June 8, 2026 · Agriculture Committee · 2,018 words · 8 speakers · 60 segments
to order. Please stand. Representative Newman will lead us in the pledge, followed in prayer, and then Brett Miller will lead us in the pledge. As we bow for prayer, I will be praying from the words of King David in Psalm 29. Lord, we lift up our prayer to you in these words inspired by your spirit. Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name. Worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness. Lord, we bow recognizing who you are. You are almighty God. You are holy, and you demand that we serve you in fear and holiness as well. Lord, I pray that today as we conduct these conversations, we would do so in such a way that recognizes who you are in obedience to you. I pray in the name of Jesus. Amen. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Kloppenstein? Here.
Vice Chair Newman? Present.
Ranking Member Miller? Present.
Representative Barhorst is excused. Representative Brent?
Present.
Representative Cochley. Here.
Representative Melanie Miller. Here.
Representative Heiner. Here.
Representative Moore. Here.
Representative Dieter. Here.
Representative Peterson is excused. I mean, yes, excused. He checked in.
Representative Click. Here.
And Representative Sims. Here.
We have a quorum present and proceed as a full committee. The minutes from June 3rd are on the iPads. Please review the minutes. Are there any objections? Without objection, the minutes are approved.
Rep Miller. Thank you. Just a quick break before we get started. I want to thank the chair for the opportunity to recognize on our last, I hope, committee before we break, that's the hope, that my legislative aide will be heading off to the University of Cincinnati for law school, and so he will no longer have to sit here and be the note-taking, prepping, what have you. He will be on his way to be general counsel for who knows who, right? So thank you again, Nick, for the time you put into this committee, and I look forward to seeing great things from you. So thank you very much.
Congratulations. I will now call House Bill 664 for its fourth hearing and recognize Vice Chair Newman for a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I motion to amend with 136 underscore 2820.
The amendment is in order. Will the member please explain the amendment?
Yes, sir. Will do. Thank you. This amendment defines covered animal to mean a sheltered dog or cat thus limiting a registered veterinary technician to dispense and administer vaccines and antiparasitic medication to only shelter dogs and cats instead of all dogs and cats Are there any objections to the amendment
Hearing none, the amendment is accepted. With us today, Alba Gonzalez to provide interested party testimony. Welcome to Ag Committee and you can proceed when you're ready.
Thank you so much. All right. Chair Kluffenstein, Vice Chair Newman, ranking minority member Miller, and distinguished members of the House Agriculture Committee. My name is Michelle Gonzalez, and I'm a veterinarian licensed and practicing in the state of Ohio for the last 26 years. I am the founder and medical director of the RASCAL unit, which is a mobile veterinary clinic providing affordable and accessible care throughout the state of Ohio. And I'm also the director of RASCAL Charities, which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization with a mission to assist individuals, shelters, and animal caretakers in an effort to reduce shelter of overpopulation, preventable diseases, and economic euthanasia. I would like to thank Representatives Fisher and Dieter for their commitment to sponsoring this important legislation, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my organization. I'm here to support the House bill, but as originally introduced. 20 years ago, I started the Rascal Unit because I saw a need for services that provided veterinary care to individuals in need. And in doing so, I learned that most people want to take care of their animals. A lot of people are unable to, whether it be for access because they can't get to a veterinarian, or it can be because of affordability, or even just simply for a lack of education. So I felt that as a veterinarian, having the veterinary oath, it's my duty to make sure that all animals have access to care. Twenty years later, that has not changed. So the reality that we face today is a shortage in access to veterinary care. And the House Bill 664, as originally presented, provides a solution because we're using registered veterinary technician. And these are people who undergo schooling. They are licensed in the state of Ohio. and we would be asking them to provide preventive care under the direction but without the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian. So by allowing these RVTs to provide vaccinations and wellness care without the need of a veterinarian physically present, we aim to decrease the risk of preventable diseases and keep animals and people safer as some of these conditions are transmitted from animals to humans. The new sub-bill fails to provide help to communities in need of pet wellness care. It's useful to some shelters, but the reality is that many shelter organizations already provide their own vaccines to their own animals. So it's not really going to increase access. The only exception is rabies vaccination. And currently, less than half the counties in Ohio require rabies vaccination by law. So it's not something that shelters may necessarily use on their own. So the goal of access to care is increasing the resources to communities. and again, we are eliminating the ability to provide the service to pet owners. We're limiting the services to shelters, and by doing so, we do not have the opportunity to prevent deadly contagious diseases such as parvovirus, distemper, and rabies. The new bill seeks to allow veterinary technicians to administer rabies vaccination and others to shelter animals only and not to community animals But the only difference between a sheltered animal and an owned pet is just ownership It not productive to create a legal distinction based on ownership when all companion animals owned and unowned, are considered the same. And this is not my definition. This is a definition by the Ohio Supreme Court. House Bill 664, as originally drafted, provides services to all companion animals by registered veterinary technicians under the direction of a veterinarian, following protocols established by the veterinarian to prevent technicians from acting independently and without guidance. This would be a great advancement in access to veterinary care in both animal and public health. So I respectfully urge you to support HB664 in its original form, because all companion animals should have the opportunity to receive these services. Thank you for listening, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for being here today and offering testimony. Are there any questions from the committee? Representative Brant.
