Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Okay, we will convene. Let me. We'll convene the meeting for the California State Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee of June 23rd. Couple things. We are lacking a quorum. So if you are a Senator serving on the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, we could use your presence in room 2100 on the second floor.

If you are an author Assembly Member with a Bill in front of the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee today. We will also need you to get here expeditiously if you have the agenda in front of you or you're here to speak on an item.

Please Note that item three, which is AB415 by Assemblymember Chen, has been pulled from today's agenda. And that file item 4, which is AB447 by Assemblymember Gonzalez, Mark Gonzalez, has been moved to the consent calendar or is proposed to be on our consent calendar.

And file item 9, AB 968 by Assembly Member Boerner, has also been pulled from today's agenda. I think those are all of our late changes. What was the second one you mentioned? I already mentioned this year. 83. I'm sorry. So let's do it one more time.

File item 3 and 9, which are AB 415 and AB 968, have both been pulled. And file item 4, which is AB 447, has been added to consent, as has file item 10, which is an ACR resolution 83 by Wilson that is also on the consent calendar.

So when we get an author, we will proceed as a Committee of ourselves to hear the bills. And when we get enough Members here, we will establish a quorum. Until then, we will wait. Okay. We do not have an author and we do not have a quorum.

So we will recess until we get some Senators in this room and or some Assembly Members. So probably 10:30. Thank you,.

Okay. We are going to come back from recess to the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development. Thank you to the Senators who are here bright and early at 10:30 on a Monday morning. And we have a couple of authors, too, so we're ready to go. Let's establish a quorum, please.

[Roll call]

Great. Thank you so much. Members, we have a quorum. We have. Do we want to. One of you want to make a motion on consent? We could take that right now. So moved by Senator Menjivar.

[Roll call]

Great. We will put the consent on call. And we have Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry. And then we will go to Assemblymember Lee because he got here. So those the order we're going to do these two in. Assemblywoman, welcome when you are ready. This is AB260 by Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry on sexual and reproductive health care with an urgency.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. First, I'd like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for all that you've done on working on this bill. AB260 is an important proposal to protect safe and legal reproductive health here in California. Access to reproductive health care, including abortion, continues to be under threat across the nation.

Since the Dobbs decision three years ago, other states have been restricting or banning abortion care and people's ability to make decisions over their own bodies. The Federal Government has already made cuts to critical funding for family planning in an effort to further restrict the ability of states to provide essential health care.

Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. health and Human Services Secretary said he directed the FDA to reevaluate its approval of safe abortion medications. AB260 is in response to these very real threats. This bill protects access to medication, abortion here in California, specifically mifepristone, a common medication abortion drug first approved by the FDA in 2000.

Medication abortion is safe and it's effective and it's the least invasive option for abortion care based on decades of FDA research. Access to full scope of reproductive health care is critical for Californians and their health care providers so they can make the best decisions for their health and and their families.

This is especially true for people living in the areas with few providers or those that have to travel long distances to get care. This bill provides critical protections in California for medical professionals who are willing, who are helping their patients to get health care they need and the patients themselves.

Specifically, this bill protects health care providers, pharmacies, clinics and hospitals from disciplinary action or licensing, excuse me, licensing impacts that are legally providing mifepristone. Following the passing of similar policy in New York state, this bill allows reproductive health care providers names to be removed from medication abortion prescription labels.

The bill also allows for patients names to be removed from prescription labels to make sure they aren't targeted for the use of mifepristone. Health plans will be required to continue covering medication abortion, making sure this essential care remains affordable for those who need it.

Finally, this bill expands access to telehealth services, making sure more people, especially our folks in rural and underserved areas, have access to safe and reliable remote health care. Senators, the Federal Government has already shown us it intends to roll back access and funding for reproductive health care.

It is more important than ever that we stand strong in protecting the rights of Californians and their health care providers. This is a proactive step to make sure our people keep accessing the reproductive health care, regardless of changes at the federal level.

People having access to the reproductive health care not only secures the rights of their own bodies, but makes for healthier communities across California. With me today to testify in support are Adriana Benedict, General counsel at Hey Jane, and Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice.

Welcome to you all. So I assume one of you is just here for technical questions. Great. And then two minutes to the other two of you. Go ahead when you're ready.

Good morning. My name is Adriana Benedict, and I serve as General Counsel for Hey Jane, a leading provider of primarily virtual telehealth abortion care. Hey Jane's providers have courageously served over 80,000 patients since 2021.

While intimidation is not new to our providers, the last six months have seen an undeniable escalation of threats that seek to use fear to accomplish reproductive health care bans which cannot be accomplished through the ballot box. Fortunately, brave public servants have resisted these efforts.

Within days of Louisiana, seeking to impose criminal liability against a provider, Governor Hochul of New York signed into law an exception allowing prescription labels for abortion medication to be labeled with the provider's practice information instead of their personal information.

When Texas sought to impose civil liability on a provider based solely on their name being found on a prescription bottle, a county clerk refused the judgment filing based solely on New York's shield law.

When a federal bill to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances or FACE Act, was debated before being passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently, Democratic Senators retold the harrowing stories of violence that led to the bipartisan passage of the FACE Act over 20 years ago.

And when a domestic terrorist was found with a hit list just a week ago, including abortion providers, after murdering a politician and her spouse and severely injuring two others, law enforcement worked with appropriate stakeholders to notify at risk abortion providers without delay. Unfortunately, a federal court decision from Thursday will inevitably balloon the magnitude of these threats.

In Pearl vhs, the sole federal judge sitting in the Northern District of Texas overturned the entirety of the 2024 Reproductive Health Privacy Rule, which the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services had promulgated under HIPAA to heighten protections For Reprod Healthcare PHI AB 260 protections for reproductive healthcare providers and patients, including the exclusion of names from prescription bottles, has never been more urgent. In times like these, providers rely on public servants like you to continue advancing access to reproductive health care.

We strongly support the passage of AB260 with its crucial urgency costs.

Thank you, thank you very much. Go ahead. Good morning Chair and Members, Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, Chief, who is proud to co sponsor AB260 and thanks majority Leader Aguiar Khuri for carrying this important piece of legislation.

AB260 would make various changes to ensure continued access to abortion medication, including shielding providers from liability for administering this medication and establishing privacy protections by authorizing pharmacists to dispense this medication without the patient name, prescriber name or the pharmacy name. Since the overturn of Roe v.

Wade In 2022, abortion access has been under attack and there have been emerging threats. Nationwide, 63% of abortions are done using medication abortion up 10% from 2020, so it is crucial that we ensure its continued availability. Studies show that this medication is safe, effective and it is one of the least expensive ways to to do this.

It plays an important role in reducing barriers of promoting equitable access to health care, particularly for those who live in rural and underserved communities. AB260 is an important part in keeping California a safe haven for reproductive access and for these reasons we request an I Vote on AB260 thank you.

Thank you so much and thank you both for testifying here today. Are there others in the room in support of AB260? If so, please come to the mic and share your name, organization and position on the bill.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support.

Good morning Chair and Members [unintelligible] W Strategies here on behalf of California Nurse Midwives Association in strong support.

Thank you Connie Chan on behalf of State Treasurer Fiona Ma, proud co-sponsor.

