Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning. Senate Governmental Organization Committee will come to order as a Subcommitee. We'll move first to file item number two. That's SB 1047. Senator Wiener, good morning. Feel free to begin when you're ready.

It is good to hang out with the two of you. Thank you, Mister chair and Mister Vice Chair. I am here today to present Senate Bill 1047 to promote AI innovation and AI safety. This is a pro safety and pro innovation Bill. This Bill was heard in Judiciary Committee, and in that Committee we had a colloquy with the chair, and then we subsequently agreed to amendments that have been inserted into the Bill. I just want to indicate what those amendments are.

Clarifying the definition of covered guidance authorizing the frontier model division to issue unique to issue guidance to help developers determine if a model is covered or qualifies for a limited duty exemption. Clarifying the authority of the Judicial Council. Clarifying the interaction of good faith errors and unreasonable reliance on a limited duty exemption.

Clarifying the punitive damages are included under the Attorney General damages provision strengthening whistleblower processes further defining or further clarifying the definition of artificial intelligence safety incident and deleting the provision on joint and several liability. And I want to note that the reason we deleted the joint and several liability provision is that there was no need to provide that in the Bill because existing law already provides for joint and several liability.

So we don't, we didn't want the Bill to somehow imply that we were trying to override existing joint several liability laws. So to be clear, it's not our intent to remove joint and several liability from the equation, but just to make clear that existing joint and several liability law will apply and is sufficient so this Bill colleagues will promote responsible development of what we call frontier artificial intelligence models.

In addition to supporting competition and innovation, by Frontier AI model, we mean extremely large and powerful models that will exist soon and that will have incredible benefits for society and also pose significant risks. California needs to support and invest in the responsible development of AI and support this incredible innovations, and we want our state to remain at the cutting edge of AI innovation.

At the same time, some of the most respected scientists, engineers, and business leaders around in the AI field, including two of the most cited machine learning researchers of all times, researchers who support this legislation, have repeatedly warned policymakers that failure to take appropriate cautions precautions could have severe consequences for society. For any new technology to succeed and being adopted widely, potential users have to trust that the product is safe. AI developers in California have already taken important first steps in pioneering safe development practices.

However, we can't afford to be complacent with Congress unfortunately paralyzed on this issue. As with all technology issues, I want to just be clear. We keep hearing, zero, let Congress do it. That would be great if Congress would do it. But after all these years and bipartisan support, Congress has failed to act on social media, has failed to act on data privacy. After many years of bipartisan support, I hope that changes. It hasn't.

So unless Congress acts with a strong AI safety law and a regulation is, or Executive order, unfortunately is not enough, that can be revoked in a heartbeat and does not have the full binding effect of a law. Until that happens, California, which is absolutely the epicenter of AI innovation, needs to lead.

SB 1047 sets out clear standards for developers of these extremely large and powerful models, and that if they meet the bill's threshold of 10 to the 26th flop, or a system of similar capability, which will cost over $100 million to train, then they have to take precautions ahead of time to evaluate for safety risks and then take actions to mitigate those risks if they identify significant risks.

We know that, as with a lot of bills, we will hear from opposition that this is going to stay innovation, that it will do no such thing. And I represent the absolute epicenter of AI innovation, and I would never want to undermine that innovation. But we have to take action to promote safety. Indeed, a number of startup AI companies are supporting this legislation, including a startup called.

Yes, excuse me, Senator, I have to get to another Committee to present a Bill. Vice Chair Wilk will take over the meeting.

Thank you. Good luck. Indeed, a number of startups are supporting this legislation, including a startup called imbue, which would be subject to this legislation. They've submitted a letter unqualifiedly supporting the legislation. So, again, if for companies that have covered models under this Bill, they'll. And I'm sorry, and if a company violates this law by not conducting the evaluation or not taking required mitigations, the Attorney General can hold the developer accountable. But this is not just about safety. It's also about promoting innovation.

And so SB 1047 creates a new public cloud computing cluster called Cal compute that will conduct research into the safe and secure deployment of large scale AI models while allowing smaller startups, researchers, and community groups to participate in that development. So we are spreading the ability of people to innovate. The Bill creates an advisory council to advocate for and support safe and secure open source AI development and requires cloud computing companies and frontier model developers to provide transparent pricing and avoid price discrimination.

The Bill creates whistleblower protection so that frontline technologists can feel safe and secure in reporting potential problems. And I wanted to really stress that we've seen incredible things coming out of the AI world. A model recently created a new antibiotic, and that's just one example of some of the amazing things that these AI models are doing. We also know that in 2022, an AI model generated tens of thousands of novel toxins as dangerous as the most toxic nerve agents previously discovered.

So we need to enhance the good and evaluate and mitigate the bad. The time to act is now. We will probably hear from some opposition. Let's just wait more and figure it out. This is accelerating now. And let's not make the mistakes we made with data privacy and social media, where by the time we get around to doing anything, the horse is way out of the barn and people are being harmed. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With me today to testify are Teri Olle, the Director of the Economic Security Project, one of our sponsors, and Sunny Gandhi, the Vice President of political affairs of Encode justice, also a sponsor.

Great. Thank you, Senator. So under Committee rules, each speaker gets two minutes, and whenever you're ready, identify yourself and proceed.

Good morning. Thank you Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Teri Olle, the Director of Economic Security California Action and one of the three co sponsors of the Bill. I'm here to speak specifically about how SB 1047 addresses market concentration in the AI industry by requiring fair and transparent pricing and importantly, establishing a publicly owned and operated computing cluster called Cal compute to democratize access to this very critical piece of AI infrastructure. Computing capacity is the most important factor in enabling or limiting AI development.

Computing capacity is extremely expensive and currently gatekeeped by a handful of companies. They determine who gets to use it and therefore what gets created. This has led to a world where cutting edge AI research primarily benefits the bottom line of a handful of private entities rather than the common good.

Recently, a UK minister for competitive markets raised significant concern that an interconnected web of more than 90 AI partnerships and strategic investments are actually tied back to just six tech giants, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and the chips maker Nvidia, California. Academics have also sounded the alarm. While Meta recently announced plans to buy 350,000 specialized computer chips necessary for AI research, Stanford's key AI research lab has only 68 of their own chips. Calcompute addresses this problem head on.

It broadens access to this powerful technology so academics and other researchers can develop large scale AI systems for the public good, not just commercial interests. California actually has a history of making important public investments that have yielded life changing benefits to our citizens. We've pioneered investment in stem cell research, and we're home to world class, publicly funded labs like Lawrence Livermore and Berkeley, Cal. Compute builds on this entrepreneurial, spiritual creating space for innovations that benefit humanity broadly, even if they're not easily monetizable.

With so much potential to improve the lives of those who live in the Golden State, we cannot let AI's future be driven solely by corporate profits. California has a history of making important public investments where it counts, and it's time to do so again. I urge your. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker.

Thank you, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Sunny Gandhi. I am the Vice President of political affairs. Encode Justice, one of three co sponsors of SB 1047. Encode Justice is the leading global youth movement for safe, equitable AI. With 1000 Members across every inhabited continent, Encode justice was created to give young people a voice in shaping how AI systems affect our future.

Since then, we've advised stakeholders ranging from the White House on their AI Bill of Rights to the European Union for their AI act. With Congress now failing to take action on this issue, we look to California, a state renowned for its bold leadership and commitment to equity, to lead the way. We had a critical juncture in the history of AI development. Progress is accelerating at an incomprehensible pace. The potential benefits of AI, from revolutionizing healthcare to combating climate change, are immense.

But at the same time, the risks posed by advanced AI systems are real and urgent, like facilitating biological weapons design or enabling large scale cyberattacks. Lawmakers have a moral imperative to enable the safe and responsible development of this technology. SB 1047 does just that. It requires the developers of frontier AI systems to test their models for potential hazards, implement common sense safety practices, and report their findings to the government. This legislation will help ensure that AI development in California is safe, secure, and equitable.

The incredible amount of technological innovation that exists in California has made it the focal point of a global audience. The decisions made by leaders like yourselves will shape the lives of billions of people, and young people will bear the brunt of those consequences which will echo for generations to come. We have been let down time and time again with government inaction on issues like climate change, gun violence, and mental health. I refuse to let the same happen with AI. Thank you so much for your time.

For the millions of young people I represent by standing here today, I urge your support on SB 1047.

Thank you very much. At this time. We'll take MeToo testimony. Anybody here in support? Your name organization, if you have one. And a simple me too.

Mister. Chair and Members Leanne Tratton with Tratton Price representing Center for AI Safety Action Fund. One of the co sponsors of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, I'm Ari Kagan. I am a founder of Generative AI startup and advising on this Bill and I urge your support for the Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Landon Klein from the Future of Life Institute and support.

Thank you. At this point, do we have any speakers? Primary speakers in opposition?

I know you know the rules, but it's too many--well, you could have four, actually, if you're the only one.

That's okay. I don't think I'm going to need that. I'm filling in for my colleague who's caught in another Committee right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ben Golombek with the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition to SB 1047. To be clear, we share the author's goal of ensuring the safe and responsible development of AI. However, we have concerns over issues that would preclude us from getting there in a manner that still fosters innovation.

Fundamentally, our primary concerns boil down to workability issues and the consequences thereof. We're concerned that the bill dictates compliance with a number of vague and impractical, if not technically infeasible, requirements, as drafted as described in further detail in our letter. These include, for example, terms and standards used for covered models, positive safety determinations, and hazardous capability, all of which lend to incredible uncertainty for members and lie at the core of SB 1047's framework.

We're also concerned that the bill focuses exclusively on developer liability for failing to block any and all conceivably harmful uses of a model, even in scenarios where third parties effectively jailbreak the model. Such uncertainty, the cost of compliance and significant liability exposure, as well as other issues around the impact on open source development and computing cluster requirements, inevitably discourage technological innovation in our economy.

We're concerned that the bill could in fact hamstring businesses from developing the very AI technologies that could protect Californians from dangerous models developed in territories beyond California's control. And lastly, given the clearly global nature of the technology, it's critical that we ensure consistency nationally and refrain from adding more confusion to an already fragmenting AI regulatory landscape in the U.S. It's imperative that we not lose sight of the fact that the federal government not only should act in this space, but is already acting in the space.

We think that the states should let NIST's AI Safety Institute complete its work first, after which safety and security protocols tied to those standards could be better considered at a state level. For those and other reasons outlined in our letter--and I'll just emphasize that the majority of our members that we've heard from, and we have nearly 15,000 members here in the State of California, are many of our small business members, in particular, obviously those in the Bay Area, in Los Angeles, where a lot of the AI startup culture is taking place. We must, unfortunately, oppose SB 1047 at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there any MeToo testimony in opposition? Again, your name, organization if you have one, and a simple MeToo.

Mr. Chair, Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed to the bill. Align our comments with the Chamber. Look forward to working on amendments. Appreciate the Senator's willingness to work on this.

Great. Thank you, sir. At this time, we'll pull it back to Committee for questions, comments, concerns. Senator Archuleta, what a surprise. Yes.

Good. Good morning, Senator. The biggest concern that I think all of us have is safety and security, and in this new world by the developers that'll be coming into it, are they taking this to the next level when it comes to security? That's my main thing because the AG is obviously very concerned about how to mandate the rules that we're accepting here, that if anyone goes outside the law or any outside the protection of the communities that they serve, that's my concern.

So thank you for that question. It's my concern as well, and we, and we think this bill really captures that concern and addresses it. We know that there is a lot, you know, there are items required in this bill that there are companies that are already doing that, the different kinds of testing, what we call red teaming, where you have someone else come in and try to basically go against your model to try to, you know, change it into something problematic and seeing if that works.

These are established protocols and systems that companies already use. We want to make sure that they're all doing it and all doing it in a reasonable way. I also want to be clear, we could have gone much further in this law and some would like us to. For example, there are some who think that we should require licensing and pre-approval by government before a model can be deployed. We did not do that in this bill. We're not looking to micromanage what the companies are doing.

We simply want them to engage in basic safety testing, safety evaluation, and if it shows: oh, this model may shut down the grid, then they should take steps to prevent that from happening. We're not asking for perfection. There's no perfection. You can't reduce risk to zero, but we think that they can absolutely take steps to reduce that risk and minimize it. So we think we've taken a good balanced approach here, and I think we will--and California is in a position, given who we are and how much innovation is happening here, to have a real impact on safety.

Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can I say something?

Sure.

So I understand what you want to do, and honestly, for a lot of us, I think a lot of this is over our heads. I abstained in Judish because of that, but I've been really now focusing, reading a lot on AI, and there's so many benefits, but there's also so many dangers. So I'm going to go up on your bill today, because like you said, the federal government's not doing it, somebody's got to do it, and I really would rather err on the side of safety than innovation just because I view this as potentially very dangerous. So you'll have my vote today.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

Reading the crowd, you made some people happy in the room for sure. Anybody else wishing to--anybody else? Okay, so we're down to that point. Senator, I really appreciate what you've been able to do on this bill and working this bill. Obviously we've got to have guardrails, and I've really appreciated the amendments that you've taken and where we are today, and I'm going to recommend an aye vote. And with that, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

That's right. So with that, when we get a quorum, we will vote on this. And thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you everyone. Thank you.

Senator Bradford, would you like to do your Bill? File item number 20, SB 1403. He's got to go. Senator Wilks got to go to another meeting, so we'll do that one first. Thank you. This is file item number 21, SB 1495.

