Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good morning, and welcome to the California Senate Committee on Agriculture. Glad to have you here this morning. We do not have a quorum, but we're gonna start as a subcommittee. So I'd like to invite the first author to please come forward, AB 52, assembly member, Aguiar Curry. Thank you very much for being here.

Thank you. Thanks for having us. Thank you, madam chair and members. Farmers and ranchers of color, as well as small scale producers have faced longstanding discrimination in agriculture, resulting in lower incomes and fewer resources. That's why I authored the Farmer Equity Act in 2017 to ensure that socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers were included when CDFA developed policies that affect them.

In response, the department created two advisory committees, the California BIPOC, producer advisory committee and the small scale producer advisory committee. These committees play a critical role in implementing the farmer equity act by bringing the lived experience of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers into CDFA's program development and policy making. However, while these advisory committees are necessary for implementing the Farmer Equity Act, they are not currently codified in statute. As result, they remain vulnerable to shifting priorities or changes in the administration.

By codifying these advisory committees, AB 52 ensures that CDFA designs and implements programs that are more equitable, effective, and responsive to the needs of California's diverse agricultural commit community.

With me today is Minkah Taharkah with the California Farmer Justice Collaborative. Thank you.

Thank you. Greetings, chair and members. My name is Minkah Taharkah. I am a farmer. I'm also a member of the BIPOC advisory committee for the past three years, and I'm the coordinator of the California Farmer Justice Collaborative, the organization that worked together with assembly member Agar Curry to bring about the vision of AB 1348, which is the foundation of AB 52.

Thank you all for your leadership in keeping California's streak of leading by example and establishing equity for farmers. I'm here speaking in strong support of a yes vote on AB 52 to formalize these two existing advisory committees at CDFA, ensuring that SDFRs have a permanent formal voice

at CDFA. As a have a permanent formal voice at CDFA. As a land tender myself, I know firsthand the barriers that small producers face, from unexpected weather due to climate change to unreliable funding timelines. Since two since 2023, I have proudly volunteered my time to serve on this committee for this exact moment. So that the BIPOC advisory committee and the small producer advisory committee may be written into statute.

So that the next round of farmers will have the tangible resources they deserve to advise the CDFA. In my time, I've been able to work with my fellow farmers to, advise secretary Ross to support clearer and faster turnaround times for a grant to provide anonymous feedback mechanisms for producers, as well as creating better language access and reduced tech barriers. AB 52 is a practical next step towards building trust with small producers across California.

These committees are just one example of what it can look like when socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers are offered space to advocate for themselves as the experts of their own lived experiences. We need this bill to pass. Thank you for keeping this momentum. Please vote aye on AB 52. Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here. What are you farming?

Beg your pardon?

What what are you farming? Where? Where or and what?

I am farming in Calaveras County. We're growing, Basil, watermelon, peaches, lavender, sage, rosemary, and our newest crop is black eyed peas.

Great. That's that's exciting. It's exciting. Well, thank you for being here. Any further, witnesses here this morning? I wanna invite anybody, that would like to do a me too in support.

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor in strong support.

Brian Cho with the California Climate and Agriculture Network in support.

Hi. Secura Mascow here on behalf of Pesticide Action Agroecology Network, Californians for Pesticide Reform, chemical and toxic safety, and breast cancer prevention partners in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning. Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in support and asked to give support for the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Thank you.

Good morning. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy and Support.

My name is Roosevelt Tolleson, and I'm here to support the AB 52. I'm a farmer in California, and I also work hard to bring about the 1348 farmer equity bill, and appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? How about opposition? Primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none.

Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions. Seeing none, you may conclude.

Well, I love this program and to see the success that has brought us in the since 2017 and put it codifying it means a lot to me as well as our farmers and our, advocates. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Well, we we don't have a quorum right now, so we can't take a vote a motion and a vote, but, let me just say that I really like this bill. There are more and more people of color that are farming, and it's a high risk endeavor and really appreciate your testimony here. First of all, that you're here and your testimony, and thank you so much for for the original bill that you ran and for codifying what they have produced in the meantime. I think it's gonna be really important.

