Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate Ag Committee. The Senate Ag Committee will begin in 30 seconds. The Senate Act Committee has come to order. We will begin as a Subcommitee. Given that we only have two. zero, we now have three Members present. We will go ahead and establish a quorum. Please begin the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a quorum has been established. We'll go ahead and move with the agenda. And we have Senator Umberg here to present on SB312. Senator Umberg, if you're ready, please, please begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been here 12 years, but I think this is the first time I've appeared in the Senate Agricultural Committee. So I'm a little nervous, so I hope you'll indulge me. I want to thank the chair and Rachel Everhard for helping to make this Bill a better Bill.

And we accept the Committee's amendments with regard to the privacy concerns of the American Kennel Club. In 2017, California banned the sale of puppies at retail stores. However, it's apparent that other clandestine sales channels continue to thrive, often preying on uninformed consumers.

Tens of thousands of puppies are currently being bred out of state, typically in what are known as puppy mills, and then sold, often online and shipped to California, sometimes directly, other times through brokers. California State law has never required shippers of dogs to send health certificate forms to CDFA.

However, nearly every other state in the country requires anyone shipping a dog into their state for sale to submit a copy of a completed health certificate to the state's equivalent of the California Department of Agriculture.

What SB 312 does is it mandates that dog importers submit health certificates electronically to California Department of Agriculture and to buyers within 10 days of shipment and requires those certificates to be made publicly available.

Given the high propensity for misleading consumers and the large volume of dogs entering the state, the health certificate information is in the public interest for individual consumers to review to confirm information conveyed to them by sellers. Also helpful to humane law enforcement agencies as they work to investigate fraud and malfeasance.

With me to testify, and I thank them because they've been on this journey for a while. Brittany Benesi of the ASPCA and Julianna Tetlow, on behalf of the San Diego Humane Society, I request your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Hurtado and Members of the Committee. Brittany Benesi, on behalf of the ASPCA. For decades, the ASPCA and our partners have worked to address the puppy mill pipeline, a predatory industry that makes cruel out of state breeding conditions profitable by misleading consumers with wholesome images and manipulative financial tactics.

This is difficult work, not only because cases of cruelty are difficult to witness, but because the actors involved in this industry are highly adept at misleading the public, avoiding oversight and obfuscating information that would impact their bottom line.

This is why in 2014 the ASPCA sponsored AB 1809, which required certificates of health to accompany dogs coming into the state for the purpose of resale to help ensure that dogs coming into California are healthy and ideally not born of cruelty.

Rather than directing CVI's to a centralized database, 1809 directed documentation to county health departments, assuming that local transparency with the health departments and animal control agencies would gain pertinent information as to the population and health of dogs in their communities.

However, as illustrated by the LA Times investigation, the lack of capacity at the county level, as well as misdirection and subsequent destruction of CVI's, this has not been the case and a clearer, more transparent process is needed. SB 312 offers this solution.

It requires that health certificates for dogs imported for sale be submitted directly to CDFA and may be publicly available, giving consumers access to clear information about where their puppy came from and whether it was healthy at the time of shipment.

It also offers the state and municipalities information as to regarding the health of the animals in our communities, where they are coming from, and whether misleading or predatory actors need to be addressed. In 2014, California tried to ensure this transparency at the local level.

We have learned that a centralized database is needed for that information to be meaningful. SB312 will ride our path, align us with other state processes and help ensure that cruelty is not being imported in California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee Julianna Tetlow on behalf of San Diego Humane Society, a nonprofit animal welfare organization, pardon me, agency contracted to provide animal care and animal control to 13 municipalities in San Diego County.

As an agency responsible for public safety, animal welfare and enforcing state and local animal laws, we are on the front lines of the crisis created by the unregulated influx of out of state puppies.

These animals are often bred in large scale facilities with minimal oversight, shipped into California through online sales and third party brokers with no meaningful transparency about where they come from or what conditions they were raised in. California, consumers have no reliable way to verify the origin or health status of the animals that they're purchasing.

When something goes wrong, when the puppy arrives sick or the breeder disappears, these families are left with emotional distress, unexpected vet bills and no recourse. These families often turn to us and our colleagues in animal care and control to investigate, but we are operating in the dark.

