Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. There are a total of 14 bills on today's agenda, including the two- the following two bills on consent, AB 1733 by Assembly Member Lee and AB 2667 by Assembly Member Hadwick. Before we begin with today's agenda, I'll remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For each of the measures being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the bill, and the organization they represent, if any. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. And with that, we will begin today's hearing.

And I see right at the top of the list and right on time is Assembly member Quirk-Silva with agenda item number one at AB 1598.

Ready when you are.

And maybe just hit the button.

I should know that by now. Alright. Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of the committee. Today, I present AB 1598, which updates licensed statutes for mental health professionals regulated by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences. To become licensed in California professionals, such as marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers, professional clinical counselors and educational psychologists must complete graduate school, pass licensing exams, and finish at least 3000 of supervised experience.

Under current law, many of these requirements must generally generally be completed in six years. These strict timelines can create barriers for otherwise qualified applicants who experience life events such as medical leave, caregiving responsibility or financial hardship. At a time when California faces a shortage of licensed medical health professionals, these barriers can keep qualified applicants out of the workforce. When that happens, applicants may lose their previously completed experience hours or exam eligibility and may be forced to restart portions of the licensure process.

As amended, AB 1598 modernizes the board's licensing framework while maintaining strong consumer protections.

Specifically, the bill establishes a consistent seven year time frame across supervised experience examination requirements and associate registration limits. The bill extends the validity of supervised experience hours from 6 to 7 years. It also requires applicants to have passed the required licensing exams within 7 years before applying for licensure. This bill increases the number of associate registration renewals from 5 to 6, allowing applicants up to 7 years to complete the licensure process before needing a new registration.

AB 1598 allows a one time 2 year hardship extension for associates to continue working while completing requirements subject to board approval.

The bill also clarifies statuary language regarding counseling, exemptions, including faith based counseling and ensures individuals are not misrepresenting themselves as licensed professionals. These updates reduce any unnecessary administrative barriers while maintaining the professional standards necessary to protect patients and consumers. With me today to testify and support and answer any questions is Rosanne Helms, who the Legislative Manager, and Steve Sodergren, an Executive Officer.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Good morning. I guess that's a really good overview of our bill, and we are we just think these, these this bill will make the pathway more accessible and responsive to the real world challenges that are faced currently for the people that are going through the licensure pathway. So we're really excited about it. It's a big change for us.

So, it does address some of the major hardships that applicants face while gaining experience hours towards licensure, and it is still maintaining the consistent public protection that we are mandated to protect.

So we would definitely we're here to answer any questions that you have. And thank you very much, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, for sponsoring this bill. And we would just like to request an aye vote from you. Thank you.

I'm just here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Always the the smartest person at the at the dais. I get it. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill? There's a whole army of people coming in, but I don't think it's for this bill. Or is it for this bill?

1598? Yeah. Come on up. By all means, please. Are you if you'd like to are you in support of the bill?

Yes.

Great. So if folks if folks wanna come up to the microphone here and just give your name, organization you're with, if any, and that you support the bill, we're at that perfect time of the hearing.

My name is Armando Munoz. I'm with the California Department of Corrections, and I'm in support of this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Xochil Martinez. I'm here with ASMI Logo 2026, and I work for Department of Corrections, and I'm in support of this bill. We are in support of this bill.

Thank you very much.

I'm Amanda Munoz, and I work for California Department of Corrections, and I'm also supporting this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Sherry Mosier. I'm a Senior Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor at the State Department of Rehabilitation. I can't be anymore in support of this bill being raised with no family to support me and to work as hard as I have to earn my master's degree.

That's the American way. And to be able to continually support and keep that level, that threshold, that's what we're able to bring on to our clients as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Michael Lacey. I'm the Native American spiritual leader at, Corcoran, SATF, and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, anybody who wants to add on as a Me Too in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, I'm gonna bring it back to colleagues. I don't see any on my right.

I see a few on my left. Any questions or comments on the bill? No questions or comments. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, would you like to close? Oh, and if I may, are you accepting the amendments?

I am.

Beautiful. Thank you very much.

Yes. This bill, in simplest forms, basically, allows individuals who are trying to move forward to serve our public, AB 1598 with mental health support makes it more accessible. And we know life happens as people are pursuing these types of degrees and to give them that extra time means that we could add to the profession. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, assembly assembly member for bringing, bring forward this important bill. And as you can see, we don't have a quorum yet, so we're not taking votes, on bills. But as soon as we get a quorum, I'll be happy to support, the bill today. Thank you very much.

I'm gonna start with 1850.

Alright.

And this bill clarifies that real estate wholesalers are subject to licensure, disclosure, and oversight under the California Department of Real Estate. Currently, individuals who enter into contracts with sellers and assign those contracts without profit are often acting as brokers without licensure. This creates a regulatory gray area where key consumer protections do not consistently apply. As a result, sellers, especially those in distressed situations, can be misled about the property values and transaction terms.

Buyers may also lack transparency about the wholesaler's role and the profit in the deal.

AB 1850 brings clarity in statute by ensuring that individuals engaging in these activities are held to the same standards as licensed professionals, and may be here to testify in support. Nope.

I was gonna help you filibuster it. Just draw it out a little bit.

But we have a few more bills to go. So yes.

And if they get here, while we're debating this bill, we'll give them a chance to weigh in if necessary. So alright. Well, open it up to any witnesses who wanna add on in support since the primary witnesses in support aren't quite here yet. And do you accept the amendments?

Oh, yes. I would like to accept that, yes.

We appreciate it.

I will be accepting the amendments.

Thank you very much. Wanna open it up to any witnesses in opposition to the bill. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up.

Thank you, Chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association. We're actually in a tweener position. One, I would just like to thank the author, sponsors, and committee staff for working through the concerns that we raised to the author, and looking forward to reassessing our position once the amendments are in print. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition or tweeners to the bill? Seeing none, gonna bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments on the bill. Would you like to close, Assemblymember Irwin?

My witness here would be the sponsor of the bill, the California Association of Realtors, and they think this is being used as a loophole, and it is really just for clarification.

Great.

And with that, when the time is right, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thanks for bringing this measure forward. And while I understand there's some outstanding conversations to be had, either with the Department of Real Estate or maybe other stakeholders, I appreciate your commitment to this issue and for working with my committee on the amendments that you accepted. And I have no doubt that the same commitment will carry forward as the bill moves to judiciary, and I'm happy to support the bill today with the amendments when we have a quorum. Thank you, Assemblymember Irwin. I think we're.

I think now we'll be on File Item 10.

Great. And we are two members away from a quorum. It only looks like we've got six. Two are hiding in the hallway. So colleagues, come on down. That would be really helpful. Go ahead.

And this is AB 2249, and I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. Ten years ago, California voters passed Proposition 64, legalizing recreational cannabis. In those ten years, California's poison control system has received roughly 5,000 calls, involving children exposed to cannabis. And the stories behind these calls are often the same. Young children in critical stages of brain development consuming products that look like candy because the packaging tells them it is.

But these products actually contain up to a hundred milligrams of THC. The consequences of these poisonings can be severe. Paranoia, persistent vomiting, hospitalization, and in some cases, need for a ventilator. In response to this trend, I asked the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in 2024 to request a review of the Department of Cannabis Control's enforcement of youth advertising and marketing restrictions. The state auditor's findings were clear.

Existing law is too vague, and that vagueness is allowing products that appeal to children to remain on the market. In a review of 40 legal, and I wanna emphasize, legal, cannabis products sold on retail websites, the auditor found that more than half of them, 23 products, contained features that were likely to appeal to children. Even industry stakeholders agree with this. The California Cannabis Operators Association acknowledged in their white paper that the current standard for what is attractive to children lacks clear definitions, thresholds, or objective criteria.

AB 2249 addresses this statutory gap. First, the bill establishes a clear and enforceable definition of what makes a cannabis product and its packaging attractive to children. This ensures things like cartoons and bubble type font are being explicitly prohibited on packaging and labeling. Second, the department requires that Department of Cannabis Control develop a publicly available rubric so licensees know exactly what is compliant. Third, it creates a process for licensees to request a written determination on proposed packaging from the department, providing certainty before products even reach the shelf.

And I wanna note the provisions came as, they were direct recommendations from the industry. The third provision was a direct recommendation from the industry. I'd like to express appreciation to the industry groups that have acknowledged this problem and have engaged in good-faith conversations, and we continue to work closely with the stakeholders.

But for those groups who continue to argue that the present of illicit and hemp markets justified continued inaction, I would urge you to join your colleagues who have come to the table and have offered solutions and alternative language so we can find a workable solution for all. With me to testify in support of the bill today is Dr. Mina Hah, a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and Board Chair for the California State Association of Psychiatrists.

Additionally, I have Chris Applegate from the State Auditor's Office to testify about the audit itself.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Hello. Thank you for having me here. I'm board in child and adolescent psychiatry as well as addiction medicine. The reason I'm here today is because we care about the health and welfare of our children. There are misconceptions about marijuana use in the public.

People think that it's safe and innocuous, and even worse, people think it's helpful for mental health. Unfortunately, the science is emerging that this couldn't be further from the truth. We know now that cannabis use in the developing brains of children and adolescents are linked not only to depression and anxiety, but to thoughts of suicide, as well as severe psychiatric illnesses, including a twofold increase in bipolar disorder and a two to fourfold increase in schizophrenia, and severe cognitive deficits that are permanent even after stopping cannabis use.

When I think about my clinic, and I think about the patients I see, I'm saddened by so many of my patients who might have had a different trajectory if they did not use cannabis, and they didn't know about the harms about cannabis use, as well as their parents. One patient comes to mind. She is a twin. They were both stellar students, straight-A students. Her twin went on to graduate from Stanford Law School and become a successful lawyer.

