Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Okay, we're going to call the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee meeting to order for Monday, June 9th. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. Sorry for our late start, but we'll be pretty, pretty quick here. We are going to be pulling a couple of items, but before we announce those, we're going to go ahead and establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We are for sure going to pull item two, which is SJR7 by Cervantes, and item 11, AB 1496, by Assemblywoman Rubio. And then we may have a couple others, but for now, I'd like to see if there's a motion for the consent calendar. Okay. Moved by Senator Archuleta. And I'm just going to call them off. They are.

File item 6, AB521 by Carrillo. AB529 by Aherns. AB655, Alvarez and AB 786 Salote. That is the makeup of our consent calendar. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's six. We'll put that item on call. And we do have Senator Cortese here, so we will lead off with his SJR6. Senator Cortese, thank you.

Madam Chair and colleagues, Members of the Committee, I'm here to present SR6, which urges President Trump and Congress to uphold the historic investments made possible by the bipartisan infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act.

These three laws represent some of the most consequential federal investments in infrastructure, innovation, clean energy, and economic development in our country's history. And they've had enormous benefits here in California, including over 63 billion in bipartisan infrastructure law funds awarded to California, not including direct awards to our cities, counties, and special districts.

Over $1.2 billion to support Clean hydrogen production through the Arches project, more than 3.1 billion to support California's high speed rail and through the Inflation reduction act, over 1 billion to California ports to modernize and reduce emissions and. And 5 billion nationally for wildfire resilience, which directly benefits our state.

Recent federal Actions are threatening to reverse that progress, halting grants, repealing programs and putting projects and jobs across our state at risk. In just the first few months of 202542,000 jobs nationwide, including over 1,300 in California, were lost due to these policy reversals. SJR6 makes clear California stands firmly behind these investments and the communities they support.

With us today is Andy Hatala from the Climate Reality Project speaking in support. And I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great, thank you. You have a witness with you? Senator Cortese.

Yeah, Andy.

All right, go ahead. You have two minutes. Go for it.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Ashby, Members of the Committee. I'm Andy Attalla, resident of Culver City, policy co lead for the Climate Reality Project California Coalition, which includes all California chapters and representing over 7,000 Members.

The organization and I strongly support SJR6 because we strongly support the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Chips and Science act and the Inflation Reduction Act. We dream and advocate for a sustainable future powered primarily by renewable energy and clean energy. But that requires funding. California has already experienced monumental change catalyzed by these specific bills.

Beyond providing billions of dollars to repair and modernize California's aging infrastructure, these funds expedited the deployment of renewable energy, furthered environmental justice and created thousands of good paying union supported jobs across the state. Most importantly, California is projected to receive over $40 billion in combined BIL and IRA investments.

The latter will generate more than 400,000 new jobs in clean energy alone by 2030. California is a national leader in leveraging BIL chips and Ira funding in addressing long standing environmental issues and advancing renewable energy. But this leadership progress and projections are challenged as the Federal Government freezes and claws back funding.

The current budget reconciliation Bill passed by the House of Representatives eliminates the clean and energy climate provisions and funding outlined in the Ira. Funding for water infrastructure upgrades, community resilience hubs, environmental and climate research, clean energy projects like heat pump, rooftop solar and EV charger installations, natural resource restoration, and much, much more.

The bills also catalyzed a manufacturing renaissance in California, ushering in the pivot towards a clean, resilient industrial economy. Funding cuts would have serious ripple effects across key key sectors like clean tech, manufacturing, battery and energy storage, semiconductor and microelectronics and green building materials. These industries represent the intersection of climate policy, economic resilience and national security.

Funding reversals are counterintuitive to federal and state aims. We disagree with opponents of the bills. Climate adaptation is less expensive than inaction. We see flexibility, not rigidity in investments and investments yielding opportunities in an economic boom, not a bust. Individuals, businesses and the state itself have utilized and benefited from the bills SJR6 seeks to preserve and protect.

It is paramount California make the declaration and actively fight for these crucial future defining federal investments as they are arbitrarily sorry, revoked and endangered. It ensures our state continues to lead in climate action, economic equity and environmental resistance. We support this.

Okay, thank you. Very good. Right on time. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else, you can stay there if you'd like for a minute. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to say a MeToo in favor of this resolution? How about is there any lead opposition to the, to the item? Nope.

Anybody who wants to. Just me too. In opposition. Great. Then we will come back to questions from the Members. Go ahead. Senator Strickland, Niello, and Archuleta.

I'll be brief. Senator, there's some meaningful things here that I do support in your resolution. However, I see that you have in here the California High speed rail. I think you know kind of where I stand on that issue.

I just think it's a project that has had so much mismanagement and has resulted in significant delays, cost overruns. Me personally, I think we need to have a serious conversation in this body to do exactly what the Federal Government did.

My dad always taught me if you dig a hole for yourself, the best, best way to get out of the hole is stop digging. I think we're wasting billions of dollars on the high speed rail that can actually go to other shovel ready projects.

Projects like the Metro is asking us to Fund in Los Angeles to help with the World Cup as well as the Olympics. There are some projects coming up from, you know, BART and San Francisco that are more worthy.

