe we have any other items outstanding. That's it for the business, professions and economic development for today. Thank you.