California currently has no record of where these puppies are coming from, making enforcement nearly impossible and making it hard for policymakers to design appropriate and effective laws.

SB 312 changes that with a simple solution that conforms California with other states approach by requiring these health certificates for dogs imported into California to be shared with both the buyer and electronically submitted to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

SB 312 gives consumers access to clearer, factual information about where a puppy came from and whether it was healthy and vaccinated at the time of import. SB 312 helps protect puppy buyers from bad actors hiding behind false identities and helps families make informed choices when bringing a new pet into their lives. We respectfully ask your aye vote.

Do we have any additional individuals here in support of this measure? Please state your name and organization.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Karen Lange, on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, which represents a little under 300 public and private animal shelters in the state, along with Humane World, both in strong support today, want to commend the author for doing this. Thank you so much for leaning in on this issue. It's critical. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sosan Madanat, W Strategies here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund and strong support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Elana Klein on behalf of Social Compassion and Legislation and strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no other individuals here in support, we'll move to opposition. We have no registered opposition to this measure, but is there anyone in this room that would like to state their opposition to? Seeing none. We'll go ahead and move back to Members of the Committee for any questions or comments.

I thank the Chair and I thank the author. I just have one question. Looking into the future, how effective is this going to be? Is this going to make a big difference? Is this going to stop the sort of cruelty that we're hearing about? Thank you.

Well, thank you, Senator McNerney. This is one step. This is not a panacea. This is not going to stop folks from engaging in puppy mill conduct, but it's going to add a layer of transparency and we're hopeful that transparency will then curtail those kinds of practices.

What we need to do is we need to form coalitions with other states because these puppy mills are largely out of state and have those out of state prosecutors actually enforce their own laws to make sure that fraud is not perpetrated on Californians.

So will there be follow up legislation to continue the improvement?

There's three bills actually in this space right now 2, one by Assemblymember Bennett, one by Assemblymember Berman, that all deal with, with similar issues. So the answer to your question is this is a continuing quest to protect those whose voices actually who rely on us for voice. So thanks.

I believe we have a question by our Vice Chair and then followed by Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator Umberg, for bringing this forward. I certainly see the intent of this Bill. I do have some questions in terms of previous exemptions. Exemptions for working dogs, including law enforcement, seeing eye dogs and other dogs that are called in for emergency services. Your Bill does not specifically address that.

Can you help to reassure this Committee that those exemptions and protections would still be in place in the law?

I'm going to turn to our experts here that are sitting beside me. But if someone is shipping, whether it's a service dog or any other kind of animal to California who is, you know, is suffering some disease or where there's misinformation, I would suggest this would apply. But let me turn to the experts here.

Yes, thank you so much for the question. As it stands right now, these certificates are already required at the federal level to accompany animals and dogs that are, you know, crossing state lines. The certificates are also already required by the state to be provided to the local county health officers.

There hasn't been, as far as we know, any concerns or issues as for the transport or sale of police officer dogs, seeing eye animals. So we don't anticipate that this would create any new additional burden for them.

But it does take away the exemption previously allowed by law?

I don't think there was an exemption previously allowed by law. This was a little bit of a. So when we first introduced the Bill, there was exemption language in the legislation. We worked with the policy Committee. We've been double referred.

So we worked with the policy Committee in business and professions and they actually suggested that we might consider removing that until we hear that there is a legitimate concern. So it was a preemptive oopsie that we have corrected by removing it.

And you know, certainly if any of the organizations who work with these folks do come to us and share that they have concerns with how this Bill would impact them, we would absolutely work with them on that.

Okay. I appreciate you being open to work with them. So I I've trained companion dogs throughout my career and there is a very small window in order to match those, those dogs with their future owners.

And my concern is that without that exemption, we may be stuck in kind of bureaucratic time zones where those puppies or young animals may not be able to be matched in time to form that bond.

So I'm just a little concerned that without that exemption, explicit in this law, that we're going to stumble upon this and have to come back with cleanup language. So thank you for being open to that and I encourage any organizations that are concerned to reach out to you.

The other question that I have is in these health certificates, and this is for my education, how do we specifically identify pregnant dogs or dams that could potentially be bringing in animals for puppy mills that are essentially would not be born until they come into California?