I had a proposal to actually lower the gas tax for people of California instead of spending billions of dollars on a train that I believe will never be built as proposed. And so there are some good things in this resolution, but I can't support it today.

And I'm a major opponent of the continuing the funding of the high speed rail because I think it's wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money that could be better spent.

Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would echo the comments of my colleague Senator Strickland. But wait, there's more.

It's interesting that while we are in this resolution criticizing the Trump Administration for eliminating some programs from the Biden Administration, it's worth pointing out that the California State budget likewise cuts expenditures, including greenhouse gas reduction funds that have already been Committed or awarded, number one.

So why is it acceptable for California to do that under severe budget pressure, but not the Federal Government, which is under much, much, much more severe budget pressure? What are we going to do about a 30 $1.0 trillion national debt? Unless you believe in the voodoo economics of monetary, modern monetary theory that is totally unsustainable.

And another point too that the resolution makes with regard to increasing household costs by virtue of the electricity, the estimated $60 per year in 2030 and 180 in 2035 with regard to moves that are taken.

But it's also true that by the imposition of the low carbon fuel standard by the Air Resources Board, which is estimated to increase gasoline prices by as much as 60 cents per gallon, that increases household costs in California almost $500 per year. But we seem to not have any problem with that.

Especially when the chair of the Air Resources Board opines that they really don't take into consideration cost of living impacts of the regulations that they propose. Which is why I have proposed to make CARB an advisory body as opposed to an authoritative body. But of course, that was defeated in Committee.

But there are certain clauses in here that could be supported. But in addition to Senator Strickland's point, as well as the two points that I made, it makes the entire resolution totally unsupportable.

Great. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I like the fact that we're talking about bipartisan efforts to make sure that California is on the move. And we continue with that theme of bipartisan.

When we talk about the clean energy, we talked about hydrogen, we talked about arches and the commitment of $1.2 billion from the Federal Department of Energy. I think that if we ask, we'll obviously have to keep our fingers crossed. We don't know what's going to happen.

But Obviously this particular SJR6 is a clear message to Congress and the White House urging them to not to turn their backs on the investments here in California, the people of California, and also to keep working with the working families and small businesses.

And the future of California is the future of the nation as the fourth largest economy in the world. So I think we need to partner with Washington. I think we need to partner with California.

What we're trying to do, and I think this is a first message that we've got to send across, is that we're looking for bipartisan partnerships that looks to the future of California. And I urge an aye vote and I will be moving it when it's appropriate.

Great. Thank you so much. So we are not going to entertain a motion today. Instead, we're going to have the author give a closing statement and we will bring this back next week for vote only. Thank you for the presentation and comments and input, Senator Cortese.

Yes. Your prerogative, of course, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Just want to note that as of January 12025 we've California has received $63 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law. We're just trying with this resolution to cordially urge that this federal money continues to flow into California and into our districts.

With that, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote whenever that happens. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation. That'll be all on that item. And we are going to move on to item three. AB50 by Assemblywoman Bonta. Welcome, Assemblywoman.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Today I'm here to present AB50 the equity in Birth Control act, which will allow to ensure Medi Cal enrollees and ensure that they can have access to over the counter contraceptives. Recently, the FDA approved OPILL as the first daily oral contraceptive available over the counter that can be purchased at pharmacies.

This was a historic step forward in increasing access to contraceptives and removing barriers that low income women and birthing people face in accessing reproductive health care. However, under current Medi Cal policy, a prescription is still required for reimbursement, even for FDA approved over the counter medications.

This means Medi Cal beneficiaries are effectively blocked from accessing OPILL without first seeing a provider. This requirement creates unnecessary delays and administrative hurdles, especially harmful in communities already facing barriers to care.

Pharmacists in California are already authorized to furnish self administered or hormonal contraceptives, but they must also follow standardized procedures and protocols which are intended for prescription medications and can serve as an additional barrier to access for over the counter options.

AB50 addresses this gap by clarifying that pharmacists may furnish over the counter contraceptives without following the protocols required for prescription only drugs. This change will remove unnecessary restrictions and bring Medi Cal Coverage in line with private insurance, ensuring equitable access for all patients.

With me to testify in support is Shannon Olivieri Horvas with Vice President of Public affairs with Essential health access and Dr. Emma Chu Murphy, OB GYN at the San Francisco General Hospital.

Great. Thank you both for being here. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Shannon Olivieri Hovis with Essential Access Health, a sponsor of AB50 over the past 15 years, Essential Access Health has co sponsored every major piece of California legislation expanding access to birth control, including the Contraceptive Equity act of 2022 which took effect in January of last year and requires public and private health insurance to cover over the counter birth control without cost sharing or prescription.

The timing of that legislation coincided well with FDA approval of the first over the counter contraceptive pill opill in 2023. As a result of that legislation, Californians covered by private insurance should be able to access over the counter birth control including Opill and without a prescription or out of pocket costs at their in network pharmacy.

Right now, unfortunately, there are greater barriers to over the counter birth control access for Medi Cal Enrollees. Since federal law requires a prescription for Medi Cal coverage of outpatient medications, Medi Cal cannot cover over the counter contraceptives without a prescription.

As such, when Medi Cal enrollees want to obtain coverage of over the counter birth control, they have to go through the same procedures and as if they were obtaining a prescription only contraceptive.

