Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Yeah. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. Today we will be hearing 15 bills on our agenda, with the following two bills on consent. AB 1101 by a selling Member Nguyen, and AB 1130 by myself.

Before we begin with today's agenda, I would like to once again remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public. Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For each measure being presented today, we'll be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name position on the Bill and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. And with that, we're going to begin today's hearing. And I see my friend, Majority Leader Aguiar Curry, is ready to go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members for. First, I would like to thank you and your staff for your work on this complicated issue. I started working on hemp issues because of the 2018 farm Bill left a largely unregulated industry. My first successful legislation, AB45, was the most strict hemp law in the country.

When it was enacted in 2021, it was explicitly an effort to legalize non intoxicating hemp products like cbd. But today, I'm here to make sure the law can be properly enforced and interpreted. As the hemp market grows, we're seeing more intoxicating hemp products sold outside of dispensaries without age limits, which should be illegal.

This Bill is another big undertaking, and it takes on three issues. First, it will expand enforcement to crack down on illegal hemp products. This will give the state agencies and local governments the tools they need to protect our kids from synthetic products products.

Second, it will close loopholes that allow intoxicating hemp products and make it clear that all, all synthetic THC is banned. Third, this Bill integrates hemp into the cannabis supply chain. This will make sure all products with any level of THC are treated like cannabis, meaning full registration, regulation and taxation.

This will bring new products under the cannabis excise tax and will likely expand tax revenue. I will continue to work with stakeholders, state agencies and committees as we address concerns about the best way to implement these changes.

With me today I have Amy Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association and Kristin Heidelbach, Legislative Director for UFCW Western States Council. Thank you.

It is on. Good morning Chair and Committee Members, Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, proud supporters of AB8. We represent over 5,000 cannabis workers in California under UFCW contract.

First of all, I want to thank Assembly Member Aguirre Curry for again authoring this important legislation that if passed, will protect not only California consumers, but the workers and the employers that UFCW represents in the cannabis industry. High taxes in a booming illicit market create almost untenable challenges for a highly regulated cannabis industry.

Add to that an unchecked hemp derived THC alternative that is virtually unregulated and you have an industry on the brink of collapse. The cannabis industry has such high guardrails in place that manage how they conduct their businesses, who they can sell their products to, how product is moved and how they can advertise.

I don't need to tell anyone in this room that the proliferation of hemp based intoxicating product solicitations that flood our inboxes or sold easily online or offered to unknown audiences on social media platforms is a threat to consumer safety.

Neither the voters nor the state Legislature intended for the hemp market to evolve into a shadow market where intoxicating cannabinoids are cheap, potent, untested, untaxed. Rather, the hemp market was intended to be a wellness market based on non intoxicating therapeutic cannabinoids derived naturally from low THC plants.

AB8 would align the currently bifurcated hemp and cannabis markets and most importantly, create tax and testing parity between the two and give officials a better chance at fighting bad actors that flood our streets. Simply put, if it is an intoxicating product, it belongs in the regulated cannabis supply chain. We respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Committee Members. Amy Jenkins here on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association, representing 200 licensed operators across the supply chain. We are pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation and want to applaud the author for all the great work that she has done to address these issues.

Earlier this year, March and Ash, in partnership with the San Diego Imperial Counties Joint Labor Management Cannabis Committee as well as UFCW and others, released a ground groundbreaking report. Thehempoax.com it reviewed over 100 hemp derived THC products sold in California. And the findings were staggering.

89% exceeded the legal THC limit under California law, 66% were marketed to children using cartoon imagery and mimicking Candy and Soda brands. 52% had no testing or potency verification, 35% were manufactured out of state or internationally, and none were taxed under California's cannabis tax laws. AB8 draws a clear line.

If a product is intoxicating, it belongs under the regulatory authority of the Department of Cannabis Control. This ensures consistent testing, taxation, packaging, age verification and enforcement, regardless of whether the THC is derived from cannabis or hemp. But the public health threat is only part of the picture.

In March, Whitney Economics, one of the country's leading cannabis market analysts, reduced its U.S. cannabis retail forecast by more than 21 billion over the next five years and cited many factors, including the flood of intoxicating hemp products. Their California specific findings are sobering.

Legal cannabis participation is declining not because of lack of demand, but consumers are seeking cheaper alternatives like intoxicating hemp products. That's what makes AB8 so critical. It doesn't ban hemp. It draws a clear enforceable line. If a product is intoxicating, it belongs under the dcc.

That means testing, age, gating, taxation and safety standards, the same ones that cannabis licensees must follow every single day. In closing, AB8 is not about picking sides. It's about protecting kids, safeguarding consumers, and preserving the regulated systems voters chose. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else who wants to add on in support of the Bill again, please just provide your name. Come on up to the microphone right up here. Provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and your position on the Bill.

Chair Members Alicia Priego on behalf of Kiva Confections in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. Jason Bryant, on behalf of the Cannabis Distribution Association, we're in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members Dan Seeman on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and strong support. Thank you.

Rich Miller on behalf of American Alliance for Medical Cannabis Alliance in strong support. A patient focused organization with no financial investment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tim Schmelzer with Wine Institute in support.

Thank you.

Sherry Martinez, just a patient and support.

Thank you.

Deanna Garcia, cannabis licensed dispensary, owner of. Seven cannabis dispensaries and here on behalf of Cal Normal in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Josh Lewis on behalf of Embarc Dispensaries and strong support. Thank you.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support and also want to express the support for the Rural County Representatives of California, thank you.

Thank you.

Zoe Schreiber from Highlands Dispensary and support.

Thank you.

Karen Woodson with KSS and support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Come on up. You've got two minutes each. You can come right up to these chairs up here at the the dais. All right, you have two minutes each and hit the little. There you go.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Janine Coleman. I'm the Executive Director of Origins Council representing 400 small independent licensed cannabis businesses in rural regions of the state. Predominantly licensed, small scale legacy farmers. I'll cut straight to the point.

When ABA proposes to integrate hemp into the cannabis supply chain, it is not primarily relevant to the CBD. Instead, the primary effect of AB8 as written would be to allow high THC, highly intoxicating hemp products produced anywhere in the country to sit alongside California grown cannabis products at our state licensed dispensaries.

This is not a small issue for us, and we don't believe it should be for anyone else here. A core aspect of Proposition 64 has always been the premise that legal cannabis products must be sourced seed to sale from a closed loop supply chain.

If this requirement is lifted, the very integrity and coherence of Proposition 64's legal framework dissolves. Cannabis cultivators are extraordinarily highly regulated under Proposition 64, and many of our Members have spent their life savings coming into compliance with these environmental rules. By contrast, hemp is cultivated as a traditional agricultural activity nationwide with exponentially less regulation.

If California allows THC and high THC products to be sourced from lightly regulated hemp rather than highly regulated cannabis, we should be clear about the impact. Effectively regulated cannabis cultivation in California is being made irrelevant.

High THC hemp products sourced naturally from hemp are currently widespread and are primed to replace cannabis derived THC products if legally allowed to do so. To be clear, our concerns about hemp integration are entirely separate from valid concerns which we do share about the sale of intoxicating hemp products at gas stations, liquor stores, et cetera.

Fortunately, recent regulations from CDPH have now prohibited the sale of these products at these locations.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

While we're extremely concerned about the integration of high THC hemp into the cannabis market, we are not opposed to the integration of legitimately non intoxicating and high CBD products. And for this reason, we've taken an opposed unless amended position on AB8.

Our letter includes a mockup of requested amendments and we remain eager to work with the author to find solutions. However, until that time, we must urge a no vote on AB8. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair Berman Members. Dr. Lynn Silver, pediatrician and Director of Getting It Right from the start AB8 is complex, but Section 340112, the tax adjustment repeal, impermissibly breaks with the clear intent of Prop 64 and promises made to voters. Ours and 97 other organizations are here to say no. We ask that the section be stricken.

Voters were promised clear and specific commitments of resources for our children and for youth, substance abuse prevention, environmental remediation and law enforcement. AB8 breaks the 2022 agreement repealing the cultivation tax while restoring revenue neutrality this year. In exchange, our organization stood down in 2022 in exchange for that agreement.

That section throws thousands of children under the bus for higher profits for 1800 retailers. We estimate that between 145 and $180 million annually would be lost. It will deny child care for thousands of our most vulnerable children, reducing funding by perhaps 60 to 80 $1.0 million a year after 2028.

It will cut future funding for elevate youth with over 275amazing youth programs in all of your districts by about, we estimate, $25 million annually. Our cannabis taxes are not too high and this repeal will not solve the problem of the illicit market any more than the 2022 cuts did the proposed hemp tax.

Why positive will likely replace cannabis product taxation rather than augment and may even reduce the tax base.

Our project supports the strongly supports the prohibition of synthetic and unsafe THC lookalikes, but calls upon you to strike the loophole about the approval of any other chemical substances by the Department, which opens the door for crushing political pressure on agencies to legalize other psychoactive substances.

Our organization supports the enhanced enforcement, environmental and other requirements for hemp and the stronger prohibitions on inhalable hemp. But we recommend prohibiting inhalable hemp manufacture and we join with Origins Councils in the concerns they express about intoxicating hemp. Thank you.

We ask that you balance the welfare of cannabis businesses with the broader public welfare in this case. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the Bill, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

Yes, Alex Loomer on behalf of Resources Legacy Fund, also in an opposed unless amendment position, concerned about the loopholes getting away from the environmental rights under. Prop 64 and then in addition following groups are in opposing less amendment position. On the tax piece in addition to.

Resource Legacy Fund, the Environmental Protection Information Center, California Native Plant Society, Defenders of Wildlife, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, Pacific Forest Trust, Friends of the Inyo and Friends. Of the Harbors and Beaches and Parks. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments on the Bill. Any questions or comments? Don't have a quorum but I appreciate the enthusiasm. Assemblymember Pellerin

Thank you. Good morning. So we have CDPH emergency regulations in place now that ban the sale of of all intoxicating hemp derived products in California and CDPH is working to make these regulations permanent. Isn't that adequate to have cleaned up the public health concerns that this measure is addressing or where are we on that?