That's a great question for which I don't have an answer.

I would anticipate that that would be the responsibility of the veterinarian who is signing off on the health certificate, that they would do a preliminary physical exam of the animal prior to their being imported for sale.

The puppies would then be California puppies if they are born in California, but the mother of the dam would be inspected by a veterinarian prior to import, which would then travel with the health certificate.

Okay, so hypothetically, a dam can be impregnated, then have a health certificate showing that the dam is not pregnant, but within the 63 days of gestation, make it into California, have a litter, and that litter would then be imported as California dogs.

Right? but do you see that as a whole in terms of what you're trying to achieve? Because I know the problem that you're trying to achieve and I also know that there's mindsets of having to get around the law.

And I just want to be mindful that we're not now creating a pregnant dam mill in California where folks are trying to get around the law.

So I think that is both an important question and a good suggestion. Currently there's no indication on the certificate that the dog is not pregnant. In other words, they don't have to make an affirmative representation the dog is not pregnant, but that would be important. So we'll take that into consideration.

Thank you. I appreciate it. And thank you for, for looking out for our pet population.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank the author for and the sponsors for bringing this forward. It's a, and I'll be an aye vote and would be interested in being a co author of the Bill if you're taking them on still.

This been, an issue been around for a long time and I'm a Member of the outdoor caucus here and generally people who are in groups like that are sophisticated enough to know not to, you know, engage in this buy sell activity.

But it's, you know, it's sort of the rank and file consumer, for lack of a better way to put it. It's not necessarily sophisticated or just looking for a puppy for their kids or whatever.

And it may be, you know, they want, you know, the best chocolate lab they can find or whatever, even though it's, it's a pet for home and not going to be a field dog and they go down this path and everything goes wrong.

So I think this will go a long, long way to, as you said earlier, Senator Umberg, to kind of put a dent in this problem, if not just solve a lot of it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Senator Cortese, we'd be honored to add you as a co author. We have infinite capacity for co authorship. So thank you. Simply thank the Committee and thank Ms. Brindisi and also her Brenesi and Ms. Tetlow for their both commitment testimony. Urge an aye vote.

Did I hear a motion from Senator? Okay, we have a motion. With that, Assistant, can you please call the roll on this Measure?

File Item 2, SB 312 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, the vote is 40 and that Bill will place it on call. At this moment I would like to invite Senator Rubio up. But before you get started, you can come on up. Before you get started, we will go ahead and move on the proposed consent calendar which includes file.

We first need to adopt the rules.

Well, first we gotta adopt the rules, of course, because this is our first hearing for the year. So let's adopt the Committee rules. Assistant, you don't need a vote. Just without objection. Without objection. The 2025-2026 Senate Ag Committee rules are adopted and then now we're moving on to the consent calendar, which we have one Bill.

File item three, SB341. We have a motion. Mr. Cortese. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

4-0. And the consent calendar item will be placed on call to allow all Members to vote. And we'll go ahead and move with File item number one. SB18 by Senator Rubio.

Please begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of this Committee for the opportunity to present this wonderful bill, SB 18. This is an important bill that would establish the Food Desert Elimination Grant Program under the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

I want to thank the Chair and the Committee Members for the work you've done on this, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. And what this bill will do, it will authorize the Department to award grants to grocery stores operators to support the opening of new grocery stores in food desert communities.

These are areas where families struggle to have access to fresh and affordable food. Every Californian deserves nutritious food, but in too many of our communities, that's not possible. Residents of food deserts are forced to travel long areas, long distances to find grocery stores with healthy food options.

Which leaves our communities going to the corner liquor store, grabbing snacks, or going to fast food place places, which is not healthy. They're left with just ultra processed, unhealthy food sources that will contribute to poor health outcomes. The goal of this bill is just simply to increase access to affordable, fresh, and nutritious food for families who need it the most.

And as an educator, I can attest to the fact that what our students eat impacts how they perform, from being hyper based on all the sugar that they had or just, you know, kind, I mean, to my class in the morning and it was constant where they're saying that they can't think, they can't concentrate.