Finding a participating pharmacy with pharmacists that have received the required training, completing a self screening questionnaire, receiving required counseling and having a summary of the visits sent to their primary care provider, all to simply access birth control that is approved to be accessible over the counter. About 1,500 pharmacies in California can do this.

Assuming the trained pharmacist is on shift, that leaves about 5,5000 pharmacies that cannot. While these procedures are appropriate for prescription only contraceptives, they are unnecessary for over the counter methods and put access without cost sharing out of reach for millions of people enrolled in Medi Cal.

AB50 allows pharmacists to issue a prescription for over the counter birth control while bypassing the medically unnecessary procedures. With a simple policy change, AB50 will expand equitable access to over the counter birth control regardless of health insurance coverage.

Coverage over the counter contraceptives are essential for expanding access to birth control and advancing equity, particularly for communities facing systemic barriers to care and amid ongoing threats to the Federal Family planning program. Thank you so much. We'll switch to our other witness.

Good morning Chairwoman and Members. My name is Emma Chew Murphy and I'm an OBGYN practicing at the San Francisco General Hospital with a focus on contraception and reproductive health.

Every day I see how contraception improves the lives of my patients and that's because being able to decide whether or when to have children enables my patients to make their own path in terms of their health, their lives, their education and their careers. Yet people interested in using contraception continue to face huge barriers to access.

This is particularly true for the patients I see every day who are often working multiple jobs, balancing the demands of caregiving work, school, while also potentially navigating systems barriers like language and others. The unpaid time off of work and cost associated with travel to clinic can become prohibitive to obtaining the contraception they seek.

Over the counter contraception is an incredibly powerful tool to expand access. And this is true for my patients as well as the many community Members who don't make it through my clinic doors, for whom the burden of travel makes access sometimes prohibitive.

And while individuals who are privately insured are already able to access contraception over the counter without out of pocket costs, my patients who are publicly insured continue to face unnecessary barriers due to the current medical restrictions and requirements.

These barriers are not only harmful, but reinforce systemic unequal access to one of our most critical reproductive health tools, schools. And we know that OPILL is safe and effective. There is robust basis of scientific evidence demonstrating that people do not need a prescription or a visit with a healthcare provider like me.

And the safety of OPILL has already been affirmed by the rigorous process required for the FDA to approve Opill as an over the counter product. AB50 affirms the truth. We already know that my patients and our community Members are smart and they know what they need.

Let's make over the counter access to contraception accessible and possible for all Californians. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there other folks here in support of the Bill who would like to do me too testimony? Please tell us your name, organization, position on the Bill.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Maddie Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy and strong support.

Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. In support.

Molly Mala on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Product Association. In support.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9. In support.

Max O' Draughty, Western Center on Law and Poverty. In support.

Raymond Contreras, Reproductive Freedom for All. And support.

Great. Thank you very much. Are there folks in the room who oppose the Bill? Is there lead opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. Is there anyone who would like to oppose with me to testimony? Seeing none. We'll come back to the Dias. Colleagues comments when appropriate.

Okay. Moved by Senator Strickland. I don't see any other comments. Would you like an opportunity to close Assembly Woman?

Thank you Members, this is a smart makes sense Bill that will save California money in the long run. I respectfully request your aye vote.

[Roll Call]

That has seven votes. We'll leave it on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair.

Have a great day. Assembly Woman Bonta, we're just going to take a quick. Okay. Yes, no, I see. I see you over there. Oh, you're doing Calderons Bill. Okay, great. All right, we have a pinch hitter for Assemblywoman Calderon. We will take it. Assemblyman Alvarez, come on forward. This is file item 4AB226. When you're ready, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a Bill by Senator Calderona and myself. It's a Bill that we brought forward to this Committee last year. And we're back again. Assembly Bill 226 seeks to protect California insurance consumers and promote the financial stability of the Fair Plan. The Fair Access to Insurance Requirements plan.

The Bill would authorize a Fair Plan to obtain financing through bonds or through other agreements. This financing can be used to pay claims, especially after catastrophic events, and to proactively build up the fare plan's cash reserves and overall ability to pay for future claims. You all know, especially in this Committee, about what's happened with our insurance crisis.

As insurance premiums continue to rise, this has become a problem for homeowners. However, we have seen with the Fairplan has its constraints and with the increased frequency and severity of our natural disasters, we have seen the financial strain on the system is becoming more severe and we've lived this this year alone.

Assembly Bill 226 enhances the tools available to the Fair Plan by authorizing it to access upfront funding by the way of bonds or other similar mechanisms to provide a critical financial backstop during times of extreme loss. Again, as the one we are faced with this year, this will allow the Fair Plan to better manage large scale losses.

Importantly, if the Fair Plan cannot repay its financing itself, it is required to assess its member insurance companies to cover the obligations. As we've seen this year with the assessments on consumers. But by acting proactively, this legislation aims to prevent a cascade of insurance failures following a major disaster, ultimately protecting homeowners and condominium owners across the state.

We have two public testimony here today. We will begin with Steve Cruz with the California Building Industry Association.

Great. Thank you very much. We just have two speakers then and one for technical questions. Great. Each of you have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair Member Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support in addition to Cbia, there is also a broad coalition of support from businesses that are dealing with the current insurance crisis in California.