Assemblywoman, thank you for your question. I would just note that while we are very supportive of the emergency regulations as an industry, it is not it's not addressing the full scope of the problem.

And I would note the exercise that was undertaken over the fall following the passage of those emergency regulations where I and many were quite easily able to purchase these products online. In fact, 104 products were purchased online, of which 95% of them were not coming from naturally derived hemp sources, but from synthetic sources.

So we believe this Bill empowers the state regulatory agencies to take additional action. There are embargo and seizure authority built into the Bill and again, we feel there are stronger safeguards if the enforcement components and anything related to intoxicants is shifted under the dcc. So that is why we are supportive of this measure.

We certainly support the emergency regulations, but they are certainly not going far enough in the the exercise and the activities that we undertook over the fall prove that.

Just one more question. So I understand there's a dramatic difference between how hemp cultivation and cannabis cultivation are regulated where hemp cultivation is regulated like other agricultural activities and cannabis cultivation is significantly more highly regulated. So I hear the concern that this will displace our cannabis cultivators here in the state. And how are we addressing that?

I certainly agree that we don't want to do anything to displace cultivators in California. That is certainly not the intent and it's why there are other organizations that represent cultivators that are supportive of this. Having said that, we have committed to sit down and try to address some of the concerns raised by Origins Council and others.

But I would note too, going back to this Study. We are not seeing intoxicating hemp products that are coming into this market, that are derived, that are naturally occurring. We are seeing primarily synthetic products. So we also would note that, yes, there is a distinction hemp is treated differently.

It is a crop, but you have to produce 50 times or more the biomass. And the language in the Bill is very clear. When hemp enters the supply chain as biomass, it still must be defined as hemp. So 0.3% or less.

But again, appreciate the work of Origins Council and some of the amendments, and we will be working with them to try to resolve concerns. I don't know if we'll fully get there, but happy to continue to engage in those discussions. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Majority Leader, would you like to close?

Sure. Yes, I would. You know, we've been working on this issue for six years and it's constantly evolving marketplace. And this Bill, as I present it to you today, will make products and practices safer and make it harder for criminals to sell illegal products. But that doesn't mean our work is done by far.

I assure you all that I will continue to work with all stakeholders. And thank you very much. Your comments today. To support integration in a way that supports our legal hemp and cannabis industries further empowers our regulators to attack illegal products and protects public health.

And at the end of the day, we need to make sure hemp products are well regulated and safe for all consumers. We saw this before last fall. All consumers need to be safe, whether they're using them for medicinal purposes or just to relax. I commit to you that I will update the Committee as those conversations progress.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Majority Leader. And it goes without saying, but you've been a tenacious leader on this topic for many years, and I want to commend both you and your staff and encourage. And thank you because you just committed to doing it, to working with stakeholders to sort out the various issues that still exist.

But I'm happy to support this Bill today. We don't have a quorum, so when we do, I'm sure we'll have motions and seconds and votes. But in the meantime, thank you very much to everybody.

I appreciate you and the Committee. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I see Summit Member Gonzalez is no longer hiding in the corner. He's moved to the front of the hearing room. So we are ready when you are, sir. Agenda item number four. AB476. Gotta get your cheese. Get your Protein.

Hey, how are you? Ready?

Yeah. Ready when you are. .

Good morning, Everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members, I am pleased to present AB476, which will enhance enforcement against copper wire theft and protect critical public infrastructure. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their hard work and thoughtful analysis on this very, very important Bill, not just to Los Angeles, but to across the state.

I also appreciate the Committee's proposed amendments, which I am accepting today. These amendments will remove the licensure requirement for copper sellers and scale back some of the reporting requirements to address concerns that have been raised by the opposition who we've worked with, particularly regarding impacts on individual collectors and small businesses.

I remain committed to continuing to work with the Committee stakeholders and recyclers to find a balanced solution that strengthens our enforcement efforts while being mindful of the burdens placed on legitimate bad. Act on legitimate actors. Excuse me. AB476 will do three main things.

One, it expands the types of information junk dealers and recyclers must collect before purchasing metals like copper, including more detailed descriptions of those items. Second, prohibit possession, without documentation, of additional categories of scrap metal from public infrastructure, such as street lights, traffic signals, plaques and broadband equipment to better protect these vital community assets.

Lastly, number three, increase penalties to better reflect the true cost and harm caused to taxpayers and communities when these metals are stolen and these materials. These measures aim to deter copper theft, protect public safety, and increase transparency in the scrap and metal industry.

Copper prices are near historic highs and copper theft is rampant across California, causing devastating financial and public safety impacts and issues to our areas. This is not a victimless crime. Cities must spend far more repairing the damage than the scrap metal of the stolen copper wire in the first place.

Cities like San Jose, Santa Monica, Richmond, Fresno and Los Angeles, including in my own district, are being hit hard. They're being hit now and they're being hit daily.

A striking example in my own district is the iconic 6th Street Bridge in Los Angeles, dubbed a ribbon of light after its 2022 reconstruction that has been simply left in the dark after thieves stole 38,000ft, almost seven miles of copper wiring.

The copper street value was around $11,000, but the cost of the repair and the damage is estimated at 2.5 million. A Bill taxpayers must shoulder. Two years later, the bridge still remains unlit to this day.

And somebody who worked on this bridge and working with the local City Council Members, $22 million alone came from the state to help to put this bridge together. And it's, of course, still in the dark in our area.

In Los Angeles, street light outage service requests have more than doubled since 2021, with approximately 45000 requests reported in just 2024. Cases of vandalism or theft can take up to six months, even just to repair.

AB476 is a common sense approach to tackle this ongoing crisis, protecting essential infrastructure and ensure that our communities are not left in the dark. With me this morning to provide testimony to this and support is Damon Conklin from Cal Cities and Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members, Cal Cities is proud to co sponsor AB476 which seeks to address an issue that has quietly but significantly affected the lifelines of our cities. That is metal theft.

It may sound like a small time crime, but make no mistake, it is a high cost, high impact threat to public infrastructure, disrupting essential services like communications, public safety, utilities costing millions in repair and restoration. Metal theft from water, sewage systems, power substations and other utilities can lead to service interruptions, contamination and increased costs for communities.

Disrupted traffic signal lights create safety hazards for drivers, pedestrians, vandalism. Utility boxes plunge neighborhoods into darkness. Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose have all created task forces and impact teams to address this issue. Most recently here in San Jose, we're seeing 167 lights impacted each month, 712 outages due to copper theft. 500 of these areas remain dark.

Today, just here in Sacramento at the international airport where most of the Members travel in and out of just last year had disrupted services, delaying flights and affecting airport operations. These are not isolated issues. These are systemic attacks on services our communities rely on every single day.

AB476 seeks to establish stricter reporting requirements, increase penalties for metal theft, enhance accountability and transparency. What does this mean for cities? Safer streets, faster emergency response, millions of dollars saved for taxpayers and economic stability? I'll just say AB476 sends a clear message that California will not tolerate the sabotage of its public infrastructure. And for these reasons we strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband. The broadband industry provides critical communications infrastructure that ensures access to 911 and emergency alert systems and is a vital link to the daily lives of Californians. Essential sectors of our society such as public safety, health care, education, transportation and finance, all rely on the communications infrastructure.

Copper theft and the related activities have been on the rise and California is on the top 1 of the top 2 of the states in the nation for the number of copper theft crimes.

The Rising market value of copper has provided bad actors with an economic incentive to target multiple industries infrastructure through criminal acts of theft and vandalism. And in the indiscriminate search for copper. Even modern communications facilities such as fiber optic transmission lines and wireless communication towers that have no copper have been sabotaged.

These incidents of theft and vandalism have been increasingly common and create unnecessary service disruptions. I'm sure we can give examples from every city in California, but just this last month, Oakland's DMV office was ransacked by copper wire thieves.

And now the office is required to close for five months in the midst of the real ID being due in a couple months. So AB476 will strengthen the theft prevention and enforcement against copper wire theft through enhanced reporting requirements, expanding restrictions on scrap metal possession and increasing fines to better reflect the cost of these damages.

For these reasons, Cal Broadband and our industry partner, U.S. telecom, the Broadband Association, support AB476. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill, Come on up. Read your name, organization you're with, if any in position on the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Brandon Wong on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. Proud co sponsor and support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Karen Lange on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and the Solid Waste Association of North America and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Anthony Samson here on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members Jonathan Arambel on behalf of CTIA, the trade Association for the Wireless industry.

Thank you.

Good morning. Trent Smith on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association and support.

Morning. Chair and Members Brian Sanders, the City of Sacramento and support of amendment Apologize for missing the letter deadline. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Claire Sullivan in support on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Keely Morris on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation districts. In support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up. You've got two minutes. We're debating. We've determined this is not called the dais, so we'll call it the presentation table. Sure, if you want to be a primary witness in opposition. You got a couple. Okay.

Good morning, chair Members. Mike Jamnetski Contractor State license board. Thank you to the Committee staff for working with the author's office. The board is removing its opposition with the new amendments.

Thank you. That's the best news of the morning.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Ryan Flanigan on behalf of the Recycled Materials Association, West Coast chapter. Same thing. Want to thank the chair, Committee staff. Author and his staff are working with us. We had an opposing list amended which will be removing our opposition.

Yahtzee. Any witnesses in opposition? We had none. They all moved to neutral, which is great. Any seeing? None. All right. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Not seeing any. You did that good of a job. Assembly Member Gonzalez, would you like to close? Hey now, how you gonna throw shade?

