Assembly Standing Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism

Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing of the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism. Please note that Assemblymember Quirk Silva is not able to attend this hearing, so there will be a vacancy for today's purposes. AB Assembly Bill nineteen fifty three three by Assemblymember Lowenthal, originally scheduled for this hearing, has been pulled from today's agenda at the request of the author.

You know, the rules, each bill will have up to two main witnesses in support and two in opposition, and each witness will receive, two minutes to present. You can feel free to submit any written testimony through the physician portal on the committee's website.

It will, of course, become a part of the official record, for those bills. This morning, we are here in State Capitol Room 444. And for those attending in person, please know that any conduct which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited, and continued disruptions will result in individuals being escorted from the capital by the assembly sergeant. So I wanna thank you all for being here.

And with that, we'd like to invite our first author up, assembly member Gabriel, to present his bill.

I'll note that we do not have a quorum yet, so we'll begin as a subcommittee, but, at a time that we do have a, quorum, for, this committee, we'll establish that and, be able to take motions. Comfortable and ready, you may begin presentation on AB 19 or sixteen twenty six.

Okay. Yeah.

Alright. Alright. Good morning. Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. I wanna start, by thanking you, mister chair, and thanking the committee for your, thoughtful assistance with the amendments.

I'm pleased today to present AB 1626, which will provide mental health training for youth sports coaches in California. As has been well documented, California is facing a youth mental health crisis. Our young people are experiencing rising rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and other mental health challenges. Our youth sports coaches are uniquely positioned to help us address this challenge.

They see our kids regularly, help them navigate high pressure moments, earn their trust and respect, and are often the first to notice when students are struggling.

Unfortunately, four in five coaches report feeling less than fully prepared to support student athletes when they're dealing with mental health challenges. AB 1626 would help to remedy this issue in two distinct but important ways.

First, the bill would provide mental health training to high school coaches to empower them to recognize signs and symptoms of common mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal ideation.

It would likewise provide coaches with a better understanding of how to refer student athletes to appropriate mental health resources, including school counselors, psychologists, and community behavioral and mental health resources.

Second, to help our younger athletes, the bill would require the California Department of Education to develop a model mental health training that could be used by youth sports coaches for both recreational and club sports.

Empowering our coaches to better recognize and respond to mental health issues will allow us to better support young people and create safer, more supportive environments for our students.

I'm proud that this bill is supported by a broad and diverse coalition that includes the Association of California School Administrators, the California Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs, the California School Employees Association, Equality California, the San Francisco Forty Niners, NAMI California, state superintendent of public instruction Tony Thurman, and dozens of other educational and mental health advocacy organizations.

It has no opposition. With me today to testify in support of the bill are two amazing witnesses, RHNAta Simrill, the CEO and president of the LA eighty four Foundation and the Play Equity Fund, and Ron White, chairman of the board and president of the California Youth Football Alliance. Thank you and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Welcome. Welcome. You.

Good morning, chair Ward and members. My name is RHNAta Simrill, president of the Play Equity Fund, and we are proud to cosponsor AB 16 '26. I also wanna thank assembly member Gabriel for his leadership on this very important issue.

At the Play Equity Fund, we believe that sport and play and movement are not luxuries. They are essential to a young person's physical, social, and mental well-being.

Across California, young people who participate in structured sport and play are strong. Report stronger connections, greater resilience, and a greater sense of belonging. But too many youth are being left out.

We often say that play because it matters, and it does, especially when it comes to mental health. Our latest finding from our 2024 Play Equity Report makes something very clear that access to sport is deeply uneven, and so are the mental health benefits that come with it.

Only twenty two percent of youth from households earning $30,000 are active five days a week, compared to 50% from households earning over 100,000. And one in three kids are dropping out of sports due to cost and because it's not fun.

The absence that absence matters because sports is more than a game. It is the most one of the most consistent and trusted environments where young people can build identity, cope with stress, and feel like they belong. And at the center of that experience is a coach.

Coaches are often the first adults to notice when something is wrong. They are in moments of pressure, disappointment, and growth. But right right now, most are not equipped with the tools to respond.

As the assembly member stated, according to our friends at the Aspen Institute, only one in five coaches report feeling highly confident supporting youth facing mental health challenges. That is a gap we can and must close.

AB 1626 recognizes what we see every day, that coaches are not just leaders on teams. They are the frontline support of mental health. By equipping them with training, we strengthen one of the most powerful existing systems of care already embedded in our communities.

If we are serious about adjusting the mental health crisis, the youth mental health crisis to be more specifically, we must meet young people where they are. And millions of them on are on fields, courts, and playgrounds.

This bill is about ensuring those spaces are not only places of play, but places of safety, connection, and belonging. So on behalf of the Play Equity Fund, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1626. Thank you.

Over the years, I've had the privilege of of appearing before this very committee multiple times, but none more important than today as the matter before you will have a direct and lasting impact on the young people we serve.

Wonderful. Chair and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Ron White. I'm the president of the California Youth Football Alliance, representing hundreds of thousands of youth student athletes statewide.

California student athletes are facing increasing mental health challenges with rising levels of stress, anxiety, and depression impacting their well-being both on and off the field.

For many young athletes, coaches are among the most consistent and influential adults in their lives. Coaches build relationships rooted in trust, mentorship, and daily interaction, placing them in a unique position to recognize any signs of early mental health distress.

Balancing academics, competition, social pressures, and personal expectation places excuse me. Unique demands on these young individuals, making access to timely and trusted mental health support more critical than ever.

However, most youth coaches across California are not provided with the training or resources necessary to effectively support the mental health needs of their young athletes.

Through this legislation, California is ensuring that coaches are equipped with the knowledge and tools to identify warning signs, respond appropriately, and guide students athletes to the help they need.

This gap represents a missed opportunity to provide early intervention and meaningful support in a setting where it can have the greatest impact. Assembly bill sixteen twenty six directly addresses that unmet need by establishing mental health training for coaches at a critical re as a critical resource within youth athletics.

This legislation is especially important because it reaches young athletes where they already are on teams, in practices, in competitions, and in daily interactions with trusted mentors.

AB 1626 strengthens the capacity of coaches to serve as informed frontline resources, improving communication, and fostering healthier team environments.

It ensures that mental health support is not limited just to clinical settings, but integrated into one of the most influential aspects of a young person's life.

AB 1626 provides a practical, scalable solution to growing crisis by delivering critical mental health resources through coach training, helping ensure that California student athletes have access to informed, supportive adults who can make a difference really when it matters most. For those reasons, we strongly support AB 1626. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here in support of AB 1626? Please use the public microphone, and we're looking for name, organization, and position.

Craig Pulser on behalf of Equality California in strong support.

Divya Shiv with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, a proud cosponsor of the bill in support.

Nora Angeles with children now in support.

Carlos Lopez, California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in strong support. Thank you.

Danny Therakol, on behalf of the California Youth Empowerment Network, proud co sponsor in support, also on behalf of LGBTQ plus inclusivity, visibility, and empowerment in support.

Karen Vicari, Mental Health America of California, proud cosponsor in support.

Callie Blackmunoon representing the Positive Coaching Alliance in strong support.

Dominic Tamara here on behalf of the California Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs in support.

Good morning. Sarek Kaminski on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support.

Good morning. Brian Ricks at the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Andrew, governor on behalf of Major League Baseball and the San Francisco forty niners in support. Apologies for not getting our letter in in time.

Danny Offer with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, also known as NAMI California, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Underwood on behalf of the California Interscholastic Federation. Don't have an official position, but appreciate working with the author's office on the language.

Thank you.

Good morning. Greg Gardner on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Thank you all very much. At this time, I think that we have a quorum. Madam secretary, would you please call the roll?

Ward?

Present.

Here.

Lackey?

El Hawari? Here. Jeff Gonzales? Here. McKenna Ortega?

Here.

Valencia is Burr.

Thank you. And we have a quorum. There's no formal rep opposition registered for this bill, for this committee's purposes. Is there any members of the public here wishing to state any position of opposition? Okay.

Seeing none, we can move to any questions, comments. Motion by mister Gonzales and second by miss, Elhawary. Please, miss Elhawary.

I just wanted to thank the author and sponsors for this bill. It's so important that we support our young people through mental health challenges. And I think what you mentioned is incredible in terms of ensuring that we're going to the young people where they are, at their competitions, at their sports practices while they're on their teams.

Sure.

As a young person who was in sports, it made all the difference for me. And knowing that I was rarely with my parents because they had to work and I was in sports, my coach was the person who always had my back. So thank you all for this.

Mister Lackey, vice chair.

Yeah. Just, obviously, to commend the author for addressing an issue that's pretty powerful. We we have a lot of difficulty with our young people. A lot of times, it's because of the absence of adult supervision and adult influence. And coaches have a way bigger impact that goes way beyond the game that they coach.

And sometimes, in in many instances that I'm very aware, even in smaller communities, this is a very powerful reality. And so if we we arm these coaches and these mentors with a little bit more expertise, I think that you can't go wrong. And it's really a a void that is gonna be greatly appreciated by by the young people. So thank you for bringing this before us.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Gabriel, I wanna as well thank you for bringing this bill for this committee. I know you're working closely with Assemblymember Pacheco and Irwin on very similar topic as well to make sure that in tandem, as well as multiple other, assembly committees that we're getting this issue right.

