Senate BPE — 2026-06-15

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1307. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments listed on comment 6 of the analysis. AB 1307 establishes a pilot program allowing 30 qualified dentists from Mexico to participate in underserved areas of California up to three years. Despite having one of the largest dentist workforce in the country, California continues to face major access gaps in dental care. Almost three million Californians, mostly in rural and low-income Latino communities, live in these areas with very limited access. The Kaiser Family Foundation has identified 565 distinct areas in California experiencing dental health professional shortage, with a total of 475 of additional dentists needed. Modeled after successful pilot for physicians AB 1307 addresses an inequity by allowing credentialed dentists from Mexican institutions to serve in underserved communities of California AB 1307 is a cost equity solution that increases access to care without lowering standards Today, I'm not sure if I have my witness today. Oh, I do. Thank you. I'll be closing by bringing up my witness, Arnobo Torres, on behalf of the Clinica de Salud del Valle, who has sponsored this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any other witnesses?

All right. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none, we're going to move on to Me Too's. Seeing none. Okay.

Thank you. And just for clarity, you do, sorry, are there any other me-toos? You do accept our committee amendments, correct?

Thank you. Moving on to committee members, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. I do want to highlight – give me two seconds. One, I do appreciate you working with our team to accept amendments. And one of the goals that I personally have is we want to expand pathways for qualified licensed health care providers to really just help us meet the demands of care in this state, especially now. And so having a limited number of dentists from Mexico come to California and become licensed here, it's not new. And we're glad that we're able to kind of expand these programs. I do want to highlight for any of the members here. I would love to see this expanded even further, right, to more than just one nation as a partner state, because we do have such a diverse community. And the easier that they can actually utilize their talents that they 100 percent were trained in, meet the qualifications here and get into the workforce. We're going to kill two birds, one stone, not only for them to have a good future, but also to serve our community. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. We do not have quorum yet, so we will hold on to the motion and make that motion when appropriate. So thank you. Appreciate you. Thank you. I'll be solo. So with that, we're going to have file item number three, AB 1703 by Assemblymember Hart. Whenever you'd like to begin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. 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 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. They also 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 U.S. are physicians, osteopaths in other countries are usually not considered physicians and do not have the same medical training. Internationally trained osteopaths, however, have opened practices in California, advertising themselves with certain titles and claiming to offer licensed medical treatments. An individual looking for a new doctor could reasonably assume that these individuals are licensed DOs and therefore physicians when they are not. This creates confusion and potential safety risks for patients when choosing a doctor, and there is 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 can 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 established limited protections for unlicensed practitioners of alternative health care but never intended to allow unlicensed individuals to perform patient services that require licensure and medical expertise Californians 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 the type of care they seek Speaking in support of this bill are Dr. Brian Loveless, a practicing DO, and Erica Calderon, the Executive Director of the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. Matt Back, representing the osteopathic physicians and surgeons, is available to answer any additional technical questions. Thank you. You guys will each have two minutes timed. Chair Wahab and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Dr. Brian Loveless. I'm a practicing osteopathic physician, chief medical officer, and professor of osteopathic manipulative medicine at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, where I help train the next generation of osteopathic physicians. As Assemblyman Hart noted, a doctor of osteopathic medicine is a fully licensed physician with equal practicing rates to our MD colleagues. What sets us apart is a philosophy that emphasizes patient-centered, health-focused approach to medicine. In addition, DOs complete 200-plus hours of training in a distinct hands-on diagnosis and treatment modality called osteopathic manipulative treatment, or OMT. OMT is a physician-level diagnosis 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 motion, 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 necessary. It's troubling that a non-physician would be advertising and attempting to perform these services, which AB-1703 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-1703 assures that only licensed physicians can perform OMT, while also ensuring non-licensed individuals don't refer to themselves as a DO or other similar terms, giving patients more certainty in the care they are receiving. On behalf of the osteopathic profession, we're proud to sponsor AB-1703 and respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Madam Chair Wahab and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of you today. Erica Calderon, Executive Director for the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. Our board licenses, regulates, and disciplines osteopathic physicians and surgeons with the fundamental mission of protecting the health and safety of Californians. I am here on behalf of the board in strong support of AB-1703. This important patient safety measure threatens the board's ability to address the unlicensed practice of medicine by clearly stating that osteopathic titles and terms shall only be used by licensed osteopathic physicians and surgeons and that OMT shall only be performed by licensed individuals. This clarity helps prevent deception, protects patients from harm, and ensures that only those who have completed the required education, training, have undergone fingerprinting requirements, and have been fully vetted by the State of California, may practice medicine. From a regulatory standpoint, unlicensed practice is deeply concerning because events, the safeguards designed to protect the public. Individuals practicing without a license have not completed the education, the training, the examination requirements, have not received a background check, and are not subject to oversight and discipline by the regulatory board. This places patients at risk for substandard care, misdiagnosis, and potentially harm can be caused to patients. AB-1703 closes a critical gap in patient protection and strengthens a board's ability to act on unlicensed practice. For these reasons, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California respectfully requests an aye vote. Thank you. That was exactly two minutes. Can we have lead opposition? Two minutes. Thank you. And before you begin, do we have any other lead opposition? Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure we're ready. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Wahab and members of the Senate Committee. Our opposition statement was submitted electronically and by hand to each of the members' offices prior to the deadline. Unfortunately, it was not part of the analysis, so I'm here to express my concerns today. My name is Seth Litt. I speak for the Consumers of California served by the non-physician osteopathic community. We have safely provided care for California consumers for decades. We strongly oppose AB-1703 as it is written, as it does not completely serve the consumers of California. We have coexisted with licensed osteopathic physicians over decades. We have differentiated ourselves as non-physician osteopaths, ensuring that we distinguish our role as being separate from our physician counterparts. In 2022, the OPSC directed the Department of Consumer Affairs to investigate a number of us for practicing medicine without license. The Osteopathic Medical Board of California found no wrongdoing after a thorough investigation and closed all investigations for seven years. This thorough investigation demonstrates that we pose no risk to consumers, that we respect the legal boundaries by not misrepresenting ourselves or our qualifications, and that we have a strong safety record with no malpractice or consumer harm findings. This bill's language wrongly criminalizes our practice, mischaracterizes us as a threat to consumer safety. This excludes the opportunity for us participating in a solution. Rather than protecting consumers, this bill seeks to criminalize our titles, our education, our ability to work. This bill would destroy our livelihoods. It would disenfranchise thousands of trusted care relationships and directly reduce access to care services in California. Thank you. We respectfully request a no vote or at least a postponement to open discussion with Assemblyman Hart so that we may remedy this problem. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next lead opposition witness. Two minutes. Good morning, Chair Wahhab and members of the Senate committee. I'm Kylie Walsh, representing non-physician osteopaths. We strongly oppose AB 1703. Patient safety and misrepresentation of skills, as identified by the author, have been addressed by my colleague. I have six points regarding competency. The Osteopathic International Alliance, founded with support from the American Osteopathic Association, recognizes both physician DOs and non-physician osteopaths. Number two traditional osteopathy and OMT are regulated non professions in countries such as Australia Canada the UK and Japan where they are legally recognized allied health professions They have standardized education with a minimum of 1,200 hours of OMT, at least four years of education, and OIA member graduates have international reciprocity except in the United States. Non-physician osteopaths currently teach OMT at California osteopathic medical colleges, valued for their advanced expertise in OMT. We are eligible members of U.S. osteopathic organizations and both teach and take courses offered by them. We have and continue to provide OMT in offices of osteopathic physicians. We receive direct referrals from osteopathic physicians and medical doctors for our services. A precedent exists where multiple licensed professions provide psychotherapy under appropriate oversight. A regulatory framework similar to that could preserve access to OMT. We propose that rather than criminalising titles, California should create a regulatory pathway for our profession with standardised terminology, disclosure requirements, a defined scope of practice and education verification, ensuring accountability, patient protection and preventing misrepresentation of skills. We respectfully request the committee to oppose 1703 as written with a no vote or postpone any vote until a mutually beneficial outcome can be reached. We welcome constructive dialogue with the physician community, the committee, and the author to develop targeted protections that preserve access to safe conservative care. Thank you. Two minutes exactly. Thank you. Thank you. Right on time. Additional witnesses both in support and in opposition? Simply your name, your position, and who you represent. Good morning. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support. Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians in the California Rheumatology Alliance in support. I'm Todd Primack, a osteopathic anesthesiologist. On behalf of the California Society of Anesthesiologists, representing more than 3,400 members, we strongly support. physician on behalf of my patients I'm not in support. Forrest Vickery on behalf of California Consumers opposition. Wahida Sharman opposition. Thank you one more call for any public would like to speak in opposition to support seeing none we are going to bring it back to Committee for questions or comments from members? Seeing, yes, Senator Caballero. I apologize for just getting hearing missing. Have a number of hearings this week that I'm getting briefed on and working on. But this had no opposition in the document listed. And so I do apologize if someone could very briefly tell me what the opposition is. Would you like to ask a question to opposition to briefly come up and in a matter of just a few seconds kind of give us a high level of what your opposition is Go ahead Either one of you. Again, we have existed in this community for over 20 years, sometimes more, in my case 40 years of working with physicians. And then after becoming a non-physician, I'll see you have over the last 15 years. I'm sorry, over the last 15 years. We have already gone through all of the deep, thorough investigations by the Medical Board of California, Osteopathic Medical Board, who found that we were in compliance with that set forth in business professions, I believe, 2053.5, in which we state who we are and who we are not. My history of working with the former president of the Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California, Gary F. Graham guided me to the title non-physician osteopath to first clarify who I am not and then who I am. As the title of a physician is an osteopathic physician surgeon, by stating I am a non-physician osteopath, the clarification begins in that conversation and opens the conversation to ask why and what's the difference. As there is a world community of shared osteopathic knowledge, this profession is very deep. The titles of OMT that are being attacked in this bill would be taken from us, cover a broad range of services that do not rely only on a physician or a diagnosis to perform and are incredibly safe. higher level training in what's called OMM, which is osteopathic manipulative medicine, would include the reduction of dislocations or the recentering of an axis of a joint through a high velocity, low amplitude manipulation, such as a chiropractic manipulation, which is a much more risky thing. And it's something that's already outside the scope of those of us who practice. We have been investigated and shown that we've never harmed anyone. There are no complaints on record ever. The thorough investigations reviewed websites, titles. Some trained in Europe very rarely have a title that is a DO title, and I believe that should be removed because it is a misrepresentation, and it is confusing. My title is a Diploma of Osteopathic Manual Practice. Quite simple and is very easy to explain as being different than a physician. It states all over my website, I am not a physician. I do not treat or diagnose disease. I am who I am, which is a non-physician osteopath. Other titles are masters of osteopathy or bachelors of osteopathy. And developing clear language is most important for consumer safety, but to remove us and criminalize us would harm and disenfranchise tens of thousands. There were 40 of us that I believe the bill states it would prosecute. I have 2,400 patients. My colleagues have no less than 1,000. This is at least 50,000 people who would lose their trusted relationships to us, which is care that we provide that no one else has been able to, that they took time to find. And without us, this would hurt California consumers. I appreciate that. I think you did a great job. I just surprised because this bill has gone through the Assembly and there no registered opposition which makes it difficult because by the time it gets to the Senate we finishing the bill Yes and we did submit before the deadline both electronically and we hand every statement letter to each member office and yet they were not considered in the analysis All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Assemblymember, could you address the issues that they've raised? I mean, I get to put you in an awkward position, but I've always been an advocate for health care services that people can afford and that are available. And in a rural agricultural district, it's very difficult to get health care services, period. So I'm looking for the kinds of differentiations between the different services offered so that the public understands and can determine what level of service they need. So they raise, I think, some really important issues of access and clarity. And I'm wondering, first of all, if you're willing to work with them. And number two, whether you've got a response to part of all of what they've said. Well, thank you very much, Senator, for the question. First off, we did not have – the opposition had not spoken to us until just this hearing, and we will reach out to them and have a conversation and be better aligned with their issues. but the fact of the matter remains that the purpose of the bill is to clearly delineate between doctors of osteopathic medicine and folks who do not have that title. And it's important for consumers to be protected from folks who are representing themselves inappropriately. And that's the purpose of the bill, is to clarify what a doctor of osteopathic medicine does and can do and is trained to do and others who are not trained to that degree. And it's important to recognize that without regulatory oversight, there is no way for patients to know that the person that's providing these services is licensed to do so. And so that is the purpose of the bill, is to create that ability. Licensed physicians will be able to accurately diagnose issues that unlicensed individuals may not. A California licensed physician who injures a patient during OMT faces board investigation and potential license actions and malpractice suits. An unlicensed individual faces none of these accountability mechanisms, and we need to protect consumers. Existing California alternative health care law does provide broad protection for practitioners, but only to individuals not providing services that require medical credentialing. No matter the type of support they seek, consumers should be able to trust the quality of their health care. This bill ensures that the provision of osteopathic medical care is clear and consistent across the state, just like other medical professions. See, I understand that, but I hear a conflict. It appears to me that the gentleman who testified has made it clear that he's not a doctor and that he does a different kind of service. And I just want to make sure that he's in error in terms of having his business shut down and accused of a crime if he continues to maintain his business. It seems to me there's a sweet spot, and I'm trying to figure out on the fly, which is impossible with some of these licensing schemes, how to be able to get there. I want to support your bill today because I think it's important. The distinctions are important. But I also want to make sure that a gentleman who has been practicing, that started a business and has been very clear about his, the type of business that he operates, where there, it appears as if there's been no complaints, that he can continue to operate and that there's a distinction between the two. I think this goes to Health Committee next. Propes. Oh, well, that's too bad. So I think that, I think you heard the concerns, Assemblymember, And opposition, again, we understand that you came in late on this bill. We're more than happy to kind of address some of the concerns. You know, the goal here is not to put people out of business. It's not to put people in harm's way or legal situations. But we also want to identify that there are differences between education level and the ability to service people. So I think that that is what really the bill is about. And if we have no other comments, I just want to hear, you know, the Assemblymember will be working to kind of just address that more finely in a probes. Yes, we will work with the opposition to find a way to address the issues that were raised today. Yeah. And I want to be clear, this is in many other different professions, whether it's, you know, we're talking about specific doctors and people using the doctor title versus people who actually can perform real, you know, work to help in health care. So I do just want to say that we've seen bills like this before. And so I think that that, you know, I'm sure our committee staff can also kind of address maybe verbiage, if you will. So with that, would you like to close? I just respectfully request a high vote. All right. We're going to need a motion, but we don't have quorum yet, so we're going to just hold that until appropriate. Thank you again. All right. So we know that you're going to present two bills, we believe. Can we have the Assemblymember go ahead of you just because she's been here since the very beginning? Thank you. So we're going to move on to file item number 11, AB 2250 by Assemblymember Aguiar Curry. Good morning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 2250 is a straightforward cleanup bill to help our hemp enforcement laws work as intended. Last year I ran AB 8 to better regulate hemp-derived products and address the rise of intoxicating products in the unregulated market. That law gave CDTFA additional enforcement tools, but a few technical fixes are needed to ensure the law is fully effective. The existing gaps in the language could create enforcement challenges or cause uncertainty for businesses trying to follow the law. AB 2250 makes targeted clarifications to close those gaps. It makes the law clear and enforceable so illegal products can be removed, and it ensures products are treated consistently under state law. and it protects the public health while giving businesses clear rules to follow. The bill does not change the underlying policy. It simply ensures the framework and the legislature passed last year can work as intended. With me today I have Amy O'Gorne Jenkins. Hi. It's early. On behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association. All right. Do you have any other witnesses? Yes. This is my star. Okay. Okay. So as your only witness, you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Amy O Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association very pleased to be here The majority leader I think articulated precisely what this bill does I think really the importance for us is this was landmark legislation last year that was passed AB8, which this committee strongly supported. This really closes a lot of existing loopholes that the legal cannabis industry was experiencing as we saw this massive proliferation of intoxicating hemp products. This bill, as the Majority Leader noted, makes some very technical changes to ensure effective implementation of AB8, and we strongly support this bill today and ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. All right. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Do we have Me Too's? Seeing none. Committee members? Seeing none. We're going to move on to Assemblymember, would you like to close? I would appreciate an aye vote. Thank you. We do not have quorum yet. We will have a motion when appropriate. So thank you. Thank you very much and enjoy the Starbucks. All right. Assemblymember Nguyen, file item number 4, AB 1758. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I am here to present AB 1758. This is a modest update to the annual assessment paid by the sellers of the travel that goes to California Travel Consumer Restitution Fund. This assessment has not been updated since 1997, and it makes a modest increase from $35 to $60. And here to testify in support of the bill, and my only person to testify, is Jerry Desmond from California Coalition of Travel Organization. The fund is an important consumer protection program that reimburses Californians when travel services are not provided due to fraud, insolvency, or business closure. Thank you. Two minutes. Chair and members, Jerry Desmond with the California Coalition of Travel Organizations in support of the bill. We were the sponsors of the Seller of Travel Law back in 1994 and support the TCRC, which is the nonprofit corporation overseen by the Attorney General's Office, and the outsourcing they do to manage the fund, which is a very unique California restitution fund, as the member said, for customers of California travel agents and tour operators. And for that, we ask for an aye vote in committee. Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition? Seeing none, me too's. Seeing none, committee members. Seeing none, assembly members, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you. So we're going to move on to file item number six, AB 1794 by Assemblymember Ransom, presented by Assemblymember Wynn. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm proud to represent Assemblymember Ransom at the moment on her bill, AB 1794, which clarifies existing pharmacy law to ensure that patients can receive internal formula directly to their home rather than making trips to the pharmacy. Internal formula is a nutritional formula designed for people who can't consume food normally. Some people take internal formula to supplement their diet, and others rely almost entirely on these formulas to receive the nutrients and vitamins they need. These products are essentially a prescription of foods rather than medication. As you may imagine, people who rely on these formulas are often medically fragile and making regular trips to and from their pharmacy to receive their food can present risk that people without these needs may not always understand This is essentially especially important to people living in remote rural areas where a trip to the pharmacy can mean hours on the road To ensure that patients can receive their formulas regardless of how far they live from their pharmacy, AB 1794 would 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, AB 1794 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. The framework is already in place, and this work is already being done. With AB 1794, we are making sure that people who are medically fragile don't need to worry about how they're going to reach their pharmacy without getting hurt. And with me to testify is Kathleen Gaujiani with the California Association of Medical Product Suppliers. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. And I'm proud to be here on behalf of the California Medical Product Suppliers, which represents the home medical equipment industry. And our members provide durable medical equipment and supplies as well as internal nutrition for subacute patients who no longer require acute hospital care, but are medically fragile and need ongoing specialized care. The drop shipment process that is outlined in this bill is currently allowed under Medicare, and it is currently allowed by other managed health care plans. The members who brought this to our attention are licensed closed-door pharmacies who do have licensed pharmacists under their employee. Under the recent changes, the drop shipment directly to patients' homes until that time had allowed for as a lifeline for these medically fragile patients and prevented them from struggling with logistical challenges in order to receive their nutritional supports. The amendments that we have taken seek to strengthen the requirement that a pharmacist provide oversight throughout the entire process. And this bill has had no no votes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none, do we have any Me Too's? Seeing none, committee members? What are you speaking for? Me Too. Okay. Ben O'Brien with California Life Sciences in support. Gilbert Lahr here with BioCom in support. All right. Do we have any committee members? Seeing none. Assembly member, would you like to close? 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 the fewest barriers to their well-being while making sure they have medical professionals keeping them safe. And with that, when the time is appropriate, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Do you have – I didn't have a question or a comment in regards to the bill. I just wanted to welcome former Senator Galgiani to the hearing room. It's good to see you. We're always happy to hear from you. All right. We're going to move on to file item number five, AB 1775 by Assemblymember Ward. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1775, which ensures that California steps up to support veterans who are harmed by discriminatory federal policy. On January 27th of 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14183, creating a policy even worse than Don't Ask, Don't Tell, by forcing transgender service members out of the military, not because of misconduct or any performance issues, but because of who they are. There is no credible evidence that transgender service members undermine readiness cohesion or effectiveness They have served honorably across every branch of the armed forces and have met the same standards as their peers The process for separation under this order has been described by service members as chaotic and destabilizing with inconsistent guidance, administrative backlogs, and in some cases as little as 24 hours' notice before pay and benefits are cut off. California is now absorbing the consequences of this federal action. Many impacted service members already live here or are returning home with significant concentrations in communities across the state, particularly in my home region of San Diego. And without state intervention, these veterans face real risks of unemployment, housing instability, and long-term economic hardship. AB 1775 ensures that California will step up when the federal government fails our service members. Speaking to the provisions that fall under this committee's jurisdiction, AB 1775 expands eligibility for expedited state professional licensing to include veterans discharged solely because of Executive Order 14183, helping them transition into civilian careers without unnecessary bureaucratic delay. AB 1775 is co-sponsored by Equality California, Minority Veterans of America, Outland National Security, Sparta Pride, and Transgender Military Hub, organizations that work directly with LGBTQ plus service members and veterans. While California cannot control federal executive actions, we can ensure that those who serve our country are not pushed into unemployment, housing instability, or long-term economic hardship because of discriminatory federal policy. At its core, this bill is about dignity, fairness, and stability, and when service members raise their right hand to defend our country, California must ensure that we do not abandon them when federal policy turns its back on them. With me to speak in support of AB 1775 on behalf of one of our bill sponsors is Kat Colmuse was Sparta Pride. Do you have any other lead witnesses? Okay. Two minutes. Good morning, Chair and Senators. I am Catherine Colmuse. I am a captain in the Army assigned to the inactive ready reserves here in California. I served eight years active duty in units such as the 75th Ranger Regiment and the Joint Special Operations Command. I deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Freedom Sentinel. I received an honorable discharge into the Army Reserves and was awarded the Joint Meritorious Service Medal. The military chain of command does not know that I am transgender. Anyone could use my testimony today to report me to the Army Reserves here, and they would be required to take action to involuntarily discharge me from the U.S. military. Current Department of Defense policy provides no opportunity for me to challenge this discharge based on my service record, and I would receive a separation code indicating I am a risk to national security. This would directly harm my ability to hold a security clearance. Loss of my security clearance jeopardizes my current employment. The current ban on transgender service members serves only to inflict cruelty on those who volunteer to serve their country. It harms our military readiness by removing experienced leaders, depriving units of institutional knowledge, and artificially shrinking the pool of potential recruits. Those who are separated are forced to abruptly lose their job and fight to reestablish themselves. Anyone who seeks to hide being transgender risks losing their chance for an honorable discharge. While my experience is personal, it reflects the voices of hundreds of New California transgender veterans who are deeply grateful for your support. Your leadership affirms that in times of crisis, our institutions stand for all who have served, not selectively, but with integrity and consistency for all veterans. As a board member of Sparta Pride and a Californian, I am proud to support Assembly Bill 1775, which provides critical employment and housing resources for discharged service members. Thank you. Thank you. Again, thank you for your service and your courage for speaking. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none. Any? Opposition witnesses saying none. Could we get Me Too's saying none? Oh, sorry. You guys got to, you know. Magali Zagal on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Sumayana Har on behalf of the California Commission on Status of Women and Girls in support. Seeing any others? All right, we're going to move on to committee members. Senator Menjivore. Hi, Assemblymember. Can you clarify, were these individuals originally provided priority and they were kicked off? Or is this a brand-new list of demographics to provide priority to go through DCA's system? Thank you for the question. So this would be a brand-new group of individuals who, because solely in response to that executive order, they are now finding themselves facing that discharge. And so the ability to be able to come into existing priority programs right now that are already actually reflected also in the BP code, that would make sure that then because they are particularly targeted in this time, that they are afforded that same level of priority. And this committee for the past couple of years have seen a lot of these kind of bills and the analysis it noted that if we continue to prioritize everyone, no one is prioritized. Can you respond to that? Well, in a sense, we recognize that, you know, unfortunately there continue to be individuals that are of a subset of those who are discharged that are getting unfair treatment. And so we argue that these individuals right now who have served, who are able to and would otherwise continue to be of service and furthering their professions and service to our country, are now being specifically targeted because of who they are in some discriminatory fashion and equally as deserving of that level of additional support the state can provide. So you still believe that there's still room to still prioritize, even though a lot of people are already prioritized? That's correct. In fact, we have a companion ask in the budget, which I'm grateful we'll discuss soon as a part of the two-party agreement right now that will have a little bit of a carve-out to be able to ensure that systems on housing and employment retraining would be afforded. Great. Thank you. And, Captain, ma'am, thank you so much for your bravery to come and speak today. I really appreciate it. Senator Caballero. I want to thank you for doing this, Bill. I agree with you. I think there's a capacity within the system. and I want to thank you for being here. Your testimony was really powerful and thank you for your service to the country. Thank you, Senator. Okay, so number one, I just want to say, you know, I find it interesting when people say that we can't do more for more people. It just doesn't even make sense. But again, I think that we were all deeply moved by your testimony. So again, really appreciate it. And I know that you risk a lot sharing your story. With that, would you like to close? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senators. I think this is deeply important for those who are being harmfully mistreated, who have done nothing of fault or otherwise completely able to be able to continue service to our country, have given themselves voluntarily for this noble profession, but are really being excluded and discriminated against. You know, we estimate that about 4,200 service members across the country, but of those 2,900 are either living here in California or would otherwise call California home would be returning to California So we definitely have an outsized role to be able to make sure that they land on their feet solidly Notwithstanding the fact that the federal executive order might still otherwise unfairly discriminate against them So with that I would respectfully request your aye vote Perfect Thank you Again I don believe we have quorum yet so we going to hold on to that and make the motion when appropriate. So thank you again. We're going to move on to file item number 8, AB 1939, by Assemblymember Flora. Good morning, senators. I think it's morning still, right? Right on. Well, thank you very much. I'm here to present AB1939 to ensure that everyone providing professional fiduciary services, otherwise as an individual or through a corporation, is property licensed, accountable, and subject to meaningful oversight. It authorizes professional fiduciaries to form corporations, much like law firms, but only if every fiduciary in the corporation is licensed. This allows firms to operate efficiently without compromising customer protections. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Love it. Your lead witness? There he is. All right. Chair and members, Jerry Desmond with the Professional Fiduciary Association of California. We support the bill that closes a loophole and ensures that corporations will be registered with the state, and with recent amendments, there will be sufficient time for the Bureau to ramp up the regulatory provisions and the fees. Ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none. If we have me-toos, please, you know, get ready. Do we have lead opposition? Seeing none. Me-toos. Should be a couple hundred outside. Thank you. For this bill. We'll take them as one. Committee members, would you guys like to comment? None. Assembly member, would you like to close? Just one of the times where I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. We're going to move on to Assembly member Chen. And just for the record, I want to highlight again, file item 14, AB 2435 by Assemblymember Chen was pulled. So we're going to move on to file item number 15 by Assemblymember Chen, AB 2477. Whenever you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate your time today for allowing me to present AB 2477, the Small Pest Control Business Relief Act. I also want to give special thanks to Alyssa for her analysis and collaboration with my office. She was absolutely fantastic, Madam Chair. I want to start by saying that we have an enclosed discussion with the members of B&P, as well as the environmental committees for committee staff, and have committed to accepting all amendments in the next policy committee to address any remaining concerns regarding supervision as well as oversight. Our bill will create a limited one-time provisional period of up to 60 days where new employees can perform pest control applications under the supervision of a licensed applicant. To participate in this provisional period, licensee applicants must have already the following. Submitted a licensed application to Structural Pest Control Board, completed 80 hours of in-person training, and submitted fingerprints and done their background check with the board. This provisional period will allow small pest control businesses to continue operations while these new employees complete the state licensing process. This program helps small businesses stay operational and provides a bridge to licensure. Today we have the following witness testimony. We have Dr. Blair Smith, Director of Technical and Quality Assurance at the Clark Pest Control. Max Perry is also here to help answer any technical questions. Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee, for this opportunity to testify. My name is Blair Smith with Clark Pest Control, and I'm here on behalf of the California Pest Management Association in strong support of AB 2477 Now again as mentioned this bill solves a very simple yet costly problem that a trained employee should not be prevented from working simply because the licensing process is taking a while to catch up. So our industry here in California is made up of primarily small businesses, often with five employees or fewer. So for a company that size, when we think about hiring somebody, it's a major investment between, you know, the vehicle and equipment, recruiting and onboarding, and also wages and, you know, training time for that individual. And even after making that investment, the company can still hit this wall. Again, current law allows for someone to work in a training capacity for about 90 days, and that licensed supervisor must be physically present. But unfortunately, when that period ends, you know, there's no way for that individual to work. And sometimes they're waiting on forces outside of their control, such as an examination date or, you know, additional barriers in the licensing process. And again, small employers have real consequences with this. This means delaying hiring new individuals, turning away customers, and asking existing employees to pick up the slack and carry more route. So again, AB 2477 creates a narrow and also important to note, it's a one-time bridge to cross that gap. That individual who's completed 80 hours of training, they've also submitted the application and completed the background check to perform branch two or three work for up to 60 days under the supervision of a licensed professional. So again, this bill does not allow anyone to bypass training or work without supervision. It does not eliminate the examination, background check, or licensing requirements. Supervision is revised but stays in place. Thank you. Next speaker, two minutes again. We time. Thank you, Chair and members. Max Perry on behalf of CAPMA as well. Just small to add to the statements before, just reiterating that 2477 does not do away with licensing requirements, it doesn't waive examinations, it doesn't waive background checks, and it does not allow unsupervised pesticide applications. It simply creates a narrow, highly conditioned pathway for individuals who have already begun the licensing process and completed substantial training. Importantly, as stated, supervision remains in place at all times. A licensed operator or a field rep must be available and able to monitor the work and intervene potentially if necessary. So I'm happy to answer any questions that might come. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Do we have Me Too's? Seeing none, members, Senator Capoeiro, and then Senator Menjibar. And maybe this is questions for the chair. I appreciate what you're doing here. There were some policy issues for consideration as part of the report. Really well done, by the way. I really appreciate the kind of forward-looking, what are the things we need to fix that make sense. And there's some policy considerations that have been proposed moving forward. And I'm wondering why we didn't insist that these be included as amendments from the committee. I guess that's for the chair, not for the author of the bill. So this bill is double referred It going to move on to environmental quality Okay So maybe maybe this is the appropriate question for the author Then um there are some I think some really practical suggestions in the analysis um that make the bill much stronger. And I'm wondering if you'll consider as it moves on, I, um, I don't sit in EQ, but it makes sense. The bill will be stronger. And I think this is the kind of thing that we will need for the floor. if it gets that far. So would you commit to take a look at the analysis and add what I think are real practical additions? Senator, I couldn't agree with you more. The chair as well as the chair's committee staff have been excellent in terms of analysis. And you have my commitment that going to EQ that will be fully taking those amendments into the bill. That sounds great. Thank you so much for that. I appreciate it. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sir. Member, very similar. And I kind of missed the beginning. You added this in your opening statement. I was wondering if you can reread that to me because you said there's some other things. Sure. I'll be happy to do that. So as we stated before, we've been in close discussion with this committee and EQ committee staff. And I've committed to accepting all the amendments that are recommended here in this committee and the next policy committee to address any concerns regarding the supervision and oversight in regards to this bill. I appreciate that, Assemblymember. Thank you so much. I was coming in to lay off of this bill, but with that commitment, I'm also on EQ. I'll be supporting it. Shouldn't the changes not happen in EQ be a different story, but I thank you for that commitment. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you. Thank you. Would you like to close? I respect glass for I vote, Madam Chair. Thank you. We do not have quorum yet, so we will make that motion when appropriate. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. We are going to move on to file item number 9, AB 1999, by Assemblymember Kalra. Senator Grayson will be presenting. I would like to ask the sergeants to ask for other authors to show themselves. All right. Senator, whenever you'd like to begin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank you and the staff for working with Assemblymember cholera's team to develop amendment language for the bill. I will be accepting this amendment on behalf of Assemblymember cholera and any other amendments. No, I'm just kidding. Despite putting significant resources toward developing and maintaining its veterinary workforce, California is still facing an acute veterinary care 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 this shortage are compounded by 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 we know as VCPR every time a pet owner seeks treatment for their animal. This means that veterinarians are required to examine a pet prior to providing any prescription or recommended course of action, even if they already know the animal and its medical history well enough to provide effective guidance for minor issues over the phone. Separately, California's overly broad owner exemption currently endangers animals by allowing their owners, who are typically not trained in veterinary medicine, to perform surgery. on them. AB 1999 addresses these issues by creating a retired volunteer status for retired veterinarians and RVTs who wish to provide unpaid voluntary labor to animal shelters and humane societies, creating a streamlined pathway for out-of-state veterinarians to become licensed shelter veterinarians, reforming VCPR statute to allow veterinarians to provide care without re-establishing an existing VCPR, clarifying other aspects of veterinary and telemedicine statute, and narrowing the owner exemption to exclude surgical procedures. Assemblymember cholera also recently took amendments to ensure that the changes this bill makes to the owner exemption do not prevent universities, colleges, governmental research agencies and AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums from providing veterinary care to their animals. By implementing a broad suite of solutions that directly address several of these issues currently impacting the veterinarian profession, AB 1999 will help eliminate many of the barriers that prevent countless animals from receiving the care they need and that they deserve. So with me through the chair, I believe we have some witnesses. Matt McKinney, Deputy Executive Officer of the Veterinary and Medical Board, and Juliana Tetlow, Senior Director of Government Relations, San Diego Humane Society, through the chair. Thank you. You will each have two minutes. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Matt McKinney, Deputy Executive Officer for the California Veterinary and Medical Board. The board regulates the largest population of veterinarians and registered veterinary technicians in the nation. The board's mission is to protect consumers and animals by regulating licensees, promoting professional standards and diligently enforcing the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. The Board is a proud co-sponsor of AB99 and urges your support today. Most importantly, AB99 appropriately excludes surgical and dental operations from the bona fide owner exemption. Some of the most egregious cases of harm the Board has seen have been at the hands of unlicensed individuals who either own the animals or are employees of the owners and are therefore exempt from our Practice Act. Cases involving C-sections on kitchen tables, amputations in garages, and eye surgeries in bedrooms resulting in significant harm and death have been closed as non-jurisdictional, simply because the unlicensed individual legally claimed the owner exemption. While these cases have historically been referred to district attorneys for criminal animal cruelty charges, most were not pursued. The owner exemption was never intended to allow unlicensed individuals perform dangerous surgical operations in their animals, especially their own dogs and cats, simply because they own them. Instead, it was intended to apply to the animal agriculture industry in which surgical procedures such as castration, dehorning, and others are routinely performed by agriculture producers without veterinarian involvement. This bill protects animals from preventable harm associated with invasive procedures by ensuring surgical and dental operations are performed by trained, regulated professionals. At the same time, it preserves the intended purpose of the owner exemption by continuing the existing exemptions for those procedures routinely performed by livestock owners and their employees. In addition, this bill helps address the veterinarian shortage felt in animal shelters throughout California by creating a faster way for out-of-state veterinarians to practice in California animal shelters and creating a way for retired veterinarians and RVTs to volunteer at animal shelters. In addition, consumers will have greater access to care without having to reestablish the VCPR for every medical condition. We'd like to thank the Operator's Office for their tireless work on this bill and Ms. Alessa Silva for her thoughtful review. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Juliana Tetlow. I'm here on behalf of San Diego Humane Society, a proud co-sponsor of AB1999. While this bill tackles a number of issues in the veterinary space, I will keep my comments brief. and in relation to the direct benefits that shelters receive or will receive throughout the state AB 1999 is a comprehensive and carefully balanced update to California veterinary practice laws It creates new pathways for experienced veterinarians and retired professionals to support care in shelter settings, updates rules around telemedicine and the veterinary client-patient relationship, and makes other targeted changes to better reflect how veterinary medicine is practiced today. For shelters, these updates are especially important. Animal shelters are legally and ethically responsible for any animals who are stray, injured, ill, neglected, or victims of cruelty. Yet many shelters face significant challenges in recruiting enough veterinarians to meet that need, if at all. AB 1999 responds with a practical targeted solution by creating a shelter veterinarian license. This license would allow a qualified veterinarian already licensed in another U.S. state, territory, or Canadian province to practice only in the shelter settings after meeting California-specific safeguards. This is not a broad shortcut around licensure. It is a carefully limited pathway to bring experienced veterinarians into one of the highest-needs area of practice, animal shelters. The bill also makes important updates to the VCPR. These changes recognize how veterinary medicine is actually practiced in shelter and clinical settings where multiple veterinarians may appropriately participate in an animal's care and where continuity of care can be disrupted without appropriate allowances. AB 1999 protects animal welfare, supports the veterinary workforce, and modernizes California law without compromising oversight or patient safety. We thank the author, Assemblymember McCullough, and his staff, Alyssa, for her wonderful analysis and the work on the amendments. And, of course, Senator Grayson for presenting. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Do we have lead opposition? Hopefully not. Me too. Good morning, Chair. Members of the committee. Susan Madinat here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in support. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Christina DeCaro here for the California Veterinary Medical Association in strong support. Thank you, Senator. Chair and members, Nicholas Sackett on behalf of proud co-sponsor Social Compassion in legislation. Thank you. Good morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association in support. Thank you. Members of the committee? Well, I want to thank you for bringing this forward as well as the author. I was actually genuinely shocked that this is actually happening. So, again, really appreciate it. With that, would you like to close? The appropriate time. Thank you. We're going to move on to our next bill. Assemblymember Soria, file item number 10, AB 2010. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. AB 2010, the Spay and Neuter Improvement for Pets Act, also known as the SNP Act, permits high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter services to be performed in locations without a separate surgical suite while still maintaining California's high health and safety standards for veterinary surgery. California is in the midst of a multi-decade pet overpopulation crisis, which has only worsened since the pandemic. While there are many contributing factors for this crisis, the simple fact is that California's veterinary shortage has meant that the number of animals spayed and neutered every year has not kept up with the number of pets that need these services. This has led to severely overcrowded shelters large numbers of stray and abandoned animals and hundreds of thousands of healthy animals euthanized every single year The crisis is even more dire in rural regions like the Central Valley, where the nearest access to spay and neuter services may be an hour away and unaffordable to many disadvantaged communities. I've heard it directly from many of my constituents that they need more help and support to address this crisis. Fortunately, high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter offers a pathway to address this growing crisis. I actually recently toured the City of Fresno's Animal Center and saw Animal Balance in action, delivering this high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter service. It was really impressive. Importantly, this is not a new or untested model. High-quality, high-volume spay and neuter clinics have been successfully operating for decades across dozens of states, and mobile sterilization units are already bringing affordable services directly to underserved communities throughout the country. States across the country have successfully implemented these types of programs, including mobile clinics, while maintaining strong veterinary oversight and patient safety protocols. AB 2010 simply allows California to modernize its regulations so these proven models can reach more communities in need. While a veterinarian using traditional spay and neuter techniques can help fewer than 10 animals a day, the high-quality, high-volume protectioners can safely help many times that number through efficient workflows and specialized techniques. However, the regulatory barriers continue not only to prevent these types of procedures from being used to its maximum potential, but it prevents the use of the mobile animal sterilization hospitals, or known as MASH clinics, which can bring the traveling high-quality, high-volume units to operating in underserved areas and rural regions. The SNP Act addresses this issue by creating a targeted exemption for high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter from existing requirements for aseptic surgeries to be carried out in a dedicated surgical room free of shelving and with equipment for viewing radiographs. These changes will permit the SMASH clinics to perform affordable pop-up, high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter events in communities with the greatest need while still maintaining the high standards of health and patient safety. Because in places like Fresno, Madera, and the high desert, and across the Central Valley, Families often are having to drive 30 minutes to an hour to just find a veterinarian. That's not access. That's a barrier. My office has had productive conversations with the Veterinarian Medical Board to have agreed to the bill's central goal that high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter should not need a separate surgical room. I'm committed to continuing to work with them on language to refine AB 2010 to provide the best possible implementation of our shared goal. AB 2010 is practical, humane, and proven solution that expands access, reduces shelter overcrowding, and helps community address pet overpopulation before it becomes a crisis. Here with me to testify in support of AB 2010 are Emma Clifford, Executive Director and Founder of Animal Balance, and Brittany Benessi with ASPCA. Good morning, Chair Wahab and members of the committee. Brittany Benessi on behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. AB 2010 represents a thoughtful targeted reform to modernize existing statute to better reflect current veterinary practices and allow qualified providers to expand services to the communities that need them the most This bill will improve access to essential spay-neuter services while preserving all existing health and safety standards under the Veterinary Practice Act. Our state, as this committee is well aware of, is facing a worsening pet overpopulation crisis fueled by a severe veterinary workforce shortage and limited access to affordable care. Shelters across California are experiencing sustained overcrowding made worse by inadequate access to affordable and timely spay and neuter services. This crisis is not only putting healthy animals at risk of euthanasia, but also increasing pressure on shelter staff, communities, and public resources, including costs associated with sheltering, medical care, and animal control services. By expanding access to affordable spay and neuter, this bill addresses the issue at its source, reducing the number of unwanted litters and decreasing intake into our already strained shelter systems. In the co-sponsors' collective experience, we have served hundreds of thousands of animals across California with direct support and subsidized low-cost veterinary services. We know that true MASH HQHVSN services, which you will hear from from our co-sponsor, are safe, effective, and an important tool that is currently missing from California's animal welfare toolkit. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Next speaker. Good morning, Chair and members. I am Emma Clifford, the president of Animal Balance, an organization who has brought MASH and MASH-style clinics to communities internationally for two decades and in the United States since 2020. MASH, or Mobile Animal Sterilization Hospital, is a replicable, scalable strategy for reducing the overpopulation of cats and dogs. MASH events are accessible for all communities. The effectiveness of MASH has been proven on the Galapagos Islands and other U.S. states. With the passing of AB 2010, this effective international strategy will come to California, saving hundreds of lives and dollars. MASH stops the breeding of cats and dogs through temporary, targeted, high-quality, high-volume spay-neuter clinics. The high-volume veterinary teams deploy to the community in need with all of the veterinary equipment and set up the clinic inside one large room, such as a community center. Local partners provide the volunteers to perform all the non-medical tasks. We all come together to provide these services. Under current law, MASH events must fit inside existing clinical facilities that have a surgical suite which is surrounded by walls and a door. These facilities were not built for high volume spay and neuter clinics and the requirements never contemplated this kind of innovation for spay and neuter. True MASH clinics are set up in a circular fashion inside one room spaying and neutering approximately 80 animals a day. Using one room, the surgeons can see and hear first stage recovery, which is where the animals are waking up from anesthesia, the most critical point of the process. Over 200 surgeries can be safely performed over three days in any location. MASH clinics can greatly impact the number of unwanted animals who end up in shelters. Spay-neuter reduces indiscriminate and accidental breeding and thus reduces overpopulation. Reducing overpopulation reduces shelter euthanasia. reducing shelter euthanasia saves funds at every level of the California government and aligns with the state policy that no adoptable or treatable animal should ever be recognized. Let's pass AP 2010. Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Good morning, Chair and members. Matt McKinney, Deputy Executive Officer for the California Veterinary Medical Board. Our Board's position remains opposed unless amended on this bill. Our proposed amendments are to address implementation and clarity concerns. Without the amendments, there will be confusion with our regulated profession and Board staff. Our Board's Executive Officer met with the author's office and sponsors regarding our request last month, but the concerns have yet to be addressed. As such, our opposed unless amended position remains, and we respectfully ask for no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Julie Verga with Fix Our Shelters, representing a coalition of animal advocates and rescues across California. We urge you to oppose AB 2010 unless it is amended to include the recommendations of the California Veterinary Medical Board. We believe to solve this overpopulation crisis, we must first understand how we got here. For more than a decade, sponsors San Francisco SPCA, ASPCA, and San Diego Humane, along with Cal Animals, UC Davis CORT, and their affiliates have promoted reduced intake policies in municipal shelters as a way to reduce shelter euthanasia. We believe in practice these policies they called innovative and preferred over spay-neuter to reduce shelter euthanasia resulted in the countless unsterilized ghost animals turned away at shelter doors or diverted back into communities. We believe these failed policies directly contributed to the animal welfare crisis we see today inside and outside shelter walls. It is the main reason advocates started Fix Our Shelters. We believe these policies have backfired spectacularly and have caused increased shelter euthanasia, giving California this dishonor of being top in the country for euthanizing healthy, adoptable shelter animals. Uncounted ghost animals continue multiplying in our communities, suffering, starving, dying, and increasing public safety and health risks, including dog bites, recent mullings in Stockton and across our country, and rabies exposure. The real question is, should failed policies now be used to justify lowering medical standards to protect animals? Should the concerns of the Veterinary Medical Board be circumvented by this legislation? Spay-neuter surgery is invasive abdominal surgery requiring strict standards for sterility, aseptic techniques. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Do we have any me-tos, both in support and opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. No other dialogue will be accepted. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, as well as the Humane World for Animals, both in support. Chair and members, Nostin Madinat on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, Thank you. Susan Falcon, I'm in opposition of AB 210. I am with Top Cat Rescue. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Bob Gutierrez with San Francisco SPCA in support. Good morning, Juliana Tetlow, San Diego Humane Society, proud co-sponsor in strong support. Good morning, Josh Gawger on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in support. Good morning. Christina DeCaro representing the California Veterinary Medical Association in support. Thank you Seeing no other Me Too committee members Senator Caballero So first let me start off by thanking you for bringing this bill forward There's just no question we need a much more efficient spay and neuter system. That having been said, the veterinary board raises some really important issues in regards to clarity. Ultimately, they're going to get the ear of the governor, is my point. And one way or another, whatever we pass out of here should operate consistently with their regulations as well. Are you willing to have a conversation? I think they're technical issues is all that remains. I think this is a really important service for the community. So I want to see. But that having been said, our animals are probably the most important people in our lives. Honestly, I mean that the way I said it. And we need to make sure it's safe, sterile, and that the animals are traumatized as little as possible, given that it's a traumatizing experience. No, absolutely. We have been in conversations with them. We will continue. We want to make sure that we do get it right and make sure that we do. For the reasons that you've stated, I understand that if we don't address some of the maybe clarification issues, that, you know, they will be talking to the governor, but we stand committed to doing that, and we will work towards a resolution. That's great. Thank you so much. I'll be supporting the bill today. Thank you. Assemblymember, I just want to say, you know, we understand that providing this important spay and neuter services on a broad scale is important, but I obviously think that there is a little bit more work to do. I will echo Senator Capayero. I absolutely love puppies. and some of the things that we've heard just even today in today's meeting is a little shocking. But obviously we want to also streamline things as your bill is trying to do. So I'll be supporting it, but I do think that we just want to make sure that we don't create another problem potentially. So this is going to move to appropriations. So with that, would you like to close? I want to thank you both for your comments, And I will just, again, state my commitment to continue to work with opposition to address their concerns. But I do believe that this bill really will help address, you know, the issue that many of our communities are facing. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. So we're going to hold off on motions just yet and make it at an appropriate time. With that, we're going to move on to file item number 12, AB 2311 by Assemblymember Shivo. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, happy to present AB 2311, today the Public Hospital Physician Stability Act. California's public health care district hospitals are a critical lifeline, serving our most diverse and underserved communities. Taxpayers invest in these local hospitals, which are locally governed, publicly accountable, and often serve a higher share of Medi-Cal patients than a state average. However, they face growing financial pressures, especially with recent federal actions such as H.R. 1, that are significantly cutting Medi-Cal funding. At the same time, these hospitals are uniquely disadvantaged. They are the only public hospitals in California that cannot directly employ physicians restrictions This restriction makes it harder for district hospitals to recruit and retain doctors especially as physicians increasingly prefer stable employment with predictable salaries and benefits instead of having to also operate their own business on the side. Without the ability to directly hire physicians, many of these hospitals face worsening staff shortages and uncertainty in maintaining services. AB 2311 simply allows public health care district hospitals to directly employ physicians, like other public hospitals, FQHCs, and academic medical centers already can. This added flexibility will help hospitals compete in the health care labor market, stabilize their workforce, and ensure patients continue to receive timely care. In discussions with my office, the California Medical Association emphasized that California law must continue to preserve physician independence, which is also critically important to me. And we want to make sure that only those district hospitals within an appropriate range of Medi-Cal payers are eligible for inclusion. We're continuing to work on language around that for health committee. And we, you know, CMA and myself share the goal of both effectively protecting doctors' clinical judgment, as well as providing flexibility that allows hospitals to keep providing high-quality care in the communities that need it. I appreciate CMA's willingness to work with my office and address many of the concerns thus far. We're very close to agreement, and I look forward to continuing discussions to reach that final agreement and amends in the next committee. The following amendments have already been accepted to reflect concerns of CMA and are reflected in the current bill, including establishing a sunset date and reporting requirement for the corporate practice of medicine exemption, strengthening safeguards to protect physician autonomy, and ensuring that physicians currently practicing in hospitals are not displaced. Here to testify in support is Sarah Bridge with the Association of California Health Care Districts, the sponsor of the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, here is proud sponsors of AB 2311. I want to start by thanking the author, the committee, and the opposition for their continued work on the bill. As you'll see, the bill today has been significantly amended to reflect the good faith negotiations that continue with the opposition. As the author mentioned, we've agreed to several amendments to ensure that physician autonomy and other critical items for negotiation were protected. One is to ensure that the hospital staff has the say in whether or not a hospital can directly employ a physician in line with existing law. To clarify and strengthen the language to ensure that these hospitals cannot interfere with clinical judgment and to ensure that the existing relationships are not supplanted and that contractual relationships may continue. The bill also includes, as mentioned by the author, a pilot. So the legislature has the ability to reevaluate this tool and additional reporting requirements on hospitals that choose to utilize it. I want to put a fine point on the following. District hospitals are public hospitals owned by their communities who do not profit off of the care they provide. Every dollar the district receives goes to making care more affordable and accessible for the communities. AB 2311 is already narrowly tailored in scope and purpose. It applies to only 16 hospitals. Currently, 17 county health systems, 12 UC hospitals, 37 critical access hospitals, 171 federally qualified health centers operating 1 clinical sites all directly employ a physician with minimal oversight We agree with the opposition that Dr Otomi is critical and existing law is structured such that the profession is self and self and AB 2311 now reflects that. We look forward to the ongoing discussions and are hopeful that we can reach an agreement in the next committee to address the opposition's continued concerns. To put it simply, AB 2311 is about access to care. It brings a commonly used tool by every other public hospital to those remaining 16 without, and that will continue to struggle. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Appreciate it. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none, opposition witnesses? Again, two minutes. Me Too's, please line up as well. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Angela Heer, and I'm here on behalf of the California Medical Association. In respectful opposition to AB 2311, unless it's amended. I do want to begin by thanking the author, the staff, and the sponsors for their work thus far and for accepting many of our requested amendments. As mentioned, we do continue to request amendments that further narrow the bill to limit the erosion of the long-standing protections that are embedded within the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. Given our productive conversations, we're confident that we can reach an agreement in the next committee, and we do thank Assemblymember Schiavo for her leadership and collaboration on physician recruitment and retention issues. Thank you. Thank you. Other lead opposition? All right, we're going to move on to Me Too's. Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. Morning, Madam Chair. I'm here and speaking on behalf of several hospitals. I'd like to read a list. Northern Inyo Hospital, Washington Hospital District, Plumas District Hospital, Healthy Petaluma District and Foundation, Del Puerto Healthcare District, Salinas Valley Hospital District, Antelope Valley Healthcare District, Soledad Healthcare District, Palomar Healthcare District, El Camino Healthcare District, Desert Healthcare District, Fallbrook Regional Healthcare District, Kauia Delta and Lompoc District Hospital all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Madam Chair and members. Connie Delgado on behalf of the District Hospital Leadership Forum in support. Madam Chair and members, Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians in opposition. Ryan Spencer, I'm at the California Orthopedic Association, the the California Society of Pathologists, and the California Radiological Society in opposition as well. Thank you. All right. Committee members, Senator Menjivar. Senator Menjivar, I have a couple of questions on this bill. I know we were chatting before. But first, your sponsor shared a list of hospitals and AFQHCs that do this now. Do you have a list of hospitals that would qualify with your bill? Yeah, if our sponsor can come up, I think. Sheriff through. Yeah. Probably has enough. Sure. Would you like me to list them? As many as you can. Not all of them, but like. Yeah. So there are 16 hospitals that are currently non-affiliated. It is El Camino, Washington, Marin, Cahuilla Delta. Sorry. Apologies. Antelope Valley. Sorry. Antelope Valley. Palomar has two hospitals. El Camino has two hospitals. So those would both qualify under that. Okay. Salinas Valley Lompoc Inyo, okay, okay, no Yeah, thank you No, that's all right. And I know you took some amendments on the autonomy piece, but I'm still a little concerned. One of the amendments was the doctor gets to choose whether their contractor employed. A doctor would choose to be employed. That by itself removes the autonomy. Even, yes, they have the choice to pick if their contractor employed. They pick employed. It could be a better deal, a better package, employment package. By them choosing that by default, that removes the autonomy. I think you added some guardrails as well in the amendments. If you can share a little bit about those. Once they choose to be employed, what guardrails exist for the hospital to not dictate how they provide services to their patients? Yeah, I mean, just so I can understand the question, too, can you clarify why choosing to be employed by the hospital by default means that you lose your autonomy? I think that's the premise a lot of the opposition is. If once you're employed by a hospital, you are no longer a contract, your own person, I'm doing this regardless of what the overhead says. once you're employed, the hospital now is your boss who can dictate to a certain extent what you provide in terms of care services because they're worried about their bottom line. I'm not saying that they're not worried about patients or anything like that, but, like, at the end of the day, they are a business. So that's why I think by default, choosing to be employed, you lose some autonomy there. Well, I mean, I guess I would say, you know, as was mentioned by my sponsor, there's over a thousand clinics and hospitals that already are using this practice. And I would not say that those doctors don't have any autonomy. Right. And, you know, as someone who worked with nurses for 13 years before coming here, making sure that nurses and health care workers and physicians can advocate for their patients and give the medically necessary care to their patients is critically important to me. So I understand this concern, and that's why we took a number of amendments to make sure that we were addressing it. And so, you know, one of the things is that these facilities often have their own, like, elected leadership and decision-making bodies that exist within these hospitals made up of physicians. So those would still remain, and they would still have their own autonomy. There's language in the bill that protects that it would not interfere with decision-making when it comes to patient care for physicians. Can you expand on that? What are the actual guard rows? What is in place that a hospital can interfere with their patient