She used cannabis as an adolescent and now has schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Today, she struggles with thoughts of suicide, severe mood swings, delusions, hallucinations, and severe cognitive impairments. She cannot hold down a job even though she wants to work. Now that we know more about the science about cannabis use in developing children's brains, we have a duty to protect as adults the health and welfare of our children. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Chris Applegate. I'm with the State Auditor's Office. We don't have a specific position on AB 2249, but can report that it represents implementation of several of our recommendations. Last August, we issued a report related to cannabis packaging and advertising being attractive to youth.

We found that while these determinations may be subjective, there were many cases where we disagreed with DCC's determinations that packaging was not attractive to youth pursuant to their existing regulations. This included situations where packaging included cartoon smiley faces and cartoon images of foods like cookies and ice cream cones, elements we believed were attractive to children, but DCC had determined did not violate their regulations. DCC's regulations, while prohibiting cartoon images, don't define that term.

We also saw inconsistent interpretations where a product advertising Tropicana Punch was determined to not violate regulations, even though Tropicana is a common juice name, and DCC had determined in a previous case that use of the word punch was attractive to children. DCC staff informed us that the regulations are subjective and that they wish they more clearly defined packaging that is attractive to children.

We therefore recommended the legislature create statutory language further defining elements that are prohibited, which this bill implements by including detailed definitions for cartoons as well as images of humans, animals, fruits, and bubble or other attractive fonts.

Additionally, given the inconsistent nature of enforcement and subjectivity that I discussed, we also recommended that DCC complete implementation of a rubric for determining whether products violate these regulations and make that available to the public and to licensees, which this bill also implements by requiring the adoption of this rubric in regulation by July 1, 2027. Finally, despite existing regulations, we saw that many packages still contain images and elements that could be attractive to children.

We noted that Oregon has a system that allows licensees to submit their proposed product packaging to the state and, for a fee, have it evaluated for compliance with existing laws and regulations. For those who don't voluntarily engage in this review, they're required to use the state's preapproved plain packaging.

We believe that this type of system was worth the state's consideration and therefore recommended that the legislature consider a similar system for preapproval, which this bill does partially implement by requiring DCC to develop a process allowing a fee-based submittal of proposed packaging for review to DCC.

And if you could wrap up, that'd be great.

We believe that the language in this bill implementing several of these recommendations can address many of the findings from our report, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill?

Good morning. George Soares, with California Medical Association. In support. Thank you.

Good morning, Dr. Lynn Silver, Public Health Institute. In support. However, we do request two amendments to better conform with the recommendations of the auditor, removing the clause that impedes future requiring a pre-market review, and considering that fruits and sweet images are attractive to children without exemptions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah-Michael Gaston with Youth Forward. In support with the amendments proposed by Public Health Institute.

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

There we go. Morning, Mister Chair, Members. Mark Smith on behalf of Origins Council representing small and independent cannabis farmers across rural California. The letter we submitted also includes organizations representing urban equity operators who share similar concerns. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill.

We wanna start by being very clear. We support the goal of the bill. The state auditor identified real problems, and they deserve a real response. Our concern is that the bill's approach, a detailed list of categorically banned design elements, would also prohibit imagery that has nothing to do with the problematic images in the auditor's report.

A farmer in their field, a stylized portrait of an equity operator, a depiction of a person in art nouveau or art deco style or a brand logo featuring carrots because the farm grows carrots.

For small equity operators, this is not abstract. Their branding reflects who they are and what they grow. It's often the only thing that differentiates them from larger competitors and from the illicit market. And the hard truth is that most of these businesses don't have the capital to rebrand. The bill would wipe out years of investment overnight and permanently affect the ability for small operators to compete in the legal market.

Let's be clear, nobody wants to see cannabis products that appeal to children. What we all do want is a successful legal market, and that means legally tested products that adult consumers are interested in buying. Overly restrictive rules that hamstring legitimate products don't protect children if they undermine the legal market and encourage illicit production. Regarding the proposed committee amendment, we appreciate the intent, but wanna be clear that it does not address the bulk of our concerns.

Our letter contains dozens of images that are clearly not attractive to children, and nearly all of them would be prohibited under this language.

In closing, we look forward to continuing to work with the author, and we're optimistic that there is a path forward. However, the bottom line for us is that child protection policy needs to be grounded in evidence in what actually appeals to children. If proposed rules can be shown to prohibit large amounts of legitimate imagery, we think that's a sign that work remains to be done.

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

We look forward to further conversation. But for now, we remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chairman and members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Canvas Operators Association, and respectful. Opposed unless amended, but working with the author. We appreciate all the good work that's been going in. We certainly, have been trying to make some fairly substantial, investments to try to make this a better bill.

For that reason, we've put forward a series of amendments that we're we're hopeful we're hoping will be considered, by the author and the sponsors. In particular, we we recommend focusing the definition of attractive to children on how imagery is depicted rather than categorically restricting certain types. We've also suggested some refinements to provisions that may otherwise introduce ambiguity, including references to imagery popularly used to advertise to children. And finally, from an implementation standpoint, we would like some sort of, reasonable transition period.

Packaging production timelines are quite significant, and a workable path to compliance will help avoid unnecessary disruption while still advancing the bill's public health goals.

We do remain committed to continuing the dialogue with the author and the committee to getting this right, and, thank you for your time and attention today.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses wanna add on in opposition to the bill?

Dan Seaman on behalf of CCIA, also in an opposed unless amended, position. Appreciate the author for meeting with us and for her openess to working with us on many of these issues. Share many of the concerns of the primary, witnesses. We do, oppose the complete prohibition of vegetables. Thank yeah.

So I I just wanna name an organization and position on the bill. Alright. You thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Good morning. Shane Levine, Weed Maps, opposing unless amended. Thank you.

Alicia Priego on behalf of Kiva. Opposed unless amended, but appreciate conversations with the author's office.

Thank you.

Diego Amaro on behalf of Catalyst Cannabis Co, also oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Nina Parks, Equity Trade Network, oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Bit of a tweener position, Afreq Vargas for Cal NORML. Now neutral.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Bringing it back to colleagues for any questions or comments about the bill. Assemblymember Addis.

I'll move the bill. And then, just wanna thank the author for bringing this for I was just, hearkening back to the 90's and Joe Camel and, how important it was at that time that we got rid of cartoon advertising on substances that were harmful for children. And I'm not trying to align cannabis with tobacco by any stretch. I think they're two very different products.

But what I would say is the data at that time showed that cartoon type imaging and the imaging that attracts children does create a rise in use that can be very, very dangerous to children.

And so I wanna appreciate your efforts in this, and we'll be voting for it, obviously.

Thank you. And we are one away from a quorum, but when we get one, we're taking this on number Addis's motion. So number Hadwick.

I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I do want to commend you for you're already working with the opposition. I am really concerned about the small business owners in this and that timeline and how we can keep them secure in their business as well. So I am gonna support it today in hopes that you're gonna continue that work with the opposition.

Thank you. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none, Assemblymember Irwin, would you like to close?

Certainly. So for years, the legislature has answered the call of the cannabis industry to fight back against threats of the illicit market and hemp industry. Completely agree with the with making sure that we can have a good, legitimate market. But at the same time, we've been paralyzed to act on cannabis packaging and marketing that is blatantly attractive to children. I it is a complicated issue, and we do wanna make sure that that especially the small farmers are not hurt.

What I think is really different this time, I was when we had the oversight hearing with the LAO that the industry came forward with a white paper, and and they also wanna solve this issue. So I am optimistic that we are going to be able to come to consensus as we move forward. And with that, I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember Irwin, and thank you for your work not only on this bill, but your long history of advocacy on keeping cannabis out of the hands of children, which I know is something that we all support and is so important. This committee recently participated in the joint hearing regarding the state audit report on this topic, and I believe we're all in agreement that there needs to be more clarity and consistent enforcement about what advertising or product labeling is attractive to children.

I understand that further amendments have been proposed by representatives of the cannabis industry, and I appreciate you continuing discussions with stakeholders to find that balanced solution. But in the meantime, I appreciate you accepting the committee's amendments. And with those amendments, I'm happy to support the bill today.

And we just hit a quorum. So Madam Secretary, can you please call the role?

Berman?

Here.

Johnson? Addis?

Here.

Ahrens? Alanis? Bains? Bauer- Kahan? Caloza? Chen?

Elhawary? Hadwick? Haney? Hart? Irwin?

Here.

Jackson?

Here.

Lowenthal?

Here.

Macedo? Nguyen? Pellerin?

Here.

Great. We've got a quorum. Do we have a motion on the bill or something over at us?

So moved.

Great. We've got a motion and a second. Madam secretary, please call the vote on the bill.

On AB 2249 Irwin, the motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Johnson? Johnson not voting. Addis?

Aye.

Addis, aye. Ahrens?

Alanis? Bains? Bauer- Kahan? Caloza? Chen? Chen, aye.

Elhawary? Elhawary, aye. Hadwick?

Hadwick, Aye. Haney?Hart? Irwin?

Aye.

Irwin, Aye. Jackson?

Aye.

Jackson, Aye. Lowenthal?

Aye.

Lowenthal, Aye. Macedo? Quinn? Quinn, Aye. Pellerin?

Pellerin, Aye.

Aye.

Great. That bill is out. We're gonna take a little break in the in the Erwin show. We've got a couple of colleagues who are here who aren't on the committee. So we're gonna invite them up to present their bills.

Assembly member Lackey, I believe you are first with agenda item number five, AB 1826. Ready when you are, sir.

Alright. Well, thank you, mister chair and members for allowing me to present this bill, which is numbered AB 1826. And I'd like to take a moment to formally accept the committee's amendments and appreciate their commitment to work on this bill with us. AB 1826 will strengthen the due process protections for licensed, excuse me, cannabis businesses while preserving the department's authority to protect public health and safety. What we're looking for is balance here.

Under current law, when the DCC believes products are misbranded, adulterated, or otherwise unsafe, it may use embargoes, mandate recalls, seize products, and pursue condemnation proceedings. While these actions are essential to consumer protections, existing law provides limited safeguards for licensees. If a product is brought into question, a business may face product embargoes or destruction without timely access to the evidence supporting the action. Cannabis products are often perishable, and inventory can expire or lose market value before disputes are resolved.