It's Mark with a K. All right. K. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Listen, thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you to our folks and everybody who showed up today. AB476 is our beacon of hope. It's a common sense, bipartisan step to shine a light on justice, safeguard our neighborhoods and hold back, hold bad actors accountable.

By voting yesterday, we send a clear message that California stands united. We'll protect our public infrastructure, our taxpayers and each other. Let us move forward together, ensuring no community is ever left in the dark. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member Gonzalez, let it be noted I think this is your second Bill that you've presented in front of my hearing. You are throwing down the gauntlet as having the best closes in all of the Assembly. Now, I actually have some talking points.

Copper wire theft has been an issue in my district as well. So I certainly understand the importance of this issue. And I want to thank you for bringing forward this Bill. And I'm happy to support it with the Committee of Members. Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum yet.

When we do, I'm sure we'll have many motions and seconds and votes and support. Thank you. Any additional authors who are not Members of the Committee here? Seeing none. I'm going to kick it over to Assembly Member Ahrens if you're ready to go. Right. Is that wrong? We're going alphabetical right now. Forgive me.

I was going end on end. Yeah.

Ready when you are, Sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I am very proud to present AB985 which would help solve the access to safe Anesthesia care crisis in California and address the Anesthesia workforce shortage by allowing nationally certified anesthesiologist assistants to practice under the direct supervision of the state licensed anesthesiologist.

Certified anesthesiologist assistants or CEAs have been practicing in the United States for over 50 years, as old as my father and are authorized to work in 21 states, Guam and the District of Columbia. Additionally, they practice within the Veterans Administration systems nationwide under direct anesthesiologist supervision, underscoring their value in various healthcare settings.

Currently, over 4,000 CAs across countries serve as vital mid level providers within the Anesthesia care team. Implementing this model in California would align with the best national practices, immediately expand patient access to Anesthesia services and ensure rigorous oversight and safety standards. With me today are

Dr. Christina Menor, President Elect of the California Society of Anesthesiologists and Professor Shane Angus, a certified Anesthesiologist assistant and Executive Program Director for the Case Western Reserve University's Master of Science in Anesthesia programs. Thank you.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair Members, I'm Dr. Christina Menor. I'm an anesthesiologist in private practice in Los Angeles and I'm the current President Elect for the California Society of Anesthesiologists. CSA is the proud sponsor of AB985.

California faces an Anesthesia workforce crisis, a problem that is exacerbated by the increased demand for surgical procedures in aging patient as well as physician population and the expansion of non operating room anesthetizing locations.

To address this, California must take a multifaceted approach, training more anesthesiologists who are doctors specializing in the Anesthesia care, additional nurse anesthetists and incentivizing both to stay in the state. Immediately expanding physician led Anesthesia care team model which would include certified anesthesiologist assistants or referred to as caas.

Caas are highly trained Anesthesia professionals who work under the direct supervision of anesthesiologists. Their addition to the California workforce will immediately help fill an access gap, increase capacity as well as enhance patient access to safe physician led Anesthesia care in hospital surgery centers and physician practices across the state. CAs do not replace nurse anesthetists nor anesthesiologists.

They will offer an additional staffing option to immediately increase the Anesthesia workforce in California. CAAs function similar to PAs or physician assistants and have practiced like mentioned in 21 states, Guam and DC. The profession is recognized by the American Medical Association, private health insurance companies and Federal Government through Medicare and VA Healthcare Systems.

Therefore, this team based, team care based approach is necessary to maintain highest standards of Anesthesia practice in California while also providing an immediate solution to the Anesthesia workforce crisis that we have in California. Thank you Chair and Members for your consideration. We strongly urge your aye vote for AB985.

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Shane Angus. I'm a Professor with Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine's Master of Science and Anesthes program. I am also part of a sixth generation California family. I'm a Santa Barbara native and a graduate of UC Berkeley.

So because California does not recognize CAS currently I've been practicing out of state for 25 years. 25 years. I focus primarily on patients who have extra needs and high acuities at some of our nation's top institutions. Our students are exceptional. They have medical school acceptance quality. Their GPA average is a 3.8 and their MCAT is a 508.

Those are odd numbers I'm sure, but those are exceptionally high numbers. Just to let people know with that they also have fantastic experiences they bring with them usually on the forefront. Some of them are firefighters, paramedics, nurses, researchers and they've graduated from some of our top national universities. Plus of course California's.

With that we are also a 55 year old profession. 55 year old profession. And with that our curriculum is really focused on the clinical components at a graduate level. It's very challenging to say the least. While our students are in their training, they do every aspect of Anesthesia with the Anesthesia care team process.

They do their pre op, they do their post op, they learn central lines, neuroxial blockades, airways, emergency response in the or on the floors in the ER and throughout that space. The anesthesia workforce Challenges here in California are real and they're continuing.

We already serve in 21 states and the District of Columbia and we do so with some of the affiliates nationally for Kaiser, Dominion, hca, Dignity, uhs, Tennant. Those hospital systems already have existing systems here in California.

There are many graduates and practitioners from California that are eager to return to California and fill that need and that shortage as soon as it would be signed. And it's important too, at zero cost to the State of California.

With that I ask that you let professionals like myself return to fill that gap and fill that shortage with the needs that are there, they're not going to go anytime soon. We would also be able to uphold the highest standards of care by being part of the anesthesia care team model. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill who want to come up and just provide your name, organization you're with, if any in position on the Bill.

Good morning. George Sororis with the California Medical Association and support. Thank you.

Eric Shen from Orange County, Orange County, California, practicing employed caa. In support. Thank you.

Shira Spector, intern with Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association. In support.

Thank you.

Christy Lee from Sacramento, student anesthesiologist assistant. I'd like to come home support the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you.

Amanda Kim, student anesthesiologist assistant from Los Angeles, California. Also looking to come home in support.

Thank you.

Noah park from Diamondbar, California, first year student at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland and strong support. Thank you.

My name is Amelia Morales. I'm a practicing CAA in Washington, D.C. from Monterey, California. I've been practicing outside for six years. I'd like to come home. Thank you.

Tim Lam, I'm an Anesthesia patient and I'm in support of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to tweeners come on up with a tweener or some concerns.

Good morning Mr. Chair. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. I want to appreciate the opportunity that. I had with author to discuss the Bill.

We submitted a few questions of that we we hope to see fleshed out as it moves forward and we'll be in touch with his office and and your staff as as if the Bill moves out today. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

Another tweener.

Good morning Chair Members JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association. Just want to appreciate the conversations we've been having with the author's office and note that we have an imposed unless amended.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments on the Bill. Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close? You don't have to compete with Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask that you help bring our students home and I urge an aye vote.

That's a good one too. That's a good one too. Thank you. Assemblymember Ahrens.

I know there are a few comments and questions about implementation in the Bill analysis and that have been raised by others, but I very much trust you and your staff to work towards resolving those issues as the Bill moves forward in consultation with the various stakeholders. And so I'm happy to support the Bill today.

We don't quite have a quorum. If you want to text some of your colleagues, tell them to come to Committee, we can get that quorum. But in the meantime, thank you very much.

Thank you.

So I see some Member Bennett in the crowd, ready to go. Agenda item five, AB506.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to start first by accepting the Committee's amendments. In today's digital age, many people begin their search for a new pet online. 36% of dog owners use the Internet to find pets.

Unfortunately, thousands of consumers have fallen victim to fraudulent online pet sales, paying large deposits for dogs or cats that often come from inhumane breeding facilities or don't exist. Pet brokers are operating virtual storefronts that offer minimal information on the dogs they're selling, excluding the original source of the animal.

Sellers require potential buyers to place a non refundable deposit on the pet they're interested in before answering any questions about the dog or cat. AB506 protects consumers by voiding contracts between consumers and brokers that fail to include the origin of the pet veterinary records or require a non refundable deposit.

By requiring full disclosure of a pet's origins, we're shutting down a major avenue of freedom or puppy mills and unethical breeders who profit from consumer deception and further California's commitment to protecting animal welfare with me today. Proud to have Brittany Benisi from ASPCA and Juliana Tetlow from the San Diego Humane Society.

Great. You have two minutes each.

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

While California's retail sales ban successfully curbed much of the flow of cruelly imported animals into our state, the puppy mill pipeline remains active online through the use of bright and unsurprisingly adorable images and intentionally limited information about where an animal is coming from, online sales allowed puppy mills to continue to reach California.

If a consumer learns the name of the seller after having placed a non refundable deposit and has any concerns, their only choices are to move forward with the contract or lose their deposit and let's be clear. The indications are clear that these puppies are coming from commercial puppy mill operations. This is a business based on volume.

These sites must offer a large number of puppies available at all times ready for purchase and the puppies must offer a wide enough profit margin to pay for all actors in the pipeline.

Alternatively, traditional dog breeding associations promote the benefits of researching breeders, meeting the meeting the families, meeting the parents, and seeing where the puppies are being raised. These groups caution against breeders who are not transparent and many breed groups actively prohibit the use of third party sellers, which AB506 would address.

By requiring sellers to disclose the original source of an animal prior to contract and prohibiting non refundable depos. These provisions, excuse me, be requiring that these provisions be included in contracts, we can address these predatory behaviors and ensure that consumers have a legal avenue for relief.

AB506 will further California's commitment to ending the puppy mill pipeline and help more residents find their companion locally. Thank you to Assemblymember Bennett for your leadership on this issue and to the Members of the Committee, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Juliana Tetlow and I'm here today representing San Diego Humane Society, a proud co sponsor of AB506 which will strengthen consumer protections in the sale of dogs and cats in California. Right now, online pet sales operate in a regulatory gray zone.

Consumers who are trying to do the right thing by bringing new pets into their home are often misled by brokers and sellers who hide the origin of the animals and lock buyers into contracts that are both unfair and deceptive.

These contracts frequently require non refundable deposits before even disclosing basic information like where the puppy came from and who bred it. That's not just bad business, it's a setup for heartbreak and financial loss. AB506 helps put an end to this by ensuring sellers are transparent about the original source of the animal and prohibiting non refundable deposits.