I think it's critically important that you are addressing the issue of mental youth mental health issues, especially as they pertain to many of our, youth sports activities, particularly this time that we have a tremendous amount of pressure on our kids.

We wanna make sure that these resources are available, that there's training that's appropriate, and I know that your bill goes a long way to be able to help to pull all that together. So this does enjoy a do pass recommendation, and I invite you to close.

Yeah. Thank you very much, mister Chaney. And I just wanna thank you and your very able committee staff for the help. We're very excited about that there's so many members that wanna address this issue. And I just wanna thank my witnesses for their incredible testimony.

And I think a lot back to my experience in in high school and how important coaches were as part of my life in helping me to survive some challenging years and and just the incredible power that they have to, to impact young people, to help young people, to support young people.

That's something that I keep in mind now that I'm a coach, and and, you know, I'm gonna fly home today to coach the, third the the, triple a Phillies and Encino Little League, a mediocre third base coach. But I'm very mindful of the fact that, you can have a profound impact on these young people. And it's something that I think about a lot when I'm out there on the field. So, appreciate all the kind comments, appreciate the support, and respectfully request your aye vote.

We'll be thinking about tonight and hope for the win. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1626, do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward?

Ward, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. El Hawari?

Aye.

Aye. El Hawari, aye. Jeff Gonzales? Aye. Jeff Gonzales, aye.

McKenner? Aye. McKenner, aye. Ortega? Aye.

Ortega, aye. Valencia Zberg?

K. That is currently at six o. It will be out, and we'll hold the roll up and perhaps some members.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, with us here today, we have Assemblywoman Hadwick with AB 1884, I think co-presenting as well as Assemblymember Sharp-Collins. So, we welcome both of you to the table and any lead witnesses that you have for the bill. And when you're ready, I'll look forward.

Both of you, the time that you need to maybe split your opening statement. If there is any additional comment by Assemblymember Sharp-Collins, I'll let you lead it off to someone who would have like. Okay.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members. I would really like to thank the chair and the committee for working with us on this critical issue. I'm deeply appreciative and grateful for working with me on this bill and I accept the committee amendments. Nicotine use and vaping in my district is a youth public health crisis. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, and early exposure increases the likelihood of long-term addiction and adverse health outcomes.

If a student turns 18 and hasn't quit smoking, the odds of them quitting in their lifetime is less than ten percent. This isn't something that we can wait on. As a mom of teenagers, I fought the vaping crisis with my own children. I spent the last ten years on the tobacco coalition for my county and served as the TUPE, Tobacco Use Prevention Education, Director. This isn't just an issue for me; it's personal, and I'm scared for our kids.

We don't even have the research to know the full damage that, that vaping will have on our youth. My home county has one of the highest vaping rates in the state for youth. When we asked the kids how many students were vaping at the school, they almost always said 80%. When we asked the parents the same question, they would almost always say 10 to 15%.

40% of high school kids using vapes have tried to quit in the last year, which suggests that many students are struggling with addiction rather than casual use. Vaping is highly addictive. Current vapes have a number on them that lists how many hits or puffs are in that device. Typically, they have about 5,500 hits. This is the amount of nicotine that is in 21 to 24 packs of cigarettes, and our kids are finishing these in less than a week.

In my schools, almost every kid has tried it, and half of them are addicted. When we asked kids that were in our diversion per program—oh, I'm repeating. Sorry. This is a sad reality nationwide. More than ninety percent of teens with substance use disorder never ask for treatment.

Teens don't know how to seek treatment, and very few will ever ask for help. This is truly a crisis, and kids in my schools need help more than ever. The biggest barrier to helping students is identifying that they have a problem in the first place. This is why school districts across the state have adopted drug testing programs for their athletes to get kids the help they need. Unfortunately, these programs don't have guardrails for students, and most programs do not test for nicotine.

This bill requires school districts who currently have a drug testing program for athletics to also test for nicotine. Assembly Bill 1884 establishes key safeguards for students by clarifying that a student who is tested cannot be subject to criminal or juvenile enforcement, cannot be suspended or expelled for a test, must be provided treatment or a diversion program, and test results can only be shared with a parent, a coach, and the superintendent's designee.

By identifying students that need help, especially student athletes at risk of physical health issues, this bill will connect more students with supportive intervention and treatment, not punishment. AB 1884 will give parents and schools an additional tool to confront public health crisis that we have and get students the help they need. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm proud to be joined today by Assemblymember Sharp-Collins.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Today, I'm here to jointly present AB 1884. Thank you to Assemblymember Hadwick, Assemblymember Ward, and stakeholders, and also community staff for helping us move the bill in the right direction.

Nicotine addition—addiction—is no longer a hypothetical problem; it is something that's happening right now in our schools. In my district, we have a whole "stop the vape" campaign. We have students that are passing out doing sports practices. Coaches are now reporting athletes collapsing on the field and also finding vapes that are being left behind.

And you would think that this is something that will stop all of us inside our tracks, but this is not just a discipline issue. It is a public health crisis that is unfolding in real time. We have coaches, and I myself being a coach, who are seeing in real time the effects of vaping amongst the youth that are actually supposed to be prioritizing health. What makes this crisis different is how invisible it feels to the young people.

Vaping does not carry the same stigma that cigarettes once did.

Instead, it is packaged in a way that looks harmless and even appealing. Bright colors, it had sweet—it's sweet flavors and also sleek design is really masking just how harmful it is. Our kids are not fully understanding the damage being done to their bodies until it shows up in moments that should never happen, like collapsing in the middle of a game. Our coaches do not fully understand the damage or know which students to identify and help lead to recovery.

So, student athletes, in my opinion, they are leaders on campus.

They set the tone for their peers, and they deserve the support to stay healthy and also competitive. This approach is about accountability, but it's also about support. By allowing schools to include the nicotine testing in their, in their existing drug program, we are creating an opportunity to intervene early. We are creating a pathway to connect students with rehabilitation and restorative programs before the harm becomes irreversible. So, in closing, I, I will leave you with this.

If we cannot act when our kids are collapsing on the field and struggling to catch their breath and putting their futures at risk, then when will we actually act? How much clearer does this need to be before we treat it like it is a crisis? We have a chance right now to step in and to say what we always tell people, enough is enough, and that we're sick and tired of being tired, and to make sure that our schools are, are places that protect our students and not places where this is something that's quietly going to be continuing.

So, let, let's meet this moment with the urgency that it currently deserves, and let's stand up for our kids for their health and for their, their future.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and we are joined today by Sally Townsend who will also provide testimony. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sage Townsend, and I'm a high school senior, a proud member from the Pit River Tribe of the Kosilektee Band, and I serve as the chairman of the Strong Family Health Youth Board in Modoc County. I was part of a youth advocate team that created a curriculum called "Vaping Endgame," and it is now used statewide. I am passionate about addressing addiction because I've seen how quickly it can lead people down the wrong path.

It hurt too many people and too many of my loved ones. In my school, vaping is everywhere. Almost everyone is doing it. It is easy to hide, easy to get, and it's cheap. We even have a diversion program that regularly includes elementary school students, and that should tell you how serious this problem is.

But from where I stand, it doesn't always feel like adults fully understand just how big of an issue this has become, and that's why I'm here today to testify in support of AB 1884. This bill would help deter students from vaping by allowing schools that already have drug testing programs in place to include nicotine testing for student athletes. Kids know the rules, and they know the laws, and they know how to get around them.

But athletes are leaders on our campuses, and they set the tone. If we want to shift the culture, we need to make it clear that not vaping is just as important and just as expected.

This issue is especially important to me as a native youth because Native American students have some of the highest rates of teen vaping, and that is deeply concerning. I've been using my voice since I was 13 years old to raise awareness and make sure native youth understand the risk. The truth is we don't fully know the long-term impacts of vaping, and the data and research are still catching up. And that uncertainty should concern all of us.

We need the adults in our lives to step up and give us the tools to make better choices and protect our future.

AB 1884 is a strong step in that direction. It helps create accountability, supports healthier decisions, and shows students that our health matters. Thank you for your time and for listening to my voice, and I hope that you all vote yes on this bill to protect our generation.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to register support for the bill? Okay. Seeing none. I know there's some registered opposition on file. Are there any lead witnesses that wanted to testify against AB 1884?

Okay.

Thank you, and you'll have up to two minutes each.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is McClain Rozanski. I'm the Policy Analyst at the Alameda County Office of Education or ACOE. ACOE's mission is to equip the most vulnerable students and those who serve them with the tools to thrive.

We work proactively through tobacco use prevention education grants and partnerships with other organizations to address the impacts of nicotine and other substance use among young people in Alameda County. We share the author's goals of addressing youth substance use and recognize that nicotine addiction among young people is a growing problem across California. However, for several reasons, we object to the bill's approach to addressing this problem.

AB 1884 would significantly expand drug testing in schools implement measures that research shows are not only ineffective but potentially harmful. The American Academy of Pediatrics explicitly opposes drug testing in schools and without clear clinical cause.

They warn that it erodes trust between students and adults, produces unreliable results and most importantly does not treat addiction. The bills proposal that school drug testing students as a condition of student participation in extracurricular activities and barring them from participation if they fail tests also runs counter to the research. Studies show that extracurricular activities, in fact, provide protective factors against the primary risks for substance use by youth and address the root cause of addiction. Athletics, in particular, are effective in preventing and treating substance use disorders.