Therefore, this bill requires the d that the DCC provide documentation at the time it issues the notice of misbranding, adulteration, embargo, or recall to ensure proper communication with the licensees.

With me today to testify is vice president of the, California Cannabis Industry Association, miss Zoe Scribner, and Nina Parks with the Equity Trade Network. Great. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, assembly members. I am Nina Parks, cofounder of Equity Trade Network. We are a coalition of equity businesses, small businesses, and allies building equitable ecosystems to help heal harms created by the disproportionate enforcement of drug war policies. I organized cannabis events as well as I served on as the first chair of the cannabis oversight committee. Equity Trade Network has over 40 members here in California, representing every point of the supply chain from cultivation to manufacturing to distribution to retail.

Each point of the supply chain has a in good faith, entered into becoming licensed operators in hopes of being treated as legitimate businesses, securing above board livelihood for themselves, their community, and loved ones versus being treated as criminals. But despite our good faith participation, we have we haven't consistently experienced the same good faith governance in return. Last year, the DCC began telling operators that we are they are moving away from education and into enforcement because after nine years of legalization, we should know better.

And even though it has been nine years, we are far from having a healthy, stabilized industry or system in which we navigate, with over 60% of sales still occurring in the unlicensed market. Over the past year, there has been significant shifts in leadership in the department and its staffing, creating an internal educational gap and continuity gap.

And what we are asking for is continued good faith efforts in creating a just industry. The language in this bill would assist us in creating a better practices and framework for licensed operators in the state to become more accountable to each other. Both of us as stakeholders are concerned with public health and safety, and it benefits no one to have unsafe products at market. Currently, the lack of transparency and continuity, in issuing citations or product embargoes have left small operators reeling.

Some of the violations are are of administrative nature or unclear interpretations of attractive to children that could have been remedied swiftly with new labels.

But instead, one of our members, a a small edible and equity company, has perishable products sitting in WeJail with little due process, unable to make informed decisions on how to remedy these situations, leave them questioning whether they're gonna be able to collect the funds promised to them on fourteen to sixty day terms by retailers and unsure if they're gonna be able to pay themselves as a two man team.

Thanks. And if you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Equity trade trade network supports AB 1826 in hopes that the state continues to normalize and stabilize our our industry. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll be quick. Good morning, chairman, chair Berman and members. My name is Zoe Schreiber here on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association. We are the sponsor of AB 1826. This bill is a targeted process oriented bill that strengthens the effectiveness and credibility of cannabis enforcement in California.

Under practice, when the DCC issues a recall or embargo, licensees often lack access to underlying evidence and a clear procedural pathway forward. That uncertainty can stall resolution, increase costs, and destabilize otherwise compliant businesses. Importantly, AB 201826 does not constrain the department's ability to act quickly when there is a legitimate public health concern. Instead, it provides a clear framework for how those actions are carried out, improving consistency, reducing friction, and supporting a more stable legal market.

For a regulated industry to function well, the rules must not only be strong, but also clear and predictable.

AB 1826 delivers on that principle. Thank you to the committee staff for working on this matter with us, and we look forward to continuing to refine and improve the bill as it moves forward. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill?

Good morning, mister chair and members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Alicia Priego on behalf of Kiva brands in strong support.

Thank you. Morning, mister chairman. Sam Rodriguez on behalf of Kufarmas Green Neighbors based in Santa Barbara County and NUG Dispensaries in Northern California in strong support. Thank you.

Diego Amaro on behalf of Catalyst Cannabis Co, also in strong support. Thank you.

Mark Smith on behalf of Origins Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Shane Lavigne, Weedmaps in support. Thank you. Thank you.

For Cal Normal in support.

Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who wanna add on in opposition to the bill? Still seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments from committee members.

Seeing none, Assemblymember Lackey would you like to close? I would.

It should be obvious to you that this is an awkward reality for me to fight for the cannabis industry, but it's something that I believe very strongly in because its opposition is the illicit market. And many would say right now that the illicit market is winning control over the market. This all all we're asking for is a reasonable process in regulating, a balanced process that allows those who are trying to follow the rules to be rewarded. Because right now, they are not.

And it's a it's an unfair set of circumstances that this the the voters have said that this is a legal product, so let's let the legal people win.

And this is one of the only ways they have that opportunity to do just that. I do believe in fairness no matter whether I ever smoke weed or not, I never will unless I'm sick. What I mean by that is I have a condition that requires that treatment. But what's fair is fair and what's not is unfair. And so we're fighting for fairness and hope we'll get your support on this bill.

Thank you, Assemblyman Merlachy, and thank you to your sponsor and, specifically to your staff, for working with the committee on the accepted amendments that will be taken in Judiciary Committee, which is where the bill goes next. While it seems there are still conversations to be had with the department, Aye, definitely believe that the bill is moving in the right direction, and I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam secret got a motion from Hadwick. Got a second from Chen and a third from Pellerin. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

We've lost a couple members, but we'll keep that bill open. Thank you very much. And I see Assemblymember Berner has joined us has been waiting patiently, I should say, with agenda item number 11, AB 2402. One day. One day, we'll get that Berman Boerner bill.

We'll find out later if today is the day. Good morning, chair and members. I'm pleased to author 22 o 2402, a bill that will provide California consumers with more wellness options. AB 2402 will establish a definition for a multi service health club studio updating a law on fees that has not been updated since 2005. For those of you who don't know, 2005, I had not yet had children and my oldest has graduated from high school.

The fitness and wellness industry has evolved significantly since that time. If passed, AB 2402 will remove the current cap on annual fees for health studios that go above and beyond with their services. This would include a studio offering three or more premium amenities, including digital platform services, individualized training programming, group fitness classes, fitness instructor training, swimming pools and steam rooms, a co working space, on-site childcare, laundry services, and on-site food and beverage options.

This would allow California consumers to engage world class facilities with prices set by natural market competition while remaining protected under previously established consumer protection laws and standard oversight for traditional gyms. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this measure.

With me today to speak more on this bill is Cassie Lozzi from Health and Fitness Association and Cassie Frakes, a health studio manager. Just to be clear, I know I've known two Cassies my entire life and now I know four. So with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thanks. And you have two minutes each.

Good morning, members. Christy Weese, Capital Advocacy here in support on behalf of Equinox. I'm happy to introduce Cassie number one to provide more comments.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Cassie Frakes, and I am the general manager for Equinox La Costa Health Club located in Assemblymember Warner's district. I'm here today on behalf of Equinox, a company that owns and operates a 117 clubs globally, including more than 30 here in California, to express our strong support of Assembly Bill two four zero two. This bill implicitly recognizes how the health club experience and consumer expectations have evolved significantly over time.

The health and fitness industry has changed dramatically since California first enacted this statue in the late nineteen eighties. There are now more than 12,000 licensed health clubs and gyms in our state, giving consumers more choice than ever, not just on price, but on the level of service, amenities, and overall experience they want from a health club or gym. Some consumers prioritize affordability, while others are willing to pay more, even substantially more, for a higher value experience.

Equinox serves that second group by offering a premium, full service health and wellness experience. Our members are not looking for a traditional gym, rather they prefer a comprehensive lifestyle.

Our health clubs have become central to our members' daily lives, supporting both their work and leisure with expanded group fitness programming, Pilates and other class offerings, personalized one on one training by our highly acclaimed coaches, state of the art exercise equipment, and luxury amenities such as laundry service, workspaces, juice bars, and on-site cafes, a high digital platform all within large modern facilities that often exceed 30,000 square feet. Delivering this level of service comes with a higher cost than a traditional no frills gym.

A B 2402 appropriately recognizes that today's health club market serves a wide range of customers and then an outdated statutory cap designed by a very different era should not apply to a modern multi service luxury health club.

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

Sure. This bill is about respecting consumer choice and allowing the market to meet those diversified needs. For this reason, on behalf of Equinox, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for your time.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Cassie Lohse, and I'm the senior manager of state affairs at the Health and Fitness Association. Thank you for this opportunity to be here today and talk to you about AB 2402. We represent more than 55,000 health and fitness businesses nationwide, of which over 7,000 are located right here in California. Our statewide members contribute 3,300,000,000.0 annually to the California economy and employ close to over 64,000 workers.

This is personal to me because I am your favorite 05:30am spin instructor. So this bill, as I said, is pretty personal to me. But from the health and fitness association perspective, AB 2402 creates a definition for the multi service health club studio and removes the outdated $4,400 cap on annual contract service fees for health studios. This ensures that lifestyle gyms like Equinox and others can continue to provide exceptional services to their customers and their members.

The last time the legislator reviewed the annual contract was over sixteen years ago.

A lot has changed over sixteen years ago in the health and fitness industry, and it's changed drastically, and it's gonna continue to change. Today's multi service fitness facility is focused on high touch services, as you heard from Cassie earlier, but services like personal training, advanced equipment, physical recovery services, and programs based on a more diverse user experience. More importantly, today's facilities focus on building a more holistic approach through an emphasis on mental health through regular physical activity.

Without this exemption, the cap forces full service health and fitness facilities into a legal gray area and ultimately will limit what local communities deserve and what Californians deserve as well. AB 2402 provides operators what they need to continue investing in California's health and wellness.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your a vote on AB 2402. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill?

Good morning, chair members. Steven Stensler with Brownstein on behalf of the California Fitness Alliance in support. Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody wants to add on as a me too in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments about the bill. Seeing no questions or comments. Got got a motion. Second. And a second. Assemblymember Boerner, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Assemblymember Boerner for bringing this bill forward. When I was younger, with more time to work out, in much better shape, and making a lot more money than I do now, I went to Equinox. Now that I'm older, in much worse shape, with much less time to work out, I go to a gym that that doesn't cost nearly as much. But it it's, you know, different needs for different times, and I had the choice to do that.