It also gives consumers a clear remedy. If the contract is deceptive, it's void and the buyer gets their money back within 30 days. This Bill is about truth in advertising, transparency in transactions, and accountability in a marketplace that has gone unchecked for far too long.

It doesn't prevent people from buying pets, it simply ensures that they are not being taken advantage of by predatory sellers hiding behind digital storefronts. At a time when consumers are increasingly purchasing animals online, AB 506 brings California law in line with basic consumer protection standards.

It ensures that pet Buyers are treated fairly, that contracts are honest and that shady brokers can't exploit families with emotionally charged high stakes purchases. We urge your aye vote to protect California consumers from deception and financial harm. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill?

Good morning again. Karen Lang on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, in Support, representing over 200 public and nonprofit shelters in the state. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Karen Stout on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund as well as social compassion and legislation both in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Still seeing none. Bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member Bennett, would you like to close?

I respectfully asked for an aye vote for the record.

That is the best close. Notwithstanding anything I said earlier. Thank you Assembly Member Bennett, for bringing this Bill forward and for working with my Committee staff to make sure our Bill package is as effective as possible.

Like you, I'm a dog lover who was truly horrified to see the Los Angeles Times report that bad actors are still finding ways to skirt our laws around puppy mills. It's been an honor to join forces with you and the advocates to address the puppy mill pipeline. And with the amendments, I'm happy to support the Bill.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks Selling. Member Flora, you are up. Vice Chair Flora, Excuse me. Proper respect the Committee.

You don't do a vote on the.

Bill now, we don't have a quorum. Yeah, we would text some of our friends, tell them to show up. It's a team effort. You've got agenda item number nine. AB876.

Thank you Mr. Chair and colleagues. And I first just want to say. Thanks to Vince for your hard work on this. This is not an easy Bill and. Your efforts do not go unnoticed. I really do appreciate your efforts, my friend, but I'm here to present.

AB876 clarifies the duties and responsibilities of certified nursing and assists that are authorized to perform in California. The Bill affirms CRNA's ability to provide ASC services independently. Consistent with their education, training, long standing role in California. AB876 maintains access to Anesthesia care in hospital, surgical centers and rural and underserved communities.

And we certainly accept all of the Committee amendments. And with that I'll turn over to my witnesses. It's Kristen Roman with CRNA and Katie Boyles who's a CANA legal counsel. Thank you very much. You have two minutes each.

Thank you to the Members of the Business and Professions Committee and to the Chair for allowing me to speak today. And thank you to Assemblymember Flora, whose passion for protecting the rights and safety of his constituents has been evident throughout this bill's conception.

I'm Kristen Roman, a certified registered nurse anesthetist speaking on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. I'm here to express our strong support for AB876, a Bill that does not change CRNA practice in any way. AB876 is not a controversial Bill.

It simply refines existing definitions, increases transparency of current practice, and reaffirms CRNA practice as it existed in California for the past 50 years. CRNAs are advanced practice registered nurses with advanced education and training to provide safe, high quality Anesthesia in all settings for all types of Anesthesia.

We are here today because misinterpretation of existing law led to the cancellation of over 1000 cases in Assemblymember Flores District. The clarity and Transparency provided in AB876 will ensure that this never happens to Californians again.

Thank you very much. 2 Min.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Katherine Bowles. I'm a practicing attorney and a registered nurse. I currently serve as an attorney for the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology as well as any number of Anesthesia groups throughout California and at least 10 other states in the United States.

I represent both physician and nurse anesthesiology groups, working together some physician only groups and some CRNA only groups groups. I've been working with CANNA for the past year to address the fact that their scope of practice is contained within several different legal authorities, including the case of California Society of Anesthesiologists v.

Brown 204 Calep 4390, as well as its Incorporated Attorney General Opinion 831007 BRN Advisory Opinions, the Nurse Practice act and the Nurse Anesthetist act, to name a few. The purpose of AB876 is to codify existing law and advisory opinion from these relevant legal authorities and to encourage respect for the rule of law.

Last year, as Krista noted, the California Department of Public Health was subject to regulatory capture through hospital surveys, placing CRNAs at several different hospital locations under physician supervision and requiring prescriptive authority for each drug they administered for Anesthesia services.

For the first time in California's history, these CDPH findings had no basis in law or regulatory opinion and were implemented despite the fact that CDPH does not have enforcement authority over the scope of CRNAs.

What's worse, they've actually inspired several copycat surveys in surgery centers where private accreditation companies have threatened to cite or cited CRNAs, or actually the surgery centers for practicing without supervision.

Even though California Health and safety code Section 1248.15 authorizes CRNAs to practice in the outpatient setting within their full scope of practice, the import of today's Bill cannot be understated.

I noticed that the opposition stands in stark contrast to prior authority issued by the Medical Board of California, which did acknowledge the existence and legal import of CSAV Brown and in fact their Medical Board staff Report Agenda Item 7 from February 52014 summarized CSAV Brown's relevant dicta and holding and even acknowledged that no disciplinary action had ever been taken against a CRNA for administering Anesthesia without physician supervision in California.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you, I will. If the stated goal here is to address the shortage of Anesthesia providers and expand access to care, then please vote I in support of AB876. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who want to add on in support of the Bill, come on up. Write your name, organization you're with and position on the Bill.

Good morning. Roxanne Gould. Excuse me. With American Nurses Association in support, thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Monica Miller, on behalf of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Karen Stout, on behalf of the California Nurse Med Association, we're in support.

Thank you. Morning. Chair and Members, Pat Whalen, on behalf. Of United Nurses Association of California, in support, thank you.

Good morning. Nilu Patel, on behalf of California Nurses Association and UCI Health, I'm in support.

Thank you. Nathan Adams, managing partner of Central California Anesthesiology Solutions, who provides services to some. Of these rural hospitals with vulnerable populations, in support, thank you.

Good morning. Brian Tune from California State University, Fresno, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mark Pahead, Crna, a nurse anesthesiologist representing Kaiser Permanente Nurse Anesthesia Association. On behalf of 400 plus Members, I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Chairmember is Jessica Moran on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners and support, thank you.

Romel Uniza, an independent practicing nurse anesthesiologist. I'm here in support.

Thank you.

And Pettibone, nurse anesthetist at Kaiser, 20 year nurse anesthetist, 36 year RN. I'm also a UNAC UHCP union Member and a Cana Member and I support this Bill.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Emily Franck I'm the current President of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. And on behalf of over 3100 of our Members and thousands and thousands of our patients, we are in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Louisa Moya, I'm a CRNA nurse anesthetist from Kaiser Permanente and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Chris Cerna, unac, UHP Member and I support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Greg Crawford, crna, unac, UHCP Member and I support.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Karen Karp from San Joaquin General Hospital in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Diana Hakila. I've been a practicing CRNA for over 25 years. I currently am faculty at Samuel Merritt University and also a clinician at Kaiser Permanent Day. I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mary Karp from the. I'm co owner of the Sierra Pacific Anesthesia Regional Consultants. It's a long title and I. We all support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. Jp Hanna with the California Nurses Association and support.

Thank you.

Good morning again, Mr. Chair. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of CANA just quickly wanted to offer my deep appreciation to you and Mr. ... and Mr. Flora for their hard work on this. A lot went into this in the last few weeks and I'm very, very appreciative of all the hard work that went in. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Come on up. You've got two minutes each.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Dr. Christina Menor. I'm anesthesiologist in private practice in Los Angeles and I'm the current President elect for the California Society of Anesthesiologists. CSA is strongly opposed to AB876.

This Bill is an dangerous overreach to extend nurse anesthetists scope of practice beyond their education and training and it will compromise patient safety.

Recent investigations by the California Department of Public Health, CDPH and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services CMS at Doctors Medical center and Stanislaus Surgical Hospital, both in Modesto, California, highlight what can definitely go wrong when nurse anesthetists are left to select the modality of Anesthesia for the patient and to abort or modify the modality of Anesthesia for the patient during their course of care as specifically authorized under this Bill.

This investigation confirmed that cutting corners and providing nurse only delivered Anesthesia directly care directly compromises patient safety. Anesthesiologists who are medical doctors and nurse anesthetists are both essential, but they are not interchangeable. The physician led Anesthesia care team model is the right solution. We all have different roles, different jobs and different training.

The physician leadership and direction are both essential and ensuring patient safety. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman and Members. For all those reasons, we strongly urge your no vote in AB876.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members George Sores of the California Medical Association here in respectful opposition to AB876 by Assembly Member. Flor in the bill's current form and with the proposed amendments in the analysis. Most of my comments will align with with CSAs as well.

But I just want to say this Bill would substantially admit in the scope. Of practice, even with the proposed amendments for CRNAs in hospitals, outpatient facilities and dental offices by allowing them to practice independent of any physician supervision. Lowering safety standards by removing physician involvement in Anesthesia care creates unacceptable risk for patient safety.

Medical Anesthesia is inherently high risk where. Even minor errors or delays in decision making can lead to life threatening complications. Reducing physician oversight and lowering safety standards can reasonably lead to an increase in chance of patient harm. The current practice has been in place. Over 15 years and standards should not be lowered.

However, there is a conversation to be had about formalizing existing practices. Even with the proposed amendments, this Bill does not thoroughly capture that goal. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that. You vote no on this legislation today and continue this policy conversation with a more appropriate starting point. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much. And we're going to take a brief pause because we have a quorum and people keep on leaving. So I want to capture that. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great, we have a quorum. Are there any additional witnesses you want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

Shira Spector, on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Gary Cooper representing California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. In opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Brian Spencer. On behalf of the American College of. OBGYN's District 9, the California Podiatric Medical Association, the California Society of Pathologists and the California Radiological Society, all in opposition.

Thank you.

Matt Back. On behalf of the Osteopathic physicians. Regrettably. Opposed.