Good morning. Genevieve Schweitzer on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunoulakis as a proud co-sponsor in support.

Thank you.

Martin Rasovic on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California, proud co-sponsor.

Chair, Members of Kathy Mossberg with the Central Access Health, proud co-sponsor.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN District 9, also co-sponsor.

Morning. George Soares with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. All right, is there lead opposition to AB260? If so, come on up to the table here. We have this extra seat. You'll have two minutes. When you're ready, go right ahead.

Yes. All right. Chair Members, my name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council and I urge you to reject AB260. While promoted as a safeguard for reproductive freedom, the bill is dangerously prioritizing abortion politics over women's real health and real safety.

AB260 permits pharmacists to dispense methylpristone without the name of the prescribing doctor or pharmacy listed on the bottle, a practice intended to shield providers from out of state prosecution. But this secrecy comes at a cost.

Women deserve transparency, especially when taking a drug that ends the life of a precious unborn baby and can seriously cause serious complications for the mother. The bill claims methylpristone is safe and effective.

Yet a groundbreaking 2004 study analyzing over 860,000 of these drug induced abortion found that more than 1 in 10 women suffer serious adverse events, far higher than the previously been advertised. Now why is this? Because safeguards have been quietly stripped away at the federal level.

No in person exams, no confirmation of gestational age, no follow up care mandated. Instead of addressing these risks, AB260 doubles down on this hands off approach, shielding providers from accountability and preventing law enforcement access to prescription records without a subpoena. Even in cases where something has gone terribly wrong. Here's what you don't hear from Planned Parenthood.

Medicaid data reveals that over 80% of ER visits after Mifel Prison abortions are misclassified as miscarriages. That's a truth. A crisis in truth, not just medicine.

Okay, your two minutes has expired. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the room with me too? Testimony? Who would like to oppose AB260 seeing no one. I'm going to come back to the dais. Colleagues, comments. Okay. Moved by several Members. Assemblywoman, would you like an opportunity to close? I would.

I want to thank all of you that are here today and that we've worked very hard on this. AB 260 is an important part of us protecting reproductive health in California. But it is not just about protecting a pill. It's about protecting our people. Think about that. That's what we're doing.

It's about making sure Californians can make decisions about their own bodies without fear or interference. It's about standing with our health care providers who show up every day to deliver safe, compassionate, research backed health care, often under increasing political pressure and scrutiny.

This bill is necessary to protect access to health care, to protect providers, to protect the right to choose and to protect all women. Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

[Roll call]

Okay, that's six. 6-1. We will put that item on call. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Thank you very much.

Well, we—let's set. We can leave it on call. Come on forward, Mr. Lee. On your way forward, before you start, colleagues, we have one item, Item 1, which is SJR by Cortese, which we already heard.

And I'm wondering if there is a motion and then we can leave it on call. Okay, moved by Senator Archuleta. Let's go ahead and take the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, go ahead. Assemblymember Lee.

All right, Good morning.

Comments and then each of your guests will have two minutes. Thank you for being here.

All right, Good morning, Senators and Chair. First, I'd like to thank the Committee for their Committee staff for their attention and work on this bill. This bill is a policy that I believe is long past due to be enacted. Cat declawing is a serious surgery with the cat's final toe joint being removed or its tendons being severed.

And here is a visual representation of what that looks like. My witnesses will talk more about this, and I believe that when it is performed for any other reason other than the health of the cat, then I believe it is cruel and inhumane.

The bill would simply prohibit cat declawing surgeries from being done in California unless a licensed veterinarian is performing for a medical purpose for the health of the cat and not the convenience of the cat's parent. My witnesses will be able to describe the gruesome procedure more.

But this surgery is not simply removing the claws like as if you were taking off cutting nails. It's about cutting off the first digit of your fingers. So, same thing here on a cat's paw and their fingers, It'd be the equivalent of taking off your first little digits of your fingers through the same cruel procedure.

This is a common sense bill that says that the permanent disfiguring surgery cannot be performed for cats for any reason other than the health of the actual patient, the cat. And with me today in support is Dr. Jennifer Conrad and Dr. Barbara Hodges, who will talk more about this procedure.

Thank you so much. Ladies speak, two minutes each. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Conrad. I'm a licensed veterinarian in the State of California, and I just wanted to tell you that declawing is actually should more appropriately call deknuckling. It is the equivalent of taking this cigar cutter and cutting off my last phalanx of each of my fingers.

It's done solely for convenience. It's not done to protect cats in any way. It has no benefit to cats, and it benefits everyone along the line. Cats don't have to suffer 18 amputations and which causes them a life of pain. It's so predictably painful that it's used in clinical trials to test new pain medications.

The people who have the cats don't have to suffer because declawed cats are less likely to use the litter box when they come home from the surgery. They go to dig in the sand, it hurts so much they don't want to use it again, and they start biting.

And as we know, the CDC and NIH say that declawing is not necessarily to protect human health. It protects veterinarians who know morally and ethically that this is A wrong thing to do and they don't get the pressure from their bosses or from the public to declaw cats.

And it protects communities because they don't lose the taxpayer money when these cats lose their homes and they wind up in the pound. So I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go right ahead. Two minutes for you as well.

Good morning Chair Ashby and Members of the Committee. I'm Dr. Barbara Hodges, a California licensed veterinarian representing the Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance, also known as Humane VMA. We are a national veterinary professional membership Association and a proud co sponsor of AB867 and I am here to convey our strong organizational support for this bill.

State veterinary medical associations often convey the impression they have a mandate to speak for all veterinarians in their states on a wide range of issues and that most veterinarians support non therapeutic decline. But in fact, many veterinary professionals oppose non therapeutic decline across the country.

Our Members have helped us successfully advocate to end convenience decline in New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia. And these states have ended decline despite a lack of support or outright opposition from their respective state veterinary medical associations.

And so, on behalf of our California Members and the California veterinary professionals who signed our veterinary statement of opposition to cat declawing, which was attached to the support letter we submitted to this Committee, HumaneVMA urges your aye vote on AB867 to protect California cats from the risks of unnecessary declaw amputations and their many potential negative after effects.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there others in the room with me too testimony? If so, please provide your name position on the bill and the organizations you are representing today.

Gary Cooper representing the Paw Project, a sponsor of the bill. We certainly support the bill today and request your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of Humane World for Animals, proud co-sponsor and also on behalf of the City of West Hollywood and Cal Animals in support. Thank you.

Good morning again, Chair and Member. Sosan Madden at W Strategies here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank in support.

Jim Jensvold on behalf of Democrats for the Protection of Animals. And we are in strong support. Thank you.

Juliana Tetlow on behalf of the San Diego Humane Society in support.

Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Is there lead opposition to this bill? If so, please come forward to the table. You will each be given two minutes. When you are ready.

Go right ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am Christina DiCaro, the Lobbyist for the California Veterinary Medical Association and the CVMA is opposed to AB 867. Our opposed position, though, is based on the overarching premise that we believe it's a slippery slope to have the Legislature weighing in on the appropriateness of lawful surgeries.

The veterinary profession has consistently prioritized animal welfare, as evidenced by the rarity of declaw surgeries performed today and the decision by both California veterinary schools to cease teaching this procedure.