And I think it makes sense to to have choice for consumers to make those decisions based on their desires and financial abilities.

So I wanna thank you, for bringing the bill forward. Thank you to you and the sponsor for working with us on the bill. And I know that you'll continue to work through any lingering implementation questions that exist, so happy to support the bill today. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill open. Thank you very much, everyone. Seeing no additional authors, Assemblymember Irwin, ... Present agenda item 12 AB 2532.

I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. Part of the promise of Prop 64 was creating a legal cannabis market where products are sold safely, responsibly, and transparently to consumers. Since its passage, California has continued refining our laws on cannabis to ensure that we regulate products in a way that protect public health and consumer safety.

But one of the clearest gaps in that framework, as shown in the State Auditor's report of the Department of Cannabis Control, is how we regulate cannabis beverages. Under current law, cannabis edibles must be delineated or scored into standardized serving sizes so consumers can measure and consume them responsibly.

There is no similar requirement for cannabis beverages, which can be sold in containers with a 100 milligrams of THC without any practical mechanism for consumers to measure a standard ten milligram serving of THC. These beverages are frequently packaged and marketed like ordinary drinks with names like root beer and high soda pop on the beverage containers. Unlike a brownie or gummy though, consumers may not realize they are ingesting multiple servings in one sitting.

This creates an increased risk of accidental consumption, and the consequences of THC poisoning can be serious, including paranoia, vomiting, panic attacks, and more. As proposed to be amended today, AB 2532 will establish reasonable safeguards on the sale and marketing of cannabis beverages to ensure that consumers are provided products they can use responsibly.

The committee's amendments will ensure that the cannabis beverages allow consumers to accurately measure and consume a single serving of THC, and they ensure that the beverages which contain more than ten milligrams of THC are clearly labeled and marketed as multi dose beverages.

Consumers should not be, should not need to guess to determine how much cannabis they are drinking from a single beverage container. I wanna reiterate my commitment to working with the stakeholders involved in this bill. I understand that the industry would like to continue iterating on the bill's language, and I remain committed to that process. With me to testify today is, once again, Kris Applegate from the State Auditor's Office testifying about the audit itself.

Great. You have two minutes.

Good morning again, Chair and Members. Kris Applegate with the State Auditor's Office. Similarly, we don't have a position on AB 2532, but can report that, as proposed to be amended, it appears to address issues that led to one of our legislative recommendations.

Again, in our report that I mentioned previously, one aspect of the findings of that report related to serving sizes for cannabis beverages. Specifically, we saw several products, ranging from four ounce energy shot style containers to 16 ounce root beer cans that contain one hundred milligrams of THC, which represents 10 servings of ten milligrams of THC.

However, these containers contain nothing that would allow a consumer to measure out a single serving size to safely consume. Even when we did find a can that contain lines to mark 10 servings, the can was opaque and therefore did not allow the consumer to actually utilize those measurement marks.

As a result of these findings and to ensure that beverage consumers can properly identify a single serving, we recommended that the legislature consider two things, requiring easy understanding of measurement sizes, such as by requiring included measuring devices, as we saw in Washington state, and establishing a cap on the amount of THC in one cannabis beverage container to ten milligrams or one serving, as we saw in Canada.

The bill as amended, while not specifically implementing that recommendation exactly, would address that recommendation and the findings that led to it by requiring for cannabis beverages that a beverage container contain serving size measurements that will be visible and more easily understood by the consumer to be able to safely measure a serving.

This would certainly be an improvement and help to mitigate the concerns that we saw in our, in our work with existing containers. Again, happy to answer any questions that you may have about our audit report. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members of the Committee. Dr. Lynn Silver for the Public Health Institute. I'm a pediatrician and clinical professor at UCSF and chair of the 2024 High Potency Cannabis Think Tank that was convened at the request of the governor.

We strongly support the original version of this bill. This is or was a common sense consumer and child protection bill. 100 milligrams of THC in an energy drink size two shot or in a can of soda is a dangerous dose. It is 20 NIH reference doses and 10 maximum California doses.

It would knock most of us in this room down. It is the equivalent to putting 10 beers in a single beer bottle. Both the State Auditor's report and the High Potency Task Force vigorously recommended limiting beverages to ten milligrams total. Not doing so means more car accidents, panic attacks, psychotic reactions, anxiety attacks in naive users.

A child ingesting this mighty mango drink, magic mango, I'm sorry, would likely suffer respiratory depression and land in the ICU. Please remember the energy drinks that actually killed some people because they had such high doses. 100 milligram doses are not designed to give a pleasurable experience.

They are designed to generate and feed addiction. The proposed amendments, unfortunately, instead enshrine multi dose beverages and set no limit on THC content, although the 100 milligrams may still apply. They will continue to mislead consumers, and they contradict the FDA's clear standards for what a serving in a beverage is, which can further mislead consumers.

The industry argument that this will wipe out the beverage sector is poppycock. It would be like the beer industry coming and saying, if you don't let me put 10 beers in one can, no one, this industry will cease to exist. No.

Maybe a consumer will buy one with ten milligrams and then buy another if they want a stronger experience. Early post legalization cannabis beverages looked like this. They had ten milligrams in a container. Today, they're selling ten times that dose.

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

Yes. We are deeply dismayed to see this. Please hear the cries of health care providers and families, as the psychiatrists testified earlier. It is time to actually build a safer legal cannabis market for the future. Please pass the original bill and reject the amendments, and thank you to the author. I know you agree with the amendments, but we are very concerned about them. But we thank you for your leadership.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill?

Sarah-Michael Gaston with Youth Forward in support of the original bill without the newest amendments.

Thank you very much.

Pam Lopez on behalf of California NORML, the state's cannabis consumer rights advocacy group. We have a support if amended position and thank the author for her work.

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

Mr. Chair and Members. Shane LaVigne on behalf of Pabst Labs. I'll note we were opposed. We have switched to neutral with the amendments. Also, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association has also removed their opposition to to neutral.

Thank you to the author and the committee for their work. There is some remaining refinement to the language. We'll continue to work with the committee and the author and their staff. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kate Bell on behalf of SōRSE Technologies. Also appreciate the amendments and look forward to continuing to work with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dan Seeman, CCIA, also removing our opposition with the agreed upon amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alicia Priego on behalf of Kiva Brands also removing our opposition with amendments.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in opposition to the bill or tweeners?

Sabrina Gleitz with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Uncle Arnie's, Mammoth, Vertosa, and ILLA Canna. We appreciate the author's amendments but remain opposed unless amended. And look forward to working with the author on further clarification on cannabis beverage packaging. Thank you.

Thank you.

Amy Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association. We do have some concerns with the amendments and look forward to continuing to work with the author. Thank you.

Thank you.

Damian Martin on behalf of Catalyst Cannabis Co. Removing our opposition to neutral, although also still continuing to express concerns with some of the amendments. We're hopeful to get them resolved.

Thank you. Bringing back the colleagues for questions or comments on the bill or motions or seconds. Got a motion. Got a second. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member Irwin, would you like to close?

Yes. I think that those of us that were at the hearing were quite disturbed to hear about containers that do contain 100 milligrams of THC. We and the initial bill would have required that doses, dosages are limited to ten milligrams, and we had a lot of opposition with that.

So I think what we need is incremental progress. You can see this is quite a balancing act. And with the amendments, with the committee amendments, I think we are slowly getting there to make sure that consumers know exactly what they are consuming and don't...

You know, it's quite disturbing to think about anybody drinking an entire hundred milligrams of THC in one sitting. So we would just wanna make it much more clear for consumers. And like I said, I think we're at that balance. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And once again, thank you to the author for your work on this issue and for accepting the committee amendments. And I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 2532, Irwin, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave that open. Thank you very much. No. And I see a sign of a ransom in the in the audience with agenda item number four, AB 1794, right when you are.

Alright. Good morning. Alright. Hello, chair and members. I wanna begin by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking you and your staff for your work on this bill.

Assembly bill seventeen ninety four clarifies existing pharmacy law to ensure that patients can receive intra formula directly to their home rather than making unnecessary trips to the pharmacy. Intra formula formula is a nutritional formula designed for people who cannot consume for food normally. Some people take intraformula to supplement their diet, other rely others rely entirely on these formula to receive their nutrients and vitamins daily. These products are essential prescription foods.

As you may imagine, people who rely on these formulas are often medically fragile, and making trips to and from their pharmacy to receive their food can present risk that people with these needs may not always be able to withstand withstand.

This is especially important for people living in remote rural areas where a trip to the pharmacy can mean hours on the road for them or their caregivers. To ensure that patients receive their formulas regardless of how far they live from their pharmacy, assembly bill seventeen ninety four will allow pharmacies and medical product distributors to send formula directly to the patient's home as long as they have a prescription for it.

To be clear, assembly bill seventeen ninety four makes sure that a pharmacist is directly involved in their patient's care, requiring them to label and distribute the formula just as they do currently. This bill takes a twofold approach, prioritizing the comfort and safety of the patient while ensuring that the medical professionals responsible for their care remained involved, informed, and in direct communication with the patient. With me to testify today is Cathleen Galgiani with the California Association of Medical Product Suppliers.

Two weeks in a row, Senator.

Yes. Thank you, mister chair.

And a privilege.

It's a privilege to be here. A privilege to be here. Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm I'm here on behalf of the California Association of Medical Product Suppliers who represent the home medical equipment industry in California. Our members provide durable medical equipment and supplies for subacute patients who no longer require acute hospital care but are medically fragile and need ongoing specialized care such as the care of enteral nutrition.

The author has spoke to what enteral nutrition is and the process for drop shipment. This process begins with the customer placing an order with the pharmacist. The pharmacist then alerts the distribution partner who follows their standard operating procedure to fulfill the order. The distribution partner packages the enteral nutrition product and prepares it for shipping by the carrier, whether that's UPS or FedEx, and the carrier then delivers the product directly to the cons the customer.