Thank you, Mister chair. Yeah, I'm going to be going to another Committee to present a Bill. I'm not going to be out there goofing off, as Senator Niello would lead you to believe if anybody was in Committee yesterday. All right, well, good morning, Mister chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 1495, which would allow alcohol licensees to sponsor events or purchase advertising space from the Hollywood Forever State Cemetery in Los Angeles.

The cemetery is currently a permanent retail on sale license holder with a type 88 license, which doesn't allow for this arrangement. This narrow tide house exemption would help generate important revenues for the care, maintenance, and improvement of the cemetery grounds and its ability to continue to host cultural events. For those of you who may not be. Why would somebody text me in the middle of my presentation anyway, if you're not familiar with this facility, it is the final resting place of tons of people.

Douglas Fairbanks, Lauren Bacall, Humphrey Bogart, all the way to the Ramon brothers and Chris Cornell from Soundgarden. So it's an iconic place. They like to do events there and raise money. This would allow it to continue. The Legislature has granted numerous property exceptions from the state restrictions due to the unique circumstances that they face. Given the precedents and the Hollywood forever's unique operations is both a functioning cemetery as well as the cultural space. State level tight house exemption is appropriate.

The specificity of the type 88 license assures this exemption, for the type 88 license alone is both targeted and simplistic. There's no known opposition. And with me today is Mister GV Ayers to testify on behalf of Hollywood Forever.

Good morning and welcome.

Good morning. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister chair Members, my name is GV Ayers. I represent Hollywood Forever. The sponsors of SB 1495 appreciate Mister Lopez's thoughtful analysis, and we're grateful to Senator Wilk for authoring the Bill and to the Committee for your consideration today. Hollywood Forever Cemetery, as Senator Wilk has stated, is an iconic Los Angeles landmark and institution. It fulfills its fundamental purpose of honoring the dead. And Hollywood Forever also has become a center of culture and social activity for the living.

It hosts more than 90 events a year, and such as outdoor screenings of feature films and Hollywood classics, indoor performances of music and literature and art, and other productions. The largest Dia De Los Muertos celebration in the United States, attracting more than 35,000 people at times, and then obviously family memorials in celebrations as well. Six years ago, this Committee and the Legislature authorized ABC to issue a special on sale license for retail license for the cemetery in connection with these events.

And now we believe it is time that we can go a step further because sponsorship of these events by other ABC licensees is very important and can help to offset the funds, the cost of these events, but also help to contribute to the upkeep and care of the cemetery. And so we are seeking this exemption here through Senator Wilkes Bill. We thank you so much and encourage and encourage your. I vote on the Bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support? Seeing none. Anybody in opposition? Also seeing none. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Anybody have any.We have a. We'll have a motion by Archuleta. Senator Wilk, before you close, is there any capacity to be interned in this place? Sounds like it's pretty cool place to spend the eternity.

Yeah. Michael Jackson, Liz Taylor, Mickey Rooney. I'm sure we can find a place for you.

Okay.

And your beautiful. And your beautiful bride, Mary.

Thank you very much for that.

And your kids and your what, 13 grandkids? Yeah. We may not have space for the family there.

Okay. With that appreciate the presentation. Would you like to close?

I was quickly asking your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, so we're gonna move kind of moving around here since we don't have a quorum, but we're lucky to have Senator Ochoa Bogh here, and she's going to present file item number 17. That's SB 1224. Good morning, Senator. Feel free to begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Mister chair Members. Let me start by thanking the Committee staff for working with my office to improve this Bill. I'm happy to take the Committee's amendments. Senate Bill 1224 will allow Riverside County fairgrounds in India to sell liquor without requiring the grounds to maintain a fully operational kitchen. The fair is home to various events, including the national date festival that brings in hundreds of thousands of people every year. While the county owns the fairgrounds, they retained a new management company last July.

When the new company attempted to take ownership of the liquor license that was issued in 2008, they found that the license requirements changed because the fair no longer offered off track bedding on site. Without the off track bedding, the fair must meet the requirement of a bona fide eating place, despite the fact that the site has not had to meet this requirement in the past and currently lacks the required kitchen and refrigeration to qualify.

As amended, SB 1224 will allow the Fair to serve alcohol on site as long as food service is available to the public at all times during the events. This change ensures that the fair can continue operating as it has for almost two decades, allowing the community to benefit from the substantial revenue that the fair events contribute to the local economy. Here to testify on behalf of Riverside County is Bob Giraud. Here we go.

Thank you, Mister chair Members. I'd like to thank Mister Felipe Lopez for microphones. Microphones, gentlemen, evolved with the advent of food trucks. We do, as Senator Bogue, we do serve several different events in the county, including the international date festival. I would like to say that this happens to be a district Bill for four Senators, all four Senators that represent the county. Riverside, Senator Bogue, Senator Roth, Senator Sciarto, and Senator Padilla. We would appreciate your support and ask for your aye vote okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in support of this Bill? Seeing none. Anybody wishing to testify against the Bill? Seeing none. We're going to pull it back to the Committee, move the Bill. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

I am a big fan of county fairs, and I'm wondering, what do I need to do to get an invitation to the date festival. So Ochoa Bogh. I'm going to leave that in your hands and three of our colleagues that also represent that area. But when appropriate, I would move the Bill, unless my colleague here would like to. Okay. All right. Thank you.

We've got that changed. Okay. Seeing no other comments, thank you very much for presenting. Would you like to close, please?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Senator Wahab apparently is on her way. Second floor. Senator Padilla has a Bill. Good. You ready? Okay, we're going to move to file item number 15, SB 990. That's Senator Padilla. Your timing is impeccable. Please feel free to start when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Members. I'm happy to present SB 990. I want to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee staff for working with our office last year, as we well know, California suffered a record number of catastrophic natural disasters, which will only increase, unfortunately, often in frequency and intensity, as climate change worsens.

Though climate disasters will touch many Californians, recent studies indicate that the LGBTQ community are disproportionately impacted by disasters, both because of preexisting marginalization and discriminatory disaster response policies. LGBTQ persons, particularly those of colors, face worse displacement conditions compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals.

Bias in disaster response programs, failure to recognize unique Lgbt family structures, barriers to obtaining proper ID, and anti Lgbtq practices at some disaster relief services provided by faith based organizations that at some points actually constructively deny services can all compound to heighten the risks that LGBTQ communities face during a disaster. State and federal agencies continue to lack a clear strategy on how to integrate LGBTQ people into disaster preparedness, planning and emergency response.

In order to equitably serve the LGBTQ community, we must consult directly with advocates, organizations, researchers, and ensure that their needs is being met. Are being met. Excuse me? SB 990 would require that the California governor's Office of Emergency Services, Cal OES, update the state emergency plan to include proposed policies and best practices for local governments and non governmental entities to equitably serve these communities. To craft these policies, Cal OEs would be required to coordinate directly with representatives of the LGBTQ community.

State policies and guidelines should reflect the needs of all Californians. It will help Cal OES further understand how to serve vulnerable populations when disaster strikes. Here today to testify is Josephine Figueroa, representing California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Craig Pull Cipher with Equality California.

Good morning, Mister Chair Members Josephine Figueroa, deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. First, I'd like to thank Senator for authoring this important measure. Insurance Commissioner Lada is a proud cosponsor of Senate Bill 990.

SB 990 would require the Office of Emergency Services on or before January 1 of 2027 to update the state emergency plan to include proposed policy and best practices for local government and non governmental entities to equally serve lgbtq communities during an emergency or natural disaster. As you all know, California has suffered a record number of catastrophic natural disasters in recent years, and it is predicted that to only increase in frequency and intensity as climate change worsens.

Though climate disasters have impacted all Californias, unfortunately, lgbtq individuals are disproportionately impacted by disasters because of pre existing marginalization. LGBTQ individuals are also overrepresented in at risk populations for whom disasters are more likely to bring death, displacement, and other negative health and socioeconomic impacts. Insurance Commissioner Lara has traveled the state during and after natural and other disasters and has witnessed the human tragedy and suffering endured by California as a result of these events.

We must be inclusive in all populations in our disaster response efforts, and this Bill is an important step in that direction. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote.

Anybody else wish to testify in support? Anybody wishing to testify in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments? Questions? Seeing none? Yeah. Yes, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. So I'm kind of curious because I was reading the Bill, and I was kind of curious as to how does this differ from any other community that would be considered underrepresented and also has issues, pre existing issues, such as individuals with English language learners. So undocumented, the unhoused. What else do we have that is considered under present?

People with disabilities, all of these other groups that would be considered marginalized or have pre existing conditions that are, you know, disproportionately affecting those type of communities. So I'm kind of curious as to why specifically LGBTQ and not something I'm surprised that we don't already have something to include everybody that would be considered, you know, underrepresented or marginalized with preexisting conditions prior to a disaster. And why don't we have somebody in General and just specific to, and maybe there is.

I mean, you could educate me on this, because, I don't know, I was just kind of curious as to everybody else that would be considered marginalized as well.

Mister Chairman, Senator, thank you for the question. You're correct. I think that the Office of Emergency Services, in their preparatory documents and planning, always seek to try to respond to the whole totality of California's population. And they do take into account and they do plan to be able to be educated and responsive to all the many, myriad different elements of our culture and society.

The point of the Bill is that the LGBTQ community, with some of the unique attributes that that community has, should also be incorporated into that planning, and that's the point of the Bill.

So, in other words, the current system that we have takes care of every other marginalized community or has stipulations on how to address their particular, but not the LGBTQ.

Yeah. The office is always seeking to strive to better and more responsibly and effectively respond to the needs of the total population of California and everyone's unique circumstances. Sometimes that means people who are physically or developmentally impaired. That means people with unique factors that contribute to them being unsheltered or in the situation they're in. It means people with certain dispositions that make it harder to provide assistance. Geography, there's a lot of things.

But whether it's cultural competency, language, disabilities, and others, the whole point of the office is our best disaster response is one that responds to everyone. And so the point of the Bill is to make sure that this element is considered in the planning.

Thank you. Anybody else? Senator Archuleta? Yes.

Thank you for presenting the Bill, Senator. My question is, have we had issues that brought this forward? The fire Department, police departments, first responders, that they discriminated in some way or another or turned their backs on a specific community at all? I'm just curious. It seems that, you know, all human life is human life, and in the purpose of the Bill, I should. I would imagine you feel that someone was pushed aside or an entire community pushed aside. Enlighten me with that, please,

Mister Chairman, Senator, thank you for the question first, and I can make this available. I'm going to cite to a recent study in 2023 from the University of California, Irvine, along with Yale University and the Claremont colleges from 2023, called amplified harm, LGBTQ disaster displacement. And I'll just briefly read into the record some of the key findings of that study by those esteemed institutions. One national LGBTQ disaster replacement is nearly displacement, excuse me. Is nearly two times higher than cisgender heterosexual displacement.

LGBTQ individuals face worse displacement conditions compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals, highest among LGBTQ persons of color. Although there is a lot of state level variation, LGBTQ displacement is higher than cisgender gender heterosexual displacement in most states and displacement is potentially related to overall state level positions on LGBTQ civil rights, meaning states with more anti LGBTQ policies generally have higher displacement during disasters, etcetera. So the inverse is true. Here in California, we try to strive for the opposite.

Thank you for the explanation. Discrimination is discrimination, no doubt. So when appropriate, I'm going to move the Bill.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, so with that, not seeing anybody. Oh, Senator Rubio,

thank you so much, Mister chair. I think it's an important Bill, and I think that every time we put an emphasis on subgroups like, you know, like, you cited some displacement and data here. I mean, it's clearly needed and it's important. So I commend you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you. So, at the appropriate time, when we get a quorum, we'll be voting on your Bill. We really appreciate your presentation. Thank you.

At that time, I'd ask for an aye vote. And thank you, sir.

Thank you for that beautiful close without being asked. All right, so, Senator Wahab, I just want to, for the record, note that your good colleague, Senator Becker, has allowed you to go first because you're Chairing the Public Safety Committee. So good morning and welcome. We're going to start, I think, with file item number four, SB 984. Good morning.

Chair and colleagues and members of the public. I want to thank the Committee Members, as well as Committee Members staff for working with us on this particular bill. Before I begin, I just want to acknowledge, you know, the amount of work on this bill.

The bill in print reflects amendments that came directly from the Committee, and I do accept them. Project labor agreements ensure the state's investments in public infrastructure are protected from costly delays and protects employees on these projects.

PLAs accomplish these goals without burdening the division of labor standards enforcement. Project labor agreements provide greater opportunity to prioritize inclusion of women veterans, members of indigenous tribes, BIPOC individuals, including also folks that have historically been incarcerated.

These are working class jobs that actually have middle class income, and it's incredibly important to continue to prioritize the union workforce.

SB 984 would require the Department of Toxic Substance Control, Department of General Services, the California State University, and the California courts to identify three major construction projects that will be governed by a PLA.

Beginning in 2029, SB 984 will also require these agencies to report the use of PLA's advancement of community benefits goals and apprenticeships on these projects. I would like to introduce two witnesses, Jeremy Smith of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, as well as Sara Flocks the California Labor Federation. Chair, when you're ready.

Senator and Mr. Smith, we're going to do a quorum here. Can we call the roll, please?

[Roll Call]

All right, we have a quorum, Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your patience.

Thank you, Mr. chair. With your permission, I talked to the next speaker. In fact, go over my two minutes just for like 30 seconds and cut into her time. She said she was okay with that.

That's fine.

Okay. Just wanted to give you a heads up on that.

I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Jeremy Smith here. On behalf of the state Building and Construction Trades Council of California, the proud sponsors of this bill, we'd also like to echo Senator Dodd's thank you to you, Mr. chair and your great Committee staff for helping us work through the amendments that you all requested and that we agreed to. And I think it makes it a better bill. So thank you for that.