Thank you. Madam chair.

Senator, yes.

You know, out of out of order here, but with your permission.

Yes. Absolutely.

Yes. Hello. Thank you so much Assemblymember for bringing this bill forward. I I have traditionally really struggled with DEI style governance structures in agricultural policy. And I'm very glad that you brought your your witness today, because you actually farm in my district.

And one of the issues that we're having in California farming family. And I recognize that in order for us to have a strong agricultural community here in California, we have to align and adapt with those who are choosing to farm in California, and choosing to bring the rich nature of agriculture, despite the regulation, despite the decline in investment of of farm lands here in California. So this one really takes me back to basics.

I actually started farming a little over two years ago with the intention of growing my own food, but it evolved into growing food for seniors in my community, and people who were unable to actually get to stores. And then from there, it evolved into a co op, where others had learned how to how to produce a certain food, and then we would trade our goods.

And it has become such a gift to be able to to have that as part of my life, no longer as a hobby, but now as as a as a profession. I proudly call myself a farmer for taking on that. And and I'll tell you, when I started out, I did start to look for ways to to fund this endeavor. Right? Whether it was grants for first time women farmers, whether it was grants for certain commodities, and I struggled.

So if for me as a state Senator, with a Master's degree in public administration, struggled to find seed funding to grow my own food and to grow food for my community, it really has opened my eyes to the detriment of California agriculture industry. So I want to do everything I can in my power to encourage generations of farming, and to have a love of growing your own food, which then translates into love of the environment, love of the soil, love of your community.

I'm not sure this bill does that, but it is in the sentiment of what it does. The author for me has been an innovator in this space. She before I came into office, Assemblymember, Aguiar Curry.

I don't know if you knew. I was a fan girl of yours watching the work that you had done around agriculture in particularly here, the Yolo Yuba, Solano, Napa County area. So traditionally, you know, I I would not support a bill like this, but I think because of the author's intent of growing this, specifically bringing the real stories, I want to see a strong ag economy in California.

I want my children and my children's children, my grandchildren, who are of color, to love agriculture, and not see it as an impediment, because of the color of their skin. Now, I believe that despite the color of your skin, despite your ancestral origins, you should have the ability to have a thriving business in California, whether it be agriculture or not.

And I acknowledge that California has made a lot of missteps. So with that, traditionally, I would lay off this, but I am going to go ahead and support. So thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

Absolutely. Appreciate it very much. So when we get a quorum, we'll take a motion and move it at that time.

Thank you very much.

Thank thank you for being here.

Appreciate it. Assembly member Ransom. Welcome.

Two days in a row, Senator.

You are up on AB 1848. Yes. Your other bill, the file item number two is on consent. So when we get a quorum, we'll we'll take up the consent agenda.

Awesome. Thank you for that. Alright. I have a witness. So I'm gonna say good morning, Chair Caballero and members member.

California, as you know, is one of the most agriculturally productive regions on the planet, but the strength of our agriculture sector relies on high quality seeds. Farmers take their entire livelihoods on the knowledge that the package of seeds they grow and buy will grow what it says on the bag. It's up to the Department of Food and Agriculture seed law to make sure everyone from major industrial farmers to home gardeners get the seeds that they pay for and get what they expect.

Seeds are free from noxious weeds, that they contain what's on the label, and that they are free from contamination and can grow properly. The funding to support this important work is drying up.

It is a self a self is drying up. It is a self a self, fund that the farmers have put the seed growers have put on themselves. AB 1848 is a fix to that problem. This simply makes a modest increase to the fees paid by the seed manufacturers to fund the work. When California seed law was first established back in 1973, we created a simple fee structure.

Every company offering seeds for sale would pay $40 to CDFA. Since that initial fee was created fifty three years ago, inflation, of course, has increased and the number of seed manufacturers has decreased. What this means is that there are fewer companies paying for a fee that's been significantly diluted by inflation, and the safety of the farmers fields are at stake because of it. This bill will keep our fields healthy, our fam farmers happy, and our kitchens full. And with me to testify today is Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Seed Association.