A complete record tracking the item from the supplier to the beneficiary automatically flows to the pharmacy's billing software, ensuring that the far pharmacy and the pharmacist have continuous oversight of the problem.

Camp's members who brought the problem to our attention are licensed closed door pharmacies who have licensed pharmacists under their employ. Unlike retail pharmacies, they are not open to the public. Closed door pharmacies focus on medication management for residents in long term care facilities, assisted living facilities, and patients needing medication and enteral nutrition for home use. We believe the problem we reference may also impact pharmacists at retail pharmacies.

Our members were recently notified by the Department of Health Care Services that they can no longer continue this process that they had done for many, many years that ensured patient safety and provided the ability for those who are medically fragile to have their product delivered to them at home.

So until these recent changes, it provided a lifeline for those who are medically fragile, who would otherwise be forced to struggle with transportation, and a combination of other physical, medical, and sensory logistics in order to retrieve their nutritional supports. This was especially difficult for those who live in Pharmacy Desert who have to travel long distances to get their enteral formula.

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

Our intent is that a licensed pharmacist provide oversight through the entire process, and we want to thank the pharmacists association for helping us to better understand how to make that clear within our bill. And we also want to thank the author and the committee staff for the amendments that have been proposed. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses you wanna add on in support of the bill?

Ben O'Brien with California Life Sciences in support. Thank you.

Chair and committee members, Gilbert here with Biocom in support.

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

Hello. I don't I don't need two minutes, but thank you. Michelle Rivas with the California Pharmacists Association. Unfortunately, we do still have an opposed position, but we appreciate the committee amendments. We think it makes it a better bill, and we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional people who wanna add on in opposition to the bill as a as a me too witness? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds. Got a motion in a bunch of seconds. Don't see any questions or comments.

Assemblymember Ransom, would you like to close?

Yes, sir. Thank you very much. So first of all, I wanna thank my witness for being here today to provide testimony. I wanna thank all of the stakeholders for their open dialogue that we've had on this bill. And, again, thank you and your committee for the insights.

With this bill, we are making sure that patients who rely on formulas to eat don't go hungry. We are making sure that they have fewer barriers to their well-being while making sure that medical professionals are helping to keep themselves safe. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to you and your sponsor for working with us on the accepted amendments, which help narrow the bill and maintain any pharmacy law requirements that may apply to these products. And I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

Great. That bill is out. Thank you very much. Assembly member Gibson, thank you for your patience, sir, with agenda item number seven AB 1990.

Good morning. Thank you very much, mister chairman and members. I wanna start off by thanking the chair and the committee for working with my team to making this bill a stronger bill. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill nineteen Ninety, a bill that protects patients. Let me say that again.

A bill that protects patients by ensuring compounded GLP one drugs are safe, highly qualified, and honestly marketed. GL one P G L G L P one medications were originally developed to treat type one diabetes and diabetics for patients with weight related conditions. We've the these these situations have become very popular because they are effective even beyond their original use.

A vast number of people have recently turned to compounded versions of these drugs which are not, and I wanna repeat, which are not FDA approved and do not have the same the same requirements to ensure that the ingredients and the final versions are tested for safety and purity. Consumers see these compounded versions as interchangeably.

However, seventy one percent of women surveyed in 2025 by the National Consumer League believe compounded GLP ones must be tested, proven to be safe to be on the market, and over half of The US women believe compounded GLP ones are FDA approved. Over the last several years, watch this, bad actors have exploited patients' desires to lose weight and have flooded the marketplace with compounded GLP ones that are, what, unsafe.

AB 1990 protects patients by increasing regulatory standards for compounded, pharmacies who produce GL one P's at commercial scales and ensuring enforcement from the board of pharmacy. This bill also requires that any advertising of compounded drugs is truthful and cur and clearly stated that the product is a compounded drug that is not, and I repeat, not a FDA approved. Patients deserve a rigorously tested medicine that is proven to be safe and regulated.

With me to provide, supporting testimony for this measure is the executive director of the Partnership for Safe Medicine and the, the director of food and nutrient for policy for National Consumer League. Both will self introduce themselves in support of this measure. Great.

You have two minutes each.

Thank you. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for welcoming me. My name is Shabir Imbursafdar. I am the executive director of the Partnership for Safe Medicines, a public health coalition committee committed to the safety of the drug supply. I support AB 1990 because of compounding pharmacies like Empower Pharmacy in Houston, Texas.

According to a complaint from our attorney general, Empower has been caught compounding medicine for California patients three times using ingredients not allowed by federal or state requirements. They've also been accused of shipping products to Nevada in violation of their probation condition of their license and having a California health care practitioner bring them over the border illegally.

Given the volume of weight loss and diabetes shots being produced now and the enormous money to be made doing it, it's it's logical to expect, and we have seen corners being cut. Epidemiologists last year documented a spike in events reported for the compounded weight loss products higher than those for the FDA approved ones, and the events that they found were more severe. And all of this is despite the fact that that reporting isn't even required for compounded products.

One of the most basic things that we can do to increase safety in this space is to ensure that the ingredients and the final products are tested, both important parts of a v nineteen ninety. Most compounders just test for the active ingredient. They don't test for impurities like arsenic and formaldehyde, two substances that Novo Nordisk's chemists have found in in these ingredients. That's just not safe enough for a drug that you inject.

The opposition to this bill suggests that stronger safety standards are going to somehow reduce access and harm marginalized communities.

That claim falls apart on closer look. Compounded versions are not cheaper than FDA approved products anymore, and the final product testing does not limit access. It limits corner cutting. Even if the access claim were true, we should never accept a system where a marginalized patient group is steered to a less safe option. That is not the standard that we want.

We want a system where marginalized groups have the same access to safe medicines. We wouldn't want to sell them, for example, cheaper cars that don't have seat belts or airbags simply to make the car an accessible product?

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

Californians believe they're better protected by the laws and regulations in place, and they are being deceived. They should not be unknowingly injecting themselves with untested products. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mister chair and members, I'm Nancy Glick with the National Consumers League. Today, we have two obesity crises in America. The first is that forty percent of adults nationally and thirty percent of adult Californians now have the disease of obesity. The other crisis is why I am here.

Today, a wild west marketplace is flourishing where telehealth platforms, med spas, and others tout compounded GLP one drugs as being as safe and as effective as the brand of medicines only cheaper. The problem is these claims are not true. Compounded GLP ones are not tested, not FDA approved, and are not required to disclose the risks. Also, because the ingredients are different and can cause dosing errors, FDA has reported almost fifteen hundred adverse events and over twenty deaths.

The reasons for this problem are several, but the one that most directly affects consumers is deceptive advertising.

Today, consumers are literally flooded with false information that compounded GLP ones are doctor approved or doctor trusted, FDA approved, and they contain the same ingredients. What is worse, our survey of 1,500 US women conducted last year finds that eighty percent of women believe these claims are completely true. The National Consumers League has been a leading voice calling for government to protect consumers from misleading advertising and fraud. And the good news is that the FDA is starting to act.

But this exploitative marketplace for GLP ones is vast, and that's why states must also play a role.

For this reason, NCL supports the introduction and, passage, hopefully, of AP nineteen ninety with language that would make it unlawful to advertise or promote compounded medications with claims that are false or misleading.

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

Opponents may claim that consumers will pay more for compounded GLP ones or these drugs will be less accessible. Our answer is truthful advertising doesn't cost more. What will change is that custom consumers will have the facts to make sound decisions about their weight loss drugs. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses you wanna add on in support of the bill?

Ben O'Brien with California Life Sciences in support. Thank you.

Chair and committee members, Gilbert Lohr with BioComm in support.

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

Go ahead.

Thank you, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Peter Koshland, representing the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding, representing compounding pharmacies across the country. I'm also a pharmacist and a small business owner here in California. Compounding exists to meet individualized patient needs, is a small but essential part of the health care system, and operates within a well established well established framework under robust federal and state law. California just completed a comprehensive overhaul of its compounding regulations, which took effect on October 1. Pharmacies and regulators are still in the process of implementing this new framework. Before layering on additional statutory requirements, it would be appropriate to allow time to evaluate how these updates are working in practice. While AB 1990 is framed as addressing safety concerns, most of what it targets is already illegal under existing law.

False or misleading advertising, the use of unauthorized or substandard ingredients, and the distribution of adulterated or misbranded drugs are already prohibited and enforceable today by both the FDA and the California Board of Pharmacy. Where we have concerns is that the bill goes far beyond reinforcing existing protections and instead introduces requirements that are unclear, unworkable, or inconsistent with federal and state law.

We are also concerned that the bill will unintentionally interfere with the patient prescriber pharmacist relationship. Compounding is, by definition, individualized. Decisions about whether a compounded medication is appropriate are made by licensed health care professionals based on the needs of the specific patient. Broad restrictions risk limiting those options without improving patient safety. Finally, it is important to note that legislation like this will not address the real source of unsafe products, which is the illegal sale of counterfeit or research grade substances online and through social media.

If you can wrap up. Yep.

Those actors are already operating outside the law, and additional restrictions on licensed pharmacies will not stop them. We submitted a thorough set of amendments to the author for consideration a week and a half ago and request feedback on those amendments. We appreciate the committee's focus on patient safety and share that goal. We would welcome the opportunity to work with you on approaches that target bad actors directly while preserving access to legitimate, patient specific compounded medication.

You got it. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, mister chair, members of the committee. Michelle Rivas on behalf of the California Pharmacist Association, and we must respectfully oppose AB 1990. We share the author's commitment to patient safety and to addressing bad actors who operate outside of established compounding standards. However, as drafted, this bill does not effectively target those entities and instead places significant new burdens on compliant licensed pharmacies. California already has a strong regulatory framework in place.

Compounding pharmacies are required to follow rigorous USP standards and are overseen by the California State Board of Pharmacy. These standards are specifically designed to ensure patient safety while allowing pharmacies to meet individual patient needs. AB 1990 moves away from the framework by imposing requirements more appropriate for pharmaceutical manufacturers such as example testing and supply chain verification that are not aligned with pharmacy practices. Many pharmacies simply will not be able to meet these standards.