We respectfully urge the Legislature to recognize the profession's commitment to animal well-being and its ability to self-regulate and to consider the potential consequences of future legislation such as seeking to regulate specific veterinary practices.

The CVMA wants to thank this Committee, particularly Chair Ashby and Alyssa Silva, your consultant, for the significant and thoughtful work that went into the crafting of the amendments in the June 17th version. Those amendments put the reference to the surgery in the proper code section, it removes the burdensome reporting requirement to the Veterinary Medical Board, and it makes other critically important changes.

We also want to thank Assemblymember Lee for agreeing to accept these amendments, and I do have Dr. Grant Miller here from the CVMA in the back if you have any questions.

All right, thank you very much. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair Ashby and Members. My name is Jessica Seiferman. I'm the Executive Officer of the California Veterinary Medical Board. The Board regulates the largest population of veterinarians and registered veterinary technicians in the nation. Its mission is to protect all consumers and animals by regulating licenses, promoting professional standards, and enforcing the Veterinary—Veterinary Medicine Practice Act.

The Board opposes AB 867. In general, the Board Members agree that declawing is no longer a common practice performed in the veterinary profession and should not be performed without consideration of the best interest of the animal patient. However, the Board maintains that decision is best left to the veterinarian and the animal owner.

In addition, the Practice Act does not specifically prohibit any medical procedures from being performed by Board licensed veterinarians. Rather, licensed veterinarians are able to practice all aspects of veterinary medicine without restrictions so long as the delivery of care is provided in a competent and humane manner consistent with current veterinary medicine practice in California.

Veterinarians are required to use appropriate and humane care to minimize pain and distress before, during, and after performing any procedures. The Board is concerned prohibiting this specific medical procedure will set a precedent for other procedures for veterinarians to be prohibited in the future.

With that said, the Board appreciates the discussions with Assemblymember Lee's office and their willingness to remove the reporting requirement for veterinarians to file written statements with the Board whenever they perform a declaw procedure.

The Board was very concerned any data collected would be subject to the California Public Records Act request and used to target veterinarians who are lawfully providing procedures. While the Board's opposition remains, thank you, Assemblymember Lee, to listening to the various—for listening to the various—enforcement mechanisms the Board currently has to enforce this Bill if passed without the dangerous reporting requirement.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. Are there others in the room in opposition to this Bill, "Me Too" testimony? Seeing no one, we will come back to the dais. Yes, Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember Lee, for bringing this Bill forward. You know, I agree with the opposition when they talk about the slippery slope when you start regulating what people can and cannot do in their particular practices, when their training trains them for things.

And nationally, their individual board or whatever says that it is safe if they follow certain guidelines. How many of these procedures are we seeing being done here in California on an annual basis?

Yeah, thank you for the question. I'd like to turn over to my witnesses to talk about it. But just a reminder, right now is 22% of all cats right now are declawed, and this declawing is not a therapeutic practice for the most part.

But if—and let me, thank you, let me rephrase that. How many of these procedures that are being done are being done without some kind of medical necessity?

I want to see if my—Doctor Conrad or Doctor Hodges want to talk about.

Well, when it's called declawing, it is done without medical necessity. When it's called a phalangectomy or the removal of a phalanx, that is with a medical necessity. When they're declawing, when they're amputating all 18—10 or 18—toes, then that is without a medical necessity, it's nontherapeutic.

So, what's the percentage that is being done right now in California of those that are not medically necessary?

Well, nationwide—I don't know for California by itself—but nationwide, 22% of cats are declawed.

So, it's a lot.

Right. So, the reason why I'm asking is because what you're proposing today is to establish a law here in California and I need to know what the scope of the problem is because we cannot pass something based on a national issue that may not necessarily be as great here in California, but could set precedent so that in the future when someone comes and they want to regulate practices in Veterinary or even medicine, they can utilize this as, hey, Legislature's already stepped into this, into this space.

So, as far as the schools here, you stated that they're no longer taught how to do this procedure. When did that start?

A long time ago. I graduated in 2001, and they were no longer teaching it.

I'm sorry, you graduated when?

2001.

2001. Okay. And so, do—is it practice for veterinarians to do things out of the scope in which they were actually trained to do?

So, let's just make sure we're clear on who we're directing the question to.

We're not directing it to anyone, but I guess we're.

Go—come on forward.

It's okay, Madam Chair. I'll cede my seat to Dr. Miller. Thank you.

Now, we're going to.

Okay, Dr. Miller, tell us your, your title. I know you're here for technical assistance. Tell us your name and title. And then if you could answer Senator Weber Pierson's question.

Thank you. Dr. Grant Miller, California Veterinary Medical Association. As Dr. Hodges correctly said, neither of the two veterinary schools in the state of California have taught declawing in, in over two decades. Western University of Health Science actually has only been in existence for two decades, so they have never taught it.

UC Davis ceased teaching it in the late 1990s. We have done surveys of our membership to ask them about declawing, and 80% of our members do not declaw cats anymore. Now, keep in mind, we don't represent all 13,500 veterinarians in our membership, but it gives you an idea.

If we were to apply the metric of 22%, there are 7.4 million cats in the state of California, by the metric of 22%, that would imply that 1.7 million cats are declawed here. And I'm sorry, that is just not what happens in the state of California.

We know from our membership that of those who do perform the procedure, it's done very seldomly. Of our members who say they do it, it's usually one or two per year that they're saying that they're doing. So, the amount that happens here is far less than in other parts of the country.

Thank you.

And thank you for coming forward to help us with the technical question. All right, we also have Senator Menjivar and then Senator Choi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to respond to some of the comments regarding what type of bills we legislate. We've heard bills in this Committee and other bills regarding things that happen in other states that's never happened in California, and we pass those bills every single time.

Just because it's not a big number here in California, it's a nationwide number, doesn't mean that it's a problem—that it's not a problem here in California. Assemblymember Lee, I want to thank you for bringing this forward.

I actually have a best friend who's an RVT, Registered Vet Tech, and she has brought this up to me ever since we were friends—how big of an issue this is and that people should just simply not have cats if they're going to come and declaw their cats simply because they don't want their couches to be scratched.

I think this is completely inhumane. Even if it happens every once in a while, I think it's good enough reason to ensure that legislation gets passed. I just want to thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Okay. I would like to ask some commonsense question. I never had any cat, so I don't know the need for declawing. But common sense tells me maybe the cats are scratching by bad habit, injuring the owner or people. That may be the reason declawing. Is that true? No? What is the major reason for declawing?

Senator Choi, who are you directing your question to?

Okay, whoever can answer.

Dr. Miller, or?

Whoever who has ability to answer.

Okay. It matters. So, because they're not on the same sides, so, why don't we give you a chance to answer and then you a chance to answer, both briefly and succinctly. Thank you.

Declawing is done most of the time to protect furniture. In fact, a study by the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association said that 95% of veterinarians are declawing to protect household furnishings. It's not done to protect human health because a declawed cat is more likely to bite because it has lost its primary way of defending itself.

And so, even the CDC, NIH, and U.S. Public Health Services don't declaw cats to protect human health because they bite more.

I see. My second...

I'm sorry, Senator Choi. Go ahead.