decision making? Let me see if I can pull up the language in the bill. And also if my sponsor wants to come up and help respond to this as well. Sure. So thank you, Senator. So the explicit language does prohibit a hospital from influencing the clinician's judgment. So practices that that would exclude would be things like requiring a clinician to make certain judgment calls based on pricing or requirements of requiring a physician to see a certain number of patients within a given amount of hours, right? Those practices aren't explicitly prohibited in the bill, but they are by way of saying that the hospital, so the management, can't influence the clinician's judgment. I say that is in line with all of the existing laws So for every physician that practices in a setting where they are a direct employee to date and have for decades that the guardrail that has existed So we've aligned what's in 2311 with existing law to hopefully get at those same protections. I will just say also, you know, there are physicians that enjoy an employment model in a foundation setting. And that adds some autonomy, but frankly, in closed systems, you are getting some direction or oversight from that hospital system. And so to say that it will happen in this setting and it's not happening in others, I think sort of misses the broader picture. Well, I think, and I share this with an assembly member, if any of the previous exemptions were in front of me, I don't think I would have voted on those either. So I think for me, it's a principle of all across. I think physicians should have autonomy. So I would say, I think for my point, it's for all of them. But I appreciate the clarification on that. On the other question is, you mentioned some of the amendments that you're looking to consider into health that will narrow the eligibility of which hospitals would, that would narrow the amount of hospitals that would be eligible. Did I understand that correctly? It was around the level of Medi-Cal reimbursement. Does that mean that of the list that you shared, would that decrease the amount of hospitals? Likely. Likely it would. Yes. We're still looking at the numbers and how many hospitals are in that. Okay. And then I know you took these amendments in the first house, but the medical board just came out with their opposition letter recently that was post those amendments that still believe that physicians are losing their autonomy. me. Have you had conversations with the medical board on? I don't think so. No, we have not. I had not heard that. And I just, I think to discuss that point a little bit more, and the language in the bill says that a healthcare district or nonprofit corporation and any hospital under its ownership or control shall not interfere with control or otherwise direct the professional judgment of a physician and surgeon. So that's the language in the bill. I mean, I guess, you know, having worked on health care issues for 13 years before getting here with nurses who were directly employed by hospitals, you know, but working in institutions where they have independent medical groups, physician medical groups, right, that are supposedly independent. But I will tell you, I mean, I use one of these facilities for my medical care, and they are on a clock. They are, you know, controlled how long they can be with patients. And so I think this whole idea of there's so much more autonomy for physicians, you know, when they have an independent medical group versus being employed, I have not seen that play out in practice. And I think that, you know, at the end of the day, making sure that physicians, that you can't interfere with medical decisions, which is language we put in the bill, provides added protection for them. But I think there's a basic assumption here that there's all this autonomy that exists that does not really exist. The bottom line is a real motivator and influences what happens and what policies and procedures are happening in hospitals And I think that is a much bigger issue facing us in terms of how we impacting physicians work than whether or not they're employed by the hospital or have an independent medical group. Last thing I'll say on this, I think everything you just described is what I'm bringing into what worries me of the constant concerns we get from nurses about how they're getting limited, behavioral health therapists and Kaiser, how they're cycling through patients constantly because the hospitals want them to do all this. Respectfully, I think the more power we give to hospitals, ability to determine what kind of care is given, that's going to further erode equitable, adequate patient care. And now we're going to have not just the nurses and behavioral health therapists, now we're going to have the physicians coming and saying, well, the hospitals are also limiting X, Y, and Z. I think at the core, that's what I'm concerned about, of adding to that current problem that exists in our healthcare system. No, I'm very sensitive to that concern, and I totally understand what you're saying. I guess I would say, you know, the horse is already out of the gate on this issue, right? They're already being directly employed almost everywhere else in the public space. And so I think, you know, what's important for us, and that's why we've, you know, been working closely with CMA to address those concerns in this bill, is making sure that we include protections for physicians. And that, you know, that we are able to kind of legislate in other ways to make sure that doctors, nurses, health care workers are protected and able to give the care that they really need to be able to give. And, you know, the reality is that we're, you know, seeing there was a survey that showed 70 percent of physicians coming into the job want to be directly employed. They don't want to run their own business. They don't want to have to deal with the headache of that. They just want to go to work and take care of patients and go home. And so, you know, this bill is kind of getting to our new reality of where we're at because, you know, some of these hospitals are in rural areas where it's already hard to recruit. And when you're adding that extra, you know, kind of expectation of you can come work for us and you have to operate your own business and, you know, and a lot of them just don't want to do that. we want to make sure that there's the most success that they can have to be able to employ people, that there's stability, which is why it's a 10-year pilot. And then, you know, and it's a pilot. So we'll see how it goes. And if it's really problematic, then we can, you know, let it sunset. Thank you, Sam. So I do just want to appreciate you taking the amendments. There's a lot of conversation about this. And the original law is decades old. and the practice of medicine has changed significantly. I will say that hospitals in my district obviously would like to be able to hire directly and move quickly. A lot of our doctors also do not want to operate as a sole business and have an accounting firm. And for patients alone, this is, you know, multiple different bills. They all look different. There's a lack of uniformity. There's potential fraud involved. a wide variety of things that I think that this largely tries to clean up. So I think that this is bigger than even the bill in itself in so many ways And there are significant protections to just really again provide a lot of our medical professionals the safeguards that it needs with the sunset And again, we also need to kind of adapt and see kind of what we can do to prioritize the patient first and foremost, both from a fiscal perspective, but also from the care that they need. So with that, I'm more than happy to have you close and address any final thoughts. Thank you. I appreciate the discussion, you know, and very much as someone who's advocated to make sure people have health care where they need it, when they need it. it's important to me to make sure that these hospitals are able to survive these turbulent times and also modernize with the current reality that we're facing when it comes to physicians. This is really aimed at making sure that people do have the health care that they need in these hospital districts that provide it to a critical community, a high Medi-Cal community who don't have a whole lot of options to go elsewhere. Thank you. All right. We do not have quorum yet, so we're going to try to establish quorum. Can we get a roll call? Wahab? Here. Wahab here. Choi, Archuleta, Adagin? Here. Adagin here. Caballero? Caballero here. Grayson? Here. Grayson here. Minjavar? Here. Minjavar here. Nilo, Smallwood Cuevas. Strickland? Here. Strickland here. Umberg. All right. Quorum has been established. I'm going to go through this as quickly as possible. Could I get a – we had a motion by Senator Archuleta on file item number one. I just want to get people on. Motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Archuleta? Adeguin? Guerriero? Aye. Guerriero, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson I'm a driver manager of our I Nilo small with Cuevas Strickland Strickland I am Berg All right, that bill is on call file item number two was on consent. Can we get a motion? Moved by Senator Strickland Wahab I will have I Choi Archuleta Adagine Adagine I cabrero Cabrera I Grayson Grayson I'm a driver Consent. Menjivar, aye. Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Amberg? All right. That bill's on call or consent file's on call. File Item Number 3, can I get a motion? So moved. Moved by Strickland. Motion is due. Pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Archuleta? Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabrillo? Aye. Cabrera, aye. Grayson? Nilo, Smallwood Cuevas, Strickland, Strickland, I, Umberg. All right, that bill's on call. File item number four. Could I get a motion? Caballero moves the bill. Motion is due. Passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi, Archuleta, Araguin. Aye. Araguin, aye. Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo, aye. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Mindervar. Aye. Mindervar, aye. Nilo, Smallwood Cuevas, Strickland. No. Strickland, no. Umberg. All right, that bill's on call. File item number six, can I get a motion? Or number five, sorry, AB 1775 by Assemblymember Ward. Senator Menjivar moves the bill. Motion is due passed to Senate Military and Veterans Affairs. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Archuleta? Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabrero? Aye. Cabrero, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Umberg? All right. That bill's on call. File item number six, AB 1794. or could I get a motion? Moved by Senator Menjivar. Motion is due passed to Senator Appropriations. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi, Archuleta, Adagin. Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabrero. Aye. Cabrero, aye. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nilo. Smallwood, Cuevas. Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg. All right. That bill's on call. We're going to move on to file item number 8, AB 1939, by Assemblymember Thora. Can I get a motion? Aye. Senator Strickland moves. As amended to Senate Appropriations Committee, Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Archuleta? Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabrero? Aye. Cabrera, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Aye. Menjavar, aye. Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg? All right. That bill is on call. File Item No. 10. Can I get a motion? AB Strickland? Yep. Thank you. Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi Archuleta Adagin Adagin aye Carreiro Carreiro aye Grayson Grayson aye Menjavar Menjavar aye Nilo Smallwood Cuevas Strickland Strickland aye Amber all right that bill's on call file item number 11 AB 2250 Aguirre Curry can I get a motion Senator Strickland motion is due pass the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee Wahab aye Wahab aye Choi Archuleta Adagin Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabrero? Aye. Cabrera, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Aye. Menjavar, aye. Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg? All right. That bill's on call. File item number 12, AB 2311 by Assemblymember Schiavo. Can I get a motion? Senator Strickland moves the bill. Motion is due passed to Senate Health. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Archuleta? Aye. Adagin, aye. Cabrera, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Mendivar? Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg? That bill's on call. We're going to move on to file item number 15, AB 2477 by Assemblymember Chen. Moved by Senator Strickland. Motion is due passed to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi? Archuleta? Adagin? Aye. Carrier aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland? Aye. Strickland aye. Umberg? That bill on call We going to move on to file item number 13 AB 2402 by Assemblymember Berner whenever you ready