Project labor agreements have proven to be a market based project efficiency tool that continually have proven to ensure on time, on budget results for construction projects, as well to ensure that local workers are getting the jobs created by local tax investments.

Any qualified contractor can bid to work under a PLA on a public project. That's state law. Public Contract Code Section 2500 prohibits discrimination on all the usual things that we all see, race and origin, sexual orientation, but also whether or not you as a worker are in a union or signatory to a collective bargaining agreement, that's in public contract code Section 2500.

Many agreements in the public sector, however, contain special accommodations to make it easier for contractors that do not ordinarily work under collective bargaining agreements to participate on the project.

For example, some agreements will permit contractors to bring a certain number of their existing employees onto the work site without requiring them to go through different rigmarole.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, Senate Bill 984 is going to be tucked in under public Contract Code Section 2500, which prohibits discrimination and permits, requires all qualified contractors to be able to bid on these projects under a PLA. It is entirely then up to a contractor to choose whether to work under a PLA.

Some public agencies have negotiated innovative programs within PLA's to assist small businesses, including minority and women owned contractors, in preparing, carrying bids and complying with the various legal requirements.

Just in the last few years, the following privately funded projects have been built under a PLA the Kings arena, the Warriors arena, the Anaheim hockey team arena. Anything anybody sees at Disneyland is under a PLA. The LA Ram Stadium, the first stadium.

Furthermore, germane to this bill, here are some public PLAs, high speed rail, the cities of Anaheim, Long Beach, Pico Rivera, Echo Park, and dozens of others.

The Sacramento County Airport, LA Community College District, LAUSD, the City of LA, the County of LA, DWP in LA, the Metropolitan Water District. BART the Trans Bay Center down in San Francisco, which is going to provide 5.7 million work hours in only the first phase. One more and then I'll finish up is the San Diego County Water Authority.

It's illustrative on how these instruments can be honed and shaped to answer for particular community special needs. This PLA has the following definition of targeted workers. The type of workers required to be on projects carried out by the San Diego County Water Authority.

A targeted worker is a worker who is a veteran, an apprentice with less than 15% of the work hours required for completion no high school diploma or GED, is homeless, is a former foster youth as a custodial single parent, is experiencing protracted unemployment, is a current recipient of government or cash food or assistance benefits, has documented income at or below 100% of the federal poverty level is formally incarcerated or is a graduate of an apprenticeship readiness program.

These are required workers to be on this project, and PLAs often mimic something along those lines. They're all negotiated individually, and we want to make sure local workers who are from certain zip codes sometimes are on these projects.

Those are put into PLAs. We think this is good for the state. It's obviously good for private industry and many other public agencies state. We are aye vote today. Thank you very much.

Next speaker. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Sara Flocks. The California Labor Federation also in strong support of the bill. The Federal Government is investing billions of dollars into infrastructure as part of their federal bills.

And as part of that, the President has made project labor agreements a centerpiece, and he's made it a centerpiece because it is a proven tool to make sure that projects are high quality, that they come in on time and on budget and create good union jobs.

Not only that, but they are a tool to make sure that you save money. There are projects in New York, for example, recent projects that created over 2,000 good union jobs and saved over $300 million. It's also an incredibly effective tool to open the door for good union construction careers, for women, people of color and veterans.

There are community benefits embedded into project labor agreements that make sure we have equitable access and that all of these new jobs that are created, good middle class career jobs, are open to a range of diverse Californians.

So this is a proven tool. It's been used across the country. It's something the Federal Government has put at the center of their investments in infrastructure and in other construction projects. And we think this is a very small step forward and hope we'll go further as the state adopts this as an important tool. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Mr. Chairman Member Scott Wetch, on behalf of the 125,000 members of the State Association of Electrical Workers, the 55,000 members of the California Coalition of Utility Employees, the 40,000 members of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the 30,000 members of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and the Elevator Constructors Union urging an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Labor. I just want to thank the author for our leadership on this. So we strongly support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in favor? Seeing none. Any opposition? Please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Felipe Fuentes, here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, unfortunately in opposition to this measure, the measure mandating project labor agreements on specified state public works. We have two chief concerns, and I want to be really sort of very pronounced at the beginning of this. We're not opposed to working with labor.

In fact, the Associated General Contractors of California is made up of over 1,000 members, of which two-thirds are members that have master labor agreements with partners like the Teamsters, the Carpenters, the Laborers, and the Cement Masons. And one-third is open shop, but those open shop members also have to go through apprenticeship programs. So all of the safeguards, all of the well-intended things that were spoken to for a second here, we also herald and are very proud of it.

Our concern is primarily that we're putting the cart before the horse here. Project labor agreements are negotiated by the owners and labor, leaving the contractor out of the process. And the contractor, with due respect, I think, has the best expertise on how it is that projects can be delivered. And so for that sort of process reason, we have a strong objection to the measure. There are also considerations when you do this sort of thing.

Contract administration, for example. If the Fiscal Committees ahead of this bill are able to do their analysis, I think they'll understand that administering the project labor agreement is a costly measure. Also, core worker provisions are affected. As I mentioned at the outset here, AGC has a partnership with labor, and when we take a job on, we take those labor partners with us.

A project labor agreement, unfortunately, will likely supersede master labor agreements, in which case our partnerships, those workforce that we bring to projects, will have to be replaced and/or substituted for different labor partners, all of which creates additional risk for the contract. We then have to factor all of that when we're bidding.

And it's not to say that it won't work, but we can't say with any guarantee that it'll be seamless as it is with the union partners that we have previously worked with and have selected. AGC is over 100 years old, as I mentioned, with nearly 1,000 members, and we very much pride ourselves in building California's infrastructure, be it heavy civil highways and freeways, vertical construction, commercial, or even the replacement here that's taking place with the State Capitol.

So we would be okay with a measure like this if there was one change in process, but also a consideration for what it is that we do, which is work with our labor partners. For those reasons, we're opposed to the measure.

Thank you, Mr. Fuentes. Next speaker.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tracy Stevens, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, which is comprised of over 100 of the largest union-affiliated builders. We build the hospitals, the schools, everything huge. So also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good morning, Senators. Richard Markuson, representing more than 12,000 journey workers and apprentices, members of the Western Electrical Contractors Association, the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of California, the California Chapters of the American Fire Sprinkler Association, and the Independent Roofing Contractors of California. We're opposed to this discriminatory, costly measure and government mandated project labor agreements. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Hello. My name is Ian Vander Linden. Like Richard said, this bill blatantly discriminates against non-union contractors, raises costs, and I oppose it. Thank you.

Yep. We're just going to go MeToo from here on in, okay? State your name, your affiliation, and whether you support or obviously--

Hello. My name is Cameron Thomas. I'm part of the Western Electrical Contractors Association, and I oppose it.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Derek Brodell. I'm a member of WECA as well, and I oppose.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Matthew Thomas, and I am also strongly opposed to SB 984. Thank you.

Jason Dreger. I'm opposed.

Good morning. Matthew Estipona with the Associated Builders and Contractors, Northern California Chapter. We are strongly opposed.

Good morning. Michelle Rubalcava, on behalf of 80,000 workers of the Associated Builders and Contractors of California, also opposed.

Thank you.

Chair and author, Don Wilcox, with the California Conference of Carpenters, in respectful opposition.

Ben Golombek, on behalf of the CalChamber, in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Ron Rowlett, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, oppose.

Thank you. Okay, seeing the end of that, we're going to turn it back to our Members. Anybody wishing to question or comment? Down here? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, yours first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I think it's long overdue that we have a standard and a model for how we invest our public tax dollars. I come from a place where it's hard for a person from South Central Los Angeles to step into a career in the construction trades, particularly if you're Black and particularly if you're a woman.

And this is a model that I have seen evolve over years, being utilized at some of the largest transit agencies, some of the largest medical centers, largest school districts, where we are basically contracting for our values, and the values is not that a worker gets a job and then they're out of work and then they come back and then they're out of work.

But we're creating a pathway for workers to come into a construction project, build something, and then move with that union to the next project and the next project. And I say it all the time because I lived it, and it's the most profound thing that I've witnessed in my life, is to see a worker go from living in their car to buying a home in Los Angeles County and doing it using this standard of investing our dollars in the way that we build infrastructure.

And our state is strapped, and far too many of our residents are hurting, and this creates the work that then builds the pathways out of poverty. And when you say zip codes, you can target to the zip code that needs the most help and bring folks out of poverty into opportunity.

So I'm, you know, I'm usually not one to give speeches, so I don't have a question, but I want to say how, you know, how excited I am and how exciting it is for us to be at this moment of really saying, this is how we're going to build California and we're going to do it by building infrastructure and moving anti-poverty methods that actually can be measured. So I am happy to support this.

I do have a question, though, now that I've come to it, and that question is, you know, in the policy, you talk about the local hiring and disadvantaged workers. What is the metrics of tracking and monitoring that you will be doing with your--in this policy by bringing employers and unions and community together to build these pathways into these jobs?

How will you track to see, you know, how we are moving the needle in terms of who's getting access to these jobs and how these particular communities are benefiting from these projects that are in their backyard?

Definitely. Well, I'm going to ask one of my technical witnesses to come up. I do want to highlight that this bill specifically requires a report to come out. One of the things that I know you and I have talked about this a lot is that we want to make sure that we are elevating people and, you know, where they start, where they end up both as apprentices and working on these projects, but then also just foundationally in the communities. And so I think that it's incredibly important that we identify this. I'll let Jeremy actually answer in regards to the specific data metrics. Jeremy? With the Chair's permission.

Through the Chair?

Please.

Thank you. Thank you. Good question, Senator. We have lots of examples up and down the state in different cities where working with local governments, contractors, developers on a particular project, there's reporting that happens back to, in this case, in the example the Sacramento Kings Arena, back to the city, and then there was a report afterwards that showed in that PLA, we were hiring down to the zip code. Showed where different workers came from.

So there's plenty of examples about a reporting mechanism that the state could implement as this bill moves forward and gets signed into law. The next step might be how do we craft something along those lines. But there's lots of examples to do that.

I appreciate that. And I remember just looking at an article last week about a rail corridor project in my district in LA County where typically women are so small you can't measure on a project. But there was data, a metrics and a data report out that showed that women held seven percent of that project over three years, and it's just phenomenal to be able to have that kind of a receipt.

And I think this model allows the state--will allow the state to do that really sort of surgical tracking that we need to do to see who's being lifted up and how they're being lifted up in this model. So thank you for that.

And just for the record--

I'm happy to move the bill when it's the opportunity, Mr. Chair.

For the record, there is a report required in this bill. So. Okay. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you. Senator Wahab, I just have some questions about just kind of like the nuts and bolts of the PLAs in this proposal. So can you tell me a little bit about who would be negotiating these PLAs? Is it all the construction unions have a seat at the table? Who's making those decisions?

Right now--and Jeremy, if you would like to also come--usually when a PLA is discussed, it is discussed with the general contractor that is selected, and then also a lot of the unions are at the table. I know that one of the concerns that the carpenters have is maybe that they're going to be excluded because they do not belong to the Building Trades Council at this moment. That is not the case. I want to make sure that this is an inclusive process. And Jeremy, if you would like to add a little bit more.

For example, this building we're in right now was built under a project labor agreement, setting aside our concerns with the elevators in this place. Don't blame the elevator constructors for that. That's not their fault. They just designed--they built what was designed. We negotiated, this was negotiated with the Department of General Services. So the individual state agency will negotiate with, I would imagine, the State Building Trades or some entity, if it's a building in a specific city, a local entity on the project labor agreement locally.

I also want to highlight that in my conversations with the Carpenters, which I have full respect for and been collaborative, I want to make sure that as this bill moves along, is that we have language that also makes sure that it's an all-inclusive effort. So I do just want to highlight that for the record.

Okay. So the language isn't in there now, but this is something that you're working with the Carpenters on?

I think that they have concerns about the language, but it is, again, inclusive as is, but we're going to continue to make sure that we are addressing concerns as we move this bill forward.

So who makes the decision in terms of who has a place at the negotiating table for the PLAs? Is that the individual contractor that wins the bid? Is that the trades union?

It's the local entity. I'll just use a local PLA as an example. The City Council, County Board brings in the players, the developer, maybe contractors who are going to bid, and they talk together about what the PLA is going to look like. Sometimes it's done before the contracts are bid. Sometimes it's done with the developer. We're at the table. Anybody--on local PLAs, it's a little easier. Any local union that is in an area is welcome to come to the negotiating table.

And at the back of a PLA, there's all the different signatures of the entities, and it's all the different, you know, labor unions or contractors who are going to be on the project.

So what happens in the situation where there's disagreement? Like, how does that impact the timeline for development? So just, for example, coming in as a new legislator, you know, I've asked the question, you know, we're here in the Swing Space. Am I going to see an opportunity to be in the Capitol Building, which historically has held legislators? And I've been answered with 'perhaps not in my lifetime.' So help me to understand the negotiation of the PLA, how the timelines are impacted when there's disagreement.

Well, the work across the street's also being under a PLA. Those were done before the contracts went out to bid.

Okay. Okay.

And then in most contracts, there's PLAs, there's also agree to protocol for dealing with disputes on the job.

Okay.

There's some kind of dispute between crafts or some sort of worker issue that's dealt with an arbitration proceeding that is decided in the PLA before the contract goes out to bid.

And so is that, does that halt construction? Does that halt the project from being completed in the timeline that was initially estimated?