I'll let the Senator continue. Thank you.

Okay. You don't want to address the question. You have the same answer? Not answers.

Only in so far as to tell you that maybe in the early years when the procedure was developed, that was the common cause. But remember, we have adequately policed ourselves in reducing the amount that this procedure is performed.

And when our veterinarians are telling us that they're performing the procedure, it's usually because the elderly patient is usually on chemotherapy on a blood thinner like coumadin and they can't risk being scratched. Like it or not, that's what people are saying to us.

That's what, when they come in the exam room and they're saying this is their problem, that's what they're claiming. Now, whether or not it's a good idea to declaw the cat for that matter is really what talking about here. Because like Dr. Conrad said, they can be bitten, they can have other things happen to them.

The CVMA changed its policy two years ago to indicate that we also discourage non-therapeutic declawing of these animals. We only want it to be done when there is a legitimate medical reason. Now, we believe a legitimate medical reason to be one in the human owner as well.

If the owner is coming in and saying we can't keep our cat because it keeps scratching us, can you do something, we believe that that's qualification to consider the procedure, but only after all other alternatives have been exhausted.

Okay, Senator Choi, is that question answered?

No, I have a follow up question.

Sure.

Let me ask your opposing witness, the author, Assemblyman Lee, illustrated that the declawing the procedure is just like a chopping of our fingers. Is that true? Is it not the tip of it, is it equivalent to what the illustration showed?

Yes, it's equivalent to removing the final digit of the paw. There are also other types of the procedure where you can sever the tendon to make the claw like unable to be retracted and extended. So, there's versions.

If that is the case, then what is the healing time?

It doesn't heal.

I think most of the time that this procedure is done, it's done when the animals are very young and so, the healing time is usually one or two weeks at the most. The cats have bandages on their paws. They have pain medications that's given to them.

The veterinarians who have performed the procedure do not report that these animals are maimed for life or that they're permanently in pain. These animals seem to go on to lead very normal lives. But again, our doctors tried not to perform the procedure. They try to provide alternatives.

One such alternative, Senator, is the use of soft paws, which are caps that go on the end of the kitty's nails. Unfortunately, in the current form of this Bill, we're not even allowed to apply the soft claws to the end of our nails.

Thank you.

Incorrect.

Assemblymember, did you want to chime in on that?

Yes. I would just say application of soft paws or any treatment to the nails itself is not banned by this Bill—is incorrect.

Thank you so much for that. Because the way that the Bill is written technically, now, that's—I'm very concerned about the Board's future interpretation of the Bill when it says that any procedure that alters the function of the cat's claws is prohibited, that would be, for veterinarians, applying something to the end of the claw would mean that that's prohibited.

So, I'm very happy to hear that you're not interpreting it that way.

Yes.

Okay. That's something we can also follow up in on afterwards, too, to make sure the language is clear. Should the Bill pass this Committee, we'll make sure there's clarification there as the Bill proceeds. We still have time, right, Assemblymember? You've been very diligent about following up on this Bill. Okay. Senator Choi, you have all your questions answered?

Yes.

Great. Senator Archuleta.

Someone just, I believe is one of the panelists, said this is not taught. This procedure is no longer taught. If it's no longer taught, why are we allowing the veterinarians even to experiment? I got to use the word experiment, and, well, this wouldn't work. This wouldn't—well, I was never taught.

And if we take pride in anything in California, is our professional medical doctors, nurses, and everyone else for their technical training and expertise, because of their training. So, if there is no training, why are we even here to even allow this to happen? That is my comment.

Do you want to respond? Assemblymember?

No, I'll go on with the list. I know you have other Senators who want to speak.

I think we're okay if you want to. You want to do that in your clothes. Would you like to just. Okay, I just have just one comment and then we'll hand it to you. First of all, thank you everyone for grappling with the issue.

I want to applaud the author and and his sponsors for being really responsive to this Committee. We had a lot of help on this Committee to try to find a pathway forward. It's an important issue, but we want to get the wording exactly right.

For those of you who are here for something else and you have just heard this conversation now you have a good idea of why it's so complicated. One word or one lack of a word can lead to two different interpretations and we need to make sure that we stick the landing on this one.

So I just want to make sure that. Assemblymember. If there's follow up language that we might need to modify, I just want to make sure today that it's your intent for the bill not to change the tips that can be used as one alternative to this because that may be very real, particularly in the cases of Dr.

Weber-Pierson was talking about where there's a patient at home, a human patient who needs to be protected from scratching in some other way.

So I want to make sure that that is your intent and if we'll have the team look at it, if it advances from this Committee to make sure that everyone's satisfied that that language still allows for those far less non-invasive procedures to occur to help folks who are at home who want to keep their pets with them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to close on reiterating that this surgery we're talking about, which is non therapeutic, is equivalent of taking off the first knuckle. Right. So this is a cat's first phalanx, though it is a very big cat. It's a lion. Right. Tiger. This is lions. Just so that you can see it.

Obviously on a household cat, it's much smaller, but it's equivalent of taking off that part of it. Right. So it is very painful. It is mutilation. And even though there are a quarter of our cats today, they're declawed, obviously the population will hopefully shrink to near zero. There are other states right now that have ban this practice.

As you see, the veterinary practice itself is phasing this out through education, through its vets. But as my witnesses talked about. You want to mitigate the pressure from the public who may not be up to date and knowledgeable about these things. They don't want any pressure from their Boss to do so.

And also as a proud cat parent, I can tell you the bite is worse than the scratch because there are also other procedures out there if you're worried about furniture or human health. You can trim the nails just like our nails. You can trim them or you can put some off caps on them.

You can do many different things. The most extreme option to preserve your furniture or your convenience is to cut off that phalanx. And for a cosmetic reason, sure, there are many medical reasons and things that happen to the cats out there that need to be happened.

But I also want to talk about to Senator Weber-Pierson's question about how much of this is happening in the bill. I mean, working with the opposition, we removed the part about reporting it. So we would have reported to understand what is going on in the state, whether it's for therapeutic or or for cosmetic reasons.

We would have had a better sense of that. That is not no longer in the bill. So we don't have a strong data point anymore, unfortunately. But I just want to reiterate the sense is that there are other states, there are other jurisdictions in California, even other cities that have phased out this practice.

So you're hopefully going to see this number get closer and closer to zero. But it's still fact remains that there are people out there, veterinarians and unfortunately parents that request this procedure.

And we want to make a uniform following other jurisdictions that is no longer allowed and get us to the functional zero where no one has to get declass. So I respectfully asked your aye vote.

All right, thank you, Assemblymember. I don't believe we have a motion move the bill. All right, Moved by Senator Arreguin.

[Roll call]

Okay, we're going to put that item on call. We have a few Members still missing, Assemblymembers, so we will come back to it later. Thank you to the witnesses for helping us with that item. We will do the follow up on that bill as we have promised as it moves forward. And next up patiently waiting.

We have Assemblywoman Bonta, thank you for being here. This is AB489, healthcare professions. When you are ready. Assemblywoman, go ahead and begin.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'm very pleased to present my bill AB 489. By now we're all familiar with the rapid rise of generative AI. This bill is a straightforward common sense solution to address one particularly troubling and insidious aspect of this technology. AI systems misrepresenting themselves as health professionals.