Lawrence Gaydon with the California Dental Association. Opposed.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for what I think in the analysis shows a serious willingness to work on this.

I know this is something that is personal to him, but I think the amount of amendments that were taken really at his own doing with the Committee really show willingness to work on this.

And so, you know, although I have a relative who's allergic to Anesthesia and has been at risk on the table as a result of it and the anesthesiologist has saved his life, this is really important to me. But I really appreciate the work that's happening and I know will continue to happen. So I'm happy to support it today.

Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? We got a motion by Hadwick. Second by someone. Any additional questions or comments? Vice Chair Flora, would you like to close again?

Mr. Chair and Vince, I really do appreciate the Committee and your hard work on this and the opportunity to move this Bill. At least have a hearing on it today and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the author, the sponsors and the opposition for working with us over the weekend on the amendments to this Bill. The amendments attempt to preserve the author's intent while addressing concerns raised around titles, the Prohibition Against Supervising CRNAs and various other provisions.

I fully know and appreciate that there are still significant concerns around the language describing an order as well as concerns around the remaining non surgical services. However, the author and sponsors have been willing to work through these concerns and I know that they will continue to do so and so with the accepted amendments.

I am happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you everybody. So with that, do we have any Non Committee authors here? I don't see any. Do we have Assembly Member Bauer Cahan? Would you like to present your Bill agenda item number three, AB432.

Ready when you are.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, today I am delighted to present AB 432, the Menopause Equity Act. I want to start by thanking the Committee consultant and the chair for their diligent work on this Bill and working with us to get it to where I think is a really good place that will lead the nation. Despite being.

zero, and I'll be accepting the amendments. I guess I should officially say that after I thanked you for them. Despite being a process that more than 50% of the population will go through if we live long enough. Perimenopause and menopause have been long treated as a taboo subject, unworthy of research, proper care, or just even General concern.

While we all think of menopause as a short period of time where women might experience a few hot flashes and need a fan, the reality is that there are a lot of symptoms, 34 known symptoms, in fact, of menopause, ranging from memory loss to osteoporosis, which if not treated properly, can have long term ramifications on women's health and longevity.

And my own personal journey into this policy space started with my own appointments at my physician's office where I spoke to my internist who said, zero, you're fine. And then I spoke to my OB GYN who said, zero, we just suffer through this.

Don't worry, it sounds good, but I was having such brain fog that, that I was frightened that I had early onset Alzheimer's. And so I continued to try to figure out if it was menopause related and found a Menopause Society specialist in my community who has subsequently spent the last year and a half treating me.

And it has been life changing. But the fact that it took me in the Bay Area three doctors before I could find someone who was educated and informed enough to give me the care I needed at this point in my life is both shocking and not acceptable. And so I started holding hearings and we introduced a Bill.

And through this process, I've been stopped in the women's restroom, in the hallway. I've gotten calls from women who've experienced the same thing I have and whose doctors have not felt informed enough. In fact, over 80% of doctors report, self report that they don't feel equipped to treat menopausal women.

And so the subject we're talking about today, which is the training of the obstetricians, the cardiologists, the neurologists, the endocrinologists, the internists, and the family physicians.

The amendments in this Committee narrow the mandatory CME to that group of physicians will inform the doctors who we go to with the brain fog, with the hot flashes to treat us as whole beings as we go through this menopausal transition.

And it will allow women to live longer and live better lives at a point in our life when we should be thriving and happy and have every right to be. And trust me, as someone who got care can be with me today.

In support of the Bill are two doctors from our own University of California hospitals who are leading the charge as it relates to menopause care and menopause research. Dr. Patel, who's UCLA's menopause clinic head and Dr. Jacobs, an associate Professor of neuroscience at UCSB.

You have two minutes each.

Thank you so much. My name is Rajita Patil. I am an assistant clinical Professor at UCLA in the Department of OBGYN, a certified menopause expert and the founder and Director of the UCLA Comprehensive Menopause Program, the first of its kind in California. Every individual with ovaries will experience menopause, a stage that can encompass up to 40% of a person's life.

And I really want to thank you for introducing this Bell this well deserved and well needed Bill. Despite its universal inevitability, menopause care remains deeply neglected. Fewer than half of those experiencing menopause receive any form of care and even fewer receive evidence based holistic treatment. This gap is unacceptable. And why does it matter?

Well, in the short term, the effects these symptoms that were described, they can severely impact the quality of life and they don't last just a few years.

10% actually have everlasting symptoms and these symptoms when left untreated can lead to workplace absenteeism, presenteeism, strained relationships, diminished well being and actually can lead to chronic disease in the long term.

Estrogen is a protective organ for which there are many, is a protective hormone for which there are receptors in all of the body and can lead to increase in chronic conditions like cardiovascular disease, dementia, osteoporosis and diabetes. The evidence is clear. Menopause care is critical for both immediate relief as well as long term health.

So why are we failing in this area? Well, a significant factor is the lack of provider education. Fewer than 10% of medical graduates feel adequately prepared to address menopause. I personally received one or two lectures on this topic in residency.

And this knowledge gap trickles upward and persists among practicing providers today, many of which were trained in an era of fear and misinformation surrounding hormone therapy.

Due in part to the Women's Health Initiative and as a result, providers often fail to recognize menopause symptoms and the broader health implications, and they're unprepared to offer hormonal or non hormonal treatments. And they dismiss the topic altogether, leaving patients in silence to suffer.

Currently, the burden of education falls on individual providers who must invest their own time and money to gain the necessary expertise. But this has created a bottleneck for accessing competent menopause care.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Yeah, the demand. There's a mismatch of demand and supply. And really, patients are not getting the access that they need and they're silently suffering or accessing providers that really have limited knowledge. And so ultimately, we need a two pronged approach.

We need to not only help educate the trainees, but we really need to educate the workplace as it is right now in order to get the care that's really deserved and needed. And I really support this.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Professor at UCSB of Neuroscience and Director of the Anna S Bowers Women's Brain Health Initiative, which is leveraging our 10 campus University of California system to shine a floodlight on women's brain health. And I guess I should state my name for the record. Emily Jacobs. And I am here to express my strong support of AB432.

Menopause will directly affect half of the population, and women will live half of their lives in the perimenopause and post menopause years. And while this is a normal part of the aging process, menopause can bring on a host of symptoms. And these symptoms can crop up in unexpected places. Why?

Because ovaries secrete hormones that act on nearly every cell in the human body. When people think about ovarian hormones like estrogen and progesterone, they often think about reproduction. But these hormones have widespread effects. Sex hormones impact the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, the skeletal system, the digestive system.

There's really no part of the human body that sex hormones don't touch. And. And that's a feature, not a bug. Hormones are like a PA system that can broadcast information to the entire body. This is why menopause can bring on a whole host of symptoms. You feel hot, your brain feels fuzzy. You have trouble sleeping.

You start to lose calcium in your bones. ACOG raised concerns about CME credits. But leaving an educational course on menopause to opt in and relying on public awareness campaigns is not enough. We need physicians who are trained to recognize menopause as a critical window for preventative care.

Menopause isn't just an endocrine transition, it's a neurological transition, it's a cardiovascular transition, it's a metabolic and immunological transition. And menopause is not a discrete event. It's a transition that can last a decade or more. Symptoms are wide ranging and many doctors are not fully equipped to identify symptoms as menopause related.

So women don't get the care they need. I commend ACOG for their recommendation that strengthening education during the early stages of medical training is key. They are right. According to a Johns Hopkins survey, only about 20% of medical schools include menopause in their basic science curriculum. And for those that do, the courses are mostly an elective.

So if you need the bumper sticker, here it is. Women's bodies are not an elective. But a module on menopause in grad school is not enough. A truly impactful and enduring approach to improving menopause care means we need physicians with up to date knowledge, knowledge that is rapidly advancing.

Continuing education is critical to providing high quality care for the women in California.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

For integrated care, physicians need the most up to date information on how menopause impacts multiple organ systems so they can catch symptoms early and intervene when necessary. So whether you're driven by the moral urgency or economic reality, investing in women's health is the way forward. AB432 is a major step towards getting women essential menopause care.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill who want to come in? Add your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Aaron Taylor with political solutions on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. In strong support.

Deanna Garcia, a woman who gets implants of hormones not from Kaiser, who thinks it's not important, but. But out of my own pocket, supports this Bill.

Good morning, Chair. Members Nico Molina on behalf of Bayer and support. Thank you

Thank you for this legislation as an individual. Kristen Heidelbach, a woman going through perimenopause, I support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the Bill.

Got a motion and a second. You have two minutes each.

Good morning Chair Berman and Members of the Committee. My name is Angela Hill and I'm here today on behalf of CMA in respectful opposition. We are opposed unless amended due to the provision in AB432 mandating CME courses for certain physicians. I'd like to thank the author and for the chair and staff for their work on this Bill.

We do appreciate the light that the author is shining on this issue, even while we disagree with some of the approach. Menopause is a critical health issue and while CMA supports better training around menopause, we have consistently opposed condition specific CMA mandates, no matter how important the topic.

Today it's menopause, tomorrow it could be diabetes, heart disease, mental health, or another major condition affecting a large percentage of the population that has been historically under researched or understudied. In the past, we've opposed geriatric and opioid related mandates.

The core concern is this that CMA mandates, particularly ongoing ones, remove a physician's ability to determine which educational areas are most relevant for their individual patient population and practice. Setting that discretion is essential to ensure CME courses are a real benefit versus a box to check for the Legislature.

We also have practical concerns, including that many CME courses do not change their content year by year and so mandating the same CME topics on an ongoing basis could make CME less effective at expanding one's education.

Also, AB 432, as proposed to be amended, a General internist or family physician could end up with 30% of their CME hours locked into two narrow topics, even if they only treat infectious diseases. While the intent of the Bill is commendable, we're concerned about the precedent.