Thank you very much. As she mentioned, Dennis Albiani with the California Seed Association, and we support this measure. She did an excellent job explaining it, and and we appreciate that. But just a a a quick overview. This is really a consumer protection law.

It's really helping the consumers know that what's in a bag is actually in the bag and what's on the label is actually in the label. This pays for enforcement, enforcement both at CDFA as well as the local ag commissioners who have contracts with CDFA to enforce those locally and go to retailers to make sure that the that the is, again, properly labeled and what's in the in the bag is actually the the proper seed.

So that consumer protection program, she mentioned 1973, this program was put into place with a $40 fee. It has not been increased. After much discussion, we wanna get more enforcement or at least fund existing enforcement and keep that vigorous, and that's the role that the folks got together.

This went through the seed industry advisory board there at CDFA as well as the, obviously, the California Seed Association. And for those reasons, we ask for a aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the the history lesson. Is there anyone who would like to join as a Me Too? No seed companies out in the audience? How about opposition?

There's no listed opposition in this Seeing no one, nobody move. Comments, questions from the committee? Oh. Senator?

Welcome, Assemblymember Ransom. I do want to ask, what conversations have been had with the seed advisory board regarding your bill, if you can enlighten us on those.

Absolutely. So in hearing from the seed advisory members and people from the seed community, this is necessary. So this is something that they actually brought to us. They want to ensure that they can continue to protect the seeds from, you know, contamination, noxious weeds, and things like that. So this is something that is supported.

Mister Albiani may be able to, you know, go a little further, because he's more part of that those communities. But in hearing from them, this is something they want. There's been no opposition.

Yeah. So they have, discussed this several times with seed industry advisory board over many years. In fact, they wanted to do this last year about this time, and I recommended, hang on. We're not gonna do a bill with this, just, you know, try to get and amend something. So we've been talking about it for several years, trying to figure out how to, you know, get more vigorous enforcement, and make like I said, it's a consumer protection.

It really is for the the the purchaser of these products, both retail purchasers, like the the the gardening consumer, as well as the the farming consumer who is getting, you know, larger, deliveries. So, that's it's it's gone through that. And then the seed association took it as a through their, you know, legislative process and, supported as well, which includes, again, you know, some of the seed companies, seed farmers, and folks that are, you know, integrated throughout the industry.

Thank you. And then you alluded to noxious weeds. Is that defined in your bill or is that defined elsewhere so that there's clarity?

It is defined, I believe, elsewhere, but referred to in the bill. Again, I'm I have a technical expert here. So I'm gonna have a technical expert here.

Yeah. They have there's a definition of that in in other parts of the law. Obviously, we don't wanna, you know, you don't wanna buy seed and think it's weed free and then put weeds all over your field. Very important both for, conventional farmers as well as organic farmers. And so Noxious Weed 's been there.

The secretary has a lot of different authorities throughout the law. They could quarantine things if there's, you know, certain invasive and noxious weeds. I think miss Erwin actually has a a bill on weed seed as well. And so, you know, there's a that's that's defined throughout and and gives additional authorities outside of this bill or outside even the seed program to the secretary to protect folks from noxious weeds.

Thank you so much.

Very good. I don't have any further questions. Just appreciate you I appreciate the industry having a look at this and deciding that they would pay a higher fee themselves in order to be able to ensure that the the consumer protections that we expect in in this in this area. And also your your explanation, it is important that whatever you you buy be what you put in the ground. That's kind of important if you're going to be farming.

And that it's forward thinking. In other words, it's an increase with the opportunity to be increased later as as the need occurs. And so with that, I allow you to conclude.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much for being here today. We don't have a quorum yet. So when we get a quorum, we'll take up the four the well, all of the bills, but they're for hearing today and for on consent. So Thank you, ....

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for for being here on time. Assembly Member Krell, welcome. Next up is AB 1551.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Senator. Thanks so much for having me today. Assembly Member Maggie Krell, and I'm here to represent Assembly Bill 1551. And with me is Tim Johnson, the President of the California Rice Commission.