We believe that this bill could have negative effects on all student populations, but particularly on opportunity youth and other vulnerable groups whose engagement in school may already be tenuous and for whom extracurricular participation could really make a positive difference.

We also wanna highlight the financial and relational costs of implementing drug testing in schools. Under the provisions of this bill, schools will be forced to divert limited financial resources and staff away from proven student supports. We appreciate conversations with the bill author staff and the committee's amendments. However, we remain opposed to AB 1884 and ask you ask you to vote no on this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Vice chair, and Members of the committee.

My name is Greg Gardner. I'm the California State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance, which has worked for nearly three decades in California and nationwide to advance health centered approaches to drugs that address the harms of drug use and eliminate harmful punitive approaches to drugs. DPA respectfully opposes this bill. We all want our loved ones, our communities and particularly young people to be safe and healthy.

We want to protect young people from the harms that come with drug use, including nicotine and alcohol and ensure that young people are connected with resources that meet their needs effectively.

Policies such as those proposed in AB 1884, however, drive more students away from constructive social activities and further isolate many young people who may be struggling with mental health, anxiety or identity. Extracurricular activities, as we've heard, when they're available and accessible, provide important opportunities for young people to connect with mentors, coaches, counselors, and other school professionals who can help them navigate the many challenges they may face.

Drug check drug testing policies such as those proposed by this bill are certainly well intentioned, but they're not an effective solution and instead have detrimental impacts. Too many young people who may have tried nicotine, alcohol or another substance or may think they might test positive for any number of reasons are likely to avoid engaging in extracurricular activities, particularly if they fear they may face sanctions. Substance use disorders often grow out of disconnection, trauma and unmet needs.

What we need are more connections for those who are struggling and those who might try something one time. We need greater access through schools and otherwise to easily obtainable, low barrier, person centered care, mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, overdose prevention services, and evidence based drug education. In many districts, we already have insufficient resources to provide access to a range of extracurricular programs, school counselors, and elective opportunities that meet the needs of all students.

Drug testing programs such as this, as mentioned previously, divert resources from investments that can meaningfully reduce drug use and addiction. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 1884 and urge you to vote no to that.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to register a position of opposition?

Hello. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education, expressing opposition on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. We'll turn this back to the dice. I'm gonna take a prerogative to maybe kick off some conversation because we have some, late amendments right now that I know we wanna be able to debate and keep kinda keep in conversation.

I first wanna thank the author and seem to be joint author for their careful attention and work on this issue.

I wanna commend Miss Hadwick, as well for bringing this issue because this is exactly the kind of the bill that somebody coming from, as a mom, as a local, local community member, has spent some time and passion really working on this issue as personal, but also community experience, that is really guiding some of the work that she's bringing to the capital to try to make a difference for all of our kids statewide. And I wanna thank you for really diving into that through that lens.

As the bill was in print, I had some deep reservations and some concerns, and I think a lot of them are really overlaid with what the opposition points are coming out as well too. That something might be one, a little bit too expansive.

The mandates that, you know, otherwise would be in there. One, would be both burdensome for a lot of our school districts to accept, I think, you know, as it was in print but also might have a deterrence effect as well that would prevent people from wanting to sign up in the first place to have do something positive, which is contribute in sports. The second area is you know, this I I think you know your intention to kind of really focuses in on athletic activities.

And in fact, wanting to cite this bill as the California Student Athlete Drug Abuse Prevention Act. I deeply get the connection there between drug or nicotine or alcohol abuse or any substances for that matter and healthy participation in sports.

The bill in print was more expansive or at least it was a little vague by trying to create other extracurricular activities. So if there is a pathway here to be able to have a positive effect on this issue and everything, maybe limiting it to sports activities right now in a way that sort of can test that new paradigm and see if it kinda works.

And the third issue is one of a punitive discussion that, originally, there was text in there that would forbid an individual after a third positive test from being able to participate in sports as well. I feel like that would be very counterproductive, to what we'd wanna see for the use betterment out there, because addiction can be real. It can be fast.

It can be ugly. And I would not wanna see them fall out of a positive opportunity that can help to mitigate the management of that addiction while they are trying to better themselves, get off of the substances, but not have to lose the opportunity. That I think would place a youth in a position right now where they've got a void of time.

They might be a little bit bummed and depressed about having lost that opportunity, and they might be more susceptible to, that the addiction and negative activities as well.

So we work together as well to have some amendments that I think can help to move this conversation forward. That we're gonna make sure something is not such a a substantial mandate, but really creates that paradigm for a local school district to be able to have the opportunity should it actually decide to have a a drug testing policy as well that it would also include nicotine as well as a part of that panel of tests. And making sure that we're limiting this to sports activities and that we are not seeing this as something that is gonna be a gateway to preventing them from participating in sports for the rest of the season, but rather a diversion program, which is something you champion back in your home district as well too.

I think it's a good model to be able to, move this forward in conversation, but not withstanding that there are a lot of other points that I think opposition raised that I would encourage you to continue to work with them on, because as we had our discussion too, you know, my continued fear is that this is gonna be something that is going to have some negative consequence before it has a a net positive benefit. Right?

That you're gonna have a deterrence from being able to participate in sports at all to begin with and everything.

And so, you know, the devil being in the details and trying to get this right, you know, sort of creating that structure that creates that creates that model guidance for all school districts to be able to act on that manages the manages this issue well towards the betterment of what you're trying to seek through this bill, and I believe in that as well too while mitigating for any unintended consequences that might come from the implementation of this bill is something that I would encourage, you know, continued thought and discussion on.

But with your acceptance of these amendments, I'm happy to have a supportive recommendation here today. And I'll turn this over to any other committee members for questions or comments, beginning with Assemblymember Gonzalez.

I think you're still all the wind beneath my wings on that one. First and foremost, as a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, to see two members from separate parties sitting together to try and solve an issue is admirable, and I thank both of you for doing that. We need to see more of that in California. So to see both of you leaders and dragon slayers, as I like to say, standing up for what you believe in is just I love it. So thank you.

Thank you just for that piece of the of your leadership. Secondly, in my conversations with both of you, 9 if not 10 out of 10 times, everything that comes from from your bills or your guidance is usually something that you believe in because you've seen it or you have experienced it. It comes from home. Right? You have real world experience.

So the chair already, spoke to that, so I won't belabor that that piece. So I understand the heart behind it. To add just a small portion of what the, of what the chair spoke about was 100% agree with you. But I as a dad who had all my kids were in sports. Almost all of my kids were in sports.

One of my sons, he played since he was three, played soccer. And he was deathly afraid of not being picked on the next season, so he stayed away from that from anything that would mitigate or that would take him off the team. So he stayed very on a clear path. And other kids who were not as afraid would end up getting kicked off or something happens and they wouldn't continue. So there is that balance that we need to strike.

I do believe there is that balance. I hear the conversation about the fiscal impact to education. And to be perfectly honest, yeah, I see that from a from a fiscal perspective. But unfortunately, here in California, we don't invest enough money into the into our education system to do things to provide these types of secondary and tertiary pieces. So like, drug addiction.

Yes. We need we absolutely need to invest more into that when it comes to our education system. We need to raise the level of how we do education in California. By the way, it's you know, our teachers are doing the best they can. Our students are doing the best we can, but it is a top tier priority because they are the future.

So the balance that we have to strike is it's very no kid is the same. And I think, you know, as the chair alluded, it or not alluded, talked about was the continued conversation to make sure that in good governance that we take into effect the human toll of each individual child because each one is different. They're uniquely created. And I think there's a balance here. There's there's another conversation about the fiscal impact that I think needs to continue to be had.

But I do I agree with the chair in that. Please continue the conversation because we wanna get it right. Right? We wanna make sure, but I also wanna make sure that it's not just about the money because I would do anything to protect my kids. Anything to protect my kids. So thank you.

Thank you. Miss Simone McKinnor?

Yes. Good aft- good morning, still. First, this proposal moves kinda fast, ladies. I appreciate what you're trying to do but it moves faster than our systems are ready to handle. We are layering on new requirements without fully addressing capacity costs and enforcement realities.

That's not good policy. That's setting people up for failure. Second, we have to be honest about who bears the burden. Too often, when we pass well intended legislation without clear infrastructure or funding, it's working families and small operators and local governments who absorb the cost. And third, we are missing a critical step, stakeholders, alignment.

The voices of those who will actually have to implement this policy are really opposed to this. So that means they have they're not at the table in this in this bill. I agree with you, my colleague, that investing in schools, we have forgotten about doing a lot of that when we talk about investment. I really think about arts, after school care, stuff I used to do, cooking, auto mechanics, text, job readiness.

We've abandoning we've been abandoning investment in schools and we've really gotta get back to that.

And so with that, I have a couple of questions. This bill is key physical. Who pays for ongoing random drug text testing programs across the districts?

So I think there's some confusion of the amendments that were accepted. Can I clarify those? Okay. So we put safeguards up. It is no longer requiring or mandating drug tests.

This is only to add nicotine if they already have a drug testing program. So that cost is already the school is already doing that, for this bill. So there will be no additional cost.

This is not mandating statewide

No. We changed it all yesterday very late. So, it also takes the there is no punishment. They're supposed to seek treatment and connect them with treatment or diversion program. We took all of that out of the bill because of the opposition from it.