By using CME mandates, the Legislature can address systemic issues arising from what's being taught or not taught in medical schools and training. And in time there will be more CME mandates that will come and make these courses more of a bureaucratic exercise for physicians.

We do believe that a better solution is to strongly encourage, but not require all physicians to take CME in menopausal care and have offered such amendments to the author. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Thank Mr. Chair Members Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9 in the unenviable position of opposing AB 432 unless amended. Honestly, my colleague from CMA encapsulated all the finer points, but I do think it's worth reiterating that our opposition is not a resistance to menopause training. In fact, it's the opposite.

ACOG completely agrees with the author and some of the statements made by her supporting witnesses that there is indeed a deficit in this training that needs to be addressed. We just disagree on the approach and ACOG would prefer to focus on the root of the problem which is lack of a specialist available to treat individuals undergoing menopause.

ACOG recognizes that menopause is a unique and universal health transition experienced by all women and deserves far greater attention in early medical training than it currently has. Improvements may include integrating menopause into core curriculum, offering more clinical rotations on menopause care, incorporating menopause in clinical examinations, and on and on.

However, mandating CME on a specific topic, even one as important as menopause, sets a concerning precedent. Physicians must retain professional discretion to pursue the continuing education most relevant to the practice.

Embedding menopause education early ensures that all future physicians entering practice with a strong and uniform foundation in this critical area of care without relying on fragmented, reactive C mandates that cause all the problems mentioned by my colleague at cma. So unfortunately, unless a mandate is removed from the Bill, ACOG must remain opposed thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the Bill. Thank you. Chairman Members Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Thank you. Chairman Members Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. They have an opposed unless amended position. Also representing the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, California Society of Plastic Surgeons, and the California Rheumatology alliance, all in an oppose Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Shira Spector on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association who appreciates the amendments and will likely change their opposed position going forward.

Amazing. It's my favorite. Any colleagues with any questions or comments? Assemblymember Pellerin

I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. As my staff and I were talking about this Bill, it reminds me of a book I'm reading right now called Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez, which exposes how a vast gender data gap systemically ignores women's experiences in everything from health care and transportation to technology and disaster planning.

And through her examples in the book, she reveals how the bias harms women and reinforces inequality, often without anyone even realizing it. So this is so on point, the Bill that you're having here today. So when illnesses disproportionately or singularly impact women, the data and the science and the treatment available is very, very sparse.

So I think we as women legislators, we need to be at the table and change the conversation and bring attention to the issues that we care about the most. And speaking about changing the conversation, I would love to change the name of menopause. Can we call it power shift or something like that instead?

It just seems so much more appropriate than menopause. And so your Bill just does so much and just really speaks to me as somebody who's been through this power shift in my life.

And every single woman will have to navigate the symptoms of menopause, and we can't turn to our health professionals to help us through this stage, then who can we rely on? So I appreciate everything that you're doing in this Bill, and I'd be honored to be added as a co author.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Pellerin. And I would love to have you as a co author. And I do appreciate that the Women's Caucus has made this a priority, because I think we all know how important it is, and I really appreciate that.

I mean, although the amendments and I really want to recognize the opposition for the many, many conversations that we have had in an ongoing way and their desire to be helpful in this, we.

We have seen and I've lived firsthand, as I'm sure many women in this room, whether up there or behind me, have that when they can opt in. They aren't. And Dr. Patil right now has over a year waiting list for her menopause clinic, because even in Los Angeles, where she serves the population, there are not enough doctors to serve everybody who are going through this transition.

And so it just shows how much work we have to do to get the workforce where they need to be, that you can go to the physician that delivered your babies and get the care you need. You shouldn't have to find a new Doctor at that moment in your life like I did.

And so I really appreciate that. And I don't know if you want to add anything. Dr. Patil.

I just wanted to add. Sorry. I just wanted to add that, you know, menopause care, it's really a standard part of care. It hasn't been normalized. It's getting a moment right now on the national stage, thanks to public awareness and all of that that's happening. But there really is this mismatch of demand and supply, and that's where the bottleneck is.

It shouldn't take that we have to be specialized in menopause. I mean, I love seeing, you know, our job is to see complicated patients, but every single person who takes care of this population should know and recognize what menopause is. How does it present how to take care of menopause?

Just like every person with an ovary is going to go through puberty, everyone will go through the other end of the lifespan, of the reproductive lifespan, which is menopause, and stay in that stage for so long. So I agree, I. I totally agree that educating from the bottom up makes sense, too.

But that is going to take a very, very long time to get to the point where the workplace today can actually help really take care of the patients that are out there that are just silently suffering. So I think we have to have a two pronged approach, and I strongly believe that. I see that in.

We have six menopause providers currently within our program, and we literally all have a year long just for. And people are waiting. They're just waiting to see us. It doesn't matter that they have to wait a year. They're so desperate. They've been neglected. They are trying to figure things out themselves.

They're coming in on all these supplements and medications and things that are totally not, you know, been proven to be efficacious. They're just trying to take matters in their own hands, and it's just not right.

Okay, first of all, I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill. It's so important. It is such a gift to serve in the Legislature and be around colleagues that I can learn from.

And that is obviously the author of this Bill, but certainly everyone in the women's caucus and making this a priority in teaching us about things that I don't come across in my daily life. And so I just want to thank you so much.

I'd like to be added as a co author, if you will have me, on this Bill. I also want to show my sympathy for the opposition because what I'm hearing today is everybody is acknowledging the exact same problem, and it's really about the path to get there.

And, you know, I think we have to correct the sexism that's happened just for generations and generations. I do have a question for the author and perhaps the witnesses. What's happening in other jurisdictions, what's happening in other states, you know, to correct this, this can't be just a California phenomenon.

So we will be the first to do this, although after we introduce this legislation, it has been copycatted in states across the country. I want to thank Halle Berry and her team actually are helping us with this, and she is going around the country and helping spread the word about the need for this through her own experience, and she has passed this Bill on. So we will be the first.

But I will say one thing that was noted that's really important is that California does require that if you have over 25% of your patient population over 65, you have to take geriatric care training for 20%. So this would be. If you have 25% women, then you have to take 10%. So it's less than that.

And that requirement will stop once you reach that, that next phase of training so that we're not doubling up. And so I do think we have done this before in the geriatric context. I think this is another place where it needs to be done. I think what you're hearing from our witnesses is absolutely evidence of that.

And I appreciate the amendments and also the ability to add cardiologists, endocrinologists and neurologists, because just recently, New York Times, I urge everyone to read it. And this is really the work of Dr. Jacobs.

There was an amazing article about the gender discrepancy in dementia and that they are starting to study the link between the lack of menopause care and that effect on women. And, you know, we talk about Alzheimer's in this body and how we can do more.

And it's these kind of efforts that are going to get women the care they need. And I want Dr. Jacobs to touch on that more because she's the expert in this.

But I think it's really important to talk about why this is so critical to women and the longevity and that we live the life we deserve as we age.

Yeah. So of the 6.7 million Americans living with dementia, two thirds of them are women. And we don't know why, because as a society, we have under invested in underfunded women's health research. It was an honor to be at the White House to celebrate the first ever White House conference on women's health research. Keep that in mind.

First ever. This was in 2024. There is so much about the biology of menopause that we don't understand yet. And it's not because women are too complicated. It's not because menopause is like the Gordian knot of biology.

It's a reflection of the fact that we have under invested in this phenomenon that is going to affect half of the global population. California can lead the way. I just want to remind folks in this room that it took an act of Congress to require the enrollment of women into clinical trials.

This is the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act. And that act had to be updated in 2001 because trials were, yes, they were enrolling women in minority groups, but in such low numbers that researchers couldn't do anything with the data. So opt in is not good enough for women's health.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Assemblymember Barackahan, Would you like to close?

I just want to say how grateful I am to live in the great State of California that has this level of care and research and attention on women. And I want to say that both of these amazing doctors have put their blood, sweat and tears into getting the funding they need to do the work.

And I will say. And whether that's the research grants that Dr. Jacob has earned or Dr. Patel, who has never gotten the funding for her clinic, and they do this in their off time because we don't Fund the UCs to have menopause clinics, which is something else we should talk about.

But so I wanted to share was here. I know, but he left. We'll get him back. But so I really want to thank both of these amazing people. I think they shine a light on our ucs and the incredible work that we're doing. With that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote well.

Thank you. I want to. I want to thank the author for the Bill. I want to thank everybody who's participated in the conversations, the many robust conversations that I know that you've had around this issue. I want to thank you for turning your personal experience into.

Into advocacy and, you know, into an effort to make a difference for 20 million Californians and. And, you know, hopefully eventually many more people around the country. So I'm happy to support the Bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on AB 432.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is on call. Thank you very much. I am gonna. I see Assemblymember Valencia is here. He's got a couple of bills. I saw you get a little extra screen time over there a couple minutes ago, Mr. Valencia. Don't think I don't see these things. I'm gonna give the gavel to some Member Chen for two minutes as the next senior most Member. You want to come sit up here? All right. I'll be back in a minute.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I already feel more powerful. Assembly Member of Valencia. At your pleasure, my friend.

Mr. Chair, I have a quick question. Mr. Chair, is today your birthday.

Yes, Assemblymember. I'm just a shy over 19, so yes. Happy birthday, Mr. Chair. Thank you Assemblymember. Really appreciate you.

Now I just want the record to reflect that was a bipartisan Happy birthday so no one can accuse me of being partisan anymore.

I'm honored, humbled. Most of all, grateful for you and your love. Assembly Valencia. This never happens. I think you're the cause of all this ruckus. Thank you.

Yes, you took my opening statement. So happy birthday, Mr. Chen. So much love. Thank you leadership on this Committee. I'd like to start off by thanking the Chair and the Committee for diligently working on AB759. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments.