Under Public Contract Code 2500, which is where this bill is going right under, 2504, one of the requirements--I didn't read them because I didn't have time--one of the requirements of all public PLAs is to have a no strike, no lockout, no work stoppage requirement in the PLA.

Even if there's disagreement between the trade unions in terms of--?

Even--let's just use the Sacramento Kings Arena as an example. Say we're building that right now and there's a strike or a lockout down there. That does not affect this project. Those are two distinct things. And so in each PLA, you know, and in each public PLA, you have a no strike, no lockout provision under current law now.

Okay, thank you. So you said that the negotiations happen before the contract goes to bid?

So what's the timeline between the time that a request for proposals is released to the time that the entity needs to make a decision on that? So what's that timeline to be able to dispute?

Correct.

I think, you know, every PLA is different. Every project is different. It's hard for me to guess what that timeline would be.

Average? The PLAs that you've been involved in?

I mean, I think that before the request for proposals go out, there's a project labor agreement on the project.

And I want to highlight, just from a city perspective, as a former city council member, we had projects that had PLAs and we had projects that did not have PLAs. The City of Hayward that I represented at the time is south of Oakland, right, and Oakland is considered the large city in the East Bay. And Hayward is not necessarily the large city. It's a small to medium-sized city.

And the agreements with the developers and the property owners at that time, whether there was a PLA or not, sometimes the property owner could not finish a project, right? On their own, without a unionized workforce, without--maybe something didn't go through, maybe permits were held, maybe they changed plans or their financials didn't come through. There's a lot of things that affect a particular project. It's not always just PLAs.

And the goal of a PLA, especially for the workforce, is to get a job and get going, right? They're not interested in delaying anything, and, you know, as he mentioned, there's a lot of safeguards in there to kind of keep it moving forward.

All right. Mr. Fuentes, do you want to respond to what you've heard here?

Yeah, just quickly, I mean, I want to thank Mr. Smith for pointing out sort of how it is that local governments typically enjoy project labor agreements, and as a recovering city councilman in Los Angeles, I can tell you that the contractor is not at the table when this is negotiated. The owner, the agency, they decide what it is that they want in the project labor agreement.

And typically what happens is you'll have scoping hearings and meetings, and it'll take a year or so before the bid gets to the street. But the point in the process problem that we have is that the contractor isn't at the table. We don't have the opportunity to negotiate those terms and what it is that will be used on that job. It's after the fact that if we are interested in bidding in that job, then this is what we have to live with. And again, it's a process point. We would prefer to be at the table.

Thank you.

So I'm hearing that all project labor agreements are negotiated separately. Is there an unwritten rule or a written rule of the process? I'm going to use the term 'the rigmarole' of how project labor agreements are applied within the State of California. Or is it a distinct beast in each different--

It is very much distinct because also the projects differ, right? The localities differ, the workforce differs, and much more, so in more rural areas, obviously, it's a different process than in, let's say, the metro areas.

One of the efforts of what we're trying to do as a caucus and as a group and people who are trying to make sure that we do the American thing and put Americans to work is to have a more uniform project, right? But we also want to respect the work of the different departments, the general contractors, and the circumstance of the environments as it is. So there is not one uniform process, but it also falls into usually what's typically done.

Okay, so this is my last question here: so you mentioned rural communities, and, you know, I represent small cities and rural communities, and we typically get the crumbs of what's left to PLAs and access to good working jobs. And so when I talk to my constituents and they share these concerns, particularly covering the Eastern Sierras, they're seeing workers come in from the Bay Area to what they call home and local workforce not being able to qualify for these jobs.

They're also seeing out-of-state workers coming in and working in their backyards. And so I have, you know, constituents that some that are part of labor unions, some that are not, but simply want to work and live and take care of their families and communities within where they live and where they grew up.

So--excuse me--I respect that the Bay Area, Southern California, Los Angeles, San Diego, some of these bigger projects, Sacramento, that we've seen these PLAs work. I still don't think that that represents all of California. And when I think of California, for me, being born and raised here and what I've seen, how I've seen us grow, we are still looking at the rural areas of California, the eastern and the northern areas of California, less than the highly populated voter center areas. So I am concerned about that.

I also learned recently about PLAs from my constituents that talked about their support for prevailing wage, and they understand that the fairness of prevailing wage and looking for those good paying jobs. But the hourly amount for union fringe benefits comes off of non-union worker hourly compensation. So that I was concerned about. So what happens if the workers that are non-union workers, what happens if they never receive or never qualify for union health benefits or other union retirement benefits? What happens to that money that has been taken off of their paychecks?

Yeah, and I don't believe that to be 100 percent accurate, and I want to say that you and I share the same concerns. Primarily, even in the Bay Area, the amount of projects that we have going on, they're not all unionized, right? And we know this. And so, again, this bill is to identify roughly three projects within a given timeframe, and it's foot in the door to make sure that all people are paid fairly.

In particular, one of the concerns I have, including in the Bay Area, because I am a Bay Area representative, is that the non-union contractors have been recruiting from Middle America. And, you know, let's say 18 to 25 dollars an hour is a lot for Middle America, but it's not necessarily a lot for the Bay Area or California across the board, right?

My goal and the work that I try to do is to make sure that every single person, regardless of union or non-union--and I've said this in other Committees--I want to make sure that they're paid fairly and with dignity. And I agree with a lot of the Carpenter's language in regards to making sure that people have health care, making sure people are paid fairly and so much more.

And that's what we're trying to identify also in the Community Benefits Agreement because not all people are treated equally and that needs to stop. And I'll let Jeremy talk about some of the more detailed pieces of your question, but we are on the same page. I don't care that you're from a northern or rural part of California or you're from a big city. I represent a medium to small city.

And I still want those individuals, whether they're documented, undocumented, whether they have a prison record or they don't have a prison record, whether they're aging or, you know, healthy, I want them all to be paid fairly and treated with dignity. And, Jeremy, if you would like to answer anything?

Can I just interject here? The question was asked, if they don't get the insurance, where do the premiums that are paid in go to? That's the question we need to have answered, and then we're going to move this hearing on.

Thank you.

First, that--

Retirement as well. Yes.

Correct. Most PLAs have a mechanism for contractors who may be non-union to bring in a number of their own workers on the project, whatever it be. That's negotiated. Locally, with PLA to PLA, there's no industry standard for that number of sort of workers that won't be dispatched out of a hiring hall, being brought in by a contractor who employs some of their own forces.

I would say that most of the time, those workers, once they are shown what they're going to make as opposed to what they have been making in terms of benefits in health care and wages, tend to want to be organized into our unions and do get access to their health care benefits they've earned and pension, things they didn't have before.

Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Yeah, I'm not sure that answered the question. I think the question that we need to hear and have on record is in order to be able to say, receive the retirement benefits that companies that are not considered part of the labor union groups that are paying into the system in order to work in these projects because they can, I mean, there's an allotment for them to be able to bid in it, but these benefits that they receive, such as retirement, that these companies are paying in on behalf of their personal employees into the system, into the project labor agreement as a whole, those retirements, in order for them to retrieve those benefits, what is the timeframe before they have to be vested into a project in order for them to retrieve those benefits, in order to be able to get them?

We just fundamentally disagree with the point that the other side is seeing in that situation. We believe that those benefits are given to those workers and project labor agreements--

The question is how long do you have to be invested in the project or into the union work in order to retrieve those?

Project labor agreements are negotiated one off, and so each project labor agreement is different. I can't speak to an industry standard about the time somebody would have to be vested. I would say it just depends on each project labor agreement--

And what is the average based on your experience, because you're an experienced person in these projects. What is the average that you have to be vested in in order to retrieve those, for those companies to be able to get that, or actually the employees be able to retrieve those benefits?

Having not negotiated a PLA myself, I'm just a humble lobbyist here. I don't have an average number for you. I can get that for you after a Committee and follow up with both you and Senator Alvarado-Gil on that answer.

Those benefits? Okay. So it is my understanding, based on conversations that I've had on the other side, that in order for these folks to receive those benefits that have been put in, many of the times on the average, you have to be vested into the system for about five years before they were able to get that. By that time, most projects don't last five years, so they don't get those benefits. So it actually dissuades people from bidding on those projects or working on those projects or it costs them more money.

I want to address that, too, and, Senator, you're absolutely right. Usually it is. However, I also want to say that project labor agreements, with or without the contractors who also subcontract out, the employee works for that particular group, whether it is for, you know, any of the Building Trades groups or anything like that. So that's who they're originally connected with.

Very similar to local cities or counties. They belong to that particular union, and the union negotiates with that particular agency their terms and their benefits and their things like that, which we're doing here in this building as well with the workforce here. So I really do want to highlight there's some nuances of how this is structured across the board. It's not just direct employee to individual project, right? It is, I want to say, a middleman to some degree in everything that we're discussing. So I just want to highlight that.

All right. Any other questions? Senator Bradford?

Yeah. I am sorry if I misunderstood. Did you say the project corner across the street to the Capitol, renovations is under project labor agreement similar to this?

I did.

Okay. And I think you and Senator Smallwood spoke to greater diversity, and this has been a bone of contention for me for the last three years, the lack of diversity on that project. And three and a half years, I've seen two African Americans working on that.

So if project labor agreements are supposed to bring greater diversity hiring from the community, it's not demonstrated on a half a billion dollar project that's going on. I have those in my district, SoFi, Intuit. Both of those in the heart of my district use project labor agreements and they did hire from the immediate community and they had greater diversity. They had people of color as well as women. It ain't happening across the street.

So that needs to be fixed because we can't keep making these promises of jobs and opportunities and they don't exist, and I have that conversation with leadership here and with the Governor's Office, the lack of diversity on a half a billion dollar project that's at our State Capitol and no one seems to care about the lack of diversity on that project.

Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may represent LA County and San Bernardino County that people think of as urban, but it's very rural and there's a lack of opportunity for our members. I got another bill going forward that would require a study to see if we could qualify for a California State University. We have over a million people and we have two community colleges. South Dakota, which has less than a million, has seven public colleges and universities. So that's one pathway that doesn't exists for my constituents and this is another.

My first year here I actually created a new Water Agency in Santa Clarita Valley. We did a workforce community agreement, has worked out very well, and ensured that we hired our local veterans, that we hired locals from the community. Up in the Antelope Valley, we have numerous government agencies that have these agreements and it allows these people to work, have a career, and have mortgage paying jobs. So I thought the first iteration of your bill was a little overly ambitious, but with the hard work of the Chair and the Committees and toning it down a little bit, I'm going to be happy to support your bill today.

Thank you, Senator.

Anybody else? Seeing none, Senator, as you know, I had some serious concerns with the statewide PLA requirement. The amendments that were made last week or a little bit before that lessen those concerns. I do still think that the opponents bring up some good points. While I'll be voting for the bill today, I encourage you to work with the opponents to see if there are some amendments going forward that will alleviate their concerns. With that, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. I really do appreciate the conversation about this and I want to highlight that it is about that ambition, right? You know, we are Americans. We want to move this country forward. These are government projects. These are government taxpayers' dollars and at the same time, we want to set a standard of what does it mean to have a good paying job with benefits, with retirement support and health care and all the things that we want?

And I will tell you for myself, I've worked both non-union jobs and union jobs, and I've been nothing but supportive of union jobs after it was unionized. It's incredibly important, and I want to highlight that this is to identify three projects moving forward. The report also allows us to study what we're looking at and seeing if this is beneficial to the State of California, which I do believe it is, and this is going to move the State of California forward.

And I do commit, not only to the Chair, but then also to the members here that spoke in opposition, that I'm more than happy to work with anybody and everybody. So thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion on SB 984. The bill's been moved by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. The motion is 'do pass to Labor Committee.' Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

So that's five to two. We'll put that bill on call. Now we're gonna move to File Item Number Five. That's SB 1355.

Thank you. Well, I'm hoping this is a little bit of a lighter Bill for you guys. So, chair Dodd, colleagues and Members of the public, I'm here to represent or present SB 1355, which extends the eligibility of Medi Cal benefits for in home support services recipients to every three years instead of annually. This Bill passed out of the Health Committee on a 10 to zero vote. Every year.

The most vulnerable of an already vulnerable population lose benefits because they did not submit their information on time or they lack knowledge or access and assistance with an administrative process they may find intimidating and cumbersome, especially monolingual individuals, immigrants and others, especially the aging population. Extending the eligibility period will ensure that the population who rely most on it will see fewer interruptions their benefits and can focus on their health and families, long term care and aging.

Experts agree that any changes in income from medi Cal beneficiaries on IHSS are too insignificant to warn yearly applications. SB 1355 is modeled after existing law, which allows continuing medical eligibility for children up to five years of age without conducting redeterminations during that period. Its use with other Medi Cal populations has already proven it possible to conduct redeterminations without yearly applications by Medi Cal beneficiaries on IHSS. I would like to introduce my witness, Kevin Aslanian, the Executive Director with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations. In due time. Chair.

Good morning. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations. There's about 1 million IHS recipients who have to do annual redetermination every year, and that basically, most of them are in fixed income, so there's no change in their income, and the government knows exactly what the quota is. So this Bill will say that you only do it once every three years. That would basically save at least $100 million every three years.

I mean, basically, Department of Healthcare Services has done analysis of these redeterminations, and they did a survey, and in January of this year, over 100,000 families were cut off Medi Cal because they failed to meet the procedure requirements. They were eligible for Medi Cal, but they meant met the bureaucratic requirements. And the survey showed that 64% of them never got the forms to send it in, and 42% of them send the forms in got lost. 35% of them called up the call center to try to work it out, and they got hung up on. And this primarily affects Hispanics, so we urge, and aye vote, thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify in support of this Bill, please come forward now. Anybody wishing to testify against this Bill, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll turn back to the Committee any discussion. All right, so we have a motion by Senator Alvarado-Gil. Anybody else wishing to address seeing none? The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Would you like to close? Senator Wahab,

I respectfully ask for an aye vote perfect.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes. We'll put that Bill on call. Thank you, Senator Wahab. At long last, we have Senator Becker, who has been so patient and yielded his spot. Now you're up. It's file item number three. That's SB 942.