These systems have reached a point where they can produce natural sounding language and they are trained on a vast amount of data. An AI systems powerful capabilities can enable it to convincingly mimic a health professional. Without proper safeguards in place, this capability can pose a danger to consumers in both healthcare and non healthcare settings.

California law established strict standards for licensing and certification of health professionals. The bill takes existing title protections in the law that apply to people and applies it to AI systems. AB489 will draw a bright line and say an AI system cannot misrepresent an AI agent, an AI agent itself as a health professional. Period.

This will not only prohibit behavior we are seeing in the marketplace right now with chatbots claiming to be doctors, nurses or psychologists, but also hopefully deter future bad behavior by establishing a clear prohibition and the threat of enforcement.

Importantly, this bill will also hold the developer or deployer of the technology accountable for ensuring the technology doesn't violate the law. Colleagues, this is ultimately a question of trust in an area that is deeply personal, like health care. Our constituents should be able to trust, for example, when they're online and getting advice from a nurse.

It is a licensed human nurse. Think of a child or a teenager looking for mental health support or health advice being misled or harmed by a bot. Think of an elder who is online seeking advice from their healthcare provider, whether a medication has particular side effects.

This bill has garnered a wide range of support because so many people in health space, in the health space, are rightfully concerned about the impact the advice of an AI chatbot or an AI's voice voicebot insisting it is a licensed healthcare professional could have. I'm joined by co-sponsors of this bill.

Matt Lajay with SEIU California and George Sores with the California Medical Association. They will be speaking on the urgency of this bill.

All right, whenever you are ready, they'll turn it on. Go ahead, just start.

Hello, Good morning. Matt Lajay with SEIU California, the proud co-sponsor of this measure with our 750,000 workers across California with a range of licenses from Doctor to social worker. These workers do years of education and. Training to obtain their license so that they are able to practice safely and protect the public.

This is a common sense measure. AB489 is to ensure that we are. When seeking healthcare advice, that we're able to trust that advice because it's coming from someone with years of education, training. And experience. With this clarification and AI.

Will be able to create guardrails so that incorrect information which can significantly undermine the public trust in healthcare, leading individuals to forego scientifically backed treatments, unproven remedies adversely affecting healthcare outcomes and the public health at large. For these reasons, we respectfully ask your aye vote.

All right, thank you so much.

Awesome. Good morning Chair and Members, George Sores of the California Medical Association, one of the proud co-sponsors of AB489. I want to do a special thank you to the Committee and Assemblymember Banta for authoring this bill as well as our co-sponsors SIEU. AI is a hot topic and interest in healthcare.

AI has grown rapidly over the last few years in the practice of medicine. AI has been used for years to assist with diagnosis, testing and clinical documentation. The physician community often refers to artificial intelligence as augmented intelligence because they understand that today's AI technologies enhance human intelligence but cannot replace it.

We want to foster the use of AI in health care, but we also want to guarantee it's done in a safe and ethical manner for patients. AB489 is a key step to ensure that AI and health care is used safely and ethically. This bill seeks to guarantee that AI systems do not misrepresent themselves as healthcare providers.

Physicians go through over a decade of education and training that leads to being a licensed physician and as a result, patients trust highly trained physicians and other medical professionals for accurate diagnosis and treatment plans. Allowing for an AI system to claim physician status could be dangerously misleading.

By helping patients understand who or what they are communicating with, this bill will protect the public from misrepresentation and build trust within the healthcare system and with innovative technologies. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you both so very much. Are there others in support in the room with me too? Testimony? I have no doubt. All right. Your name, organization, position on the bill.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support.

Jessica Moran on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners in support. Thank you.

Allison Ramey on behalf of Kaiser Permanent here in support.

Lizzie Kutzona on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Sumaya Nahara on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists in support.

Lawrence Gaydon on behalf of the California Dental Association in support, thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support.

Hi. Tiffany Brokaw on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonda in support.

Good morning. Jessica Gott on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Radiological Society and the American College of OBGYNs District 9 in support.

Monea Jennings on behalf of the California Association of Orthodontists in support, thank you.

Good morning. Tyler Rinde on behalf of the California Psychological Association in support, thank you.

Good morning. Brittany Stonecifer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in support, thank you.

Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians and the California Society of Plastic Surgeons in support.

Good morning, Chairmember. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support.

Is there lead opposition to AB489? Seeing none. Is there anybody in the room who would like to just provide me to testimony for opposition? Seeing none. We will come back to the dais. Okay. Senator Weber Pierson. And then we have a motion from Senator Archuleta.

I just really want to thank the author and the sponsors for bringing this bill forward. It is critically important and I'd love to be a co-author if I'm not already one.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you. Just question the. It's unclear to me if A. If a deployer of an already developed platform is the guilty party. Can the developer also be pursued for the misrepresentation of the deployer? It reads like that's the case.

This does actually implicate both the developer and the deployer. So effectively you would be able to hold the developer responsible as well as the deployer.

Is that fair if the developer had nothing to do with the representation?

I think that the challenge right now, and we actually spent some time looking at this when we had a hearing on AI in healthcare, is that there's a lot of finger pointing between developers and deployers right now.

Developers should be responsible for the development of their AI and the understood uses of it, and so they are considered as a liable party. Should there be use of this that is representative of misrepresentation.

So just to be specific, if you're a developer, you're doing a UI or ux, you have the ability to essentially generate your AI so that it says something like, given this particular algorithm, will you represent that you are a nurse or will you represent that you are a psychologist or psychiatrist?

That developer is making a decision to have the software say that they are a psychiatrist, in other words, or a.

Healthcare provider to the subsequent application of the. Absolutely.

Senator Niello, it may give you some, some sense of security to know that this item, should it pass this Committee day, goes to Judiciary next and where they will, I'm certain, talk with the Members more specifically about liability as opposed to scope, which is what we were pretty focused on here. Right. And I know you're on.

You'll have another opportunity to look at that issue then.

Well, I'll support the bill today. I'm surprised that there's no opposition because I could see that a developer would have some issue with that. But I'll support the bill today. But it just appears that there could be some confusion.

Senator Choi, I want to make sure that if a licensed health practitioner, such as doctors or nurses in their own field, utilizing AI information in concept for their consultation with their own experience or judgment, nowadays many times even professionals use that. So whether licensed care person uses that AI, does it violate this law?

This bill is silent as to that issue. So we are essentially looking very specifically at the specific use case where an AI is representing itself as a licensed healthcare professional, as a nurse, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, or any other provider where you have to go through the process of receiving a certification or a license.

So being silent, what does that mean if somebody accuses a licensed person having consulted the AI?

This bill does not address that.

Can you include that specifically the license, a person will be exempt from this law.

That would be outside of the scope of this legislation. I understand it to be an issue that is raised with other pieces of legislation, but this legislation does not address that at all. It's beyond the scope of the intention of this bill. Thank you.

Okay, a couple of comments myself here and seeing none, no other Senators with their hands up. First of all, excellent author, perfect person to bring this forward, having worked in this health space on legislation for so long and your legal mind and reference to all of these things shines through here.

It is tough to do these AI bills because you want to be very precise and I think you have done a good job with that here.