AB226 will ensure that the Fair Plan has additional tools to ensure that it is more solvent and resilient during major catastrophic events like the LA fires or multiple smaller events over the next few years until the admitted insurance market can return to normal and competition and consumer choices are once again made available.

The insurance crisis is putting thousands of new condominium units on hold from being construction throughout the State of California until more affordable and practical commercial insurance market can be created. Condominium homes are the most affordable and attainable first time homebuyer product in California. As you well know, it's harder and harder to find insurance in this great state.

As a result, the Fairplan is now the fastest growing insurance company in the United States for property risk and clearly growing faster and faster in California. Specifically, we support this Bill because it is very important this market stabilizes and that homeowners insurance in California is available. One way to do this is to stabilize the Fair Plan.

We're very encouraged by the Commissioner's leadership in this space and in addressing the crisis. He has put together a long term sustainable insurance strategy. But that is going to take time to implement and as a result it's very important that we move this measure today. We thank Assemblymember Alvarez and Calderon for their leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Go ahead. Good morning Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Josephine Figueroa, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara.

As a proud co sponsor of AB226 insurance, Commissioner Lara would like to thank Assembly Members Calderona Alvolo for the leadership in authoring this important measure that would allow the Fair Plan to access bonds, loans and lines of credit.

This would provide the Fair Plan with another financial tool in their toolbox that they currently do not have today in order to remain and meet their commitments to policyholders. The Fair Plan was created as a last resort for homeowners unable to find coverage in the private market.

But today it has become the only option for too many Californians with the increasing risk of climate, intensified wildfires and disasters. If the Parapron reserves are stretched too thin, it could delay payments to consumers and create instability in the broader insurance market.

AB226 would provide the Fair Plan access to capital when needed to ensure Fair Plan's availability to continue operating in a timely and able to timely pay consumers claims from these devastating events and to also help ensure that the Fair Plan can continue to pay claims if there are any subsequent events.

This measure aligns with the goals of the Fair Plan Modernization in Insurance Commissioner Nara's Sustainable Insurance Strategy, a necessary part of the ongoing efforts to stabilize California's insurance market while holding true to the spirit and intent of the Landmark Ballot initiative Proposition 103.

On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote with me today. Also to address any technical question is Ms. Melissa Wurster an attorney in the Rate Enforcement Bureau for the Department. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. And we'll come back to you if there are technical questions. Are there other folks in the room in support who would like to provide MeToo testimony? If so, please share your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County in support. Thank you.

Mark Sektnan on behalf of the American Property Casual Insurance Association in support.

Thank you. Katherine Charles on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Frank on behalf of the California Fair Plan in support.

George Cavinta on behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California in support.

Raymond Gondreras on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California in support and Fieldstead and strong support.

Good morning. Jared Moss on behalf of City Riverside in support.

Audrey Ratajczyk, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in support.

Great. Thank you all so much. Is there any lead opposition to this Bill? So please come forward. Okay. Seeing no one assuming Assemblymember Kalra is not the lead opposition. I see no one coming forward and. Okay, well, maybe not. All right. Is there any me too testimony in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none.

We will come back to the dias colleagues. Are there comments?

Senator, move the Bill when appropriate.

Great. We have a motion from Senator Strickland, Assemblymember. Would you like to close?

Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members. Appreciate the opportunity to share this with you. We have received unanimous bipartisan as you see no opposition which is often hard to do on insurance bills. But in this case we think this is good for California in order to safeguard us and respectfully ask for I vote. Thank you.

It sure is hard to do. Great work, everyone. All right. We have a motion from Senator Strickland.

We will call the roll motion is do pass the Senate Insurance Committee. [Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes, which is enough, but we'll leave it on call. We have other folks that show up. Thank you very much. Thank you to all the presenters. Assemblymember Kalra, Come on forward. This is file item 5, AB516 when you are ready.

Assemblyman thank you so much, Madam Chair. AB516 will clarify that registered veterinary technicians and veterinary assistants are able to perform any tasks they are not explicitly prohibited from undertaking by law. RVTs and Veterinary Assistants are versatile professionals supporting their supervisor veterinarians by performing a wide variety of critical animal care tasks.

In fact, RVTs are allowed to perform any work duty that does not constitute diagnostic, prognostic, surgical, or prescriptive activity. However, current regulations are written in a way that obfuscates the true extent of RVT and veterinary assistance responsibilities. They contain many exhaustive lists which creates the misconception that the staff cannot perform any unlisted task.

This in turn discourages veterinarians from entrusting their staff to full range of responsibilities they are trained and qualified to perform. Unfortunately, this dynamic exacerbates California's ongoing veterinary care shortage.

In February 2023, the UC Davis Shelter Medicine Program published survey results that showed that 25% of California's animal shelters lack adequate veterinary staffing and 64% could not address basic medical needs. While unclear regulations do not necessarily cause or contribute to these staffing issues, they can impose artificial restrictions on those already working in the shelter space.

When those staff go underutilized, shelter veterinarians find themselves burdened with additional work which reduces their capacity to offer essential surgical, diagnostic, prognostic, and prescriptive services to shelters and community Members. AB516 addresses this issue by plainly stating the that RVTs and Veterinary Assistants may perform any task that they are not otherwise prohibited from undertaking by law.