At long last, we have Senator Becker who's been so patient and yielded his spot. Now you're up. It's file item number three. That's SB 942.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 942. This is the California Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act. The Bill takes a bold first step to addressing the proliferation of AI-generated content. As AI technology advances, the distinguishing between human and machine-generated content is becoming increasingly challenging. This ambiguity poses significant societal and democratic risk, exacerbating problems such as disinformation, harassment, and fraud.

Thank you, Mister chair. And Members, I'm here to present SB 942. This is the California Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act. Bill takes a bold first step to addressing the proliferation of AI generated content.

Recent deepfake incidents such as fake videos of Taylor Swift, cloned videos of President Biden that just highlight how easily AI can manipulate images for harassment or political manipulation. This technology could also have a negative impact on our economy.

When they had fake images of an explosion near the Pentagon went viral, it caused an economic market instability. Fraudsters can also exploit AI-generated technology for mimicking loved one's voices. So, this happened in San Francisco, where a family got a call, thought it was from their son, talking about how he had been in an accident. It was his voice. And then he said he was going to get a call from the lawyers. They wired money for bail, $25,000. Turned out it wasn't him at all.

Someone had cloned his voice, called him, I mean, called the family, and they did not know. So clearly, transparency is needed here. This is moving very quickly, and we're kind of in the petri dish early stages of all this. The EU has taken certain steps to act.

Their AI act mandates transparency standards, including requirement to enforce users when they're interacting with an AI system, and to clearly mark synthetic audio, video, text, and images as artificially generated or manipulated, both for users and in a machine-readable format. That's what the EU is doing. SB 942 serves to address the growing uncertainty surrounding AI-generated content by requiring large gen AI system providers two through three. Three things. Number one, label AI-generated content with visible and imperceptible embedded disclosures.

Two, supply an AI detection tool for users to query whether content was created by AI and third, enforce third-party licensees, to the extent technically feasible, to prevent undisclosed content publication. This Bill serves to address the challenges posed by AI-generated content, promoting transparency, accountable, and trust in the digital landscape. I'd say we're actively collaborating with industry and with opposition to address concerns. Again, acknowledging this is all moving very quickly.

And so, we are working with them to try to strike the right balance in regulating generative AI for the benefit of all California. So, I'm joined today. I've one witness, Tom Kemp, who's an entrepreneur, founded a leading cybersecurity company that was an early adopter of AI technology, detect cyberattacks, and recently published a book exploring the guardrails needed for AI. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Dodd and Committee Members. In 2021, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said this. I view AI as the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on. If you think about fire, electricity, or the Internet, it's like that. But I think it's even more profound. But if AI is as profound as he claims, then it should be held to the same standards of honesty and transparency as a pack of gum. Now, we've had food labeling laws dating back to 1906.

These laws not only require standardized disclosures, but also prohibit false or misleading branding. California even passed its own food labeling law in 1939. But here we are in 2024. And so here we have a pack of gum that has clear labeling. On the back, it has a barcode. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether content is human-generated, or machine-generated by AI, i.e. synthetic. Californians deserve to know whether the videos, photos, and content they see and read online are real.

SB 942 addresses this problem. It simply says a provider must label its content and provide a way for a consumer to ask, hey, did you create this? So, a few key points. First, the Bill does not mention the word watermarking at all, nor is it prescriptive in how a provider labels AI. So that gives time for standards to merge, but we can still have a solution today. Second, it does not require providers to detect other platforms AI content, just its own.

And third, if you ask chat GPT, it says, hey, we don't have an AI detection tool, so it's not redundant that this Bill asks for this. In summary, this Bill puts AI content on the same level as a pack of gum in terms of disclosures, which is the transparency that Californians need. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify in support of this Bill, please come forward. Seeing none. Anybody wishing to testify against this Bill, please come forward now. Morning.

Thank you. Mister chair and Members Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Technet, respectfully opposed to SB 942. We fully agree with the intent of SB 942 to create greater trust in user-generated content online by fostering the adoption of content providence verifications and watermarks. As the Senator alluded, we are in collaboration with the author's office. We're working to provide substantive amendments and suggestions and work collaboratively with him and his staff.

However, just speaking of the Bill as it's in print today, presents a multitude of issues and requires platforms to comply with some technically infeasible and some impossible standards. First, while we understand the desire to regulate an emerging technology, this is an area where that would benefit from federal standards and regulation rather than a state-by-state approach.

I feel like I have to say that. Understand the need and desire for states to move forward, though, in trying to regulate this space, and we hope to be helpful partners in that. Many of our companies and platforms are at the forefront of developing content provenance and watermarking technology, which is still in its early stages. However, SB 942 has requirements for a technology that's still under development and rapidly developing.

For example, there isn't a system that can watermark text, making the bills requirements to do so impossible to comply with. Furthermore, content provenance and watermarking is still incredibly unreliable and, in many cases, very easy to break. Researchers at the University of Maryland were able to break all the currently available watermarking methods. Some can be avoided by simple cropping, resizing, or screenshotting of an image. More concerning, these researchers were able to insert fake watermarks and credentials into images, creating false positives.

So, in our view, any Bill on this topic should account for this unreliability. Otherwise, I think we risk jeopardizing consumer trust. If laws exceed the industry's technological capabilities, we're concerned that consumers might place too much trust in credence and watermarks, making them more susceptible to bad actors attempts to deceive. And finally, just to very quickly distinguish between a pack of gum and I think the technology here at issue, a pack of gum is not protected by the First Amendment, whereas some of the speech is.

And I think the way that we either preference or stigmatize certain speech is concerning. And that's why we want to get this right, is to make sure that we fall very clearly under that. As I mentioned previously, very much look forward to collaborating with the author and as this Bill moves forward at this time, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify against? Good morning.

Hi. Ben Golombek with CalChamber. Just associate our comments with Technet and appreciate the author continuing to work with us.

Okay, we'll bring this back to the Committee. Anybody have any questions or comments? Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. I want to thank the author for your thoughtful approach on this and very supportive of the Bill.

I have some similar pieces myself that deal with consumer protection and, you know, given the evolution and the application of this technology and how pervasive it is and how integrated it is, the only tools that consumers are left with is information and other sophisticated tools to at least give them some sense of either the authenticity of the source or the authenticity of the product. And given the complexities here, you have to try to, in my view, approach this with any tool available.

I remember the argument, and I'm sensitive to the industry concerns. At the same time, it kind of reminds me of the old adage, you know, somebody said there wasn't enough lifeboats on the Titanic to save everyone, so we should think about something other than lifeboats. I think that we really need to think about whatever tools are available as we try to keep pace with this emerging technology. I appreciate the author's work. Happy to move the Bill at the right time.

Thank you. Anybody else? Senator Jones.

Thank you. Senator Becker, I'm really torn on this, and so I'm going to raise some concerns, maybe, and just kind of, some of them are concerns about the Bill and the technology. I do want to acknowledge my staff real quick, as she was reading through this, recognize that, you know, almost 90 years ago, we had our first incident, I think, well known of this.

It was the Orson Welles presentation of War of the Worlds, when the public was starting to freak out, thinking that was a real news item. So, to your Bill specifically, and you might want to address the opposition and the support because they both mentioned watermarks. And now I'm confused on that issue. Is it in there or is it not in there? The questions I have is, okay, what's the limit? Where's the line on this?

Is an app like Facetune or a filter like Snapchat covered under this? And if it is or isn't, what do we do about that? This is such a broad issue. It's obviously global. We should need a federal solution to this rather than 50 different states tackling this. And so I guess those would be. I have some other concerns, but I'm trying to get there on this. I recognize we got to do something, but sometimes something isn't better than nothing. So just kind of walk me through those couple of things and see where we get.

Yeah, thank you. Listen, and I do appreciate what was raised by the opposition. And again, we are working with them, working with industry. This Bill does not specifically mention watermarks. I think there might be confusion with it. There's another Bill in the Assembly that does specifically mention watermarks. This one does not. It says there has to be disclosure, but the Bill does not dictate what that standard is.

So, I think we're continuing to work. I understand what they say, the limitations for text and some of the difficulties with text. And again, this is rapidly evolving. I think we're trying to again, address it in a way it has to be implementable. Right? And to your point, it has to be better than nothing. So, if it's a standard that's too easy, faked or whatever, then it's not going to be helpful. I see Tom.

Is it okay to have my witness have a quick come through the chair?

I would like to hear. Go ahead. Yeah, we really tried hard in this Bill not to be prescriptive and actually dictate what the disclosure is. Right. And so we explicitly do not mention technical implementations such as watermarking. And the opposition raised excellent points. We simply say, look, there just needs to be some form of disclosure, and then we ask the government technology Department to review the standards that are emerging and then make actually recommendations every two years.

So we wanted to have an on ramp if a federal standard, but I think, as we all know, if we're, you know, we're still waiting for a federal privacy law, and it's been 30 years, et cetera. So some of these standards just probably won't come about anytime soon. And the good news is that actually all the large technology players have actually said that they would do disclosures as well.

So this is kind of just confirming exactly what they do and they're moving ahead without any specific standards, et cetera. And so this just simply just puts it into law and then sets a high enough threshold for the entities that for the larger generators of AI just to put the equivalent of a food label on the actual content that they create. Thank you.

Any better approach from here? Yes, it will. Okay. Thank you. Senator Becker, I'd like to acknowledge some of the concerns raised by the opposition, particularly regarding the ability to detect AI generated text. I understand you've said that here, that you're continuing to work with the opposition. I would urge you to do that, obviously in the future. Again, as chair of Geo, I've seen a number of AI bills in this Committee, some of my own, some of the other Members of the Committee.

It's important that we continue to innovate while remaining, excuse me, cognizant of the threats that these new technologies pose. Detection of AI generated content, particularly photos and videos, and their ability to spread information is one of the greatest threats this technology poses. With that, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes, and thank you, chair. I do appreciate your leadership on this. Giving the first speech on the floor that was AI generated. I remember that well. Yeah, I know we're all, many of us are, I know many of us are working on this issue, and I certainly will continue to work with industry, with the opposition. We want to come up with something that, again, protects consumers, but doesn't stifle the industry and is step forward.

Yeah. As much as I hate this, when I have somebody close, maybe I didn't look to the right, but

I'm going to keep it very brief, very brief. And this is actually to your benefit, Senator Becker.

So my message is really to the opposition that, you know, I believe I am fair in evaluating opposition and support for every Bill that comes in front of me. However, the letter that was submitted by Technician Cal Chamber was not in regard to your Bill. It was in regard to Senate Bill 942, Wicks, which confused me. And that. And reading the letter, it also says SB 942. Becker. So I am confused with the opposition and I'm going to support your Bill. Where before I had questions. So just a note to anyone who submits letters, please help us do our jobs by giving us the complete information. Thank you, Senator Becker.

The ultimate close. Yes. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee secretary. Please call the roll. [Roll Call] Bill has five votes. We'll leave that on call. Thank you very much, Senator Becker.

At this point, we're going to move on to file item number eight, SB 1107. I am going to turn the Committee over in about, in the middle. Come on up, Senator Durazzo. Probably in the middle of this to somebody here, which we'll decide in a minute. zero, Senator? Yeah, Senator Jones, would you do that? So, good morning. Thank you, Senator Durazo. Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mister chair. SB 1107 will provide an option for unhoused Californians to receive and pick up their government related mail at a county Department of Social Services office. Currently, government agencies rely on the US Postal Service to deliver important mail to Californians who don't have a reliable mailing address through General delivery. This free service provides access to mail delivered to local post office. However, General delivery varies from county to county. For example, San Francisco, there's one General delivery for the entire city and county.

As an alternative, Californians without a permanent address have also relied on receiving their mail at county social services offices in counties such as San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. They can also receive mail at shelters, nonprofits, and friends or families. Californians to receive public benefits receive notices and access of these services through the mail, including the EBT cards, recertification of public benefits, and notices of housing programs. The notices often require people to respond in a timely manner.

If not, their benefits or services could be interrupted or cut off without. The impacts of not having a reliable mailing address are detrimental to these Californians. And so, without set standards that expand access to receiving mail, the shortcoming can potentially impact tens of thousands of unhoused Californians. With me to testify today is Christopher Sanchez, one of our sponsors with the Western center on Law and Poverty.

Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Mister chair Members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Veda group representing the Western center on Law and Poverty here in strong support of SB 1107. For decades, Californians have relied on delivery of mail through the United States Postal Service, which up until recently was a reliable service to send and receive mail.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the post office has significantly changed for many reasons, but as a result has pulled back services that were readily available to all Californians, including services specifically tailored to those who are unhoused by providing free PO box services, also known as General delivery. The reality today is that those services are being very limited, are very limited, and in many cases, no longer available.

Last year, the Western Center on Law and Poverty published a report showing how Californians without a mailing address are disenfranchised, especially those trying to access public benefits. 1107 provides an additional option for unhoused Californians to access critical social services. Because our social service programs still rely on mail. You can't receive an ID, an EBT card without having access to mail. You can't receive a letter to be on a housing waiting list or access to a housing program without access to mail. And the list goes on for these reasons, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association in support. Thank you.

Abby Alvarez with Nourish California in support.

Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support to add on in their support of this Bill? Seeing no other witnesses in support, any opposition to SB 1107, other witnesses that might be in opposition can begin to line up in the aisle there.

Good morning. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association, we do appreciate the intent of this Bill, but unfortunately, our counties are opposed. Currently, some of our counties are able to help our unhoused clients because they are known to us and they are a part of our county services, and so we are able to keep mail for them.

Or more likely, what it is, is we reprint for them any of the notices that we've actually sent to them. So someone comes in, they come to our intake office, and we are able to reprint for them anything that we've sent out so that they can have it on hand. Some counties do try and additionally take in other forms of mail if it's known to them that it's coming but not all of our counties provide that service.

So to expand this to all of our counties, to do that, we do feel is going to be quite a burdensome undertaking for our counties and costly. There will be significant workload issues, not just in storing, but also creating the infrastructure to hold onto that mail and then to send anything back to the post office that isn't part of the government mail that's been identified that we should be keeping. And so we're just happy to continue to work with the author's office, see if we can get to a middle ground on this. But for those reasons, we are opposed. Thank you.

Kelly Brooks. On behalf of the urban counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California, we are also opposed and would just align our comments with CWDA. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing no other witnesses in opposition. Discussion from the dais. Senator Alvarado?

Senator Durazzo, I know we saw you in human services, and I just wanted to know what work has been done between the last Committee and this Committee with opposition to kind of come to a common ground.

Well, do you want to talk about that, Chris?

I apologize, ma'am, if you can repeat the question.

Yes. So we saw you in Human Services Committee, and there were some concerns from opposition. And my question is, what work has been done with the opposition to kind of come to a middle ground?

Unfortunately, at this time, we haven't had a chance to sit with opposition. I think we are looking to sit with them again to hear more of the concerns. We haven't received any feedback based on the new language that's in print today.

Any other comments from Members? I just wanted to thank the author for the Bill. You know, it is a shame that we have to provide this level of service, but this is just where our economy has left some folks way, way, way behind, where even receiving mail requires support and assistance. So I'm happy to move the Bill when it's time. It's necessary and it's needed. Thank you. We have a motion on SB 1107. Any other comments from the dais? Senator Durazzo, would you like to close? Yes.

Again, I just want to say that counties like San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, as diverse as those counties are, are providing an option, and I would urge every county to do the same. Follow and I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. We have a motion by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas on SB 1107. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee secretary. We're ready to call the roll.

[Roll Call] Thank you. That has four aye votes. As we can see, many Members are in other committees right now, so we'll put it on call for the end of the session today. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're going to take, we don't have any Senators waiting to present, so we're going to take Members from the dais.

We're going to take Senator Bradford's SB 1403, which is file item 20. Senator Bradford will be presenting. Senator Bradford. Again, for the public, we're on file item 20, Senate Bill 1403, Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mister Chair. 1403 would establish that California's American Freedmen Affairs Agency for the purpose of implementation, oversight, and monitoring of policies and laws enacted related to reparations. It would also require the agency to oversee and monitor existing state agencies and departments tasked with engaging in direct implementation of reparations policies.

This Bill was the recommendation of the California Reparations Task Force, which I spent two years of my life being a part of, and it's one of the most essential of the report's 115 recommendations. This agency will be necessary foundation for the implementation and success of reparations. Most important responsibilities of this agency will have, will have is determining individuals which are eligible for reparations programs and services that the Legislature enacts.

Eligible individuals are descendants of of chattel slaves of African Americans in this United States or descendants of free black persons living in the United States prior to the end of the 19th century. SB 1403 will create a genealogical office of research and confirm reparations eligibility, expedite assistance with reparations claims process, and many people ask, why California? Why should we be responsible for reparations at all? Well, in no way does this excuse the Federal Government and our local governments from taking action.

California still bears some real responsibility here. The state government permitted and committed grave injustices against African Americans. These injustices include enslavement, legal, public, and private segregation, discrimination in state funding and programming, and stigmatization. This agency is the first step in California, stigmatizing, I should say, California can take in writing these wrongs. 1403 is about demonstrating our state's commitment to not only recognizing the past, but also taking meaningful actions toward an equitable future. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. We'll now take witnesses in support of Senate Bill 1403. Are there any witnesses in support?

Mister Chair and Senators Adam Keigwin, on behalf of City of Los Angeles, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? If you're a witness in support, now would be the time to be lining up to share your support. Go ahead.

Yes, good morning. My name is Darlene Crummity, a member of the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, as well as American Redress Coalition of California, ARCC Bay Area. I am in total support at SB 1403. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support?

Good morning. Kim Mims with the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, CJEC, American Redress Coalition of California, ARCC Sacramento Branch, and Emend the Mass Media in full and total support of SB 1403. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing no other witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 1403? Seeing no one making their way to the microphone. Conversation from the dais. Members? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I want to thank the author for bringing this important piece of legislation, but also his leadership on this issue for so many years, both on the task force, but as a Member educating not just our community, but our Legislature on this, on this issue. As a member of the Black caucus, I absolutely want to move this Bill when the time is right. But I also want to say how important it is for us to address reparations in California for California.

Slavery is the economic foundation of our country, and in many ways, California benefited from it tremendously. And that foundation because of the racial terror, because of the disenfranchisement, because of the intergenerational violence, our foundation is deeply cracked. And I see reparations as a way of repairing the foundation which makes our state stronger and will lift all of us in the process.

So, I want to say this is sacred work, and this is an important piece of legislation, and I'm grateful to be in the Legislature at this time where we are positioning our state for a different and brighter future for next generations. Reparations is all about a life where we make amends for what the harms that have been done, and we have the opportunity to lean into a freer future for all of us.

So, I want to say thank you again to the author, and I look forward to supporting the Bill when the time is right.

Any other comments from the dais? I will take that as the motion then from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

Thank you, and I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Los Angeles. And this is an issue that California should face up to and accept. And many times they say, why California?

California was not a slave state, but in name only, it practiced everything that a slave state did. If you were brought here as a slave, you were treated as a slave. If you gave birth here as California, your child was born as a slave. We had a fugitive slave law, so if you ran away from one of those slave states, you were returned by bounty hunters. So. And our first Governor, we must understand that Peter Burnett owned slaves in this state.

So, we were a slave state in practice. This is not charity. What we're trying to do with this Freedmen Agency. It's going to be a way of standing up. Same way we did for our Native American brothers and sisters with the tribal affairs, to make sure that they were justly compensated and taken care for the wrongs that happened to them. This is following that same motto. And I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. We are ready for. We're going to. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call a roll.

[Roll call] That's five.

That Bill has five aye votes. We'll put it on call for the other Members to get here. Next, we're going to take up Senate Bill 1114, Senator Niello. This is file item nine on our file today, Senator Niello is presenting file item nine, Senate Bill 1114. Senator Niello, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. I can see by the population of the dais that everybody here is running around quite a bit today.

Actually, Senator, they're off goofing off.

For those of you who don't know, that's what I said Senator Wilk was doing when I presented his Bill yesterday. But I quickly modified that statement to say that he had unavoidable conflicts during the day.

But I'm not going to say that about my colleagues here.

So, thank you, Mister Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SB 1114, which would require each state agency, department, office or entity to clearly post their budgets on their respective Internet homepages. First of all, let me begin by I do accept the Committee amendments.

The State of California mandates significant disclosure requirements in election, financial, insurance, real estate and other laws in an effort to promote transparency, regulate conduct, and to ensure informed consent. These disclosures, while mostly well intended to serve the public's interest, add complexity and expense to conducting business in California on other entities.

Conversely, while the state requires numerous persons, organizations and businesses to disclose information in the public's interest, information concerning the size, expense, and growth of state government is not easily and readily available to the casual or intermittent consumer of state services. Websites of state agencies departments offices provide extensive information about services available to citizens or requirements citizens must meet in obtaining licenses or performing other functions.

Yet the actual size, cost and growth of those entities are masked from Californians in obscure, difficult to understand budget documents for which most Californians would never see or look for. While we do have the Department of Finance website, it is not easy to navigate and something most citizens do not even know about so would never even think to visit the site.

Also, when you consider many of these agencies are license fee-funded, it makes sense that those license-paying individuals or entities be able to track the Department spending for accountability purposes. Promoting transparency of California's state government to workaday tax-paying Californians is a worthy goal in and of itself. Given our budget deficit, it is even more important that we than ever before to promote budget transparency efforts.

This Bill would require each state agency, department, office or entity with a home page on the Internet to post in a conspicuous place a brief disclosure in clear, legible table form of its total personnel, both full and part-time, its total authorized budget and the source of all of its fund, be it General Fund, special fund, or federal funds for the current and three previous budget years. I do not have any formal witnesses today.

I am performing without a safety net, but I look forward to the discussion of the Committee with the Committee.

That's great. You took their four minutes anyways so. Are there any other witnesses in support that would like to add on their voice to this excellent Bill, Senate Bill 1114? Seeing no witnesses making their way to the microphone. Are there any witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 1114? Seeing no witnesses making their way on Senate Bill 1114. We'll open the conversation to the dais for the Members. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I think this is a smart bill. Earlier in my career I introduced legislation that required 25% of the budget to go through a performance-based budgeting exercise, and it got nowhere. So, this is, I think, a compromise. And I don't know how anybody could not support this because all about transparency to the public. I think one of the problems we have today is a lack of trust and disclosure creates accountability, which creates trust. So, this is a great bill. Happy to move the Bill, and thank you for carrying this.

Thank you.

Any other discussion from the dais? Senator Archuleta.

Okay, yeah. Anytime we hear transparency, great for the public. And as the chair started his statement, he said, this great bill. And even though that is not an opinion of everyone, but I believe it is a good bill and I will go ahead and vote for it. And I appreciate you bringing it forward.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta, any other Members wishing to discuss? Seeing none. We have a motion on Senate Bill 1114. Senator Niello, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mister chair. One particular aspect that I think is really important for people to concentrate on is those that pay fees for the privilege of being regulated really deserve to be able to see how their fees are being paid, being utilized. And as Senator Archuleta said, transparency is good. And I will otherwise let Senator Wilk's statements suffice for my close.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Wilk. The motion is do pass as amended to the. You're accepting the amendments?

Yes.

As amended to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

That Bill has seven aye votes, and we'll put it on call for the remaining Members to get back to the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Have a great rest of your day.

Thank you. We're going to take Senator Limon first. She snuck in at the very last second as the buzzer was buzzing on the goaltender. File item seven is Senate Bill 1152 by Senator Limon. Senator Limon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

And Senators. First, I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee for their work on this. California is not immune to natural disasters and power outages, and our communication systems are essential in those situations. These systems help provide emergency notifications and communications between first responders. Because of the importance of these systems, the state requires wireline service providers to have backup power for 72 hours for the facilities in high fire areas.

Currently, broadband providers have been complying with these requirements, primarily using diesel generators. They have not been able to use battery backup power because of existing regulations around fire code and setbacks. Lithium batteries are an important part of moving towards energy resiliency and away from fossil fuels and when appropriate should be considered. I also want to commit to continue to working on this bill, specifically on how the regulations are directed. We want to continue talking to stakeholders and find workable solutions for batteries in the right way.

With me today in support of the Bill, I have Ingo Henschel from Cox Communications and Amanda Gualderama from CalBroadband.

Thank you. Witnesses in support. You each have two minutes.

Perfect. Good morning, Chair and Members. Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband in support of SB 1152. California requires all wireline service providers to have backup power for 72 hours to their facilities in tier two and tier three high fire threat districts.

Broadband providers have complied utilizing diesel generators and natural gas generators as the Senator mentioned, but consumers have expressed concerns with the use of the diesel generators due to noise, smell and the air pollution. SB 1152 requires CAL FIRE to update the Fire Code to allow lithium-based batteries to be an approved source of cleaner backup power. Currently, to utilize lithium-based batteries, a broadband provider would need to get a local permit for each battery deployed.

And with the historic amount of federal funding beginning to be awarded by the CPUC starting in June, broadband providers need an efficient statewide solution to be able to utilize lithium-based batteries to comply with the backup power requirements. We respectfully ask for an aye vote and happy to have our expert have answer any technical questions regarding the batteries. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any other key witnesses in support?

Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Ingo Hentschel. I'm with Cox Communications.

As Amanda mentioned, three years ago this California Public Utilities Commission issued a mandatory 72-hour backup power requirement for telecommunications equipment. The industry began exploring various technical technology solutions to comply to meet the CPUC's timeline, telecommunications have relied on traditional backup power solutions such as fixed natural gas generator or diesel generators. In our efforts to comply, we have found that in tier two and tier three high fire threat areas where natural gas is scarce, mobile gas or diesel generators are the only viable option.

Thanks to significant advancements in battery technology, lithium-based battery solutions have emerged as a feasible alternative. The energy density of lithium batteries enables telecoms equipment to meet the 72-hour requirements within the existing power supply footprint in the right of way.

This is crucial as most cities and residents strongly oppose adding additional larger equipment to the right of way and this crucial advancement in battery field because if we were able to use the current lead acid battery the state Fire Code allows for our equipment in the right of way, we would have to house up to 70 car-sized batteries in the right of way.

More of our battery management systems, or BMSs, for communication networks have significantly improved in terms of robustness and safety focus. These systems monitor critical conditions like thermal runaway, high temperatures, and other anomalies that can affect lithium batteries.