I would sort of counter Senator Nilo's comment to say that so much of what you're trying to address here depends on the passiveness of the piece of equipment that's being Used by the individual.

Which is why I think you have these two incredible sponsors here who want to make sure that we don't substitute artificial intelligence for hard earned, learned experience from medical professionals, which we know is what we want to rely upon. I think you strike the right chord here.

I appreciate the comments from the Doctor, the good Doctor Senator on this dais, who I know deals with these issues on a daily basis. So you already, I believe, have a motion from Dr. Weber, from Senator Archuleta and we'll call the roll. But I appreciate you first. You have an opportunity to close though.

Thank you. And Senator, Dr. Weber Pierson, very thankful that you want to co-author. You will be my first Senate co-author. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members for hearing this bill.

A quick search of the character AI website for mental health shows a mental health helper with 6 million chats and a character called mental health Doctor that boasts 1 million chats. This is a very real and current present danger.

A mental health advice bot and characters represented as psychiatrist, psychologist and mental health professional, all with tens of thousands of chats. I respectfully request your aye vote for AB489.

Great. Thank you. We will call the roll. Thank you, Senator Archuleta, for the motion.

[Roll call]

Nine. Great. That has nine votes. But we'll put it on call anyway for our Members who aren't here yet. Thank you, Assembly Member. And we have Assembly Member Wicks here with us too, so. I'm sorry. I didn't even see you sneak in there. Assembly Member Bennett. I. I'll let you guys row.

Shambo, you tell me who's going to go next. I don't. I have no preference. Okay. All right. Senator, Assemblymember Wick says you are faster than her on the draw there, so you're up first. Working at it. All right. File item 6 AB506 by Assemblymember Bennett.

This is on pet sales of dogs, cats, and rabbits. When you are ready.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. In today's digital age, many people begin their search for a new pet online. Unfortunately, a recent LA Times expose revealed 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 at all.

Pet sellers have been using predatory practices, requiring buyers to place a nonrefundable deposit before answering any questions. AB 506 protects consumers by voiding contracts between consumers and brokers that fail to include the origins of the pet, veterinary records, or require nonrefundable deposits.

With me today is Brittany Benesi from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals and Julianna Tetlow from the San Diego Humane Society. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, you each have two minutes. Go right ahead.

Good morning, chair. Thank you. I will do my best to keep it brief. Brittany Benesi, on behalf of the ASPCA. For decades the A & R Partners have worked to address the puppy mill pipeline, a predatory industry that makes cruel, out-of-state breeding conditions profitable by misleading consumers with wholesome, adorable images and manipulative tactics.

Whereas traditional dog breeding associations promote the benefiting of researching breeders, meeting them in person, visiting the kennel, and seeing the parents and littermates, the sellers AB 506 seeks to address are those who manipulate, obfuscate, and take advantage of the emotional anticipation that comes with seeking a new pet.

These practices not only allow puppy mills to reach California families, but encourage irresponsible breeding and online scams, which according to the Better Business Bureau, may account for 80% of sponsored online pet sale ads.

By requiring that sellers disclose the source of an animal when known, provide available vet records, and by prohibiting nonrefundable deposits, we can address these predatory practices and ensure that consumers have legal avenues for relief. Thank you to Assembly Member Bennett and to the committee for your time. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Go right ahead.

Thank you so much. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. Julianna Tetlow, here on behalf of San Diego Humane Society, a proud co-sponsor of AB 506, 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 a pet into their house are often being misled by brokers and sellers who hide the origins of animals and lock buyers into contracts that are both unfair and deceptive.

These contracts frequently require nonrefundable deposits before even disclosing basic information like where the puppy came from and who bred it. This isn't just bad business, it's a setup for heartbreak and financial loss for consumers.

AB 506 helps put an end to this by ensuring that sellers are transparent about the original source of the animal and prohibiting nonrefundable deposits. It also gives consumers clear remedy. If the contract is deceptive, it's void and the buyer gets their money back within 30 days.

At this 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 cannot exploit families with emotionally charged high-stakes purchases. We thank the author and respectfully request your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Are there others in the room in support of the bill with #MeToo testimony? Come on forward.

Lizzie Cootsona, on behalf of CalAnimals, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Susan Matier, on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Nickolaus Sackett, on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation, in support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Is there lead opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room who's opposed to the bill who'd like to do #MeToo testimony? Seeing none, we'll come back to the dais. Senator Strickland and then Niello.

I understand where you're getting at of the bill in chief because I'm anti puppy mill and there's a lot of dogs that get euthanized because we don't control, but one of the things I wanted to ask is when you adopt a pet, sometimes you don't always have the history when you adopt a pet, and what if you adopt a pet and that pet for whatever reason has puppies and now we're going to ask that person if it has puppies to abide by that in a private sector kind of way. Wouldn't that make it harder for a person just, you know, friend to friend trying to sell a puppy or not keep six puppies in a litter?

So, thank you for the question, Senator. So the bill would require that they provide the information available to them. So if they are the original source of the puppy, they provide that they are the original source. If there are any medical records, they provide those medical records, and really, the only mandate that the bill has is prohibiting the nonrefundable deposit.

Okay. So, so if I adopt a pet and they don't have the records, I'm not going to be held liable for not having those records?

Okay. All right.

Correct.

Yes. You will sign a statement saying you don't have those records.

All right. Thank you very much. Senator Niello.

Similar question, although I have two, and these will like, previously, be issues for the Judiciary Committee I suspect, but my understanding is the abuses are from out-of-state interests. My understanding is it rarely happens in-state. It is out-of-state operators. How would you enforce that?

How would you enforce it? Well, I mean, legally--

Any of it. You've got a puppy mill in Idaho.

Obviously you always have trouble enforcing something out-of-state, but you've at least identified and made it illegal and you also have required some upfront information. Once people know this is the law, it's going to be easier for people to say, 'I shouldn't deal with somebody who's not giving me this information.'

So our good organizations can put out the information to everybody. If you're going to get a pet online, make sure that they provide all of this information and make sure that they can advertise, don't pay a deposit until you have that information. But sure, it's difficult to enforce, and you're right, Judiciary can do that. You may have some other thoughts about enforcement out-of-state?

Not at this time.

Okay, great.

I'd suggest that it may be impossible to enforce and perhaps your idea gets closer to the solution, and that relates to my second question, and that is, how are people going to know, both consumers, buyers of pets, as well as people that might be selling them in the way that Senator Strickland said? Included in the bill, is there a public information function or--I don't think people are going to know this.

I don't think that it's wrong to factor in that it's going to be a challenge always to get good information out to people. I would offer sort of the other side of it. Because this is the law, if you have really a serious major offender out there, you now have officials that would have a law behind them as they try to crack down on those people. So are you going to catch everybody? Are you going to catch those isolated incidents? Certainly not even trying to catch the people that are well-intentioned.

But if you've got a puppy mill that's out there pumping out hundreds of dogs and cats into California from inhumane conditions, you now have something that you can go after them with and that you could have--you know, I could easily see the Sheriff's Department in Ventura County saying, 'hey, we're having a problem with this in the area and we now have a piece of legislation that didn't exist before.'