Compounding medication is often the only option for patients, especially during shortages or when a patient needs a customized dose or formulation.

A broad approach like this risks pushing patients away from regulated pharmacies and toward unregulated alternatives which undermines patient safety. For those reasons, Miwas respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses wanna add on in opposition to the bill?

Good morning. George Sorritz of the California Medical Association. Appreciate the author and staff for working with us on some of the concerns and working those amendments that are outlined in the analysis will be moving to neutral, and, appreciate the intent of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses you wanna add on opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bringing back the colleagues for questions or comments. Vice chair Johnson.

Yes. I do have some, questions, both for opposition and for support. Miss Nancy, can you tell me what are or who are the com the compound GLP ones ads targeting currently? This has come up in my district quite a bunch.

Yes. So the primer the primary consumers of of GLP one drugs as a class are women. And there is a very big interest among very young women. And one of the things that we have seen, and it's very hair raising, are some very deceptive ads that target girls as young as 12, you know, telling them that if you microdose with a GLP one, you don't get fat. And there's a picture of birthday cake.

So this is the kind of advertising that definitely needs to be addressed. We are also noticing that women of color are very receptive to these advertisements and that there are specific Facebook groups that really tout this. And, again, there is no disclosure of risks. It is all one-sided and glorious. And so the need for some kind of regulatory safeguards is necessary.

Thank you. A follow-up to that, has the FDA weighed on the FDA weighed in on the formulation for the adding? I know we've talked to, like, adding the b twelve or adding the supplemental vitamin. Has that happened?

So there's been some recent progress, and this is good. And one of the points I wanna make to everyone is while compounding we believe in compounding, but it's supposed to be very personalized. And the reason that we have this market today is because there have been a big shortage of the FDA approved drugs, which meant then compounders could mass market. If we were no longer mass marketing, this would not be the issue that it is today. But FDA is starting to get serious, particularly about advertising.

The problem is they're doing it one by one, and they're going after the larger companies. So as I said, this marketplace is so vast. Any of you who have a teenage daughter, just ask them how many ads they see every day.

Yeah.

So we need to do more.

And then this is my final question and for support or opposition. If someone in my district had a reaction or a complication after taking GLP one, would we be able to know exactly what was in the vial and trace where it came from?

Ma'am, chairman, thank you for that question. The answer is no. There's a number of reasons why it would be very difficult, and I I've spent over a decade studying count patients hurt by counterfeit medicines, which is different than a poorly compounded medicine, but could possess some of the same problems. The first of which is that the track and trace system, which we have that has a serial number on every bottle, doesn't exist for compounded medicines.

When that was being formulated in the legislature and Congress in 2012, the compounders fought it and said, well, this is these medicines are made for one person, so you don't need a serial number.

That's actually not how it works. When you asked previously about additives. What happens is that there's a set of maybe a dozen personalized versions that everybody gets one. I've even seen pads that were handed out to doctors that says, check the personalized formulation that you want for your patient. That's not real personalization.

The second problem is that if you don't pass this bill and require some testing and documentation of what those ingredients are and what the finished product is, when that patient takes that compound in GLP one and then it's gone, you no longer have any proof of what was in it to begin with. If you have an FDA approved drug, there are reams of paperwork of testing at every step of its manufacture.

With a compounded medication, if they get an ingredient in and today they only test for the active ingredient, let's say it's semaglutide and not for arsenic or formaldehyde or chlorine or some other impurity, if they don't test for it, then you don't know it was there. And they're yes, it costs a little bit more to test for it, but this is something you're injecting. You absolutely need to know.

Well, I just want oh. Sorry.

I'd love to chime in and contest a little bit the characterization that you would not know what was in that compounded medication. I don't personally compound injectable GLP ones, but I know what the regulations are in the state and federal regulations. Every ingredient that comes into my pharmacy, I have a certificate of analysis that's reviewed by a pharmacist before it goes into our inventory. Also, we do extensive vendor qualification before we even order it.

All the ingredients that are put into a compound are using those ingredients that have been reviewed.

So I can tell definitely what's what's in those ingredients from the certificates of analysis that come in. For a sterile product, they're all sterility tested and endotoxin tested. So there's a there's quite a bit of analysis and testing about what's in one of these products that that goes far beyond what you might assume as as it's just been thrown together. That's absolutely not the case. Everything I described to you is outlined in California law and federal regulations and USP guidance.

So this is not like I just choose to do this. This is what I'm required to do.

Maybe you could help me understand then, how were compounders making pills before manufacturers just got an FDA approval? Like, how how was that since

I I I don't know how how they were doing that. I I I that was clearly outside the scope of the essentially, a a copy guidance around of drug shortages.

I don't think they're doing that, but, that's not something we're doing. But

Sure.

Okay. Alright. Well, I just wanna thank the author. I think that this is you're you're proactively getting ahead of consumer safety in a in a very rapidly growing arena. So thank you for that.

As a woman and a mother, I think it's very important, especially all you have to do is say GLP one and your Instagram is full of it. So I just wanna say I also wanna know in opposition, the Chamber of Progress. I come from the Chamber of Commerce. I was chairwoman for many years. I don't know what the Chamber of Progress is, but I just thought that was interesting.

So I will be supporting your bill today. Thank you for the questions. I'd like to move when appropriate, chair. Thank you.

Thank you, vice chair. Now is appropriate. So we'll take that as a motion. I'll second. And we got a second.

Assembly member Addis.

Thank you so much. I'm gonna support the bill, but I had a couple, just kind of broad questions and concerns that are twofold. One is, like, I come from a very, very tiny town that, used to have two pharmacies. Now it has one. There was a pharmacy that compounded.

Now we just have a sort of big brand pharmacy. It has become more and more challenging for folks to actually, the big brand pharmacy actually closed. So now the one that's left is a 99 to five only, and people have, pretty big difficulties getting medications and actually have to travel to an entire other city or town or area to get medications that we need.

So just generally, you know, kind of talking about how this might I know opposition is saying it could potentially limit supply of necessary GLP ones. I'm interpreting necessary as those that are needed for diabetes, not necessarily those needed for weight loss.

So if you could just comment, you know, like, for folks in my town that are working people, they can't get to this pharmacy within nine to five. It doesn't compound anyway. They're gonna have to go out of town to get a compounded something or rather. Would this limit their supply to a GLP one to treat their diabetes?

Chairman, ma'am, thank thank you for the question. I I don't think so. And I'll I'll say as a as a context setting point, my organization worked with the California pharmacists on a bill on pharmacy benefit manager reform in previous years that did great work at stopping the pharmacy desert experience that your your town is having. And that was that is caused by under reimbursement of pharmacies by pharmacy benefit managers. It's been really, really bad for the survival of pharmacies.

In this case, I don't think that they would have lack of access. This just requires some testing of the ingredients and the finished product and truthfulness in advertising. It doesn't, it doesn't ever address when they are or are not allowed, to compound, and it doesn't address whether a prescriber is allowed to prescribe. So I don't think that you're gonna experience a loss of access. It just it's like it's like saying, look, if you're gonna make cars, they all have to have seat belts.

Right? There's just a a lower floor of safety that we're not willing to give up.

As as it's currently written, I believe that this bill would put a chilling effect on compounders beyond even GLP ones. It has very punitive measures. I think it's a thousand dollars per incident. I mean, I think that's one of the reasons why you're seeing less and less compounders because of the regulatory burden that they have to face and the fear of retribution for even small infractions. I think on our side, we we appreciate the intentions of this bill.

We don't think that people should be misbranding or have false advertising. We also don't believe that people should be using substandard ingredients or any of those things. There there's no question about that. It's just a matter of how this bill's unintended consequences may have an effect that would worsen the pharmacy deserts and worsen the opportunities for company pharmacies to continue to survive.

And then my thank you. Thank you both for that. My oh.

Thank you very much. I was we were just conversing a few moments ago. This is tailor made for just weight loss drugs. I'm not sure what he's talking about.

Oh, okay.

And so, you know, I just want to make sure that we're being honest here. This is weight loss drugs and he's going and using this as as weaponizing to your issue as relates to the pharmacy and the lack of pharmacy. I think this witness talked about, an issue about, reimbursement rates and that's that that other pharmacies and the lack of pharmacies and reimbursement rates that are having and that's resulting in, you know, some pharmacies closing.

So I think we should not mix apples and oranges and just stick with the facts, and this is dealing with weight loss drugs. So I just wanna be clear.

And and to confirm, that was tightened up in the amendments which the author is accepting?

That's correct.

Thank you, sir.

And the re the re and I'm the one that interpreted, you know, the opposition statement limit supply of necessary GLP one. I interpret that as diabetes. I may be off base on that. Just to clarify, but I will tell you the reason I made that connection is, with my hat on as health budget subchair, Medi Cal is no longer gonna cover weight loss. It will cover GLP ones for diabetes, but not just sort of for weight loss.

So there are gonna be a lot of people who are going to be going to the regular market with their own dollars, and we want them to be as safe as possible. So I just wanna make sure when we're talking about what's necessary, we have clarification. And I appreciate the chair's amendments and that you're taking the amendments on that. And then that we're, you know, protecting folks that are no longer gonna have this health coverage.

I'd like to give a point of information about that. So once upon a time, there these weight loss drugs were very expensive. The prices have gone down dramatically. And now the there have been some negotiations between the White House and the and the branded drug manufacturers. And so the prices now are basically comparable to for an FDA approved drug sold in the same way as the compounded drug.

So pretty much cost is no longer a challenge. And, of course, we are a consumer organization. So cost is very important to us. But that has become much less of an issue now.

Thank you. And I as I said, I support the bill, and I really appreciate the focus on on transparency. I have separate legislation around transparency myself in a totally other field, and I do think consumers just Kinda wanna know what's in the things they're ingesting into their bodies so that they can make a choice. Is that safe or is that not?