It also affirms that RVTs are allowed to perform dental care procedures, including dental extractions, under the supervision of a veterinarian who is licensed or authorized to practice in the State of California. By making clear the extent of RVT and veterinary assistance professional responsibilities, AB516 will address regulatory opaqueness that it contributes to California's acute veterinary care shortage.

With me to provide supporting testimony is Dr. Grant Miller, Director of Regulatory affairs with the California Veterinary Medical Association.

Thank you. You have two minutes. Go ahead. Thanks for being here.

Good morning, Chairperson Ashby and Members of the Business of Professions and Economic Development Committee. As Assemblymember Cowrath mentioned. My name is Dr. Grant Miller. I am the Director of Regulatory Affairs at the California Veterinary Medical Association. We are very pleased and thankful to work with the Assembly Member once again on co sponsoring this important legislation.

Along with the San Francisco SPCA and the San Diego Humane Society, AB516 will assist California's veterinary practices and shelters by clarifying previously confusing patchwork quilt regulation and statutes pertaining to what registered veterinary technicians and veterinary assistants are able to do in practice.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion among various veterinary practices and practitioners throughout the state about what they can do and it's difficult because they can do so much that we're not having them do.

This Bill will affirmatively clarify that unless otherwise prohibited by law, they are able to do important measures like as Assemblymember Cowra mentioned, cleaning teeth, extracting teeth, administering vaccines, providing, providing parasite control treatments, addressing wounds and skin problems and other things that will improve access to veterinary care for California's pet owning community.

We greatly appreciate the state Legislature's ongoing and dedicated attention to California animal shelters and veterinary practices and respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB516. I'm happy to answer any questions should you have them. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Great job. Are there others here in support? If so, please come forward with me to testimony. Name, organization, position on the Bill.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association as well as Humane World for Animals, both in support and thank you for this this measure.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Doug Houston representing the ASPCA. We too are in support. Thanks.

Good morning Chair. Members Nicholas Sackett, Social Compassion in Legislation in support. Thank you.

Hayes Lynn with Take Me Home Rescue in support.

Good morning Chairmembers. Ross Buckley Baptist .. of Sacramento in support.

Kelly Kettle, registered nurse for 30 plus years, retired from UC Davis, ER, animal advocate, rescuer support.

Eliana Gaffney with Rescue Girls for Change support.

Tina Martynchik on behalf of Angel's Furry Friends Rescue and support.

All right, thank you. Is there lead opposition in the room opposed to AB516 seeing none. Is there anybody in the room who would just like to provide me to opposition to AB516? All right, coming back to the dais, Senator Archuleta

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. As a dog owner and someone who's lost a couple of animals in our family, the care that was given by the veterinarian in his office were so touching and so sincere that we weren't hesitant at all to go out and get another animal. And that dog stayed with the family. And.

And of course, as time goes on over the years, you know, it's time for him to go ahead and get up to the next step. So now we have our third. Third dog. And. And I'm so glad that this is here, because from what I'm understanding is that you'll be able to see more patients, hence the. The.

The dog, the cat, whatever it might be. And the waiting time, I'm hopefully will be reduced because that's. That's been one of the things that it wasn't the care, but it was the waiting and I guess the popularity of adopting dogs and cats and is really taking hold, which is fantastic.

But if we can go ahead and speed up the process, and I think this Bill would do that, and thank you for having the confidence in your staff so they can, you know, make that move, and hopefully it will open up a lot of doors for people to get into the medicine of veterinarians. So I will urge an aye vote.

Is that a motion? All right. Motion from Senator Archuleta, I think. Senator Choi, do you have a comment?

Yes, ma' am. Thank you. I'm sure this Bill is to take care of the welfare of the animal health. I wonder, this definition of veterinary technicians assistants, are they classified job license with some training, background, or anyone who's working at the animal shelter are given such title?

No, they actually do have training that they have to undergo, and I can certainly allow our witness to elaborate on that.

Can you elaborate what the differences are between these two jobs and what kind of training? As succinctly as possible, sure.

So veterinarians are licensed by the state Veterinary Medical Board, registered veterinary technicians are licensed by the State Medical Board, and veterinary assistants who handle controlled substances have a permit through the board. So all entities are known, and they all have a measured amount of training.

All right, thank you very much. You get your questions answered, Senator Choi.

Yeah. And between the technicians and the assistants, so what's the difference?

So registered veterinary technicians actually hold a license, whereas veterinary assistants are not licensed. Many of them are permitted to do certain tasks, such as handle controlled substances rvts. Permitted by whom?

The state Veterinary Medical Board through the Department of Consumer affairs, and they have also a certain level of training.

Their training varies Depending on what type of practice they work in. Is it on the job training? Most of it's on the job training for veterinary assistants.

Are you sure they are safe?

They are competent, yes, because they're overseen by a veterinarian. So the law says that a veterinarian has to designate a task to these people based on their understanding of what they're doing. So we have a great amount of confidence in our staff in delegating those tasks.

If a veterinarian doesn't, they don't have to delegate a task to them. So nowhere in California does veterinary practice go on without the supervision of a veterinarian, either direct or indirect.