Well, as I said, we'll talk about this more in the Judiciary Committee, but first of all, to the extent that this is practices of unethical puppy mills in another state, they probably don't care or they wouldn't be doing this in the first place and so that means that that Ventura County Sheriff is going to have to go after a business in Idaho. I don't know if that can even be done if it's not illegal in Idaho, and then I'd also suggest that it's going to be difficult for people largely to know that this is the law.

I don't disagree with your premise. This at least, at least does make what should be illegal illegal, but there's some issues that I think are of some legitimate concern. I'll support the bill because I agree with the premise, but I see problems in the execution of it.

Always a challenge out of state.

All right, couple comments from me and then I would entertain a motion from one of my colleagues if they want to. So move. First of all, thank you for bringing the bill forward. Just like any other business, if they choose to do business in the State of California, then they are susceptible to our laws in our judicial system should they violate those laws, and they'll learn quickly.

If they sell to Ventura County that they have broken the law and then would be subject--I have no doubt that the District Attorney in Ventura County could easily file suit against somebody outside of the state who has engaged in an unlawful business practice in our state.

So, that being said, I think this does give a tool to our district attorneys, to our counties, and to our cities who are performing the functions of trying to make sure that we don't have out-of-state breeders just unethically putting animals in harm's way for a profit and then shipping them to California.

We certainly have all seen California step in to save a lot of animals in those spaces. I know we all have in our counties as local elected officials. So many of us up here who've come from the local have no doubt participated in helping our local shelters find homes for, for so many animals that come from those puppy, puppy mill situations. So anything we can do to curb that is a good thing, and I appreciate the author for bringing the bill forward. Looking for a motion. Moved by Dr. Weber Pierson. We'll call the roll.

Motion is do pass to--

Sorry, I didn't offer you an opportunity to close. I know you made a kind of a final statement, but would you like to make a closing statement as well?

Just very quickly. As you pointed out, if people want to break California laws even though they're out-of-state, it may be difficult to go after them, but they are breaking a California law, and if it's egregious enough, we certainly can throw the resources we need to bring those people--

To Justice. Thank you.

Urge an aye vote too.

I already did earlier, but I'll do it again.

[Roll call]

Assemblymember, we're going to leave it on call because we still have a couple Members who might show up in the next few minutes. But you are looking good for moving on to Judish, so we'll probably see you there. All right, Closing us out for the day, bringing up our. Our. Our clutch hitter here batting forth. Assemblymember Wicks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I prefer to keep the bar low, but appreciate the at bat announcement here. Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB940. This bill will facilitate the formation of quantum Innovation zones in California.

Doing so will bolster our Quantum computing economy and establish the state as a leader in Quantum innovation. Quantum computing is a rapidly emerging technology that has the potential to fundamentally change the world of computing, which would have profound impacts across industries.

By harnessing the power of Quantum Physics, Quantum computers will be able to solve exponentially more complex problems than traditional computers in less time with less energy.

Although California has long been the national leader on this technology, other states are now making direct, substantial investments into quantum innovation, including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and other countries as well, and other parts of the world. And as economic competition grows, businesses will look to establish themselves in regions regions that have more favorable investment environments.

Illinois recently is putting a half $1.0 billion into Quantum computing. And there are companies in California looking to leave California to go to Illinois. And although I love Chicago, I do not want to lose our businesses to this state.

This means that California has limited time to establish itself as a leader in Quantum Innovation, to retain and grow the state's Quantum businesses and workforce and to access significant federal funding. That's a key part of this as well. Without state buy in, we risk missing the opportunity to be able at the forefront of this technology.

So what does this bill do? It allows two or more cities and counties to establish themselves as Quantum innovation zones. Upon the adoption of a resolution. These zones will build upon California's comparative advantage in Quantum computing that is provided by our concentration of academic, scientific and technological assets and reinforced by our highly skilled workforce.

It will prioritize state access to tax incentives, grants, loan programs, workforce training, programs and private sector investments in the Quantum sector and catalyze California's rich ecosystem of Quantum stakeholders to more effectively collaborate, leverage resources, share information and develop the state's Quantum computing economy.

And that's really what the bill is designed to do, is to allow for this type of coordination so we can really plant our flag. And as the head of Quantum computing here in this country, we want to bolster our national and international leadership role in this powerful technology.

And what I have learned is that essentially whoever owns Quantum owns the future. That's sort of the bottom line and we want to continue to have the competitive advantage here in California.

My joint author is here also to present Senate Member Stan Ellis, who actually has professional expertise in this space, having just run, built and run a quantum company. And we also have here to testify in support, Jason Murphy, Associate Director of the Legislative affairs for the UC Office of the President.

And I know we have two principal co-authors, Senator Grayson, Senator Arreguin. We've been working very collaboratively, bicamerally, bipartisan on this bill because we think it deserves that level of attention. So with that, I will turn it over to the Assembly Member to help co-present.

Thank you guys for being here. Go ahead. And we usually try to limit it to two minutes, but do the best you can to.

Thanks, Madam Chair. And thank you Assemblymember for letting me co-author this with you. So real quickly, Quantum computers in a nutshell are a billion times a billion faster than your classical computer. I'll give you one example. All of the algorithms for protein folding in your DNA have already been written by Harvard Medical University.

Classic computer can't function prediction is in just a few more years. With these Quantum computers, we'll solve those algorithms and design specific medications from each individual protein folding. That means if you have lung cancer, it's one medicine. Leukemia, it's another medicine. We're on the verge of a revolutionary breakthrough.

We're sending signals back and forth in picoseconds, which are trillionths of a second, which also go to satellite because your satellite for your GPS now is in nanoseconds, which is billion. We're talking about fusion, we're talking about optimizing fusion, which relates to their energy sector. So I would tell you that whoever owns Quantum owns the world.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Go right ahead.

Madam Chair and Members, Jason Murphy, on behalf of the University of California here today in very strong support. I cannot do a better job than the co-presenters the co-authors have already done to explain what this bill does.

I would just mention that on behalf of the University of California, there is strong consensus amongst our faculty, our researchers, our subject matter experts in this space that now is the time to act. We have been at the forefront of the University, along with other institutions in the State of Quantum science.

But there's more to be done, and we are concerned about the brain drain, the talent drain, potentially going to other states if calfre doesn't signify by actions like this and other actions that this is the place where Quantum is going to be led.

So we do appreciate the bill very much, and we stand ready to partner should this bill become law, which we hope it does, with the Quantum Board, Quantum Initiative Board, and the Quantum staff to move this bill and effort forward. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Are there others here in the room in support who'd like to testify? Okay. Is there lead opposition to this bill? Okay. And anyone in the room who'd like to oppose seeing. No one will come back to the dice. Okay.

Moved by Senator Strickland, but I think we have a couple of Members who'd like to speak. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas and then Senator Grayson.

Thank you. I really want to support and will support the bill today. There's something about the narrative of owning the future that concerns me when we think about certain communities that are already missing from these opportunities.

I think about women, for example, who get and earn some of the highest degrees in science and math, and they're earning about 22% less than their male counterparts. I think about black and Latino communities where we're accomplishing less than 6% of degrees in the stems, in what is essentially the foundation of this new innovation?