AB 1551 supports this crucial conservation work by identifying implementation of the rice footprint as a priority for the California Rice commission. California's roughly 500,000 acres of rice provide vital wetland habitat to a vie to a diverse array of species, including giant garter snakes, if you don't like snakes, also sandhill cranes, and millions of other waterfowl, shorebirds, and native fish.

Climate change, water shortages, market shifts, and, urban growth all pose a challenge to maintaining sufficient amounts of rice acreage to guarantee a viable habitat for these species. There's a recent UC Davis study, the rice footprint, and it sets forth a plan that maintains this critical ecosystem, which would cost an estimated $2,000,000,000 to restore if we don't preserve it. So with me to testify today is Tim Johnson, president of the rice commission.

Welcome.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf AB 1551 today. I am Tim Johnson, president and CEO of the California Rice Commission, and I'm here today on behalf of the state's 2,500 rice farmers and over 40 marketing and milling organizations. AB 1551 adds a very small but important addition to the scope of the authority of the California Rice Commission.

Commissions, as you know, are, an organization established to work on behalf of the benefit of the state of California, its farmers, and our urban neighbors.

With this addition of this amendment, we also will be working on behalf of the wildlife of the state of California. The driver behind, this bill was a report. You have a guide to that report. The full report is accessible through a code in the front cover.

Completed by UC Davis in 2025, 13 scientists, for the first time, sought to answer the question, how many acres of rice are needed to provide replacement wetland habitat for over 230 species of wildlife, including waterfowl, the Pacific Flyway, shorebirds, giant gartersnake, and Juvenile Salmon.

As you know, rice has widely been known for decades for the unique ability to provide surrogate wetlands habitat in a state that has lost over 95% of its historic wetlands. In addition, the report sought to answer not only the total number of acres, but where different species access those acres and where those needs might overlap. It also sought to address when fields should be flooded and importantly, reflooded in the wintertime and the ideal depth for various species types.

When over three decades of science was evaluated, the answer came back that the state needs a rice conservation footprint of 470,000 acres of rice planted every year, and of that 300,000 acres reflooded in the winter. We are proud to support this bill, and we're proud of the support that we have from a broad swath of our conservation community, including Ducks Unlimited, Cow Trout, Audubon, Point Blue Conservation Sciences, The Nature Conservancy.

We also have the support of the Northern California Water Association and water districts throughout the Sacramento Valley. Given the importance of working rice lands and the hundreds of species of wildlife and the commitment of our farmers to working lands conservation, we urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone anyone who would like to add on it as a #MeToo in support of the bill?

Good morning. Michael Jared with the Nature Conservancy in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good. Anyone else? Is there anyone in opposition? We had no listed opposition formal opposition. Anyone in opposition?

Saying none, we'll bring it back to the committee. No comments from the committee member. Let me just say that, I'm your biggest fan. I had the opportunity to, I've seen the development well, I've seen the elimination of burning in the rice fields as a way to get rid of the stubble that was left behind to a more coordinated approach using water as as a attraction for the birds. And the flyway includes the one of the largest remaining wetlands in Merced as well.

So the wetlands are critically important to that flyway and to the native species. And the ability now to add salmon as part of the ecosystem is has been really incredible because what we've learned from all of this is that sometimes what we make man made doesn't really work very, very well and that nature has a way of of being able to heal itself. And I think the rice farmers have been a real critical component of that.

So I do really appreciate this bill incorporating wildlife, because it's a much more holistic approach to how we can make sure that we're taking care of all the species that inhabit our earth. And there's nothing, I mean nothing like traveling out there after the harvest, when the birds are out there and they all take off.