This Bill seeks to improve attention and promote diversity in the architectural profession by allowing eligible candidates to use the title Architect in Training. The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards recently reported that the average time it takes to become a licensed architect is 13.33 years.

The board conducted a survey which revealed that some candidates halted their progress towards licensure after completing nearly half of the necessary requirements. The same report also highlights issues with diversity in the profession. About 46% of candidates who identified as another group were more likely than their white peers to stop pursuing licensures over a 10 year period.

Other professions with similar licensure timelines, such as engineers, land surveyors and geologists, have offered candidates the option to apply for in training for years with proven success. By allowing architectural candidates to receive the same recognition as these professions, we will not only align these individuals with other esteemed industries, but also encourage them to complete licensure.

With me to provide some testimony is Scott Terrell, the Director of Government Relations for the American Institute of Architects, California chapter, and Mr. Mike Belo with the California Advocates, here to provide technical support.

Hello. Awesome. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Scott Terrell. On behalf of the American Institute of Architects and Association of over 11,000 design professionals in California, I would like to read a testimony on behalf of our outgoing Vice President of the Academy for Emerging Professionals and our recent President. Electric. I will begin that now.

My name is Ginger Thompson. I am a practicing and licensed architect and I am in support of AB759. I found architecture later than most as a mother of three at 30 years old, and what started as a curiosity became a calling. I started at taking courses at community college, worked internships and any job that moved me closer.

The progress was slow, often invisible, and required constant persistence. I became eligible to take my first licensing exam in 2020, a full decade after beginning this journey. It was a milestone that carried real weight. However, I had no title to show for it. I wasn't licensed. But I wasn't just starting either.

I was deep into the work of becoming an architect. But without a name for that work, AB759 will create a formal time limited designation architect and training for those who have proven their intent and progress by passing at least one examination. It offers structure, accountability and recognition.

By allowing us to name that stage, AB759 reinforces the value of licensure itself. Thank you for considering this

Mr. Chair and Members. Mike Belote on behalf of AIA Cal. The Association's been after this for a long time. As the very excellent analysis points out. This was the exact subject of a 2016 Bill that was passed by the Legislature with not a single no vote.

It was vetoed by Governor Brown, who had a famous aversion to licensing bills. This is part of a bigger problem that the Committee has discussed in the past and that's the advancing age of many professional groups in California, including not only architects, but land surveyors and appraisers and court reporters and others.

And many of them have arduous paths to licensing. This gives a simple no or low cost encouragement to younger, more diverse people to enter the profession. And it just seems like it's a great idea. You know, we have so many professions that are going up in average age.

I would note that lobbyists seem to be getting younger, but that's a separate issue. Anyway, been after it a long time. It's non controversial. It's nowhere low cost. We would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Are they getting younger or. We won't go there. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill?

Tyler Munzing on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California in support. And a very happy birthday to our former chair.

Well played. Any additional witnesses in support? I got distracted for a second. Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the Bill? Still seeing none. Any colleagues who have any questions or comments? Do we have a motion In a second. We don't. We do now. Thank you.

Thank you. We got a couple of them. No questions, no comments. It was that good of a presentation and a Bill. Assembly Member Valencia, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think there's not only younger lobbyists, but more of them if I just saw in an article not too long ago. So whether that's good or bad, that's left to debate. But with that, I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member of Valencia. I'm happy to support the Bill today. I appreciate you bringing this forward. Madam Secretary, please call the vote

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you very much. I learned that I missed a birthday celebration too while I was gone. So. My bad. Would you like to present your second Bill, Agenda Item 10, AB967.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you and want to start off by expressing my thanks to you specifically for your help on this particular Bill. Working through some of the amendments and components, I will be accepting the Committee's amendments.

AB967 seeks to expand California's healthcare workforce by establishing an optional fee for out of state physicians to quickly obtain a medical license. Physicians who are licensed in other states have experienced long delays in receiving a license to practice medicine in California.

Though it is recommended that applicants apply for a license at least six months prior to working out of state. Physicians have expressed that it takes longer to receive a license. This directly impacts professionals who have accepted job offers in California but must wait to receive their license before they can start working.

With shortages throughout the field of medicine, it is critical that we take steps to minimize delays and onboard professionals so that patients have sustained access to care. With me to provide Testimony today is Dr.

Connie Bartlett, the Chief Medical Officer for the National Healthcare and Housing Advisors and secretary for the Orange County Medical Association, and Alicia Sanchez, Chief Strategy Officer for the California Medical Association. She is here to provide support.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Connie Bartlett and I've been a physician in California for almost 30 years. I'm here today in strong support of AB960. California is facing a critical physician shortage and it's only getting worse.

Patients are waiting longer for care and in some cases they're not getting care at all. One of the biggest obstacles we face in recruiting physicians, especially from out of state, is a long and uncertain licensure process. Let me give you two real world examples. In the medical group, we spent months trying to find a medical specialist.

We finally found a perfect candidate. She was a recent graduate, eager to move back to California and thrilled to serve patients near her hometown. It was a dream match. But after she accepted the offer, we waited and waited. Her licensing and credentialing process took nine months.

In another case, we recruited a seasoned out of state physician to work in a high needed area. Everything was lined up. The licensure delays dragged on. Eventually, he gave up and took a position in another state. We lost a great Doctor and our patient lost access to care they desperately needed.

We are attracting great physicians who want to serve our communities, but we're losing them to unnecessary delays and red tapes. AB967 is a common sense solution. It provides clarity and certainty for physicians who want to move to California and serve here. If we don't act, we'll continue to lose talent and our patient will continue to suffer. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you vote to support AB967. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Alecia Sanchez with the California Medical Association. We are in support and I'm available to provide technical assistance as necessary.

Great. Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses want to add on in support of the Bill?

Good morning. Alexis Rodriguez with Sutter Health and Support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses want to add on in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. We have a motion by the Vice Chair. We have a second. Any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none. Assembly Member Valencia, would you like to close?

Appreciate your time. I respectfully asked for a yes vote.

All right. Thank you to the author for accepting the Committee's amendments. I absolutely share your goal of increasing access to the primary care workforce in California.

And as this Bill moves forward, I want to encourage you to continue working with the medical board and other stakeholders to ensure that the Bill remains targeted and effective in accomplishing our shared goals. I'm happy to support the Bill today. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the vote

[Roll Call]

Oh, no. We got seconds. We got seconds. We're good. Just kidding.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you very much. We lost Assemblymember Gabriel. We got me. We got Haney. We got Gabriel. We got Hoover. We got me. I think we got me. All right. Do I have files, Folders? Those are good. Appreciate it. I'm gonna take my coffee. I hope not.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe we'll start with file item number two. AB408, with 519. I love that one. Even more. Ready when you are.

Thank you, Chair. Flora, I'm proud to present AB519, another part of the Stop the Puppy Mill Pipeline Bill package package authored alongside a Member, Bennett and Senator Umberg. Specifically, AB519 will define brokers as any business that sells, offers or otherwise transfers for profit a dog, cat or rabbit and prohibit them from making sales in California.

The Bill will make necessary exceptions for service animals, police dogs, and other similar animals. In concert with the other two bills by my colleagues, AB519 will provide the oversight, transparency, and accountability in animal sales that is crucial to California pet owners and state lawmakers alike. Thank you, colleagues, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your first witness. Two minutes apiece, please.

Thank you, Members. Hello again, Brittany Benesi with the ASPCA. AB519 is a critical step in California's ongoing efforts to shut down the puppy mill pipeline and protect both animals and consumers in our state.

As noted, brokers are acting as middlemen for puppy mills, where animals often endure inhumane conditions, including overbreeding, lack of vet care, poor living environments that ultimately result in severe health and behavioral issues. Those who would be regulated by this Bill may state that we are cutting out highly regulated USDA licensed brokers and the breeders they sell for.

Unfortunately, like the pictures found on many puppy selling websites, these claims paint a scene far from reality. Findings from a 2024 review of the of the USDA's oversight highlights California's cause for action.

Last year, the USDA licensed hundreds of commercial dog dealers, a term that includes both breeders and brokers who had recorded histories of failing to provide care for the animals that they were meant to care for. 45% of those licensed in 2024 didn't receive any inspection at all, and those that did, 20% uncovered failures.

Reports detailed instances of dogs who could not walk, dogs living in waste with painful wounds, and dogs suffering from contagious and deadly diseases. Overall, the reports detail over 800 violations by licensed USDA licensed commercial breeders and brokers.

Yet only two who violated the law lost their license, most notably, not a Single dog was removed from any of these facilities. AB 5019 provides an answer to this important importation of cruelty by defining brokers and explicitly prohibiting them from selling.

What this Bill does not do is limit Californians ability to obtain pets from breeders, shelters or breed specific rescues. It simply closes a predatory loophole. Thank you to Chair Berman for your leadership on this issue and for the Members for your time. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well done. Next to witness. Two minutes please.

All right, thank you. Good morning again. I am Juliana Tetlow and I'm still speaking on behalf of San Diego Humane Society, the contracted animal care and control agency for 13 municipalities in San Diego County serving nearly 3 million residents with animal intake of over 40,000 per year.

We are proud co sponsors of AB519 and we strongly urge your support. From a sheltering perspective, we see the heartbreaking results of the unregulated sale of animals by third party brokers. Puppies and kittens bred in cruel mass production facilities, arriving in California through online channels that bypass existing retail laws.

These animals often come to us with severe medical conditions, behavioral issues or both. Many are surrendered when their families can't manage their needs, leaving our shelters to pick up the pieces. But it's not just shelters that bear the cost.

Animal control agencies who are already stretched too thin are expected to respond to complaints, conduct investigations and enforce laws on entities operating in the shadows. This isn't just an animal welfare issue. It is a public health concern and a consumer protection issue.

Despite California's existing sales bans, retail sales bans brokers are using online platforms to mislead buy, representing themselves as local responsible breeders. In truth, they are often middlemen for puppy mills operating in states with weak oversight. Our shelters are already overwhelmed. In San Diego we are seeing longer stays, more complex medical cases and fewer adoptions.