I'm curious, what are the steps being taken when you define a Quantum innovation zone? Certainly. What are the steps to ensure that there is fair participation in this zone and that we are actually building the benchmark for the future? I know this is critically important in many parts of the community.

I represent parts of Silicon Beach, and I know that that is a priority to try to make sure that there's fair access to opportunity. So I'm curious, when you establish a zone, what does that mean? Because building into the future, and especially if we're going to build it, how do we build it?

Yeah. Well, first of all, thank you for the question. I think it's an incredibly important question to be asking as we think about what the future looks like. Also think about the present and the inequities that exist in the current. Current day. Right. In a lot of these industries, you know, this bill's essentially laying for coordination.

I think. I think those are all valid things we have to think through in terms of how are we creating the pipeline and how are we being really intentional about what that pipeline looks like.

I would ask our University of California partners if they have any information to share in terms of the pipeline, in terms of the researchers, in terms of what they're looking at with regard to STEM and equity as they're building the bench that will hopefully end up being, you know, the key intelligentsia that helps drive this.

So I don't know if you guys want to add on to that.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I would say it's still a bit early in the conversations internally around this bill with respect to next steps, but I'd say in General, the University of California has been quite active in trying to ensure that at the hiring level for faculty and other University leaders, that we maintain diversity in all areas.

And I know that that will proceed with respect to any work done on the Quantum efforts around this bill.

And can I just also add on to that? You know, this is the first time the state has done anything on Quantum, and I think it's probably going to be the first of many conversations we have in the future with regard to this space. And so this isn't going to tackle all the things.

It's just trying to set up an initial framework. But I'd love to work with you moving forward as we think about both this bill and in future conversations around how we're infusing that into the conversation.

And I'd like to just add one component, but I don't want to.

Yeah, I just wanted to say I agree in that I'm always interested when we're building something, because if we don't start out with equity and addressing some of the disparities that exist on the front end, we know for sure what the outcomes will be on the back end.

And this sounds like a phenomenal opportunity, particularly with the partnerships, to think about ways that we can do more to bring those underrepresented populations into these opportunities, even if it's really beginning to seed those early minds to know that Quantum is an option and that, you know, being a part of it means you're owning the world and owning the future.

So we want to make sure that that is accessible for all Californians. And I would love to work with you on that.

Great. I just had a similar thought when the assemblymember was speaking, so I looked up a piece of the bill to make sure And I don't. It brought me some measure of comfort, so I thought I'd share it because it's along the same lines.

The Assembly woman said that two regions would be selected, but that's actually a floor and not a ceiling. So the bill requires two regions, but it doesn't select. But I know the way she said it, I thought only two. That's not good. We need to make sure that it gets to other areas.

But I think the bill is pretty clear that it could be more than two areas, so that might help us too.

Thank you for that, Madam Chair. And I think this originally actually started just as a UC Berkeley idea. And we've expanded its scope to include CSUs and community colleges as well, because we want to make sure that as a proud community college alum here in California, those represent, I think, a particularly diverse part of our constituents.

And so making sure we're. It's not just exclusive to, and I love UC Berkeley, but not just exclusive.

To UC Berkeley and just making sure wealth, this same kind of wealth moves out of just the Silicon Valley too, and into Southern California, along our coastline and into the urban cores. Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to applaud the author of this bill for her vision and foresight and the also the partnership of other authors that have come on board as well.

This is, and I also want to address the comments of my colleagues so far here on the dice that your voice is incredibly important and it needs to stay ever present as Quantum technology begins to unfold. It truly is the future.

It's already been stated whoever really masters and gets into this and owns this will own the world in the future. And so what we do have is all the past. That gives us ample evidence of what we should be looking for and watching out for.

What we do have is incredible voices and watchful eyes to make sure we don't repeat those things of the past and that we create something that is incredibly equitable and equal across the board. And I would also like to address the zone, part of it, having created the Green Empowerment Zone and having experience in this.

The Green Empowerment Zone was a geographical location in this particular case, because technology, we don't want to nail it down to a geographical location like a single UC. We're making it so that it is more research oriented. And.

And where is that technology, where is that going to be located or where is it existing that would be included into a zone and the whole purpose of the zone, if I may, and if I misspeak, please correct me in your closing statements. Just don't embarrass me. Too bad.

But if I may, the whole purpose of the zone is to bring together at this point. This is why it's hard right now to have those conversations is because at this point it's to bring together partnerships and agencies on a federal and on a state and on a local basis.

And by bringing in those levels of partnerships, we will seize resources that otherwise one single level could not seize. And so with that, we are not just competing with other states, we're actually competing with other countries.

And it is a known fact right now that we are losing our top notch scientists to not just to another state across the country, we're actually losing them out of the country and to other. To other entities that would like to have the future as much as, as much as we're capable of handling it.

I'm way more comfortable us than maybe someone else. So with that, I think this is incredibly important, not just for our nation, but I think this is incredibly important for our state, one of the largest economies in the world. So with that, I will definitely be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Strickland and lots of comments from folks. I would just add my support. I think it's, it's really important for all the reasons that have already been stated, so I don't need to repeat them by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas and Senator Grayson.

But I appreciate the Assembly woman and Assemblyman for bringing this item forward and for really pushing the discussion around Quantum technology in California. We certainly don't want to lose it to other countries, but we're also at this point losing to other states.

And we don't want to see the scientists and community that we know, tech community that we know is very advanced in California, feeling like they have to leave this state in order to pursue sort of the next generation level of technology that we want to have emanate from our state.

So I know that is at the root of what you're trying to achieve here and I am honored to support it today. You have a motion from another economic development champion on this dais. We will call the roll. Do you want to close? Respectfully ask for any vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you. So, is it 10? All right, you have 10 votes. We're going to close that one, close the roll. Thank you, Assembly Members, for being here. All right, Members, we are—oh, and I should say that that Item is out. AB 940 is out. It is do pass to the Senate Local Government Committee with a 10-0.

But we're going to run through our agenda here, starting with File Item 1, SJR 6 by Cortese. You will recall we took testimony on this in a previous week. So, this was a vote-only item. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That item is out—or adopted. And we will move on then to the items that we heard today, File Item 2, AB 260, by Aguilar Curry.

[Roll Call]

That's 8 to 2 on that one, I believe. Out to Appropriations Committee. We will move on to—we pulled Item 3, for the record, so that's no longer on our agenda. We can take up the consent if you would like. That's Items 4 and 10.

[Roll Call]

That item is—both of those items are out on consent. Take up File Item 5, AB 489 by Bonta. This is the AI Healthcare Professions Bill and it is do pass to Judiciary.

[Roll Call]

That's 10-0. Off to Judiciary. Next up, file—yeah, it's out—File Item 6, AB 506 by Bennett. This is the pet sales of dogs and cats. This is also headed to Senate judiciary where they need more bills to hear.

[Roll Call]

That's 9-0. That Bill is out and off to Judiciary. Next up, File Item 7, AB 867 by Lee, veterinary medicine—this is the cat declawing Bill. It is set for Senate Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That one's 10-0. It's out. Headed to Appropriations. We have already closed out 940, and we've done our consent and File Item 9 was also pulled today, so that's it for the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee today. Thank you. Adjourned.