Licensed veterinarians on the site will give a certain level of his own training, internal training, and designate to give that title to only qualified employees.

Correct. And as Senator, as Assemblymember Calrab mentioned earlier, there are certain tasks that are restricted so that they have to have registered veterinary technician status to do them. Unfortunately, the misconception is that registered veterinary technicians can only do those tasks that are on those restrictive lists. And that's where we're seeing confusion.

This Bill clarifies that by saying, actually, unless otherwise prohibited, they can do whatever it is the veterinarian wants them to do if the veterinarian Deems it appropriate under the supervision that the veterinarian wants to do.

What about the individual with that given title, Veterinarian assistant at one job location, and if he or she moves to another location, what happens to that title will have to be renamed or designated by the veteran on that particular site. New site.

It's the same title. There's only three legal designations now. There's veterinarian, registered veterinary technician and veterinary assistant. All three of those are recognized by law.

But the training that that assistant takes with them, it's up to the veterinarian at the new practice to determine whether they feel that training is sufficient to allow that assistant to continue to do the tasks.

If they don't want to, they can retrain them or they can tell them that they'd like to restrict their tasks to not doing whatever those particular tasks are. Thank you.

Okay, question answered. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta. Would you like an opportunity? Opportunity to close.

I will take Senator Archuleta's comments as my close and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you. You certainly brought out some all star animal rescue folks from Sacramento today. So you clearly have the support of the chair. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's eight. We'll still leave it on call in case we get another Member. Thank you. Assemblymember. Have a great week. We have one item left. Assemblymember Lee Ready. Thanks for your patience. Do you have witnesses with you today? All right, great. We'll have them come forward and you go ahead and get started.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Today AB 631 I'm presenting this bill requires animal shelters to post data on their websites on the number of animals taken in the source of intake and the outcomes for all animals. If a shelter does not have a website, they are required to make this information available upon request.

We are taking committee amendments to narrow the scope of the bill to include- only include rescue groups that are nonprofits. This data is important to get an accurate picture of animals entering and exiting shelters and their outcomes. Californians care for the welfare of shelter animals and our official state pet is the shelter pet.

According to data from 2023 cities and counties invest approximately $378 million annually to operate state animal shelters. As such, it's critical we have the data to properly optimize resources to best inform policy and help pets find their forever homes.

This bill will ensure that we have the information necessary to direct funding more efficiently to shelters and make informed policy decisions. I will be respectfully asking your aye vote. But today I am pleased to be joined by my witnesses in support. Nikolaus Sackett, the Director of Legislative Affairs and Social Compassion in Legislation.

And Haze Lynn, the founder of Take Me Home Rescue.

Great. Welcome to you both. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Good morning, chair and members. Nikolaus Sackett, Social Compassion in Legislation, proud sponsor of AB6 3. We were founded in 2007 with the primary mission to reduce the pet overpopulation crisis in our shelters. I would like to note that there has been some misrepresentations about this bill creating different responsibilities for shelters and rescues.

AB 631 treats shelters and rescues equally in both reporting responsibilities and exceptions. In the case of a shelter or rescue not having a website. Just want to make that clear off the top.

I also want to note for the committee that in current law, animal shelters and rescue groups are equally entrusted with privileges or equally held to responsibilities in at least nine code sections. Excuse me.

Spanning areas of law governing the sale of pets, the collection of deposit funds from adopters, being exempt from penal code laws, accepting pro bono work from veterinarians in their completion of continuing education credits, and to taking custody of animals abandoned at shelters, groomers or other places.

AB 631 is not novel in treating animal shelters and rescues equally in law. The purpose of the bill, from 1995 through 2016, CDPH collected and made available the categories of that we are trying to collect in this bill, but they stopped in 2016.

So since 2016, we have been in the dark with what kind of progress we're making on the pet overpopulation crisis in California. And that is what this bill is about. It is about trying to get that data so we understand what the problem is and how we're making progress.

Okay. You want to just--

Yes, I'll- I'll wrap up. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I urge an aye vote.

Alright, thanks. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Haze Lynn and I'm the President of Take Me Home Rescue, which was founded in 2001 in Los Angeles. I'm also on the board of Social Compassion in Legislation. For years, animal rescues around the state have done rallies, pleading with local government officials that California has an animal overpopulation crisis.

Rescues are overwhelmed with carrying a burden that is unmanageable. Too many precious animals are being euthanized and dying on our streets, and we need your help. But without the numbers, we can't prove the crisis. This bill is not a burden.

It simply asks rescues to post data that we should already have, like how many animals we rescue from the shelter, directly from the street, or from families who surrender their animals straight to rescue. Data drives solutions. Let's begin to tackle this crisis and proudly show the animal rescue's incredible impact on the State of California.

This bill provides transparency that is missing. I ask for your aye vote so that every animal in need is counted and every life lost helps push change. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there others here in support who would like to come forward with me too? Testimony, your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning again, madam chair and members. Doug Houston representing the ASPCA. We're in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, Humane World for Animals, as well as San Diego Humane Society. All in support. Thank you for the measure.

Great. Is there lead opposition to this bill? If so, please come forward. You can come up to the table and you'll have two minutes each. Also.