Thank you, Chairman, from the Chairman to the Witness. Thank you for coming and providing your testimony as a subject matter expert in this space. My question, though, is obviously there's been some interest party meeting to get us to this point. where this amendment is going to be, may or may not be, well, has been added at this point. Who do you feel like are the winners and the losers with adding on this new language, specifically name them by name?
Yeah, absolutely. I honestly don't think that there's a lot of winners. I think there's more losers, just because access to care is a huge problem. And I speak from personal experience because most of my work has been in rural Ohio. I travel through a lot of rural communities, especially Appalachia communities, where the access to care is limited by distance, but it's also limited by the number of veterinarians and by cost of care. So those are the animals that really need this service. And the shelters are affected, but the shelters are affected because if the community animals are not vaccinated, then those animals, when they enter the shelters, then they're going to be transmitting these diseases to the animals in the shelter. So it's beneficial to the shelters and to communities for the community animals to be vaccinated.
Follow-up.
Follow-up.
Thank you, Chairman. So why do you think this amendment was even included out of everything? We've gotten to this point, and this bill has been around long enough. What do you think was the motivation?
In my opinion, honestly, I think that it was due to a PC Ohio Veterinary Medical Association because I understand that they oppose companion animals that are owned being vaccinated by technicians, but they are okay or at least neutral with shelter animals being vaccinated by technicians. And realistically, the whole question behind the rabies vaccination is a legal one. So if a technician is legally allowed to vaccinate a shelter animal, Why would they not be legally allowed to vaccinate an owned animal? If we're thinking about the fact that if the technician vaccinates the animal at the shelter and then that animal is adopted out, then that animal becomes owned and still has been vaccinated by a veterinary technician.
So Chairman just for clarification the witness is more or less trying to make sure that all animals get vaccinated I saying it for her but I have to say it to you protocol Yes Okay Sorry Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. Any additional questions? So having listened to your testimony, you like the direction the bill is headed, but your thought is it does not go far enough.
Yeah, absolutely. For us to make an impact, we need to make it accessible to the majority of animals, not limited to shelter animals, especially when, again, shelters have a little bit more access to care compared to the community.
Okay. Any additional questions? Representative Sims.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So are you now, are you still IP or are you an opponent?
Well, I don't want to be an opponent. I've been wanting technicians to be elevated for a really long time. And I am biased because I have amazing technicians that work for me. And I know that I would trust them to make decisions with their education and with their experience. So I don't want to oppose because I don't want it to go backwards, but I am not in agreement the way that it is, I guess. So that's why I present it as an interested party. This is something that is extremely important to me. I don't want it to just go away. But I feel that if it's going to go forward, it needs to go forward the right way.
Follow-up? So, based on your expert opinion, does this halt really expanding access to care for animals?
If we're only doing it for shelters, it is not expanding access to care for animals, in my opinion.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any additional questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you so much for your time.
I now recognize Vice Chair Newman for a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I motion to favorably report House Bill 664 as amended and recommend its passage.
Would the clerk please call the roll? Chair Kloppenstein? Yes. Vice Chair Newman?
Yes.
Ranking Member Miller?
Yes.
Representative Brent?
Yes.
Representative Cochley?
Yes.
Representative Melanie Miller?
Yes.
Representative Heiner? Yes. Representative Moore.
Yes.
Representative Dieter.
Yes.
Representative Click.
Yes.
And Representative Sims.
Yes.
With 11 affirmative votes, the House bill is favorably reported. The roll will be kept open until 5 o'clock today. I just wish to thank everybody for being here on an unusual committee day. Appreciate it. I would have had it at 8.30 or 9, so hopefully you appreciate the 11. With no further business before the committee, we are hereby adjourned.