And, so I don't know if it will still be keep fiscal because of that. I we haven't gotten that far because we were figuring this out very late. Yeah. Like, late afternoon.

So if the schools already have drug testing

Then they have to add nicotine.

Then they're just gonna add nicotine. And then the recommendation is to diversion program? Seek drug to treatment, and the school's not paying for that. You guys are just like I mean

That comes from your to the director, your public health program. They already have them set up in the communities. So and typically and that I wanted that punishment or whatever that whatever that consequence was. I guess not punishment, but whatever that consequence was should be left up to the the school and the district and what their what their coaches and superintendents decide. So we took that entire portion out.

Oh, so you guys are just adding tobacco but-

Yeah. Because most coaches still there

Or are they the school districts, are they still in opposition? I know there's a one question just about the drug testing period. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed concern about school based drug testing.

Why are we ignoring their guidance? Did you guys know anything about this test? The American Academy of Pediatrics are at or they they advise they're expressing concern about school based drug testing.

Because of trust or why? Because of what they're doing. So our, like our school, they're they hire it out to a medical company that does the drug testing for jobs and stuff in the community. Most of them are hired out, because the school can't this legally, they can't do it typically themselves. But I- we tried to put up those safeguards.

We also have privacy things. Right now, there is no safeguards for privacy. It's our bill says that they can only share it with parent, coach, and the superintendent's designee, whether that's the principal or athletic director, whatever. Because I know that was one of the concerns as well. I think coaches and parents think that they're being tested for nicotine.

That was a common misconception for myself as well as a coach, as a parent. I thought they were being tested for that, and they were not. And this is coming from it's I mean, this is a personal issue for me. It's a personal issue for my colleague. It is coming from coaches and teachers and superintendents and school districts.

So they didn't have letters. We, I

I support. I would like would have loved to see their support.

Do we know how many

Yeah, really fast, and we thought the bill was gonna be dead, honestly. So Yeah.

Do we do we know how many districts are actually doing these testing?

We asked CIF that, but they didn't they weren't sure because it's not a requirement for CIF, for athletes. The majority of the districts in my district do. I have a 101 school districts in my district. So I have a quarter of the school districts in the state in my 11 counties. And this is a huge problem for us, a huge problem.

And we have to be the adults in the room and guide these kids. They're they're not getting it at home. Their coaches are they like, nobody knows what to do. They it has become such a big issue that we are drowning and our kids are the ones that suffer. So I know there's unintended consequences with having, you know, standard set. But the unintended consequences of us continuing to ignore this is gonna be our kids can't breathe in ten years.

You know? We don't know what they're putting in their body. It's pure chemicals. 90% of vapes are illicit and coming from China. They're I mean, they have rat poison, formaldehyde, the things that they're inhaling.

I mean, we we're here to create great adults, and that is what our education system is here to do. Athletes, yes. If they can go and be athletic be athletes, that's great too. It's a part of the experience. But we have to we have to save this generation because we don't even know how bad it's gonna be.

Thank you. Just a little bit, I've raised two athletes myself. My son's played from five years old through college. Athletes are special. We love them.

And sometime, you know, I'm glad we took the suspense suspending them and kicking them off. Out of that because they need sports. Sports help children thrive. So with that, thank you for it. Thank you for your answer.

Thanks for Simone McKinnor.

Yeah. Thank you for kicking off this very, very important discussion. You know, the power of nicotine is what we're talking about. And back in my day, a long time ago, nicotine was in the form of cigarettes. And I would tell you that what's different you guys don't know this, that you young people. By about 70% of the population smoked.

It was a very, very, very powerful part of our social culture. Now we have nicotine that not only comes in tobacco, it also comes in vaping and also another form called Zyns. I don't know if you know about those, but they're also very very powerful. So what we're trying to prevent here, what it seems like to me in in your proposal here on this bill, is preventing addiction. Addiction has many negative circumstances, and I appreciate the opposition's points that they're bringing out.

And I think that your willingness for balance has been proven by accepting the amendments to the fact it's bipartisan collective. So I don't know why anybody would try to stop preventing addiction because addiction is proven. And back in the day when tobacco was so prevalent, no one really addressed the addictive net nature, and they thought that it was gonna be just fine. They were they were told that that was the case, and we now know much differently.

And tobacco use is far less prevalent than it used to be.

So we're moving in the right direction, and it's because of the actions of others that have allowed that to happen. So I I appreciate what you're trying to do here in preventing addiction, and it has my complete support.

Thank you. Is there any other committee member questions or comments? Miss Ortega.

First, I wanna thank the chair for the amendments. I think they're gonna they make a huge difference in addressing many of the concerns that I had. I still have some concerns. So I wanna ask the author, how do you ensure that this policy is applied equitably and not as appropriately targeting certain students or schools? You know, I Alameda County is here.

It's my area. You know, it's primarily kids of color. We don't have access to a lot of the same extracurricular activities that are made available to other parts of the states and other districts. And so I'm really concerned about this piece. You know, I didn't have access to extracurricular activities because my parents couldn't afford it.

I wanted to be a cheerleader, but they couldn't afford the classes. They couldn't afford the outfits. You know, I have sons. They were also very much in sports. And but I had one that was constantly, you know needed extra support.

And if his coach had said, oh you smoked cigarette one time, you will no longer be able to play, that would have been devastated his entire life because he lived for that sport. And so I'm glad to see that those parts were taken out in terms of the punishment or consequences because we have seen that this oftentimes, they don't do what they're supposed to do. I mean, it's facts. We have research. It's been stated here.

So I'll stop there and let you answer my question.

Do you wanna answer? I I stole the last one. Do you wanna answer?

It's fine. What I wanted to say was coming on board now as a joint author me coming on as a joint author was honestly based upon removing the things that we already discussing. So that is removing the mandate, that's removing the suspension and that's push pushing people to the diversion programs. Currently in San Diego, looking at San Diego Unified, Lincoln High School, Morris High School and others, we are already doing this.

We already have the stop the vape campaign. We have partners within our district. So we have some community organizations that are also partnering with us to talk about drug addiction, talk about nicotine and then, of course the ways to stop this process. They have relationships with different diversion programs as well. And so students who are currently going down this path have been referred to different programs.

And it's not at the hands of the district. We have community partners that have stepped in, and they're doing the work to provide the service. The reason why I highlighted these schools is because in my district, that is the urban community. You know, it's black and brown. And this campaign, when I got involved in this, is coming from the basketball coaches, coming from the football coach.

It's also coming from from our soccer coaches, and they're all extremely concerned as they've had to revive kids who have collapsed in the middle of games and so forth. So this is a big issue, but it is happening in San Diego Unified. They are addressing it, and they have brought in the community, partners to help support the work for what they're doing.

So just to do a follow-up, so you don't you don't have concerns that some districts will face harsher impacts due to limited resources and access to support?

There's always concern. There's always gonna be concern, especially when it comes down to equity, when it comes down to the funding part of it. So we there's always gonna be a concern, and it is important that we do everything we can to, obviously, provide and find some type of balance to be able to move forward. So just know me sitting here, I will never say I don't have the concern because I do.

The question become how do we get to that point and make sure that the parents can still afford, and make sure that kids still have access and that they are, actually seeking positive support services through the whole process.

So that would be us talking to the restorative justice program from the county office of that and other options that are available, community schools, programs, and etcetera, and doing everything we can to partner with them for additional support. So there always have to be an equity component in anything that we move forward with.

And and this bill just adds it to existing schools that are already doing an existing random drug test. So now they have computer systems that they plug in names that automatically pulls out people. It's not it's I don't think it's quite as biased as it used to be in most areas. I can't prove that either way. So, but it is just to simply add nicotine to the drug testing that they're already doing.

I mean, I disagree with that statement, but I appreciate your efforts here. I'm gonna go ahead and support it today because of the work that you've made and your willingness to continue talking to our chair and our committee members.

You know, I understand what you're trying to do in terms of the nicotine and, you know I've worked on a number of bills this year and last year related to limiting, you know, access to nicotine and the health impacts that it has in our community. I understand the issues and the concerns with when it comes to vaping and how kids are accessing a lot of these new vapes.

But, you know again, I still have some concerns, but I'm willing to support it today because of your efforts, and I see your overall goal. So thank you.

Thank you. Sade Elhawary?

First, I want to thank Sage, just as a young person sharing your perspective given that I know so many young people are struggling right now around vaping. Like, I think we recognize it as a problem. We appreciate your voice in this conversation given, you know, just the importance of hearing directly from the folks who are most impacted.

I wanted to ask Greg, the witness in opposition, if you could just share why you're still in opposition given a lot of the changes because I think I'm also struggling and share some of the concerns of my colleagues, but wanna be thoughtful about what is still holding back and and kinda keeping that opposition.

Thank you, Assembly member. I appreciate that question. Sorry. Through the chair.

And that's fine. And I will be fair, you know, these amendments, you know, were just negotiated yesterday as well. So I did wanna afford the opposition to, state their points but also recognize that you need time to process these amendments and think about any future improvements.

Thank you, Chair. Yes. We are still processing the amendments, but, generally, we oppose programs like this, that tend to lead with identifying students, stigmatizing students, you know pushing people away from constructive activities. So generally, you know, we have concerns about drug testing programs like this, even when it's simply just adding on top of existing programs. That being said, you know, I also have concerns.