And, and really wanna appreciate the opposition, in terms of, you know, the comments about a chilling effect, and yet we still need some kind of enforcement.

It's just the reality. This legislature passes a lot of things, but if we don't enforce them, you know, they really don't have much meaning. So I'm sensitive to it, but I'm gonna support the bill. And I know I I'm assuming based on some of the other me too's that you continue to work with opposition, it looks like you've already removed some opposition and you continue in conversations. And I know that about you assembly members, so thank you.

Any additional questions or comments from colleagues on the committee? Seeing none, Assemblymember Gibson, would you like to close?

Yes. Real quick. And thank you very much for the robust conversation that we've had and certainly, it's not lost on me regarding the comments that have been made. We will continue to work with opposition. This is and I started my comments when I first opened up.

It's about patients being safe. It's about safety. And I don't need to regurgitate. When we open up any kind of social media about the proliferation, about weight loss drugs, we want people to live a healthy life, but also a safe life, and we wanna get in front of what's taking place right now. And I think that this bill is a simple bill that that, advance what's taking place when it comes down to the weight loss.

We want people to lose weight. We want people to to be healthy, but also doing it in a very safe fashion, especially when you talk about young people experimenting and markets being targeted at our young people. We wanna make sure that they're being safe in doing so. I respectfully ask when I vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gibson, for accepting the committee's amendments to clarify the scope of the bill. And I'd recognize that there's still significant opposition to this bill. We've heard some of that today. So appreciate your commitment to further conversations between stakeholders to identify potential opportunities to compromise. And with my full faith and trust in the author to continue those discussions, I'm happy to support the bill today.

Madam secretary, thank you. Thank you.

On AB 1990 Gibson, the motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Berman?

Berman, aye. Johnson? Johnson, aye. Addis? Aye.

Aye.

Addis, aye. Arons? Aye. Arons, aye. Alanis?

No. Alanis, not voting. Banes? Banes, aye. Bauer Kehan?

Kolozha? Chen? Chen, aye, El Hawari? Hadwick? Hadwick, no.

Haney? Haney, Aye, Hart? Aye. Hart, Aye, Erwin? Aye.

Erwin, Aye, Jackson? Aye. Jackson, Aye, Lowenthal? Aye. Macedo, Aye, Huynh.

Huynh I Pellerin.

That bill is out. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next up, we're gonna go to assembly member Hart with agenda item number two eighty seventeen o three.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 1703, a bill to address a gap in current law that allows non physicians to practice medicine and use titles that should only be available for licensed osteopathic, physicians. Doctors of osteopathic medicine, DOs, are licensed physicians who can practice medicine in all 50 states and have the same billing rights as doctors of medicine, MDs. DOs and MDs both attend four years of medical school, followed by internships, residencies, and fellowships.

DOs receive additional training in osteopathic manipulative treatment, a practice that uses hands on techniques to diagnose and treat primarily muscles and joints.

Although DOs in The US are physicians, osteopaths in other countries are usually not considered physicians and do not have the same medical training. Internationally trained osteopaths, however, have open practices in California, advertising themselves with certain titles and claiming to offer to licensed medical treatments that overlap with services traditionally performed by licensed DOs. An individual looking for a new doctor could reasonably assume that these individuals are licensed DOs and therefore physicians when they are in fact not.

This creates confusion and potential safety risk for patients when choosing a doctor, and there's no logical entity with which to file complaints if they arise. AB 1703 will require that just like existing protections for MDs, only licensed DOs could use specific titles like osteopath or the initials DO when offering or providing a medical service.

This bill will also close a loophole in existing alternative health care law by codifying protections against the unlicensed practice of osteopathic manipulative treatment. Previous legislation in 2001 established limited protections for unlicensed practitioners of alternative health care, assuming certain disclosure and other requirements were met. This bill, however, never intended to allow unlicensed individuals to perform patient services that required licensure and medical expertise.

California should be able to trust the quality of licensed medical practitioners and deserve the right to make informed decisions when choosing a doctor, no matter what the type of care that they seek. This bill has broad based support from the osteopathic physicians and surgeons of California, the osteopathic medical board, and the National American Osteopathic Association amongst others.

Speaking in support of this bill are doctor Brian Loveless, a practicing DO, and Erica Calderon, the executive director of the Osteopathic Medical Board of California.

Thank you, mister chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is doctor Brian Loveless, a practicing osteopathic physician, chief medical officer, and professor of osteopathic manipulative medicine at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona where I train the next generation of osteopathic physicians. As the assemblyman, mentioned, a doctor of osteopathic medicine is a fully licensed physician completing the same four years of medical school, residency, training, and board certification as our MD colleagues.

We are trained in a philosophy that emphasizes patient centered health focused care.

In addition, we DOs complete two hundred plus hours of training in a distinct hands on diagnosis and treatment modality called osteopathic manipulative treatment or OMT. OMT is a physician level diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Before a DO applies any manual treatment, we first make a medical diagnosis, somatic dysfunction, a specific clinical finding involving altered structure, altered function, and tissue texture changes in the body.

That diagnosis requires a full clinical training of a physician and is necessary to safely decide whether OMT can be used in a particular scenario or if other medical interventions are required. It's troubling that a nonphysician would be advertising attempting to perform these services which AB 173 attempts to rectify.

Californians expect a DO to be a physician, and they expect that when they see a DO, the decision to utilize OMT or not is predicated on a full medical diagnosis. AB 173 ensures that only licensed physicians can perform OMT while also ensuring nonlicensed individuals don't refer to themselves as a DO or similar terms, giving patients more certainty in the care that they are receiving. On behalf of the osteopathic profession, we're proud to sponsor AB 173 and respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Berman and members. Thank you for your time and opportunity to testify in front of you today. My name is Erica Calderon, executive director of the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. Our board is a state regulatory agency responsible for licensing, regulating, and disciplining osteopathic physicians and surgeons. And our core mandate is protecting the health, the safety, and the welfare of Californians.

On behalf of the board, I am here in strong support of AB 1703. This important patient safety measure strengthens the board's ability to address the unlicensed practice in medicine. This bill makes it clear that osteopathic titles and terms are only used by licensed osteopathic physicians and surgeons, and furthermore, that osteopathic manipulative treatment is only performed by such licensees. This clarity matters to patients and to regulators. It helps prevent deception and harm when people practice medicine in our state without proper licensure.

From a regulator's perspective, the unlicensed practice of medicine is especially cons is is especially concerning because it bypasses the safeguards that protect the public. Individuals who practice without a license have not completed the required education, training, and examinations, have not been vetted by the state, and are not subject to oversight and discipline. This puts patients at risk of substandard care, misdiagnosis, and potentially harmful treatment.

AB 1703 closes a critical gap in patient protection, and it straightens the board's ability to identify, stop, and act against the unlicensed practice of medicine. For those reasons, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California respectful respectfully ask for your support on AB 1703. Thank you.

George Soares with the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.

Matt Baque on behalf of the Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California. We're the proud sponsor of the bill. Just wanna thank the author and the committee for all the hard work. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Todd Primack, and I'm an osteopathic anesthesiologist. Today, I'm speaking on behalf of the California Society of Anesthesiologists, where we are more than 3,400 members, and we strongly support AB 173, a systolic physician and searches unauthorized practice and title protection. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in opposition to the bill? Still seeing none.

Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds. Got a motion couple motions in a second. Assemblymember Hart, would you like to close?

Yeah. I'd just like to say that this build addresses an important gap in current law to protect patients and ensures that all Californians can make informed decisions about their medical care, and I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much for bringing this bill forward, and I'm happy to support it. Madam secretary, please call a vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you very much. Assume number, Cara. You've got agenda item number eight, AB 1999. Ready when you are.

Any coffee? Thank you.

Thank you so much. Good morning, mister chair and members. AB 1999 will make numerous common sense changes to veterinary statute, reducing staffing shortages in California shelters and making veterinary care more accessible for everyday pet owners. In 2023, I authored ACR 86, which encouraged the state to address its pet overpopulation crisis by supporting high volume spay and neuter services and building critical veterinary staffing gaps with qualified out of state professionals.

However, these goals remain unmet in large part because of the state's ongoing veterinary staffing shortage.

This deficit is especially felt by animal shelters of which 25% lack adequate veterinary staffing and 64% cannot meet their animals' basic medical needs. The impacts of the shortage are compounded by a cumbersome statute which further restrict existing staff's limited capacity. For instance, California is one of only two states that still require a veterinarian to reestablish the Veterinarian Client Patient relationship every time a pet owner seeks treatment for their animal.

This means that that a veterinarian must examine a pet prior to providing any prescription or recommended course of action even if they already know the animal and has medical history well enough to provide effective guidance for minor issues over the phone. While this requirement poses an inconvenience for all pet owners, it especially burdens low income owners who lack the resources to facilitate frequent veterinary visits.

Separately from this issue, animals are also suffering under California's excessively broad owner exemption. The exemption lets animal owners perform virtually any medical procedure on their animals including surgeries. Because most animal owners have not received a veterinary education, they cannot safely perform these sensitive procedures. Anytime they attempt to do so, they put their animals health, well-being, and life at risk.

AB 1999 addresses these issues by creating a retired volunteer status for retired veterinarians and RVTs of which provide unpaid voluntary labor to animal shelters and humane societies.

It creates a streamlined pathway for out of state veterinarians to become licensed shelter veterinarians. Reforming BCPR statute to allow veterinarians provide care with within reestablishing an existing BCPR, and clarifying other aspects of veterinary telemedicine statute, and narrowing the owner exemption to exclude surgical procedures. Together, these solutions will help eliminate many of the barriers that prevent countless animals from receiving the care they need and deserve.