The BMS automatically triggers battery shutdowns under specific conditions and furthermore, feedback from our construction constituent, your constituents and our customers indicate that placing noisy mobile gas diesel generators in neighborhoods during PSPS events is disruptive and raises security concerns like vandalism. And finally, implementing a solution that takes into account technology advances in battery technology provides a greener power source while ensuring safety and minimizes the right of way encroachment issues and reduction of noise pollution caused by continuous generator operations during extended power outages. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Any other witnesses that would like to add on in support of SB 1152, please come to the microphones. Name and association, please.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of the Clean Power Campaign and Los Amigos de la Comunidad, in support.

Thank you.

Nico Molina on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support. Thank you.

Juanita Martinez on behalf of the Cal Chamber, in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none coming to the microphone. Any key witnesses in opposition to SB 1152? Please come forward.

So, John Kennedy with RCRC, we are in no way opposed to the Bill. We strongly support what the author is trying to accomplish. We were strongly supportive of the PUC's objectives several years ago. We appreciate the Committee amends that improve the scope of the Bill.

We think a little more refinement is necessary to the key terms to make sure the state fire marshal retains Independence to have the right standards and look forward to working with you with the Committee on those going forward. Just wanted to highlight that. Thank you very much.

Any other witnesses? Any other witnesses in polite, neutral concerns? Witnesses in opposition to 1152? Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Bringing the conversation to the dais for Members. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Move the Bill when appropriate.

We have a motion. Any other comments? Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mister. Just quickly going to support the Bill today, and I'm sure you're going to continue working with Mister Kennedy and the RCRC and try to get that hammered out.

Absolutely. We're committed to working out and making sure that the language is appropriate and working with the Committee as well to, you know, craft language that's appropriate and that works for all stakeholders.

Great. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, we have a motion by Senator Alvarado-Gil. The motion is do pass as amended. You are taking the amendment, Senator Limon?

Yes, I am taking amendments. Sorry. One of.

Amendments. Do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call] Eight.

Eight. The most votes so far. Eight aye votes. We'll put that on call for the remaining Members. Thank you very much. Next up is Senator Laird with file item 12, Senate Bill 1278. Senator Laird, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. Senate Bill 1278 will direct the Governor to rec. World AIDS Day. I'd be happy to answer questions. I have a witness. And I would just say I ran an AIDS service agency at the height of the epidemic. We lost 240 people in my county in the 10 years when I was associated with that.

And fortunately, we've moved on and people think it's all over, but it's not. And this is about education and prevention and just continuing to recognize that it's an issue for everyone. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote it's supported by many people here in support is Craig Pulsipher with Equality California, who I am sure has very brief comments.

Witnesses in support of 1278, please.

Good morning, Chair and members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California. Very proud to be here today in support. As many of you know, California has been at the forefront of efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Since the first cases were reported, the state has been a hub of HIV research and activism. But even with this progress, HIV remains a significant public health challenge.

Every year, over 4800 people are newly diagnosed with HIV, and marginalized communities remain disproportionately impacted, notably Black and Latino, gay and bisexual men, cis and trans women of color, and people who use drugs. The first World AIDS Day was held in 1988 to create an annual platform to raise awareness about HIV and AIDS across the globe.

And this day calls on us to remember those we've lost, provide care and treatment to those currently living with the disease, and commit to ending the discrimination that people with HIV face every day. It also calls on us to reflect on how we can work together to reduce new infections and ultimately get to zero. So very much appreciate the Senator's longtime leadership in this space. Proud to support SB 1278 and respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Abby Alvarez with APLA Health, in support.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California, also here in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing no other witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 1278? Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Bringing the conversation to the dais for members. Senator Portantino.

I don't know if I'm on as a co-author, but when you do amendments, if it's appropriate, I'd love to be added as a co-author.

If we do amendments, we will happily do that. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I just want to thank Senator Laird for bringing this forward. It's interesting because when I was reading the analysis, you actually educated me because I was not aware that this was still considered an epidemic in the State of California. So I am actually grateful. Thank you for the information. I think, if anything, I'm all about education, informing people, and so I'm grateful for it and happy to support the bill today.

Thank you. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you for enlightening us. I, too, probably felt, oh, it's behind us, but in reality, it's still here. We have to be proactive, and bringing this educational awareness to us is so vital, so important. I will be supporting the bill. Thank you.

Am I next? Are we doing the wave?

Should we just go all the way around or is anybody else?

Anybody else need to speak on the item? We do have a motion on the bill. Senator Laird, we do have a motion on the bill by Senator Bradford. Several comments in support. Would you like to close?

I just appreciate the comments and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is moved by Senator Bradford. Do pass to the Senate Floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. That has 10 aye votes, and we'll leave it on call for the remaining members that need to come back. Next Senator, is Senator Allen still here? No, he left. Senator Grove gets the move in front. Senator Grove is up with file item 10, Senate Bill 1239. Senator Grove, please share your bill with us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and Members, today I'm pleased to present a bipartisan bill, SB 1239, which would require that state suppliers of state purchased zero emission vehicles that contain lithium ion battery with cobalt must be certified child labor free, and we have a trade guarantee for that. I will also be expecting the Committee amendments to strip the requirement that the supplier provide the Department of General Services the locations and hourly wage of the workers mining the materials so that information can be posted online.

The Democrat Republic of the Congo, where the majority of the material is mined, has severe humanitarian crises, and it's important to us that the public understand where these, where we import these materials from. This is a key component to the bill, and I believe it should be left in. But in order to move the bill forward and address the Chair's concerns, I'm willing to accept the amendment.

In California, state government agencies are required to increase the number of zero emission vehicles within the state fleet to 50% for new purchases in 2024 and 2025. Many of these new purchases will be electric vehicles with lithium ion batteries that contain cobalt. The Democrat Republic of the Congo produces an estimate 70% of the world's cobalt, and the demand is projected to triple by 2035, mainly for EV batteries.

To keep up with the increasing demand for cobalt, excuse me, artisanal and small scale mines have estimated that there are about 200,000 people mining in the Congo in horrendous working conditions, including children as young as seven. These are makeshift mines with no professional large scale equipment, safety gear. And in these makeshift mines make it dangerous, often caving in and burying children and others alive.

In 2009, the US Department of Labor placed cobalt from the DRC on its list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor, and then over a decade later added lithium ion battery, specifically because the children involved in the mining were from cobalt in that country. Members, while cobalt is used in other battery types, California's vision for all electric vehicle fleet could cause a profound environmental damage and human misery.

In places like the Congo, we feed the raw materials that feeds the raw materials that are needed for these batteries. Colleagues, please recognize this is not something saying, I don't want EVs. Get EVs, do electric batteries and electric cars. Just let's source them. I think we can all agree with, no matter what party we're from, that we would like these products and these minerals to be child labor free and not forced.

A lot of these children are beaten and forced to produce a certain amount of this cobalt to be brought so that the supply chain can be met on our demand. And so, like I said, this is just to try to make sure that the sourced material that we get is child labor free. Again, produce EVs, sell EVs, transition to EVs. Let's just make their source the source of the material ethical. With me here to testify today is George Harmer, the director of Californians for Energy and Science.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Witnesses in support of the bill.

Thank you, Senator Grove. The issue of ethically sourced cobalt is multifaceted, touching on human rights, environmental sustainability, corporate responsibility, and global supply chain management. Cobalt, a critical component of lithium ion batteries in electric vehicles and also in the electronic devices we have here today. So the extraction of this cobalt is in the DRC.

It's plagued with systematic issues such as child labor, unsafe working conditions, environmental degradation. But I really want to focus on the EV portion of that and understand something about that when we're talking about the mandates from electrical vehicles, that was actually mandated here in California through the bus and truck regulations, CARB, Clean Air Act. Once that was mandated, there was something that I believe, and our organization believe kicked in. It was CEQA. CEQA actually was brought in in 1970, and it's here a state law.

So I just want to read a few things out of CEQA, you and why we believe that actually, through California mandating electric vehicles and 50% for the state, it actually triggered CEQA. Give me one second.

Absolutely. Is there potential impacts on. Across the world? So when we think about that, we think that it's not in our backyard. So as long as it's not happening in our backyard, it's not very at the forefront of our thought process.

So if you think about that, what qualifies as under CEQA? A project is defined as whole action subject to public agency discretion, funding approval--there's a lot of things that go on--cause a direct physical change in the environment, or.

Sir, you're at two minutes. Senator Grove, do you only have one witness in support?

Okay, can you wrap up in the next 30 seconds to a minute?

One witness.

Yeah. Thank you. So when you think about that. So this body and I urge this body to vote aye on Senator Grove's bill, because I do think it's ethical to know where our products are coming from here in California. Just because it's not in our backyard doesn't mean that we don't have ramifications and we should own it. If we're buying things from other countries that foster child labor, that foster horrible working conditions for people, we own that. And this body owns that. Thank you.

Thank you. Very good. Other witnesses in support?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeremy Smith here, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also supportive.

Thank you, Jeremy. Other witnesses in support?

Alejandro Solis, on behalf of Comite Civico del Valle and Los Amigos De La Comidada, Elithien Valley in support.

Thank you. Any final witnesses in support? Seeing nobody coming to the microphone. Any witnesses in opposition to SB 1239? Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Members discussion from the dais. Senator Bradford.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for this measure, but I'm greatly disappointed at the amendments that I have removed where this product is being sourced, because I guarantee you, if it was in United States, if it was in Europe, it was in Israel, or any predominantly white country where kids were being exploited, it would still be in the bill. And we continually devalue people from African descent. And these kids are being exploited, they're being killed on a daily basis. So you you can drive around in your electric cars, and we can walk around with our cell phones in our pockets every day and live the great life and have our computers.

But I guarantee if it was happening in the United States, it would have shut down a long time ago, and that should have been part of this bill. I still support it. I moved the bill. But we should have a greater concern of where this resource is being sourced at and the exploitation of these young kids and the folks in Dominica. I mean, Dominic.

Democrat Republic.

Democratic Congo. Republican Congo. I'm sorry.

May I respond, Mr. Chair?

Yeah. Thank you, Senator Bradford. Senator Grove.

My co-author, my courageous co-author that's on the other side of the aisle that got on this bill with me is absolutely 100% right. It was his resolution that we all support it. It got out of the Senate 40-0, Senate concurrent Resolution 24, and some of the things that were highlighted in his resolution.

Speaking of Senator Bradford, whereas cobalt is essential material for lithium and battery technology, the Democrat Republic of the Congo, DRC, is a source of more than two-thirds of the world's cobalt. And whereas a child slave labor has become incredibly linked to the mining collection of cobalt, where miners include children six years of age, or younger, or six years of age, and sometimes younger, chronic exposure to dust containing cobalt can reap potentially fatal lung diseases.

The inhalation of cobalt in particles cause respiratory issues and shortness of breath. The United Nations Children Fund, UNICEF, estimated in 2014 approximately 40,000 boys and girls at the age of six years old were in these mines across the southern DRC, many involved in cobalt mining. And it is not uncommon.

Whereas this is my colleague's resolution that we all supported, whereas it is not uncommon for these children to be beaten by security guards when they trespass on the mining company's property, and where they are lowered lower than 30ft below the Earth's surface without any type of OSHA protections or air quality. My colleague, that is my co-author on this bill, is absolutely 150% correct that it needs to be addressed.

And I agree with him wholeheartedly that if this was happening in a European caucasian company, that California would think twice about sourcing its cobalt from the Democrat Republic of the Congo. We are only making this bill, my bill, SB 1239, it just actually, in the beginning asks to source the cobalt supply. And is it make it child labor free? And if it was child labor free, we wanted to know the wages that these individuals were making, because there's still a large. Even if it's not child labor, there are a large 200,000 individuals that work in these cobalt mines that might make 10 cents a day.

20 cents a day. So we want to know that, and why not bring it back to California, where we control the process where we have Cal OSHA and the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement, and labor, individuals that come in and negotiate bills in this dais, and they create ethical sources where we treat people right? They get a fair living wage.

I mean, that's what we pride ourselves on. We're only starting with the ones that are going to be ordered. Why don't we just all agree that we can say we want it to be child labor free? So I applaud my co-author. I thank him for his courage to get on my bill. I thank him for the courage for doing the resolution that we all supported. And I am very disappointed about the amendments I'm forced to take to get this bill out of Committee. But that's the world that we live in. So I thank my co-author for making the statements that he did.

Thank you, Senator Grove. I think we have a couple more Members that want to comment. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Vice Chair, now Chair. I want to thank the author for this bill. I know how hard you work on bills that protect, you know, children. And, you know, I've been honored to partner with you on several of them. When I think of this bill, I mean, we're talking about other countries. I know it's happening right here in California.

In fact, I had SB 998, who was attempting to tackle this very issue in our state, you know, child labor and how these children are taken in the middle of the night and just forced to work and grueling conditions. And the fact that you're trying to tackle this issue is important because we should want to protect children, not just here in California, everywhere, every other country. And I'm with you on that, that we can't turn a blind eye when it's happening outside, you know, California.

It's important everywhere. So I. Like I said, I want to commend you. I'm also, you know, a little disappointed, and I'm going to echo the comments of Senator Bradford, so I don't belabor the point, but thank you for bringing this measure forward.

Thank you, Senator Rubio, any other comments from the dais? Seeing no other comments, I believe. Senator Bradford, you made the motion. Is that correct? Okay, we have a motion by Senator Bradford on Senate Bill 1239. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Senator Grove, would you like to close?

Absolutely, sir. Thank you very much. Colleagues, it's all about supply and demand, and if we're going to be the California that we profess to be in legislation that's passed in this chamber, I think we need to make sure that we don't export some of the policies that we would adamantly oppose here in California. There is a letter in the file, and again, I just like to read this information. It's submitted by Scott Bednick, who I think we all know.