We have concerns with the way that the language may address diversion, you know and how it might push people. You know, that I think the language was was push students into diversion, young people. I think that could look very different in a lot of different places around the state.

And I think that when we designate when we leave discretion to designate a wide range of school personnel to know the results of a drug test, it really creates opportunities for students to be, marginalized and further stigmatized. And that causes some concerns.

Also, the diversion programs, diversion is used in a lot of different context, the word diversion, and it can look very different in a lot of different context. Often, it is, you know diverting somebody from a negative consequence, giving somebody an opportunity to do something instead of a negative consequence of punishment or sanction. That is what it may look like to a lot of students, and so the feeling may be the same.

The marginalization, the isolation, you know, pushing them away from constructive mentors may look the same to a lot of kids that are entering that. So that's why we would have concerns.

We may have concerns with that. I if, you know if the chair would like, I'm happy to address some other things that I think might be more constructive in terms of approaches to dealing with vaping and and like issues because we certainly share concerns about vaping health impacts and nobody wants to prevent addiction. Thank you.

Thank you. And just appreciate, you wanted to share as well. Just appreciate you sharing on that perspective. Go ahead.

Thank you so much. So we do share the concerns on the potential for marginalization due to testing in and of itself. We do also agree that testing in and of itself can be viewed as a punishment by young people. And we disagree with the statement that this expansion of testing because adding nicotine would expand testing. It would expand who's tested.

It would expand the number of tests. That would expand the number of students impacted by the unintended negative consequences of testing. It would expand the cost. Having looked at these tests they can range from $7 to $15 each, so the total cost would be quite expensive.

And to Assemblymember Ortega's point, there is a potential for a disproportionate impact on our disadvantaged and disenfranchised youth because in many schools, there are in some schools, there are random drug testing, but this according to our staff, we've talked to social workers.

We've talked to nurses. We've talked to principals. We've talked to district administrators. And their perspective is that testing in schools is somewhat limited at this time and is often used when there is clinical cause. So to now be looking for clinical cause for nicotine, as these of the members stated, this can be harder to spot.

So there is an element of bias that could be introduced into who do you identify for testing and who is there for because of that testing pushed out of these really, really valuable activities.

Thank, The motion by Mr. Gonzales, which I'll be happy to second. I just wanna close and again thank the author and joint author as well for kinda continued thought and debate on this.

Obviously like, you know we're balancing, you know some very, thoughtful, issues that don't undercut. I think, the ultimate issue that you are trying to solve for here, and that is really to dissuade against any addictive use by our youth as they continue to better themselves and grow into healthy and successful adults.

And I think that with that continued conversation, I know this has more committee hearings ahead should they get out of this committee. That can afford some more time to digest the improvements that are made here today and other issues that may need to be worked on going forward as well, which I look forward to maintaining conversation as a part of that as well. Happy to invite you to close.

I just wanna say thank you for the conversations. We truly I think we all have the same goal at the end of the day. We want our kids happy and healthy and successful. And we, unfortunately have to set some standards to do that. And this is, I think testing for nicotine.

I disagree with some of the things that were said by the opposition, but that's why we have a healthy debate. So but we're happy to continue that conversation. I we're failing them. That I mean, there's no other way to say it. We are failing our kids right now, and we can't ignore it anymore.

And, I feel like we all are we all have the same goal, but we don't have the same path to get there. And maybe it's different in Northern California than it is Southern California probably is because our communities are all different. This bill allows the schools to make that choice and allows them the tools to that they need in their toolbox to help keep their kids healthy. So I am very thankful for the work and the collaboration on this.

And thank you to my colleague, Assembly member Sharp-Collins, for partnering with me on this very important issue.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1884, do passes amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward?

Aye.

Ward, aye. Lackey? Elhawary?

No.

Elhawary no voting. Jeff Gonzales?

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. McKinnor?

No.

McKinner, no. Ortega?

Aye.

Ortega, aye. Quirk-Silva? Valencia? Zbur?

Okay that, currently has three votes. We'll hold the role of private Senate members, and thank you for the presentation today. I am going to need to go to a committee to present a bill. Hopefully, it'll be faster than not faster.

Either of you are you is anybody here to stay?

Yeah. I'm here. Okay.

Okay. I'll hand the gavel over to Miss Ortega. I will invite Assemblymember Haney.

I'm gonna go to the office.

You are. Okay. So great. So we'll invite member Assemblymember Wallis to come up and present his bill. This will be AB 2503, which also has committee amendments.

I'll ask the secretary to be able to pass those out. Hopefully, I'll be back in time to be able to discuss all of that, but I look forward to your presentation, and we'll see you in a minute.

Whenever you're ready, mister Wallis.

Well, good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. I have before you today assembly bill twenty five zero three, which maintains a strong commitment to student athlete welfare while ensuring that youth sports remain accessible, competitive, and viable.

One size fits all heat guidelines have put Desert Schools at a disadvantage. It's harder for desert student athletes to fully participate in the sports they love. Schedules are disrupted when practices go late into the evening, which burdens families.

Parents, coaches, and athletic directors are united in calling for relief. They want guidelines that reflect the realities of our climate and account for the unique heat acclimatization among athletes who train and compete in it every day.

For some high schools in the early season, as many as half of all scheduled practices have been pushed into the evening hours just to comply with existing regulations. These long and strenuous nights take a measurable toll on both athletic performance and academic achievement, which then accelerates athlete burnout.

I've had a lot of great conversations with the the chair of the committee, and I do remain fully committed to the rep recommended path forward, working directly with CIF and the Department of Education to rigorously examine the feasibility of modifying the current wet bulb globe temperature guidelines.

I'm also committed to working with the opposition and acknowledging the legitimate concerns surrounding artificial turf fields. Joining me today is Kendra Calderon, a certified athletic trainer from Rancho Mirage High School to provide testimony and answer any questions the committee may have.

Hi. Thank you, mister chair and the committee members. Thank you. I'm Kendra Calderon. I'm the athletic trainer at Rancho Mirage High School.

I've been the athletic trainer in the Desert for thirteen years now. And in those thirteens, I've on thirteen years, I've only had one heat stroke case. This case happened on a Saturday morning after a Friday night game, and he had not properly hydrated and ate. During this time of the year that this happened, our temperatures are about low or high eighties, low nineties for a little duration of our outdoor practice.

Through my years of experience, this treatment this is a testament to empower student athletes to acclimize to our desert.

Our acclimization period has already started for us across the desert. Just a couple of weeks ago, we were at a 107 degrees, and the wet bulb reading was at 88.9. Yeah. And this starts in the spring, with our spring practices when temperatures are well into the low hundreds and with no gear and continues into our summer months.

To ensure the safety of our student athletes, I do follow the national athletic training position statement for exertional heat illness.

This is taking them off the field, putting them in an air conditioned position air conditioned building, and getting them with cool wet towels or putting them in a cold submersion, and then also start replenishing any electrolytes that we have.

In addition, all our coaches are required to take heat illness prevention courses with n a f n a NFHS. Sorry. As soon as the athlete show any signs and symptoms of heat illness, they are pulled out of practice, and we begin the cooling process right away.

As Assemblyman Wallis stated, our fall season sports cannot hold practice, or competitions right after school like normal high schools with our current guidelines.

Before these guidelines were set in the law, there were guidelines that our local community college had set, and we had a threshold of 93.7, and that worked really well for our community. It just shows the capacity that our athletes have for acclimizing to our desert.

Our student athletes get out of school at 03:40, then they don't start practice till 05:45, 06:00 at night. A lot of students do not have the means to go home and come back, which leaves them stranded at school.

Last year alone, we had 15 practices that either were canceled or postponed.

By increasing our threshold, we would be able to get half of those practices in with different guidelines, thus keeping our student athletes engaged in our after school programs. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support? Seeing none. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to our one member. Any questions, comments? Okay. Thank you, mister Wallis, for bringing this forward. I appreciate you taking the amendments put forward by our chair.

And seeing no other members wishing to comment, would you like to close?

Yeah. Just very appreciative of the chair and the committee staff's work on getting this bill to a good place where we can move forward and just respectfully request an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Do we have a thank you. Do we have a motion?

So move. Move. Motion. Alright.

We have first, motion and this I'll second. Secretary, could you please call the roll?

AB 2503. The motion is do passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward, Lackey, El Hawari, Jeff Gonzales.

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. McKinner?

No.

McKinner not voting. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Quirk Silva, Valencia, Spur.

Valencia, aye, Spur.

Three ayes. We'll leave it open for ADCET members. Thank you. Okay. So we'll just pause for a bit as we wait for additional members to come and present their bills.

AB 1954, Ward. Assembly Member, whenever you are ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1954, which is the Protecting Access to Reservations or the PAR Act. Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourists from all around the world.

There are more than 220 golf courses in California, which are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of the publicly owned park systems, these courses operate at below market value and make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs, and civic organizations.

This pricing creates a demand for tee times in California's urban areas that are among the highest in the nation. AB 1954 is necessary to prevent bad actors from continuing to take advantage of golf course reservation systems for personal gain, as well as taking the opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.