It's an incredible sight to see hundreds of thousands of birds all take flight at the same time. So I thank you for the work that you're doing on the commission and also for farmers because it's created this synergistic system. So we we we do not have a quorum, but I'll allow you to conclude, and when we get a quorum up, we'll take up, the vote on these bills.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks so much for your comments. I really appreciate it. I wanna echo what you've said and also just say, to my witness here, mister Johnson, my understanding is that, he's gonna be retiring as president of the rights commission, that this is actually his last bill, and and I'm grateful I got to share a table with him today. Grateful for his leadership and for his stewardship and respectfully ask your Aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much. Well, thank you so much for for being here. I there's no indentured servitude, so there's no way to make people stick around when they're ready to move on, but you've got a great legacy in the work that's been done here. And the more that the more that people know about this, the better. This I had not seen this report, but I will share it far and wide.

And it may make sense to try to take up some legislators up to the area around when when the birds are around because that's really when you realize the that what before would have been seen as land that didn't have any value economically to the farmer, it can be utilized to really create the utilized to really create the biodiversity we need. So that would be great. So thank you so much for being here. Thank you for your service as well.

Thank you so much for your kind comments. Very much appreciated.

Thank you. Alrighty. So, we're moving on. If we could call the members of the committee because this is our last bill that we'll be taking up and then we'll be voting. And, welcome, Assemblymember Irwin. Appreciate you being here today.

Thank you very much and good morning Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2143 today. The impact that noxious weeds have on our ag lands is devastating. These invasive plants overrun crops, damage soil health, disrupt ecosystems, and kill the biodiversity of our native plants. They are a scourge that costs our, costs our state millions of dollars.

The Department of Food and Agriculture maintains a publicly available list of noxious weeds and has banned the sale of weeds through regulations. Despite these efforts, though, many noxious weeds continue to be sold without restraint through online e commerce marketplaces. The ease of purchasing one of these illegal plants is staggering. Any one of us could go right now to an e commerce site and buy one within minutes. Additionally, many consumers may not even realize that they are purchasing a noxious weed.

Online marketplaces have a responsibility to ensure that they do not facilitate the sale and shipment of these illegal plants. AB 2,143 addresses this issue by banning online marketplaces from facilitating noxious weed transactions that would be delivered in the state. This ensures that online marketplaces take responsibility for the role that platforms can play in the spread of noxious weeds.

Preventing online marketplaces from selling these weeds will cut off a key contributor to the spread of invasive plants at the source, saving our state millions of dollars down the line. With me to testify today in support of the bill is Taylor, Trifo representing California Citrus Mutual and a series of other ag clients.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Vice Chair, Taylor Triffo, on behalf of a variety of agricultural clients in support of 2143. California's communities are facing unprecedented pest and invasive species, pressures. Every year, new weeds, new insects, and plant diseases threaten our crops, our natural working lands, and our native species. Preventing these introductions are far more cost effective, and more effective than trying to eradicate them once they're here.

In 2023, the infestation of invasive fruit flies that we've never seen these species here in California cost more than $208,000,000 before actually reaching eradication, and the advent of glassy winged sharpshooter, diamondback moth in Salinas, are a stark reminder of the growing risk. At the same time, the marketplace has changed dramatically.

Today, anyone can buy almost anything from anywhere at any time in just a few clicks, and they're delivered by passenger vehicle, instead of these medium and heavy duty trucks that are checked at the border protection stations. So while e commerce has created tremendous convenience, it's also created new pathways outside of our traditional regulatory safeguards, and our system is frankly outdated.

CDFA'S C 3 PA study that was just released last month noted that e commerce is one of the greatest threats to our current pest prevention system, and researchers uncovered that only 16 of the 62 surveyed e commerce websites clearly displayed restrictions for shipping plant material into California.

Twenty one forty three addresses this challenge. Ecommerce moves online, our or as commerce moves online, our protections have to evolve to address a digital marketplace, so we think this is a common sense measure, and at the appropriate time, we request an Aye vote. Thank you.

K. Thank you so much. Is there anybody that would like to join on as a #MeToo?

Dennis Albiani, California Seed Association, we support as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Griselda Chavez with the California Association of Local Conservation Corps is in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Jose Torres with TechNet, if I may for a brief second. I just wanna say appreciate the author for her work. TechNet represents a lot of the online marketplaces, and because of her work, we've removed our full opposition to this and are now neutral.