With me to provide supporting testimony is Judy Mancuso, the founder and president of Social Compassion in Legislation and former veterinary medical board member, and Grant Miller, CVMA director of regulatory affairs.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. In 2024, my group sponsored assembly member Cal Rose ACR 86, which called on the VMB and stakeholders to address the pet overpopulation crisis by increasing access to veterinary care and spay and neuter services. AB 1999 is a strong and meaningful response. And as a proud cosponsor, I wanna thank mister Kalra, the VMB, MDC, and CVMA for crafting this comprehensive bill.

Our state's pet population has exploded, pushing some shelters and rescues beyond the breaking point. Too many Californians have purchased from breeders instead of adopting, and we have seen a surge in brack backyard breeding. At the same time, access to veterinary care has declined. This is driven by multiple factors, including workforce shortages, mental health challenges within the profession, rising cost, and industry consolidation. As cost rise and access declines, fewer animals are being spayed and neutered, further fueling the crisis.

AB 1999 also addresses serious harm occurring under the owned animal exemption. As a former VMB board member, I am aware of cases involving cesarean sections on kitchen tables, amputations in garages, eye surgeries in bedrooms, and ear croppings with household scissors, often resulting in severe suffering or death with no legal accountability. We must close these loopholes to prevent heinous cruelty while also expanding access to care. I will now turn it over to doctor Grant Miller to walk through how the bill addresses these challenges.

Thank you to the chair, and the committee for your leadership and to your stellar staff.

Thank you. Hi, Eddie.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Thanks, folks. Thanks, Judy, for the introduction. And I join her in in, thanking the staff and and especially assembly member Kalra for his ongoing dedication to animal related issues. Again, I'm doctor Grant Miller from the California Veterinary Medical Association. I am proud to be joined with our coalition cosponsors, social compassion and legislation, San Diego Humane, and the California Veterinary Medical Board.

I was gonna fly really close to the sun and do a two minute to the minute presentation. We're getting really close to lunch. The assembly member very succinctly and clearly, summarized what this bill is doing. I would like you to take note of the cosponsors of this bill.

For any of you who have had the dubious pleasure of working on animal related legislation, I think that, this bill stands out among many of the others because all of us, all the stakeholders, the major stakeholders are coming together to do one very, very powerful bill that I really am proud to say that I believe we're sticking the landing.

And so with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill?

Hello. Juliana Tetlow with San Diego Humane Society, proud cosponsor in strong support.

Thank you.

Nicholas Sackett with Social Compassion Legislation, doing a courtesy me too for Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Thank you. Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or motions or seconds.

Have a motion and a second. Don't see any questions or comments. Assemblymember Calra, who would you like to close?

Speck Viasra, and I vote.

Well, thank you, Assembly member Culver. Thank you for bringing this important bill forward. And as the doctor alluded to, I know from experience that keeping consensus on animal bills is often like herding cats. So I commend the author and and everybody who's all all the sponsors and supporters of the bill for having such a broad cosponsor coalition behind this measure. This bill will bring much needed reforms to the veterinary space and, more importantly, help animals across California get essential care.

Sunland Borough, Kalra, thank you for always looking out for the homies. And I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 1999, CALRA, the motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Berman?

Berman, aye. Johnson? Addis? Aye. Aaron's, aye.

Aye.

Alanis? Baines? Baines, aye. Bauer Kehan? Kolozha?

Chen? Uhawari? Hadwick? Hadwick, aye. Haney?

Haney, Aye, Hart?

Aye.

Hart, Aye, Erwin? Erwin, Aye, Jackson? Aye. Jackson, I Lowenthal. Macedo.

Macedo. Macedo, Aye, Nguyen. Huynh Aye. Pellerin.

That bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Last but never least, assembly member Haney. Agenda item number nine, AB 2130.

Second. Have a motion in a second.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I wanna start by thanking your staff and for your work on this bill. We'll be accepting the agreed upon amendments in the next committee. As you all are aware, because we came through this committee a few years ago, California has a retirement benefit fund that previously applied solely to professional boxers, but now is also extended to mixed martial arts.

That retirement fund is funded currently largely or almost entirely through ticket sales that take place in California, and this bill will create a new revenue stream that strengthens fire fighter retirement benefits without raising taxes, increasing ticket prices, or relying on the state's general fund by authorizing the California State Athletic Commission to place sponsor logos on referee and official apparel at boxing and mixed martial arts events.

We are one of the largest fight markets in The United States, and California has an opportunity to responsibly connect a portion of that commercial activity with long term financial protection for fighters. As you all are aware, we have an incredible market, an incredible number of fighters in California, but this is a physically demanding sport in which athletes often face repeated head trauma, orthopedic injuries, and other long term health risks.

Unlike athletes in many major professional sports, fighters often do not have collective bargaining agreements that guarantee retirement benefits, and this is the way that we can help to ensure some amount of support for them after they finish in the sport. This will be a practical and a sustainable way to strengthen the fighter retirement benefits. And with me to testify in support of the bill is Uriah Faber, The U US UFC Hall of Famer, and Scott Wedge on behalf of the California State Athletic Commission.

Great. You've committed to each.

Mister chairman and member Scott Wedge, I'm not here today as a lobbyist, but in my capacity as a member of the state athletic commission. AB 2130 is a simple, smart, and long overdue measure. The last five law revision commissions have audits have suggested to the commission that we needed to find new revenue sources to support all the programs that we do. And the last audit specifically called out finding new revenue sources to fund the pension. In plain terms, the bill will authorize the California Athletic Commission to sell sponsorship patches on the uniforms of referees at professional boxing and mixed martial arts events similar to what the UC and state systems have used for years. 70% as this author mentioned, would go to would be directed into the professional boxers pension fund and the mixed martial arts retirement fund, and 25% would go to support referee training and commission operations.

Importantly, this initiative requires no new taxes, no increase in ticket prices, and no cost to the fighters or to the promoters. Model is already well established in California public universities, as I mentioned before. I know that it has been mentioned by some or questioned about having a state regulatory body, venture into a very no matter de minimis, but yet a commercial, sort of activity.

I think it's important for the committee to note that since 2010, the state, Fish and Game Commission has been in a partnership producing a reality show called Wild Justice, where they follow fish and game wardens out in the field doing their work. And even though the show is no longer on the air, the California Highway Patrol for almost nine years was in a partnership to produce a reality show called The Real Stories of the California Highway Patrol. So there certainly is no precedent being broken here.

Boxers and MMA fighters in California have no union. They have no collective bargaining agreement.

In this industry, the California State Athletic Commission is the only labor advocate these athletes have. The legislature recognizes by passing Assemblyman Haney's bill in 2023, creating the new pension fund for MMA fighters.

And if you could wrap wrap up, that'd be great.

So for all of the reasons, I'm happy to answer questions. We're just trying to be innovative, not tax the budget. It's a special funded commission that runs on a shoestring. I get calls some months where literally our our fund is down to $60,000. We have over a 100 employees. So, hope you can support the bill.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, everybody. I'm Uriah Faber. I I was here, I think, three years ago for the, you know, the the act to get the, you know, combat athletes in addition to the boxers with some sort of retirement benefits, which has been awesome. This furthers that. It's no burden on anyone else.

And and I can say as a promoter, as a coach, as a former fighter, and still a competitor that it's a tough way to make a living. You know? The guys that are in the gym right now, practice just ended. You know, we had maybe 17 different countries in the gym, in my gym, and some people are coming places where they don't have bathrooms and risking it all to be here.

And a lot of moved to California, and and California is a hot spot for mixed martial arts.

And, like, was mentioned prior, we don't have a union. We don't have collective bargaining. We in in the combat side, we don't even have some of the old acts like the Ali act that that have, you know, driven up the prices for the fighters over the years for for mixed martial arts. So, you know, having an extra cushion, another way to bring revenue in, it doesn't hurt anybody, would be amazing.

We're very thankful for the forward thinking of the California State Athletic Commission, and this would be amazing for these fighters that, you know, as a promoter, I I see guys who have a whole career on the regional circuit making a couple thousand bucks, but dedicating their whole life and not quite reaching their dreams.

This is gonna affect, their lives. Some of these fighters may get more money when they turn 50 than they did their entire fight career if we're able to get this to go through. The difference can be substantial. Now with ticket sales, I think, you know, a range of 20 something thousand for the for the combat athletes, you know, up until, you know, maybe maybe $6.06 figures is retirement.

But at the addition of this this kind of funny and creativity, you know, it can really have an impact and and be effective to to make something meaningful for these fighters that have lived a hard life and have contributed to California.

So hope you support us, and I appreciate you taking a look at the bill.

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

Tim Lynch on behalf of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and we're supporting in support of the bill. Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Colleagues, questions, comments, motion, seconds.

Got it. We already did that apparently. My bad for not remembering. Assembly member Haney, would you like to close?

Thank you. I Appreciate, again, the support of this committee and and the thoughtful amendments, which will put some additional guardrails on the the process that's involved and and really the leadership of the athletic commission and for Uriah to be here and and all of the fighters and former fighters.

This really means a lot to them and will help strengthen the sport and support folks who put their bodies on the line for for for a sport that really is thriving in in California with that respectfully ask for your rival.

Well, thank you. Thank you to the author, to the sponsors, for working with us on this bill and the accepted amendments that will be taken in arts committee. I wholeheartedly support efforts in sure fighters welfare, and I believe the amendments help balance out the novelty of this approach. And I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On a on AB 2130 Haney, the motion is do passed to the committee on arts, entertainment, sports, and tourism. Berman?

Berman, aye. Johnson? Addis? Aye. Addis, aye.

Aye.

Aaron? Aye. Aaron's, aye. Alanis? Banes?

Banes, Aye, Bauer Kehan. Kolozha. Kolozha, Aye, Chen. El Hawari. Hadwick, Hadwick, Aye, Haney.

Haney, Aye, Hart. Aye. Hart, Aye, Erwin. Aye. Erwin, Aye, Jackson.

Aye. Jackson, Aye, Lowenthal. Macedo, Macedo, Aye, Nguyen. Nguyen, Aye, Pellerin. Aye.

Pellerin, Aye.