This bill is addressing an issue being experienced by municipal golf courses across the state, where individuals are booking reservations for tee times and reselling them at inflated prices. Some are setting up websites that look like they are affiliated with the golf course, where the URL or name is similar but they do not have any agreement in place with the golf course.

AB 1954 fixes this problem by requiring the operators of third party golf reservation service platforms to have a written agreement with the golf course operators to authorize the listing, advertising, promoting, or selling your reservations for those golf courses.

With me today to speak in support of the bill is Craig Kessler, the Executive Director of the California Alliance for Golf, and Rick Reinschmidt, the Golf Manager for Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation.

Craig Kessler, Executive Director of California Alliance for Golf. I'll repeat some of the, some of what the Assembly Member said. But there are about one out of four golf courses in the state of California are municipally owned, cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself.

As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate with business models that forego maximal revenue generation in favor of making them universally and equitably available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs, and civic organizations.

Because California's urban areas are among the most golf starved in the nation, this model creates a demand for tee times second to none in the nation. It has also created opportunities for third party tee time brokers to capture and broker those times at inflated prices, and in the process, substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents.

Siphon resources that might otherwise accrue to the benefit of golf enterprise funds and general funds of municipal park departments, and turn them more into de facto playgrounds for the privileged than recreational sites equitably available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs, local charities, and civic organizations.

AB 1954 would give the state cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy to restrain third party brokering that is not performed by consent of the parties. This is a tool they do not now have and one that only the state can provide.

To be clear, AB 1954 would not affect the many agreements freely entered into between municipal golf operators and third party operators that benefit both municipalities and the golfers who patronize their publicly owned parkland courses. Bill's sponsor, California Alliance for Golf, thanks Assembly Member Ward for his leadership in on this issue and respectfully asks for your aye vote.

Good morning. Rick Reinschmidt, City of Los Angeles Golf Manager. The City of Los Angeles operates one of the largest municipal golf systems in the nation, serving more than 1 million golfers annually. The mission of our golf program is the same mission we pursue for all the recreational amenities we offer at our public parkland spaces. Affordable, accessible, equitable access.

In recent years, we have experienced challenges related to third party individuals and entities reserving public tee times for the purpose of reselling them at significantly higher prices. This practice restricts fair access and undermines our ability to keep golf affordable and equitably available. In April 2024, we implemented a non-refundable green fee deposit requirement at the time of booking a tee time.

Fully funded by our golf patrons and designed to discourage speculative reservations, this measure has restored a measure of integrity and equitable access to our reservation system. However, relying solely on internal administrative measures to counter those seeking to profit from Los Angeles' commitment to affordable, accessible public recreation is not a sustainable solution.

Without stronger legal protections, these efforts remain vulnerable. AB 1954 would offer that stronger legal protection by making the unauthorized resale of public golf tee times unlawful and subject to civil enforcement, thereby preserving the integrity of public reservation systems and protecting equitable access for all golfers.

This is a tool that only the state can provide, and AB 1954 would provide it. We'd like to thank Assembly Member Ward for his leadership on this issue and respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Hi there. Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Morning, Chair and Members. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Good morning, Members. Kevin Fitzgerald on behalf of the Southern California Golf Association in strong support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I will come back to the committee for any comments or questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one question. I have a 100 and some odd, I think it's a 120 golf courses just in my district. And throughout the Coachella Valley, it's significant. We have some public ones, and this is what it's specifically talking about. I might have missed it.

I tried looking for it, but I just wanna talk about quickly the enforcement mechanism associated with this. So if, from what I'm hearing, the problem is someone's buying up a whole bunch of reservations, tee times, and then reselling them for a higher cost. What's the enforcement mechanism in there with that this bill talks to, or is there one already in place?

The enforcement mechanism would create a cause of action on behalf of those municipalities that are aggrieved so they would have something more than... Quite honestly, I know Rick Reinschmidt from the City of LA is here.

I know they came to us along with number of other cities in the state of California and said that when they sat down with some of these brokers, they got laughed at and saying that everything they was do everything they were doing was legal. So this gives them the minimal tool necessary to at least file a civil action.

So it says you would for instance, City of LA, the County of LA, you would then sue them for doing such a thing. It would be incumbent upon you to do that. Is that correct?

Civilly. Yes.

Civilly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate the author for this bill, especially in we call it tennis heaven and golf heaven in the Greater Palm Springs Coachella Valley region. And I'm sure everyone over there is paying attention to this. So I appreciate the author, and because of that, I'll be in support. Thank you.

Any other comments from Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I think very simply at the crux of this bill, you know, we are seeing an influx of opportunists that are taking over what is meant to be an affordable, available opportunity for many of our residents to be able to enjoy the experience of golf.

And as we are seeing that action happening, we have an opportunity to be able to correct the record. This isn't unlike we are seeing, you know, bots and other activities going on in other areas of online sales. But because it is so acute here for this specific issue and pertaining to this committee's jurisdiction, respectfully request your aye vote on AB 1954.

That was cute. Do we have a motion or a second? Second. Second. Assembly Member Valencia. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1954, do pass to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

We have five votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you. Okay. We're back at it, and we will await an author. I think we have two more bills to dispense with today. At this time, just to save a little bit of time, we'll go ahead and open the roll for Members that previously missed.

We'll go back to the top with AB 1626 to catch any absent members. Madam secretary?

AB 1626. The motion was do passed as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Valencia?

Yes.

Valencia, Aye.

Ziburr, El Hawari?

Current roll is 7-0. We'll hold that open for absent members. And AB 1884 Hedwick with amendments.

A B 1884, do passes amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Valencia?

Valencia, no.

No.

If we had everybody else.

Okay. That is now 3-2. We'll hold that role open for absent members. And, AB 2503.

Aye.

AB 2503, do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. Ward

Ward, Aye. El Hawari? Aye.

El Hawari, Aye.

Current role is five zero. We will hold, though, roll up and perhaps to members, and await an author.

Current role is five zero. We will hold, though, roll up and perhaps to members, and await an author.

Schultz for the win. Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Next up will be item number five. This will be Assembly Bill 2,319. Mr. Schultz, when you and your lead witnesses are available, you may go ahead and begin your presentation.

Thank you very much, mister chair, and thank you so much for fitting me into a narrow window as I step out of my own committee. I am incredibly proud and pleased to present Assembly Bill twenty three nineteen today. California remains the center of the global film and television industry, but postproduction work including editorial sound, scoring, visual effects, and finishing is increasingly being performed in other jurisdictions that offer targeted incentives.

Current law limits eligibility for the California motion picture picture tax credit primarily to projects that complete pen principal photography in the state of California. As a result, post production work is often moved to competing jurisdictions that offer standalone or more flexible incentives for post production activity.

Some of these states and countries that we are competing with, and quite frankly, we are trailing substantially, include New York, New Jersey, Canada, The United Kingdom, and Australia, all of which offer incentives that allow productions filmed elsewhere to com to complete post production locally while still qualifying for tax credits. These policies have led to the migration of high wage jobs, vendor spending, and related economic activity out of the state of California.

Major post production editorial facilities, including scoring stages operated by Sony, Fox, Warner Brothers, and Skywalker Sound are generating substantially less revenue than in prior years and face the risk of closure. Economic analysis demonstrates that post production incentives generate significant returns on public investment through increased taxable wages, local vendor spending, and broader ancillary economic activity. Simply put, without a targeted post production incentive, the state of California risks losing a critical segment of the entertainment industry supply chain even when creative leadership remains based in our state.

Eighty twenty three nineteen creates the California post production tax credit, a targeted incentive for qualified post production expenditures performed in California regardless of where principal photography occurred and subject to program requirements and oversight. This post production tax credit is not tied to the $750,000,000 budget of the motion picture tax credit that was passed by this legislature last year. I've submitted a pending budget request to establish the separate funding for this post production credit.

To be eligible for the post production credit, the project either needs to be filmed outside of California or be a project that was filmed in California but did not receive the motion picture tax credit. A project cannot double dip and receive both credits.

As the analysis correctly notes, the bill before us today is a work in progress. I will continue to work with the studios, labor unions, and others to to so that future amendments will ensure that this post production tax credit can provide benefits to workers while attracting more post production work to come to the state of California.

With me today's speak in support of AB 2319 is Karen Baker Landers with the California Post Alliance sponsor of the bill, as well as F Hudson Miller, president of the Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSE Local seven hundred.

Good morning. My name is F Hudson Miller, and I come to you as president of the Motion Picture Editors Guild, the world's preeminent labor union for postproduction professionals. We have more than 7,500 members nationally, 6,200 right here in California, which is the heart of our film industry, but our heart is ailing. Economists can rattle off all kinds of statistics. I can share with you the fact that we lost over 6% of our California membership in a single year. But these aren't just numbers to us.

These are hundreds of dedicated artists and craftspeople who are no longer confident they can support themselves and their families doing the work they love right here in the state of California, the state that they love. That's why we should follow the lead of other states and establish a standalone post production tax credit. We loudly and proudly backed the concept of this bill. But at the same time, we need to get it right. AB 23119 or one nine, as currently written, has no meaningful labor standards.

We need language ensuring credits go to supporting middle class jobs with meaningful health care and retirement benefits. We appreciate that the committee's analysis underscores this need. Right here are more than 1,300 letters our members have sent to this committee. I I know they've been arriving in all your mailboxes. Their collective message is first amend and then pass AB 2319.