And I think it's critically important to their growth and their educational outcomes and performance. It impacts a child's ability to learn, grow, and succeed. And it's going to create this cycle of them being disadvantaged and not being able to perform at their full potential.

California has the opportunity today to lead in this issue by creating meaningful change and ensuring that families get the food that they deserve in these food deserts and they have access to healthy grocery items. And families struggling must be also given the opportunity to make better options.

What I think is equally important that gets overlooked is that this will also bring jobs to communities where they're desperately needed and will create economic opportunities. Again, these are uncertain times. And so I think that this is a win win for everyone and particularly the State of California. Here with me today is Leticia Garcia, Director of Government Relations with the California Grocers Association, and Michael Marks, a fresh food advocate and Your Produce Man. If I may... Can they start?

Please begin.

Hi. Good morning. Leticia Garcia with the California Groceries Association. And I'd love to thank the author for her continued work on this bill and as well as the Committee, and thank you for all your hard work. So, you know, at CGA, we constantly get asked how, how do you bring a grocery store into your community?

And it's not that simple of an answer because it's a very, very hefty investment that our grocers have to make. Minimum, it's a $15 million investment, and that's depending on the locations that you live in. So what this grant program will do is give a financial incentive to grocers to go into these communities that are highly underserved.

Whether it's through, you know, helping them site or whatever it can be. It's a very expensive investment, and our members want to see their investment thrive. So this grant program will make a change, and it's a practical solution. And like the Senator said, it not only brings in fresh fruits and vegetables and daily options for these community members, but it also is an economic incentive. It creates jobs. It's an anchor store. If it's in a shopping center, it brings in more foot traffic to neighboring businesses. And so, you know, this isn't just for members.

This isn't just for a community to get fresh fruits and vegetables, but it also helps them thrive a little bit more. And on the table right now, there's $60 million available through the Healthy Food Financing Initiative from the federal government, and that money is available for the state to apply for it. And, you know, it's not state money, it's federal money. It's not matching dollars. And this will be a great investment into all our community, so we respectfully ask for an aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators. My name is Michael Marks, known as Your Produce Man for 36 years on CBS 13 and GoodDay Sacramento. It's an honor to be here to speak on behalf of this bill. Agriculture, as you know, is still the backbone of this great golden state.

And over my many years speaking to school children all around the state, I've seen way too often, 40 years ago, maybe one or two children who might have been overweight. But today, it's a very different story. And it's not always their fault, not their family's fault, not even their neighborhood's fault.

So many of these, you know, California feeds the nation, but yet there are way too many food deserts here in California. Right here in Sacramento, there are way too many. And I, you know, to get your nutrition to get your calories from a liquor store, to get your calories from a convenience store or the fast food restaurant.

That's not going to cut it. One in three US tax dollars goes to health care. That's $2 trillion. $2 trillion every single year. 600,000 deaths every year from diet related deaths, and most of that is preventable. Most of that is reversible with a healthy diet. Food security is about calories and the quantity of those calories.

I'm concerned about food nutrition, nutrition security. That's about the quality of those calories. Black communities, Latino communities have far greater risk of not just food security, but nutrition insecurity. The nutrition has a direct relation to education, as Senator Rubio said. These little kids, their brains need nutrition from plants, not from packages that were produced in a plant.

They need their nutrition from nature, not from a package. The SNAP program has been offered to help, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I'd like to put the N back in snap. I'd like to put that nutrition back in SNAP. Let me leave you with something. Just 10 seconds. I can teach you.

AG Kawamura was the Secretary of California Department of Food and Ag for several years. He grew celery. I want to teach you in 10 seconds how to pick out the best celery. Light green in color, that's sweet celery. Heavy for its size. That means there's a lot of juice in there. Give it a quick little squeeze.

Did you hear the squeak? A squeaking celery is a fresh celery. Now that's going to help you. But for too many families in a food desert, they can't find celery. It's easier to find a car in a food desert than it is to find a carrot. Thank you so much for listening. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. We'll go ahead and move to take any other individuals in this room that would like to take testify in support of this. Not testify, but state their support for this measure. Okay. No. Moving on to opposition. I don't have any registered opposition. Do we have anyone in this room who wish to state the position in opposition? Okay, we'll move to back to Committee Members and see if there's questions or comments. Okay, we have one comment from the Vice Chair.