Good morning, Senators. And thank you, Chair Ashby, for your well known commitment to animal protection and welfare.

Thank you for being here.

I'm Julie Varga, President of Fix Our Shelters, a statewide watchdog coalition of rescues and advocates. I'm also on the board of the Pet Assistance Foundation. We have nothing but gratitude and respect for Assemblymember Lee and his desire to require transparency and accountability from animal shelters. We know the intent is well meaning.

However, the unintended consequences of this Bill as written will harm the very rescue groups and citizens saving thousands of animals daily while allowing public shelters to continue advancing false narratives about how well they are performing. First and foremost, this Bill does not require animal shelter municipal animal shelters to report how many animals they turn away.

That is a massive omission. Public shelters are now refusing thousands of animals at the door through reduced intake policies promoted by UC Davis Corette cow animals. This is a driving force behind California's skyrocketing shelter euthanasia rates and our animal overpopulation crisis. If we don't track those numbers, the data will be incomplete and misleading.

Second, this Bill places an onerous reporting burden on already overburdened rescues and these groups do not receive the millions in taxpayer funds or have access to the vast resources and infrastructure public shelters already have in place.

Most shelters already use software that could easily be updated in a matter of minutes to include fields to track animals turned away and to provide a centralized system for rescues to submit data.

Furthermore, this Bill threatens rescues with criminal and or civil liability and could also affect their nonprofit status with the Attorney General if they are found to be non compliant. We all want transparency, but it must start with taxpayer funded shelters entrusted with protecting animals.

In closing, Chair Ashby and Committee Members, please oppose AB631 unless these vitally important issues are addressed. Thank you.

Okay, go ahead. Good morning. My name is Elena Gaffney and I'm speaking on behalf of the 50 animal rescue organizations in California. I represent Animal Rescuers for Change group. We created this group to help rescuers to get their points across with Legislature. We support the intent of the Bill, but we have serious concerns about its current approach.

We fully support mandatory reporting for municipal and contracted public shelters. Extending those mandates to small volunteer, non profit rescues that receive no government funding raises multiple issues. The Committee analysis and our conversation with the author's office confirmed that shelter animal count is the planned third party data aggregator. The new mandate threatens transparency, privacy and public trust.

Under threat of legal penalties, we are required to publish sensitive data only for it to be immediately harvested by a third party we don't control. This platform is not transparent, limits the public direct access to the original data set while we lose oversight of how data used and represented, opening the door to misrepresentation and manipulation.

Most rescues don't have the staffing, funding or infrastructure to maintain public facing five year database. These groups operate out of homes with volunteers who already work 247 to care for safety and injured animals. Diverting time and resources to website maintenance could reduce their capacity to save lives. There are also serious legal concerns.

Can the state impose detailed public reporting mandates on organizations that receive no public money to send data to third parties? We support transparency. However, we suggest a more reliable and safe approach to coordinate reporting through our partner municipal shelters. Using existing taxpayer funded software, rescues can regularly fill out reporting forms. We have no problem and we want transparency.

Okay, that's the end of the two minutes. Thank you very much for your comments. Are there other folks in opposition who would like to provide me to testimony?

Absolutely. Madam Chair and Members, Monica Miller, on behalf of Lucky Pup Rescue, thank you.

Great. Others.

Tina Martincic, on behalf of Angels for Reference Rescue, oppose.

Okay. Kelly Kittle, animal advocate, rescuer, strongly opposed.

Great. Okay. We will come back to the dais. Senator Strickland has comments.

Thank you Madam Chair. Assemblymember, I, I, I can't support the Bill today unless opposition came forward. I find this as an unfunded mandate on nonprofits. And when you look at rescues, you know these nonprofits are responsible for taking more than half of the animals that are left in the shelters.

And I happen to believe that if you put this burden on to these nonprofits, we're actually not going to save as many pets as we want to. And the goal here, I get the goal.

I agree with your goal in terms of having the data, but at the same time I would support it if we actually funded something from the state to the nonprofits to be able to meet this mandate.

But to just say the nonprofits, here you go, they're already there struggling as a nonprofit as almost not all nonprofits are and we'll actually save less pets if this Bill was enacted in law as written today.

So for those reasons I can't support the Bill, but I'm hoping that, that you, that some of my colleagues agree with me and then we move this Bill forward for the reporting data.

But just I would amend out, you know, the rescue groups that are nonprofit or put funding in there for those rescue nonprofit groups within the state because it's an unfunded mandate and the end result will be less pets will be saved if this Bill was enacted as written.

Other comments, Senator Choi, besides the comments. That Senator Strickland has made, I wonder author would be inclined to entertain the objections raised by the lead opposition witness tonight today?

Yes, thank you, Senator, for the question. You know, I understand the concerns of opposition that appeared late last week, so we're still engaging with him about these things.

I understand that there is some reticence about reporting data, but I would argue, and I understand the same letter that the Senator reference where if they say that they're taking in half of all animal shelters, half of all animals, we have actually no idea about that claim.

And this is a measure that would help back up that claim and make sure that we understand the full population. So we're still continuing back and forth, but it just started last week, so we're still engaged with them.

Thank you.