Our members work the magic of transforming raw footage into stories that transfix the world. With the help of other stakeholders, we can shape AB 2319 into a law that will keep good union jobs here in California, the state that has been the mecca of film filmmaking and movie making for over a century. In our business, there's a saying when something's not quite right in the script or it didn't go perfectly on set, and that saying is, let's fix it in post. So let's fix it in post.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Sorry. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Karen Baker Landers. I'm a supervising sound designer. I'm also the vice president of the California Post Alliance, and, I've worked in the film industry for over thirty five years.

I'm also a union member. And I'm here today to speak, in support of the postproduction community. Because postproduction is so misunderstood, it's been incredibly underrepresented. It said that a movie is born three times. When the script is written, when it's filmed in production, and again, when it's where it comes to life in post.

The current four point o incentive, which both Nick and Hudson have said, it it covers films it only covers films that have shot in California. However, films often shoot elsewhere for creative purposes. AB 2319 does complement four point o by incentivizing projects that do not shoot here otherwise, and otherwise did not qualify for the four point o program.

Because we currently don't have a post only incentive, California is becoming less and less of a viable option for studios and filmmakers that desperately want to stay here. Projects are going to territories, as Nick said, like New York, New Jersey, Georgia, New Mexico, Spain, Canada, The UK, Ireland, and Australia, all which offer a standalone post production incentive.

This has had a devastating effect on our jobs. My crew and I have to leave California on many occasions to work. A few years ago, it hit me. We've been training our replacements. There's a negative narrative about California, about the film industry, that we've lost our luster, that we're the next Detroit, and I refuse to accept that.

I love this state because it's special. California is a vibe. It's a bright light in what can be a very dark world at times. People still come here from all over because they believe this place is magic. It's called California Dreamin'.

California has such an incredibly complex and unique mix of voices that need to be heard. The film and entertainment industry gives them that chance.

Do you have one concluding statement?

Well, I'm sorry.

One one concluding sentence. We hit two minutes.

Okay. I know for sure and and well, I'll just say this. One thing I do know for sure is that the world is watching to see what California does next. Because they know if we get this right, it's game on for California.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to, state a position of support? Please push the microphone, and if you could have your name, organization of a represented, and position.

Hi there. My name is Marielle Bounza, and I'm president of the California Post Alliance. I'm also executive vice president of Signature Post, an organization a a PostSound that has been affected. I am in strong and urgent support of AB 2319.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sharron Miller. I'm a vice president of the Editor's Guild and a professional in the post production industry for seventeen years. I strongly urge support of this bill with amended labor standard language. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Jennifer Fried. I am a small business owner of Trivanna Post. We support the post production industry, and I'm also with the California Post Alliance in strong support and urgency of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, mister member mister chair members. Jason Schmelzer on behalf of California Arts Advocates and strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is, Michael McCusker. I am a picture editor, member of, IATSE seven hundred and CAPA, and I am in wholehearted support of this bill.

Thank you. Good morning.

My name is Tricia Rodrigo. I'm here with IATSE Local seven hundred, the editors guild, and I strongly support the passage of assembly bill twenty three nineteen after it's amended to include strong labor standards. Thank you.

Good morning. Mike Robson here on behalf of the Walt Disney Company. We know that Walt Disney doesn't have a official position on the bill today. Here to speak in support of those passage and can and, you know, we're meeting with the author. We wanna continue to work on on language.

The Walt Disney Company is the parent company of Industrial Light Magic, which I think most of you might know is the birthplace of visual effects, and and we wanna make sure that Bill's crafted in a way to post production. We want to make sure that Bill's crafted in a way to best serve the VFX industry going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no registered opposition on file, but is there any members of the public here wishing to stay in a position of opposition?

Member Gonzalez.

When thank you, mister chair. When when our colleague passed it last year, it was huge for and I supported him on it. It was huge for for California. Especially in the Coachella Valley, we get a lot of off-site filming that goes on there across the board through that region, and it puts folks to work. And that's what we want here in California.

We're all in agreement, with that. The fact that this takes it a little bit further for for the post, side of things also, you know, I think that's part of the good governance side. We gotta continue to massage this all the way through. So I appreciate the author bringing this up. You know, there's a there's a lot of bills this year that talk to actually mimicking what what was done last year and then also this year.

So because of your efforts and some of the members of Burr's effort, we're looking at other industries when we can do the exact same thing. So because of that, we will be in in support because this is what California is asking for. It's asking for an affordable California, and it's asking for Californians to be employed. So in a district in a county that has a 20% unemployment rate, we need jobs, and we need California jobs.

So thank you to the author, and for that, I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other member questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, I wanna also thank and commend the author for initiating this work, and we know that there's some work that needs to be done on this particularly as involves making sure that the program, one, like, includes very strong labor standards. I think that's a goal.

We don't wanna see this ultimately be used for utilization of AI in postproduction, but rather this is about keeping our jobs and enhancing our jobs here in the state of California. So we know that's gonna be something essential for this to continue to move forward in the process. You know, very supportive, of course, the work that our committee member, Assemblymember's, the Byrd, did last year on assembly bill eleven thirty eight.

We understand the massive role that postproduction does play in not just the lifespan of the the the the movies, the the the wonderful finished product that we have in editing and sound effects, visual effects, and and so much more. So we wanna make sure that those jobs, even if something is actually filmed elsewhere, are those jobs are retained here as all that film comes back into California and the work is completed for that third version I learned of how actually the movie comes to life.

So we wanna be supportive of this. Of course, it's gonna be a lot of fiscal conversation as well that you're gonna have to navigate to. You're establishing a program here. We're improving upon the parameters of that program, and then we're gonna have to work on the budget side of things to make sure everything is right.

So definitely a lot of work ahead of us, but if you're successful, this can be something that would be very, instrumental, to being able to keep this, subset of jobs that here that we very much wanna, stay here in California, continue to grow in California.

So with that, I invite you to close.

Well, thank you very much, mister Chair. I'll try to be brief. I wanna begin by thanking the committee and your staff for your work on the bill. I also wanna thank my witnesses for being here today. She's very modest, but miss Landers probably didn't mention that she's the first woman to win the Academy Award, not once, but twice, for sound editing.

And that's the kind of talent that we wanna keep in California. I also want to acknowledge mister Miller from the guild. And I would say it's relatively rare to have someone testifying in support of a bill and saying that there are problems that we need to work out, but I bring that up to say they both understand the urgency. This is not a bill that can afford to wait a year to come forward.

There are jobs that will be lost and will not be here in a year's time, and this is why this conversation needs to move forward now.

The second of three points I wanna briefly make, mister chair, is what's at stake. California's share of post production has fallen from 53 to 42% in about a ten to fifteen year span. We're talking about eight hun forgive me. We're talking about more than 4,000 jobs lost, $1,630,000,000

in wages lost. $507,000,000 in wages lost. And so the point I will close with, mister chair, is this. This is an issue that's deeply personal to me and to my district. Not a day goes by that I don't talk to one of my neighbors.

in economic activity lost, $507,000,000

Not in the abstract sense. I mean, like, literally my next door neighbors who cannot find work because jobs are leaving. This is not something that we can study a year from now. It needs to be acted upon now. You have my full commitment that I will work with every possible stakeholder to to develop the very best possible version of this bill because we need something to pass this year.

And I'll leave you with this, mister chair. I think that my my colleague from Indio said it perfectly. If there was ever a bipartisan issue of this time, it is addressing affordability. It's keeping jobs in our state. I view this as a win that we can accomplish for every Californian because post production doesn't just happen in Los Angeles.

It is across our great state. There are so many good jobs at stake. With that, I respectfully and pleadfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion for the bill? Moved. Moved by mister Gonzales. Is there a second?

Second. Second by miss Ortega. Some panel secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2319, the motion is do passed to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and taxation. Ward?

Aye.

Ward, aye. Lackey, El Hawari, Jeff Gonzales?

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. Mckinner Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Quirk Silva, Valencia?

Yes. Valencia, aye. Zverer.

That bill has four votes, so we'll hold it open for abscent members. Great.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. And our last bill for the day, but not the least, will be item number two, assembly bill seventeen twenty. I gotta run my next thing. Get situated for a moment.

We will be responsibly recycling.

And as your witnesses are approaching the, the bench, you may go ahead and begin your presentation.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members. I wanna first, thank the chair and your staff for your work on the bill and accept the committee amendments. AB 1722—20—is the California Fans First Act. This bill will put fans first by protecting fans from excessive ticket price gouging by capping the resale price of tickets for concerts and other live entertainment events at no more than 10% above face value, including fees.

I don't have to tell this committee about how important live performance and live events are for our state.

In every corner of our state, these events are generating millions and millions of dollars in revenue, tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and they are, even more than that, bringing incredible culture and community and connection to our state. We are the number one state for live events in the country and one of the most important places for generating live events and culture, arts, and music in the world.

For decades, our residents could access these events that are so important and essential to their lives and their communities in a very simple way.

They would line up at the box office and they would purchase a ticket. And when tickets were accessed that way, our residents, our constituents could go to these events at affordable prices. Even some of the largest acts in the world were accessible to California residents when they purchased those tickets directly. But, unfortunately, with the transition of ticket sales to online, online platforms and the rise of ticket scalping, it has become a highly profitable scheme, which is increasingly out of reach for so many of our residents.