Again, I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator for bringing this forward. Food deserts and food insecurity, a big problem. And I thank you for your lesson on freshness of celery. But I mean, I think that's going to have to be part of the solution is not only providing fresh food, but education and getting people into the habit of eating good food instead of fast foods and so on. So I guess my only comment is, let's move forward with this. I don't think it really addresses the root cause of food insecurity, but it's something we're going to have to do in the short term. Thank you.

Thank you. And now to the Vice Chair.

I just want to thank the author. Senator Rubio, you do an exceptional job of connecting your bills with the outcome of children. And as an educator, I just want to thank you for continuing on that mission with something as basic as solving our problems around food deserts and making that connection that children that are hungry cannot learn, and children that don't learn will not be able to fulfill their dreams. So thank you very much for being consistent and for continuing to look out for the children of California.

Did I hear a motion on this? Well, move to the author to close, actually.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I also want to share a little bit real quickly. When I was an educator, one of the things that we did well in my school was teach students how to make a healthy meal with three ingredients.

Because oftentimes in these communities, these kids are left alone after they go home because parents are working late hours. And so the common practice was to leave money so they can go buy McDonald's or whatever they need to eat. And that's unacceptable. Again, we really try to educate and also, just like Mr. Marks here, teach them what's important, and that's fruits and vegetables. So I'm really thankful for that little mini lesson.

But I think it's a win win, like I said, and as my guest shared, it will bring economic vitality to these communities that need that little boost to bring in food traffic, which leads to higher tax dollars in communities that provide greater services as well. So, again, this is a win win. And thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on this measure? Okay, we have one by Senator McNerney. With that, Assistant, can you please call the roll?

File item one, SB 18 by Senator Rubio. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The vote is 4-0, and we'll place that bill on call. Thank you. Okay, we have one more bill left, one bill presentation. File item 4, SB 493. We will... Is he on his way? We will go ahead and take a two minute recess and check back in shortly. And we hope we can get the rest of the Committee hearing going. Thank you.

All right, the Senate Ag Committee is coming back to order for Senator Josh Becker. The last bill on our file items here today, file item number four, SB 493. And Senator Josh Becker, you can begin when you are ready.

Thank you for your patience. It's always fun to be able to come back and present in one of these beautiful Capitol conference rooms. I'm here to present SB 493, which would revise how compensation is determined for secretary managers of a District Agricultural Association. These secretary managers handle all critical operations behind the scenes. Thank you.

They manage staff facilities, budgets, and marketing. They secure corporate sponsorships, plan events, coordinate with media community groups. They establish rules, organize exhibit spaces, ensure safety through proper coordination of emergency services. They work with government level agencies at all levels, maintain fairgrounds for emergency use, emergency use year round, often managing multiple locations simultaneously.

In essence, they're responsible for every aspect of fairground operations from planning to executions. And these fairgrounds, as you know, are not just venues for entertainment or a storied part of our agricultural history. They're actually critical infrastructure that serve as the backbone of the state's emergency network. During the COVID quarantine, many fairgrounds were used as testing and vaccine locations. That's where I got mine. All of them are managed by secretary managers who are on call 24/7 for emergencies.

Yet current state law prevents some secretary managers from receiving competitive salaries and benefits that are commensurate with the work they perform when compared to other similar positions. And this vastly limits recruitment and retention opportunities. So this bill renames fair managers to be secretary managers of District Agricultural Association.

Ensures that these folks, the people who are responsible for maintaining these venues, receive fair and competitive compensation. It does transfer authority to fix secretary manager compensation to the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, who will do a number of things to make sure that this is fair. And with that, maybe I'll leave the rest to my witness. But we do feel by doing this, it's going to recognize, reward, allow us to get the best people for the critical roles. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sarah Pelle, and I am the Secretary Manager at the Yolo County Fair, the 40th District Agricultural Association. I'm speaking on behalf of CERRVF, the California Emergency Response Resiliency Venue and Fairgrounds. I'm here today in strong support for Senate Bill 493. California has 52 DAAs, which are state entities.