Okay. Senator Arreguin and then Grayson.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for this Bill. I have a question. There was one suggestion in the letter from Fix our shelters that I thought was, I think, worthy of consideration, which is I don't know if municipal animal shelters have this data readily available. So maybe that's the reason why you didn't incorporate this in your Bill.

But the idea of shelters reporting how many animals were turned away seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me. I think that's a legitimate data point that we should know about, especially since that drives animals becoming feral. Euthanasia, euthanasia rates. Is that something you would consider incorporating if this Bill moves forward?

It's something we're definitely looking at, Senator, but definitely the shelters shouldn't legally be able to do so in the first place. So we don't want to implicitly be saying it's okay, but I don't know if that might, if you want to ask to hear from my sponsors about that. Yeah.

I wonder if you can elaborate a little more about that. Sure. We totally agree with the sentiment behind wanting that kind of data. And if it were legal for shelters to turn away animals, but there is dispute in law about whether a shelter can turn away an animal at its door.

And so while again, we agree with wanting to know that information, we, and I think the opponents would agree we don't want to legalize that by putting it into statute because that would strengthen the argument that it's perfectly legal.

If I may comment.

Sure.

I'll ask you the same question. Okay.

Well, I would agree. I would disagree that it has not been established in law that it's illegal to turn away animals at shelter doors. It's very clear in Hayden's Law there's been recent litigation against San Diego Humane Society for doing this very same thing. It's a common practice now across our state.

However, to simply require a shelter to track data regarding the animals that are turned away does not address whether it is legal or not. It just requires them to notate whether an animal has not been accepted into the shelter and their infrastructure.

Their software is perfectly capable of just within a 15 minute, you know, change to that field, putting that there. It really is not a complex issue.

Okay, thank you guys very much.

To answer my question, I would imagine if shelters and a lot of our shelters are very full because we have dogs or cats that are not being adopted, and that does make it difficult to actually take in new animals. That certainly is a constraint that a lot of our shelters are dealing with.

So just wanted to just put this issue out there for the author's consideration if this Bill moves forward. I think that the points have been raised around why add rescues, rescue agencies, I think is a legitimate question.

I certainly understand municipal animal shelters or government agencies or not for profit SPCAs, but sort of nonprofit grassroots organizations may not have the same capacity to report that data more regularly. So I'll stop there. Thank you.

Those are excellent points. Right on the. Sound like a mayor. Okay. All right, Senator Grayson and cat owner. Yeah.

Quickly, animal lover, quickly. I want to make note that this bill's been in existence for a little while. Opposition, and I understand there are differences here and different perspectives. Opposition did not present their opposition until it was received on June 4. I know that committees have deadlines for amendments to be submitted.

So because of that, I think it would only be right for to allow your Bill to move forward so that you can actually negotiate and have time to. There'll be other opportunities for this Bill to be heard.

And if the Bill comes back before me having had time to negotiate and there hasn't been some movement, then I Reserve my right to change my vote then.

But for right now because of the lateness of the opposition and not the ability to truly negotiate prior to this Committee and any deadline that we might have, it's only right to give you the opportunity as the author to have conversations with with the opposition and negotiate. And then from there, we'll revisit.

Thank you. Agreed. Okay, So I think this is what we'll do here. We will go ahead and table this. We'll consider this presentation only. We've had plenty of comment. Give you a chance, Assemblyman, to meet with folks. Talk about what you'd like to do and we'll bring it back to the Business Professions and Economic Development Committee.

When you're ready, you let us know A week or two probably. And you've had lots of good input. I just would echo the sentiment of my colleagues here. You have some. I know these advocates didn't get their information in until late, but they are volunteers. It is a volunteer organization.

These are incredibly involved people in the City of Sacramento. So I would encourage you to do the best that you can to work with them. And we will. We'll gladly bring you back at the appropriate time. Good. Would you like an opportunity to say something in close right now?

Sure. Since we might be only doing vote only at the at the time is I will continue of course to work with opponents of this. I think we share a lot of the same intentions, same goals here.

But I just want to say very clearly is that I do believe we need data transparency, especially in the shelters, public finance shelters. But we also need it in the nonprofits as well because if we are flying blind one side of the House, it's not conducive to the welfare of all animals.

So we will hope to make it as a workable Bill, a Bill that everyone can live with. But we do need to understand that this data is vital on both sides of the House. So I really appreciate the discussion today. And we'll be back with the vice.

You are clearly on the right track. The the BPED team is rooting for you and we will see you soon. Thank you to all the folks who testified. That is the end of our agenda. So we are going to open the roll now. Members who have been here since the beginning, you are free to go. If you are missing a vote, we're going to bring that up right now. Go for it.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so that item has seven votes and is out. Next up would be AB226 by Calderon which was presented by Alvarez.

[Roll Call]

Seven, eight. Okay, that Bill has eight votes and is out. Next up will be file item 5, AB516 by Assembly McCallra.

[Roll Call]

That eight as well. So the items on consent have eight votes and are out. We have. We did not move forward with file item 1, SJR 6. We will bring that back a little later for vote only. Same with file item 8, AB631 by Lee.

And we removed item 2 and SJR7 by Cervantes and item 11, AB1496, by Assemblywoman Rubio, which we will take up later. Thank you all very much. That's it for BPED today. Have a great week.