Great. Very good. Anyone else in support? I have no one listed in opposition. Is there anybody that would like to speak in opposition?

Seeing no no one come forward, questions of the committee? Seeing seeing none for my fellow Senator. I have a question and it just it occurred to me in terms of, you know, we have prohibition. We have prohibitions against importing plants that have soil attached to it because of the potential for pests. Do we have, if you know, because it's adjacent to this discussion, whether we have those same kind of restrictions about soil coming from other states.

Does it happen to me?

So we have restrictions on finished things like finished compost, things that are finished fertilizers, so soil amendments are those that you would apply, but we don't have it. And one of the largest issues we've got is phytophthora, which is something that travels through the soil. It's a disease that if you put a shovel in one place and you move that shovel to another place, the phytophthora moves.

So it's certainly a place where there's growth and opportunity to move forward while still keeping commerce alive in California, because we do rely on inputs from other areas.

That's an issue we probably should look at, because the reason that I have the question is back when the trade rules changed that prohibited plants coming into the state of California with soil attached to it, it collapsed our flower industry. And, yeah, way too much information. But anyway, I was just thinking about the the fact that all of those hot houses ended up empty and and many of the small farms went out of business because of that that change.

But there's a reason that it becomes really important as we become a more the world is shrunk and things come from other countries on a regular basis, not just diseases but other pests and things we need to protect for.

So if we're gonna protect California agriculture, we may need to look at some of that and figure out if the if we have if the Federal Government isn't doing it right now, and I don't know, are there things we need to do to protect California agriculture and that the soil occurred to me as part of the real problem because it's the easiest way to pass on pests and diseases that then can collapse our our industry.

So this is an important bill. Appreciate you bringing it forward today. Thank you, Senator, for joining us. I know you're under the weather today, so I appreciate you being here. We have a quorum.

And so we'll take the role, and then we'll let you conclude.

Alright. Thank you very much.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Assembly Member, I didn't mean to to have you leave. This is your opportunity to conclude. Ask for an Aye vote.

Yeah. I'll just I would ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you so much. I'm on an important bill. So, we are on, file item number six, AB 2143. We haven't concluded all the the bills here today. We have a couple of Members absent, but why don't we go ahead and take the bills that we can and then we'll just put them on.

Yes, we do. Okay. Motion on AB 2143, and the motion is due pass to privacy, digital technology and protection committee. Wow. That's a long name.

So we do have a motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote has three ayes and we'll put it on call for the absent members. Let's go to the consent items. We are the consent items are file item number two, AB 230. File item number five, AB 2086. File item number seven, AB 2779.

And file item number eight, AB 2588. I'll entertain a motion. I'll move. Motion's been made. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill has three votes, so put it on call for the absent members. Moving on to file item number one, AB 53 by Assembly member, Aguilar Curry. I'll entertain a motion on that. Motion's been made. Please call the roll. And that is the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That bill has three votes. We'll put that on call for the absent members. Moving on to file item number three, AB 1848 by Assembly member Ransom. We need a motion on that. Yes. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

K. That has four votes. We'll put that on call for the absent member. Thought we had one more. We won't put that one on that one on call.

That is file item number three. That bill is out with four votes. Moving on to file item number four, AB 1551 by Assemblymember Krell. Do I have a motion on that bill? Yes. The motion is do pass. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The bill is out. Four to zero. So we'll, we'll go back and, we have, four items on the consent agenda. File item two, five, seven, and eight. Please call the consent agenda items again.

[Roll Call]

That that bill is out. Four to zero. So we'll start again with file item number one, AB 52 by Assembly member Aguiar Curry. The motion is do passed to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

The bill is out four to zero. Next is file item number three, AB 1881848. That that bill is out four to zero. Assembly member Krell, AB 1551. Motion is do pass.

That one's out. That one is out as well. And so we have one more, which is AB file item number six, AB 2143 by Assembly member Irwin, and that motion is do passed to privacy digital technologies and consumer protection committee.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out four to zero as well. That concludes our the Senate Committee on Agriculture. Thank you to everybody for being here, and, we are adjourned.