Thank you. Two minutes each. Or Christy Weiss and then Stephen Stensler.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you very much. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any members of the public, me too, would like to add on? Seeing none, bring it back to committee. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Senator Caballero. So this is a pretty simple bill. It just says, okay, there's no limit. But tell me what the consumer protections are in this. And I say this because my guess, and I don't know when this was passed, the cap was a consumer protection issue. but we don't know anything about what the consumer protection you come to my house I have all kinds of rights I can cancel within a certain period of time you can take my house away from me for not paying the bill that kind of thing That what I looking for Thank you for those questions, Senator. There are multiple consumer protections around health club

And then in terms of, I mean, we're talking about the higher end. But the reality of the situation is people stretch way beyond what they should sometimes. And I want to make sure that we have the protections in there so that you're not locked into a long-term contract. And by that, I mean a number of years with tricks and gimmicks, those kinds of things. I didn't see it reflected in the analysis that we had or in the discussion as well. Just want to make sure that we have a framework where people can make choices that fit their lifestyle, whatever it is that happens with their lifestyle.

And there's no cap. Well, there is no cap if a club meets the definition of a multi-service health club.

Just to be clear, there's no cap.

There's no cap on the multi-service health clubs. There's still caps on regular gym memberships that don't offer all these services.

Right. And I would speak to your question, Senator. I was one of those people that was bamboozled in the 90s. So when I took this bill, I was like, there's going to be all these consumer protections because I was a grad student. I had a job. I joined the gym. May not have gone to the gym as often as I do now, which I have learned my lesson very late. Or as much as you thought you were going to use. As much as I thought I was going to do. And then I lost a job and I couldn't get out of contract.

The price cap, if I'm not mistaken, and my witness can correct me, was the first of the consumer protections. That was the first one. And at the time we did the cap, we didn't have the other consumer protections. Those other consumer protections came in, and the price cap is actually only limits ability. The segment I think about when I think about this bill is the person who travels out of state and wants to use a multiservice health club studio in multiple states If you in California right now the cap precludes that And we don want to preclude people from being healthy just because they travel multi for work for example

Is that accurate? Did I misrepresent the timeline?

All right. Any other members of the committee with questions or concerns or comments? Seeing none. Member, would you like to close?

Thank you so very much. This is Dupas's recommendation. We need a motion. I do. Oh, yeah, we do have a motion. Senator Strickland, second please call roll. Motion is due pass. Wahab? Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta? Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Carriero? Aye. Carriero, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Smallwood, Cuevas? Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Umberg? It has seven votes, so we will put it on call for absent members. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Up next, we have before us item 16, AB 2633, Assemblymember Gibson. This is your show. When you're ready. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senators.

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chair and members. We've all seen the rise in retail theft and organized crime targeting high-value, easily resold items like old jewelry and bullets and watches. Of course, it's not limited to retail theft, but to individuals' homes as well. The pawnbrokers are proud of their efforts to curtail the dissemination of stolen property. If someone attempts to sell stolen property at a pawn shop, they're turning around and walking the other way. because as licensed secondhand dealers, pawnbrokers require that the customer provide a fingerprint, show a valid ID, and submit personal identifying information that can be stored in their software systems in case local law enforcement comes looking for stolen property. In addition, in 2012, this body passed AB 391 to permanently fund the DOJ's online database, the CAP system that the author referred to, and the pawnbrokers pay for that system. The secondhand dealers are required to report all transactions to the CAP system so that local law enforcement can track and recover stolen items. So this begs the question, how are criminals offloading stolen jewelry, watches, and gold from these smash-and-grab robberies? They're being offloaded at gold-buying events that are being promoted and held up and down the state by out-of-state vendors who are unclear about the law or intentionally exploiting the law. These gold fairs are magnets for turning stolen property into quick cash with no questions asked. Our members have witnessed firsthand the fact that these out-of-state gold buyers do not require ID, are not properly licensed, and do not report their transactions to the DOJ cap system. Not only is the property purchased not reported, in many cases, gold jewelry is melted down the same day. And gold jewelry that is melted down, as well as items that are taken out of state, are never recovered and never reported. And thus, the state loses out on this potential sales tax revenue. AB 2633 addresses the ambiguities in current law. It adds gold as tangible personal property. Thank you, and I ask for your aye vote.

Respectfully asked when I vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Strickland

Assemblymember Hoover's bill. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments to make technical changes and thanking the committee for all their hard work on this piece of legislation. AB 1933 is a common sense bill that promotes greater reliability and consistency in the land survey and review process. This bill aims to address potential concerns related to misrepresentation of licensed surveyors and inconsistencies with the reviewing records. AB 1933 makes clarification technical changes to the California Professional Land Surveys Act to improve these land survey procedures. With me today is Adam Quinonez on behalf of the California Land Surveys Association. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Adam Quinonez, California Advocates on behalf of the California Land Surveyors Association. Thank you, Senator Strickland, for stepping in to present the bill. I want to thank some member Hoover as well for all of his work on land surveyor issues He's a rock star in the land surveyor community. So we appreciate him Not going to go on too long the committee analysis was fantastic as usual The bill is very simple two sections first section just clarifies that when a county land surveyor is returning a record of survey They have to return it to the licensed land surveyor section two simply clarifies some existing authority that is in the statute related to records of survey. It just ensures that there's continuity with corner records. I'm happy to answer questions, but I really appreciate the Senator and Assemblymember ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Do we have any other lead support