Committee deadlocks on amendment to cut cosmetology training hours; amendment fails to advance

A House committee debated a bill proposing lower training-hour requirements for cosmetology students and failed to advance a chairman's amendment that would have set the requirement at 1,251 hours.

Representative Westco, the bill sponsor, told the Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee the industry has been split over how many training hours should be required and disputed a statistic circulated by opponents. "That is a false statistic," Westco said, referring to figures he said mixed consumer complaints with criminal-history checks. He said the number of consumer complaints had "remained steady or decreased."

Why it matters: the number of required training hours affects whether students qualify for certain financial aid and how long it takes to complete a program. Representative Cash proposed the chairman's amendment increasing the bill's 1,000-hour proposal to 1,251 hours to ensure students would become eligible for full financial aid; Cash said the extra hour mattered because "the final financial aid kicks in at 12:51" after completion of 1,250 hours.

Committee debate focused on the tradeoffs between shortening programs to expand access and preserving a longer curriculum that some witnesses and members said better prepares students. Representative Morris and Representative Garcia Wilburn both voiced concern that reducing hours could cut out training such as coloring, facials and business skills. Representative Morris said some students told the committee they would prefer more hours, not fewer.

The committee took a roll-call vote on the chairman's amendment. The recorded tally at the time the vote was held open showed five votes in favor (Representative Venator, Representative Hostetler, Representative Issa, Representative Cash and Representative Payne) and five opposed (Representative Morris, Representative Genda, Representative Mosley, Representative Bartlett and Representative Garcia Wilburn). The vote was held open for two absent members; the amendment ultimately did not move forward and was not adopted.

There was no final committee vote on the underlying bill during the meeting. Members noted the issue remains controversial within the industry, with some businesses and national retail salon chains supporting shorter programs and many students and training providers urging caution.

The committee moved on to other bills after the amendment failed to advance; the transcript does not record a final committee action on the underlying bill during this session.