AB519 is a common sense solution. It closes a loophole that is actively harming animals and contributing to shelter overpopulation. More importantly, it preserves access to responsible breeders and rescues. This is about protecting animals and giving shelters a fighting chance to serve our communities. We urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support?

Hello Chair. Members Nicholas Sackett for Social Compassion in legislation and support. Thank you very much.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Karen Lange, on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association. The almost 300 shelters or sometimes these animals show up wanted to also observe. It's one of the bills where all of the California based advocacy groups are all on the same page in adamant support. So hopefully that Sends the right message. Ask for your vote. Thank you.

Love it. Anyone else in support of AB519?

Good Morning Chair Members. Karen Stout, on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we support in concept and look forward to reviewing the amendments.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB519, come on up.

Thank you so much. My name's Alyssa Miller. I'm here on behalf of the Pet Advocacy Network and we are here in respectful opposition to Assembly Bill 519.

While we commend the bill's intent to protect animal welfare and we support obviously the care and compassion towards every animal, we are concerned that it's broad prohibition on pet brokers, defined as entities that are facilitating the sale of adoption or adoption of dogs, cats and rabbits bred by others for profit, would inadvertently disrupt responsible pet acquisition channels.

We are concerned that this would limit access to healthy, well bred pets and could continue to potentially drive demand towards unregulated sources as we have already seen happen as a result of the statewide pet sale ban and as detailed in heartbreaking detail in the recent Los Angeles Times exposes as one example of a business that would be hurt here.

A reputable small business here in California that matches trained therapy dogs with individuals experiencing PTSD would be barred from operating under this Bill.

They do not breed the dogs themselves, but they work with ethical breeders and conduct extensive screening, training and placement in order to help those with PTSD access animals that are oftentimes a lifeline and oftentimes provide the support that they cannot get elsewhere.

Under Assembly Bill 519 they would be forced to shut down and this would eliminate a vital service for many vulnerable populations. Rather than imposing sweeping bans that could create greater issues, we would advocate for targeted enforcement against bad actors and enhanced oversight of the already existing strong laws here in California.

We urge the Legislature to focus on accountability and consumer education while preserving ethical pet sourcing options and upholding animal welfare. Thank you for your consideration. We urge a no vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB519? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee Members? Seeing now, Mr. Chair, would you like to close? Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll

[Roll Call]

Shockingly, that Bill is out, so thank you. All right, Mr. Chair, looks like you got AB408 it over to Mr. Gabriel.

Ready when you are. All right. RBK told me to be nice. No Promises

I appreciate the courtesy, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. And colleagues, I want to start by thanking the Committee and the Chair for their thoughtful assistance with this Bill. I am pleased today to present AB1002, a measure that will protect workers from serious and repeated wage theft violations.

Most importantly, this Bill gives the California Department of Justice, in cooperation with the contractor State Licensing Board, the authority to pursue contractor license suspensions or revocations in the most serious cases of repeated wage theft. Preventing wage theft is a key is key to protecting the economic security and dignity of California workers.

Unfortunately, the current regulatory system provides insufficient deterrence for some repeat offenders. This Bill would allow the California Department of Justice, an agency with wage theft and labor code expertise, to coordinate accountability measures when labor violations raise to an agreement an egregious level.

AB1002 will hold bad actors accountable, protect our workers and level the playing field for honest contractors. This Bill is supported by a coalition of labor organizations, legal aid groups and worker advocates and is sponsored by our Attorney General, Rob Bonta.

I appreciate the policy considerations raised by the Committee and I look forward to continuing conversations with all stakeholders to assure strong policy alignment. I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the Bill.

Evan Ackiron, the Special Assistant Attorney General here on behalf of the California Department of Justice, and Vince Sugru here on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 1000. Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss AB1002 with you on behalf of the sponsor. Attorney General Rob Bonta. I'm Evan Acheron. I'm a Special Assistant Attorney General. I advise the AG on white collar crime issues and worker protection issues.

We applaud Assemblymember Gabriel for his ongoing leadership and partnership with our office to address corporate accountability and through this Bill to strengthen worker protections. Our office also aligns with the author's commitment to working with the CSLB as the Bill moves through the legislative process. We appreciate the detailed analysis and discussions with Committee staff leading up to today.

So as to not repeat the author, I will just highlight that AB1002 does not establish any new remedies. It merely permits the AG working with the CSLB to obtain licensing remedies such as licensed discipline that only the CSLB can currently obtain through civil action and administrative action.

AB1002 was also carefully drafted to include guardrails that balance the sharing of CSLB's authority to take disciplinary action against licensees, including limiting the sharing to the Attorney General's Office, permitting only a court to impose these remedies and only after the relevant violations have been proven by the Attorney General in a civil proceeding to a judge, and providing for full involvement by the cslb, limited involvement or any level of involvement that the CSLB Deems as appropriate.

In short, 1002 allows DOJ to bring in one go an enforcement action against a CSLB licensee for license discipline for serious and repeat wage theft, in other words, labor code violations as part of an already existing civil lawsuit to make construction workers whole under existing law via restitution instead of relying on the current two step process, meaning an AG action for restitution, penalties and injunction followed potentially by a CSLB action for license discipline.

On behalf of the Attorney General, we respectfully request your aye vote to further protect California's workforce and from serious and repeat wage theft offenders in the construction industry. Thank you

Thank you, Good morning Chair Berman and fellow Committee Members. My name is Vince Sugrue. I'm a State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 and a former organizer of our union. So I know firsthand just how wage theft impacts working families throughout the State of California.

All too often within the State of California right now we see rampant wage theft issues where contractors have been served civil wage and penalty assessments, what we call QOPAs that lead to final wage judgments, many of which are still working and have not paid those final wage theft judgments.

In an example in the Bay Area, a non union sheet metal contractor who was served a QOPA of nearly $700,000 because our union filed issues around wage theft issue 18 months ago is still working on mid rise and high rise projects while simultaneously being under investigation from two District Attorney's offices for tax fraud.

They continue to do the work while the workers do not get paid within that QOPA. The 700,000 no worker has been paid yet. This is why Assembly Bill 1002 is so important to us and to the working families of California. We urge an aye vote and thank you so much for your support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses you want to add on in support of the Bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill. Tweeners. Tweeners come on up too. You can have two minutes at the what did we call this earlier? The presentation table.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Todd Bloomstine representing the Southern California Contractors Association. We have been working with the author and his staff as well as the sponsors. We're Close to alleviating our concerns. Continue to work with the sponsors and the author. And we want to thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. Scott Governor, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, the largest union building contractors in the state, as Mr. Blimpsky said, we've been working with the author and sponsors. We think we're close. We simply want to ensure that jurisdictional disputes and misclassifications are not actionable.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition like to move the Bill? Got a motion? Got a second. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? I thought the Assembly Member Boerner wanted to talk about funding in the budget for other issues, but we'll say that that's illegal. That'll be a different issue, different conversation. Yeah. We don't.

With the AG. With the AG's office here. We definitely don't want to. I don't want to skirt that line. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member Gabriel, would you. I was going to ask. I was going to ask about rent theft, but that's also a different conversation. Assembly Member Gabriel, would you like to close?

Just want to thank you for your courtesy and would respectfully request an aye vote. I'm not going to say anything else.

No. Thank you. Assemblymember Gabriel, I understand that you'll be working with the Contractor State License Board to ensure any concerns about delegation, other disciplinary authority to the Attorney General are addressed. With your commitment, I'm happy to support this Bill so it can move on to Judiciary Committee next week. Thank you very much.

Madam Secretary, Please call the vote on AB1002.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you, everybody. So I'm going to go back and present my second Bill.

All right. Mr. Chair, presenting file item number two, AB408.

Thank you. Chair Fluor and colleagues. I'm proud to present AB408, which builds off years of work by this Committee under my Chairman. That's very promotional. Which encourages health practitioners to receive care for substance use disorder and other conditions by reducing stigma and promoting treatment.

This Bill, which is sponsored by the Medical Board of California, would allow for the creation of a physician health and wellness program that aligns with nationally recognized best practices for protecting patients and connecting doctors with the help they need to continue practicing safely.

The Medical Board has not offered a former a formal wellness program for its licensees in nearly 18 years, which it was concluded that the Board's prior diversion program was not being effectively overseen or administered.

Let's be clear, much has changed in the last 18 years, especially in our state's efforts to address those in our communities who struggle with substance abuse.

New leadership at the Medical Board has demonstrated their commitment to establishing a successful program, which is why they've spent the last two years consulting with experts across the country country to develop language that is informed by research and proven through implementation in other states.

Colleagues, I believe it is a false choice to say that we have to decide between protecting patients and helping healthcare providers get the help that they need. And that's why I've authored AB408 and with me today in support of the Bill are Christina Lawson, President of the Medical Board of California and Alicia Sanchez. On behalf of of the California Medical Association. Thank you very much. First witness, two minutes piece please.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Kristina Lawson. I'm the President of the Medical Board of California. I'd first like to thank Mr. Berman for partnering with us in this effort.

I have been serving on the board since 2015 and frankly I'm fed up after almost 10 years with seeing disciplinary cases involving a physician whose substance use disorder or other health condition makes them a danger to the public.

Right now the Board's only tool to address a physician's health condition that may impair their ability to practice safely is to go through our disciplinary process. This is a reactive approach.

After the Board receives a complaint which often occurs after a patient has been harmed, it can take years to investigate and prosecute a disciplinary matter at a five to six figure cost. This approach sadly misses opportunities to prevent patient harm.

During a more than 18 month public process where we explored our existing authority, leading experts showed us a better way which is contained in AB408. This Bill authorizes a program that prioritizes early intervention for these health issues by offering confidential evidence based services before a provider becomes a risk.