If we allowed what is happening now online to happen in person, it would be so ridiculous that there would be an outcry to ban it immediately.

There is no reason we should allow folks to come forward, buy all the tickets before regular fans could get there.

If that happened, if you imagine what that would look like in person, if somebody lined up before you could get there, bought all the tickets, even blocked the entrances in some cases for you to even get to the to the box office, and then held these tickets behind their back and forced you to pay 4, 5, 6 times as much for the ticket cost if you bought it directly, that would be madness. But that's exactly what is happening right now online.

Professional scalpers purchase large number of tickets the moment they go up on sale and immediately upload them to secondary resale websites.

The result of this is that fans are paying an average of 200 plus percent over face value when purchasing these tickets on resale platforms, and 90 plus percent of the tickets that go onto these platforms are being sold by these professional brokers and scalpers. All of us have examples of seeing this in our communities. Nearly every single live performance has egregious examples of this now. In San Francisco, we just had 20 shows from Sam Smith. They reopened the Castro Theater.

It was an incredible experience for our city. The second these tickets went on sale at an affordable price, $120 for general admission, they were all swooped up, largely from the secondary brokers and scalpers. And if you wanted to buy a ticket at that point for any of these shows, you had to go onto the secondary market and pay $600, $700, $800.

The difference between that $120 when it was sold upfront and the $700 that fans were paying, that went all in the pockets of these professional scalpers, many of whom are out of state, none of whom have built a venue, none of whom are paying janitors or performers or playing instruments.

They've contributed nothing to the actual event, but they're extracting and speculating from—directly from the pockets of our residents and taking it not only of the pockets of residents and who sent—and fans who simply wanna see their favorite artists—but they're also not contributing anything to the folks who are making the music and providing for the venues.

And that's hurting the overall opportunity for live events and venues in our state. 14 US states, including New York, Wisconsin, and Washington have introduced similar legislation as this. Many other countries are already operating with this model. Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Norway have successfully implemented bans or caps on ticket scalping. I wanna be very clear that this bill specifically does not apply to sporting events, and tickets owned by season ticket holders or license holders for sporting events.

These are fundamentally different and more of a, a subscription-based model, and it will continue to allow early access for some of those season ticket holders, but by limiting excessive markups, this bill will remove the financial incentive that drives large-scale ticket scalping while still allowing everyday fans to resell tickets if they cannot attend and recover their costs.

This is incredibly important, not only for our residents or fans who simply wanna see their favorite artists, a comedy show, a musical, but also in supporting the musicians, the artists, the folks who actually spend their time and energy and and, and resources to make this happen, and ensuring that they have the support and the venues, who are struggling as well. And so, I'm very proud to have a, a huge coalition of artists of recording industry, of independent venues supporting this bill.

And with, with me to testify in support is Joe Rinaldi, owner of Music Box San Diego, and Ron Gubitz, the Executive Director of the Music Artist Coalition.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Ward and members. I'm Joe Rinaldi. I built a venue and I'm also the national, I'm sorry, National Independent Venue Association's President for the chapter for California, and I represent 650 venues, promoters, and festivals across the state. Everything that Assemblymember Haney's brought up affects us on our daily, daily operation of these venues.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1720, and thank you, Mr. Haney, for your valuable leadership on this matter. We're currently witnessing a market in failure. The free market—this would be fine if it didn't have this diversion principle of secondary markets taking tickets out of the transaction before the public has access to them, as was described by Mr. Haney. This diversion has negative implications and negative externalities across our business model. We run a business.

We host artists. We host customers. We pave, with that ticket money, the cost of operating shows, the cost of artist fees, and then we try to maintain customer confidence in this transaction. Currently, that customer views this transaction as a bit of the Wild West. We're facing a public relations battle as they think they're buying these tickets at this, exorbitant overcharge from us, and it takes some doing to reconvince them that we are not that actor and that actor is a, a third party.

Venues also wind up operating at a fraction of their capacity, even though they've sold every possible ticket, because a byproduct of industrial diversion and ticketing is that, I might sell 700 tickets, and I might only have 500 people come into the venue. Their, their model does not intend to sell every ticket. It provides us a new challenge that we have not faced, you know, that we've seen in the past three to five years that seems like it's compounding over time.

And seems like if we don't take action in the immediate, we'll wind up with that being an even greater percentage. What's proposed here is a price cap, and it feels to me like a surgical fix to a problem.

Do—we have another bill, 1349, that has a whole bunch of symptom treatments that we really support in, but in this particular case, if you were to take the profit incentive out of this marketplace at once, you would solve the biggest incentive problem that we have. And that's to take tickets away from customers, put it into a secondary market, and keep it out of our ecosystem that we, you know, as a small business, are trying to make payroll with or pay artists with.

Thank you for the testimony. Appreciate it. We hit—two minutes. Please.

Thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm Ron Gubitz. I'm the Executive Director of the Music Artist Coalition. Our board includes Don Henley, Dave Matthews, Maren Morris, Meghan Trainor, among many others. This is the golf bill, but for concert tickets.

An artist we work with sold out a 16,000 seat arena in minutes. He was very price conscious. He wanted affordable tiers for people to get in. Months later, the production team, as we lay things out, realized there was about 350 additional seats that they could sell. In a mishap, a mistake, the box office listed them without any announcement on a random Wednesday.

No social media, nothing. They were bought up in minutes, and immediately, you could find those tickets on a secondary website at double the price. Another manager told me just last week that resellers bought out the entire lawn from an amphitheater and then reset the base price on the secondary market. That is not a free market; that is a market failure where profiteers with no stake, no investment, no contribution to the show are extracting value on the backs of artists and their relationships with fans.

You know, cuckoo birds, they lay their eggs in another bird's nest. The host bird does all the work. It incubates, feeds—feeds and raises the chick. The cuckoo gets all the benefit. Let's be clear here.

The parasitic resellers are the cuckoo birds in this analogy. The relationship between artists and fans is sacred. Think back to your first concert or your first concert with someone special. Why are we letting outside platforms gouge that relationship? Californian, Jerry Garcia, said, you need music.

I don't know why. It's probably one of those Joe Campbell questions. Why we need ritual? We need magic and bliss and power and myth and celebration in our lives. And music is a good way to encapsulate a lot of it.

Well, live music sustains our communities. The people who make the music, the crew who and the production, the folks who tend the bar, they should benefit economically from ticket sales, not industrialized resale operations, running an arbitrage game, manipulating demand, while artists and venues don't see a penny. Producers in other industries get to set prices, but with concert tickets, we set ours, and we watch others run them up on our fans, profiting off of our art and blocking affordable access to music.

Jerry Garcia said we need magic and celebration and bliss, and music does give us that. Concerts give us that.

Let's keep the cuckoos out of the nest.

Thank you. Is there any other members of the public here wishing to share a statement of—or a position of support?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Jason Schmelzer on behalf of California Arts Advocates, in strong support. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, member, Shane Gusman on behalf of SAG-AFTRA and our recording artists, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members, Carl London on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, in support of our artist partners.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Alex Torres here. I'm here to read off a quick list of National Independent Venue Association California chapter members who couldn't be here today and, but are in support. The Fox Theater in Oakland, Channel 24 four here in Sacramento, Transplant Brewing and Venue in Palmdale, register in support for local Sacramento reggae artist, Stone Lion. Also, on behalf of Kevin Erickson with the Future of Music Coalition, a leading national anti-monopoly organization in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jim Cornett. I am a live music venue operator of Harlow's, the Starlet Room, Cafe Colonial, and The Colonial Theater, and I'm here in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Chaz Boswell. I'm the owner and operator of the Ring Studios here in Del Paso Heights, Sacramento, and I am in support.

Thank you.

Brandon Knapp with Golden Bear Strategies. I'm here on behalf of a cosponsor, National Independent Talent Organization. With permission from the Chair, can I read a couple of those organizations?

Please.

Okay. Sound Talent Group, Ground Control Touring, Stuart Ross Management, Rome Artists, Partisan Arts, Mongrel Music, Lucky Man Management, Like Management, Paradise Artists, and Ineffitable Music Group, and Seventy Two Music Management. Thank you.

Thank you.

Maybe we'll go back to the top and begin with item number one, AB1626. Madam secretary, when you're ready.

AB 1626. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. [Roll call]

And the bill is out. Eight to zero. Next, item number two. We just heard. So we'll hold on that.

Item number three. That's on call.

K. I'll make sure you you're on that. Yep. AB1884, the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. [Roll call]

That's four to two. I will remain on call for absent members.

AB1954 Ward do pass to the assembly committee on privacy and consumer protection. [Roll call]

Currently at who's this?

AB2319, do pass to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and taxation. [Roll call]

That's currently at $6.00. We'll hold the roll up and perhaps some members. Thank you.

AB2503, the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education.

Very emotional things happening in public safety.

We'll reopen the roll in for AB1720, item two.

AB1720. The motion is do pass as amended to the assembly committee on privacy and consumer protection. Lackey?

Not voting.

Lackey not voting.

That will remain on call five to one. Item number three?

AB1884. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Education. [Roll call]

That bill is out five two two with one member not voting and one absent.

AB1954. The motion is do pass to the assembly committee on privacy and consumer protection. [Roll call]

Bill is at seven zero. We'll remain open for absent members. And five?