He's a producer and he works on ARC issues. And he said the implications, quote, the implications of SB 39 to extend beyond ethical procurement practices. To extend beyond ethical procurement practices by setting a standard for child labor free sourcing, California demonstrates its commitment of upholding human rights and ethical principles and its procurement process. Furthermore, by promoting transparency in the supply chain, the bill fosters accountability and encourages responsible sourcing practices.

As the CEO of one community in an entertainment production and co- finance company dedicated to leveraging storytelling for positive social change, I am deeply committed to ethically sourcing and labor practices. Currently, we are in the process of developing a film that sheds light on the appalling conditions and unethical practices prevalent in cobalt mines.

Through our storytelling, we aim to raise awareness and inspire action towards ensuring fair and humane treatment in the sourcing of raw materials, aligning closely with the objectives of 1239. There's going to be starting to have films made about this because people need to be aware. The State of California, all of us as legislators. Again, I applaud my co-author who courageously got on this bill with me and who started this process with a resolution.

A resolution that was passed by 40 Senators and got, you know, and again, a resolution. It was the pathway to make sure that we introduced legislation that had addresses this issue. And all of us should be deeply concerned that over 70% of the cobalt comes from these mines where children and adults--but this focuses on children--are being abused on a daily basis and it should be completely unacceptable to all of us. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove. To repeat the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Eleven votes, we'll put it on call for the remaining Members to add on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you sincerely, Mr. Bradford.

All right, next up we're going to take Senator Min which is item 11, Senate Bill 1271. Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Before I start, want to thank your committee staff and announce that I will be taking the proposed amendments. SB 1271 would enhance the safety and regulatory compliance of electric bicycles and electric scooters by requiring all e-bikes and e-scooters to be manufactured with batteries that meet the stringent standards of the European Union and Underwriters' Laboratories and also modified the definition of e-bike classes to clarify what the appropriate class for a switchable end quote e-bike is, if any. In recent years, we've seen a soaring of the sale of e-bikes.

This has raised concerns in many of our districts about the safety and their potential speed and fire risks. Most e-bikes and e-scooters are powered by lithium-ion batteries, and reports of fires linked to powered mobility devices have been on the rise across the country because sometimes these batteries are poorly manufactured or they're abused. SB 1271 would protect consumers and the public by removing low-quality-powered personal mobility devices from the market.

Another problem with aside from batteries is that some manufacturers have developed e-bikes that are able to switch between speed modes, allowing a bike to move from a slower class two throttle mode to a faster class three pedal assist mode. Class three devices are not considered e-bikes in the vehicle code and can cause confusion with respect to the policing of these vehicles, as class two vehicles follow different rules of the road.

Additionally, many parents are unaware that when they purchase a switchable class two e-bike for their child that it is illegal for the child to operate the bike in the class three range since it allows the device to reach speeds of up to 28 mph. This measure would help parents by modifying the definition of e-bike classes to clarify what the appropriate class for a switchable e-bike is, as well as to ensure that the batteries used are safe. Here with me today, I have Marc Vukcevich, advocate for Streets for All, to testify in support.

Witnesses in support.

Thank you, committee. Streets for All, we're a big supporter of e-bikes. They're the fastest-selling electric vehicles on the market. They're fun. They replace car trips sometimes. They bring a freedom of mobility to people who can't drive. But we understand there's some growing pains with them. And so what we're trying to do is tackle kind of two big problems that we see right now with e-bikes. And so that problem is on the battery side.

So on the battery side, for one, is these batteries are lithium-ion batteries. They're sensitive, but on an e-bike, they shake, they rattle. Sand and water can get inside. They go from hot temperatures to cold temperatures. They need to be robust. And so they need to be high quality to prevent the fires that we've seen throughout the country, predominantly in New York City and San Francisco, mostly from shoddy bicycles.

And so these lithium-ion batteries have the potential to occur, concur, have a thermal runaway, which is a practice where a fire can get out of hand very quickly because the fire requires a lot more water than a similarly sized fire. And so we require the UN, sorry, the EU, and the UL standard for these batteries.

The second thing that our bill does is that some of these devices are essentially trying to claim that they're e-bikes, but even though they're essentially mopeds or even mini motorcycles. And so we clarified the definition of e-bikes to ensure that the market is only filled with reputable devices. And we essentially end the ability to have this sort of switchable, multi-class e-bike that can be sold to someone under the age of 16 but is really meant for someone older than that. And so that's the gist of what our bill does. It's a safety bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of Senate Bill 1271? Seeing no other witnesses coming forward. Are there any witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 1271? Seeing no witnesses coming forward. Discussion from the dais members. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Obviously, there's a lot of implications here. Child safety. We're talking about kids running around without the helmets as you've seen them on the street. The thing that's really dangerous, obviously, what you're telling us is that battery, that type of battery on that vehicle, the bike would be in somebody's garage or somebody's living room or apartment, and the explosion could take place. And, of course, the third thing is the speed and not being able to control it without proper training.

But there's just so many aspects. But I really think that as you go forward with this, you have to have a press release that just goes across this nation because there's so many elements here that are so dangerous. And I would like to be a co-sponsor if possible, and I'll move the bill.

Thank you, Senator. We'll add you as a co-author at the appropriate time.

So Senator Archuleta is encouraging you on nightly news and advertiser bill. Any other comments from the dais? Senator Bradford.

I would just echo my comments from the last bill about child safety. We're worrying about children riding electric bikes here. We should worry about the children, again, who are mining this cobalt and lithium so they can ride these bikes safely here in the United States.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Any other comments? Seeing no other comments, we do have a motion by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do pass is amended to the Appropriations Committee. Senator Min, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Min. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

That bill has nine aye votes. We'll leave it on call. We are waiting for authors to come. Okay, we'll reopen the roll on 1271.

[Roll Call]

So we're at 11 now. We have 11. And we do need authors to come to the committee.

That would be Senator Allen. Last call. Members, come back to vote. We'll have democratic caucus, so we've got to move and republican caucus. Can we go through the roll one more time? Thank you, Senator Jones, for doing the heavy lifting here. All right, let's open the roll. We need a motion on the consent calendar. That's a motion by Senator Bradford. Secretary, please open the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

That has 11 votes. We'll put that on call. We'll now move to open the roll file item number two, SB 1047, Wiener. Secretary, please open.

We do need a motion.

We need a motion on that.

We have a motion by Archuleta. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It has seven votes. We'll put that on call. Let's open up file item number three, SB 942, Becker. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

That's 7-1. We'll leave that open now. Let's open file item number four, SB 984, Wahab. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

7-4. That bill is on call. Will now open the roll on file item number five. That's SB 1355, Wahab. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 11-0. The bill's on call. They'll open that up again. Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

12-0. Bill will be on call. File item number seven, SB 1152, Limon.

[Roll Call]

12-0. Bill is on call. File item number eight, SB 1107, Durazo. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

14-0. That bill's on call. File item number nine, SB 1114, Niello.

Absent Members [Roll Call]. Twelve - oh. Put that on call. Open up file item number 10. SB 1239. Open the roll.

[Roll Call]

12-0. bill's on call. File item number 11, SB 1271, Min. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

11-0. We're gonna just finish through this. 1278, Laird. That's file item number 12.

[Roll Call]

Excuse me. 13-0. That's on call. File item number 13. For now, file number 15, SB 990, Padilla. Needs a motion. Need a motion. Motion, Archuleta. Call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Number 15, Padilla. SB 990.

[Roll Call]

It's nine to one. The bill's on call. File item number 17, 1224, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Secretary, please, we need a motion on this.

Wilk moves.

Wilk moves. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

13-0. That bill's on call. File item number 20, SB 1403, Bradford. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

File item 20, SB 1403, Bradford.

[Roll Call]

Nine to two. That bill's on call. File item number 21. We need a motion. That's SB 1495, Wilk. That's a motion from Archuleta. Please call the roll.

Dodd, aye. Dodd I Wilk. Aye. Wilk aye Alvarado-Gil. Alvarado-Gil aye Archuleta aye Archuleta aye Ashby. Bradford. Bradford aye Glazer. Glazer aye Jones. Jones. Aye Nguyen. Nguyen Aye Ochoa. Boom. Ochobo aye Padilla. Padilla aye porn tino aye Roth aye Roth aye Rubio. Rubio aye sayardo. Aye. Smallwood. Cuevas. 14140. That bill's on call. We're now moving to Senator Allen. What's the file? File item number 13. SB 1436. Thank you for being patient. Please proceed.

[Inaudible] If people want to ask questions. Okay. So you're going to answer questions if they're asked. Okay, great. Anybody wishing to come up and offer a support, see none. Anybody in opposition please come forward now. See nobody in opposition will turn back to Committee. Senator Roth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, some of you were not around when I was involved. Chair of budget Subcommittee number four, working with the governor's office and a variety of other agencies and individuals to sort of restructure and reform the way we handled, handled our tax system. The outcome of this, and it was a tortured process, was the creation of CDTFA and the Office of Tax Appeals.

And the purpose was to provide some objectivity and transparency to the way we handle tax disputes in the State of California by creating an independent office of tax Appeals, by creating a, a Department that handled some elements, at least, of the tax collection process in the state. And it followed a period at the Board of Equalization, which I think could best be described as problematic without, you know, pointing fingers, assessing blame or anything like that. So.

And I was involved in detail, in the working detail, working out of issues having to do with the tax accountants who handled appeals at the office of Tax Appeals and all the requirements that were required that apparently existed for them to also, for their firms also to conduct audits and participate in appeals for taxpayers at that particular office. And I'm not opposed to this.

I'll be supporting this today, Senator, but I am concerned that we not step back into what we had before in the State of California, where, frankly, some elements of the tax appeals process were politicized, because, of course, the board officials are elected officials, just as we are, and have constituents just as we do. Except we do not adjudicate tax appeals and attempt to apply the law to specific situations as they do.

So I'll be supporting the matter today, but I will certainly step in vigorously if I see this effort moving back to march backwards toward what we had before under prior administrations at the board and all that happened back then.

I appreciate your comments. I mean, it's a modest Bill right now. One of the debates that happened at the last Committee hearing was, should it have more teeth? There were some Members that thought it. Should I hear from you? You don't want to go any further?

They probably weren't Members who were here in 2000. And when did we do this? 2000.

But they have a different political persuasion. So I hear you.

Well, I was way done. Thank you, Mister chair.

So I admire the intent, but I'm just kind of curious how does this compare with other, for, or other entities that actually deal with your actual specific goal? And I understand the CDTFA, the Howard Jarvis Tax Association, the PPIC, Cato, the auditors and the LAO all analyze tax implications, if you know whether they're ongoing, New Orleans, or if we are requested.

So why the need for this particular agency when we have all of these other agencies that are actually doing the analysis of the work, especially in light of what we currently have with the budget shortfall that we have? I'm just going to curious. It feels like we're adding just another entity to our already robust government structure that we currently have.

And I just, I'm kind of curious as to why another one when we already have nonpartisan third, eight entities giving us this report if we wanted to.

Well, I would, first of all, it's modeled off of the FTB model where you've got, we with AB 8102, we took a lot of power away from an elected body for a number of reasons that were mentioned by Mr. Roth and put all this tax Administration power into the, into the bureaucracy, CDTFA, OTA, et cetera.

The FTB, the Franchise Tax Board provides a, and all we've done with this Bill is to provide a pretty modest oversight mechanism that's very limited in what it can do under this Bill. As I was saying, there's some people who wanted to go much further, but the question here is about responsiveness.

We've gotten a lot of stories from assessors and even Members of the Senate as we've put this Bill forward that have made the case that there's just, you know, it's hard to get back, you know, get calls back from the leadership of CDTFA. I understand that people are now getting their calls back a little bit more now this bill's been introduced.

You know, so we, we had a former model where there was perhaps too much responsiveness to taxpayer concerns that was addressed with AB 102 to maybe where there's not enough responsiveness, taxpayer concerns under the current AB 102 model. And all we're trying to do here is to, in a very modest way, rewrite the ship, but in a way that doesn't impact the Administration of the tax system in a significant way.

And I think what we're going to look to do is try to, one of the things we were talking about earlier was to try to model this off of whatever the FTB is going to be right now. It consists of three.

There's a Bill on the Assembly side that seeks to expand to five I really just want to conform it to wherever we're going to be going so that there isn't a lot of duplication, so that it's literally just an offshoot of the current work of the FTB.

And this Bill would provide them with the opportunity to have some degree of oversight, though not a lot, quite frankly, but it's a way to provide some additional opportunities for taxpayers or others who have concerns or challenges with the bureaucracy to have their case heard and have their case considered and have it brought up. That's really what we're seeking to do here. I've had an assessor who told me that he literally can't get calls back from the CDTFA.

So there are some responsiveness challenges out there that we're trying to address, and that's really what this bill's about.

And to that point, my questions would go back to what I've asked in other committees with other agencies, as far as not being able to be fulfilling their duties or being responsive. And that's one. Is it because we haven't fully funded the Department in order for them to have the workforce required in order to meet the demand?

Or do we need to really, is there really a need for a new entity, or should we just fully Fund what we currently have and ensure that they actually have the workforce required to meet the need as it stands, rather than creating a new entity?

I certainly don't support creating a new entity. I guess I would hope that through this work and through both as the Bill proceeds, and certainly if we're able to pass something like this, there will just be, it'll force the bureaucracy to be a little more responsive. That's really what this is ultimately all about. So is, I think they have it within them.

I think that they just need a little bit of engagement and a little bit of pressure, perhaps from us and from a board like this, to be better, responsive, more responsive and more engaged.