We are required to respond in times of emergency and are key partners in community resilience. Our fairgrounds service, fire camps, heating and cooling centers, shelters for communities, and staging areas for federal and state disaster responses. In fact, just last year alone we had 30 activations among our fairgrounds, contributing 17,885 total days open for emergency and community response.

On top of that producing 364 days worth of annual fairs statewide. Fairgrounds operate year round, as he shared a lot of the different ways they are used. Yet DAAs receive 0 to 10% of their budgets from the state. No special funds are utilized for us. We are locally self sustaining, funding our facilities, programs, and salaries through innovation and community partnerships. SB 493 addresses the role of the secretary manager as an exempt position considered an officer of the state under the state constitution.

Despite the responsibility and critical public service that we provide, the position has never undergone a formal salary review. SB 493 fixes that by directing CDFA to conduct a salary survey establishing a fair compensation range with updates every three years. It also makes an important correction by removing CalHR from the salary approval process. Prior to 2015, CalHR was not involved in the salary.

Actions were approved by the board of directors which are appointed by the Governor who are best positioned to evaluate the CEOs. Currently CalHR is the final say and right now they take the state's liability, not the performance of the individual, into effect. And they have been denying raises that have been submitted by the board of directors.

Today, secretary managers are not just fair organizers, they are emergency response directors, grant writers, construction managers, marketers, planners, facility designers. When this position was first created, they only planned an annual fair. Now they run a facility year round. Yet turnover is escalating, with over 10 new CEO recruitments and transitions expected in the next two years.

Finally, SB 493 standardized the title fair manager to secretary manager. That is just so code matches. Right now there's a distinct encode where we're named secretary managers and fair managers. However, our code name in CalHR is secretary manager. So it's just aligning code to match.

And it's important to remember that California's network of fairgrounds contributes over $3 billion in economic activity statewide each year, and more fairgrounds are activated each year in response to community resilience and emergency response. Our secretary managers are critical for both economic vitality and public safety. SB 493 is about fairness, modernization, ensuring California fairgrounds remain resilient community partners and pillars and critical emergency assets. I respectfully urge your support.

Thank you. With that, are there any others in this room in support of this measure? Please come up.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Cody Boyles on behalf of the Western Fairs Association in support.

Okay, seeing no others in this room coming up, we'll move to lead opposition. There's no registered opposition to this measure. Anyone in this room? Okay, then we'll go ahead and move it back to our Committee Members for any questions or comments. Senator McNerney, please feel free to begin.

Well, thank you, Senator, for holding this hearing, and thank you for this bill. I've got two county fairgrounds in my district. Alameda County Fairground, very active. They have staging and training for fire safety and for fire active work when we have these big fires. I have San Joaquin County Fairground.

I was just there two weekends ago when they were giving puppies their vaccinations. I mean these are very active pieces of property, very valuable to the state, very valuable to the county. And that job is a very big job. I mean, as the witness mentioned, they have to be managers and they have to take care of health care, they have to take care of emergency response, and all these other activities that take place. So we need something like this. It's very important.

The manager in San Joaquin was dealing with a blown up power transformer, trying to get things lit up again. I mean this is an ongoing job, so it's a big job. They deserve the respect and compensation that this bill would provide. So I support it, and I thank the author. I yield back.

Any additional comments? Okay. All right, we'll go ahead and move it back to the author for closing.

I appreciate the comments. And yeah, give a shout out to my, our leads in San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, work so hard. And I respectful ask for an aye vote.

Okay. If we have a motion we can... Okay. Senator Cortese moves the bill. Assistant, can you please call the roll?

File item 4, SB 493 by Senator Becker. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The vote is 30. We'll place that Bill on call. Is do we need to vote through? Okay. At this time we will take. Okay, we will go ahead and take a recess for about 10 minutes to allow any remaining Members to join us at the Committee hearing room in 112. For us to be able to wrap up the vote counts. We'll see you in 10 minutes.

okay. The Senate Ag Committee is going to come back to order to lift the call on all the measures that we've heard today. I'm going to repeat, we're going to lift the call on all the measures on our agenda today at this moment. And with that I will go ahead and Assistant can you please do a final roll call on all measures?

[Roll Call]

So The vote is 4-0 and that measure is out. With that that wraps up our Senate Ag Committee hearing for today. Thank you everyone for joining us.