Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning. The Senate Committee on Governmental organization convene in 60 seconds.

SA.

Good Morning and welcome everyone. At this time, the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization will come to order. Appreciate everybody's presence. Today's docket includes four file items, one of which is on consent. Committee will proceed as a sub until such time as we establish a quorum. We're hoping to get call at around 10 o'clock.

We also will then proceed upon completing the Bill agenda to the joint informational hearing with that file item. zero, sorry. Adoption of Committee rules Members. We'll take that up. We have a quorum. Sorry. Boy, caffeine is kicking in. All right.

We will then proceed as a sub and take File item number one, which is SB12 by Senator Gonzalez. Wherever you'd like, Senator. Getting back in the groove.

Good morning everyone and nice to see you, Mr. Chair. Members. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments to add a 10 year sunset to the Bill and make other technical changes. SB12 will create the California Immigrant and Refugee Affairs Agency to help meet the needs of our state's large immigrant and refugee population.

California is home to over 10 million immigrant communities and who have significantly contributed to the Golden State's thriving economy. In 2018, immigrant led households in California paid over $80 billion in federal taxes and nearly 40 billion in state and local taxes.

Despite their impact on our economy and our workforce, California does not have a dedicated office for immigrant issues and advocacy, meaning there are limited statewide services and support systems for this unique and important population.

Testifying in support Today, I have Dr. Amada Armenta, Faculty Director at the Latino Politics and Policy Institute at UCLA, and Ray Cano, Cirla Member from Orange County, as well as Cynthia Gomez from the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, which we know as CHIRLA, also here for technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Please state your name again for the record. And please proceed.

Thank you. My name is Dr. Amada. I'm the Faculty Director of the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute. I'm here to support SB12 which will promote the full inclusion of over 10 million immigrant residents in California by creating a statewide office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.

California is home to the most immigrants of any state in the nation, which is also why we have the nation's or the world's fifth largest economy. Immigrants are an important part of our workforce and they're overrepresented in key sectors that really drive our future. In addition, immigrants make up about 38% of all self employed immigrant business owners.

Despite this we know that immigrants face unique vulnerabilities. About half of all immigrant entrepreneurs are limited English proficient. They face language barriers. And we also know that immigrants have the hardest time accessing state services and programs to which they and their families are entitled. This matters because California families are immigrant families.

About half of all kids in California have at least one immigrant parent. And one in every five kids in California is part of a mixed status family.

A statewide Office of Immigrant and Refugee affairs is really key to ensuring that we uplift those communities that do so much to uplift our state by creating an Office of Immigrant and Refugee affairs, particularly in counties and regions that are not served by existing states and federal office. Sorry, by existing state and county and city offices.

You know, immigrant communities are increasingly under attack, especially at the federal level. So we have the real opportunity to make sure that immigrants in California can achieve full civic and community and economic inclusion by supporting SB12. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Hello. My name is Ray Cano. I live in Laguna Niguel in Orange County, and I'm a proud member of CHIRLA. I'm here to strongly urge you to vote yes on SB12 and support the creation of an Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. California has the highest immigrant population in the United States.

We are essential and integral part of what makes California such a successful and culturally rich state. Yet despite our contributions, many immigrants and refugees face barriers to accessing resources, legal assistance and economic opportunities. In my own community of Orange County, I have seen firsthand how many families remain uninformed about the services available to help them.

Unlike large cities where immigrant support organizations are more visible, many people in smaller communities struggle to find the guidance and resources they need. I have met with families who are unaware of their rights, do not know where to turn for for legal aid, or face difficulties accessing essential services due to language barriers.

If this is the reality in my community, imagine the challenge for immigrants in other small towns in rural areas across California. With the opening of Orange County's Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, my community has begun to feel the positive effects of organizations like CHIRLA.

Throughout the Office of Immigrant and Refugee affairs, service providers, faith leaders and community advocates can share resources with the community and work together to address the needs of our neighbors.

At a time when federal immigration policies create uncertainty and fear, California must take a firm stance in support of people who have long contributed to economic and social fabric of our state.

By establishing an Office of Immigrant and Refugee affairs, this office would provide vital coordination, outreach and accessibility, making California a leader in truly supporting the people who help our state thrive. By voting yes on SB12, you are investing in a stronger, more inclusive California, one that upholds its values of diversity, opportunity and justice for all.

I urge you to stand with immigrants and refugees by supporting this crucial initiative. And thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll suspend testimony momentarily while we establish a quorum. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill, any additional persons wishing to testify in opposition to the Bill, Seeing them bring it to the Committee for questions or comments? Senator Weber.

Good morning. Senator, thank you so much for your presentation of this Bill. I do have a couple of questions and a little bit of concerns that hopefully as the Bill, if the Bill is to move forward, that we can kind of work and hash out.

My first question is, is the thought that we need that this needs to be established because in other departments they're not already doing this, correct?

Absolutely. We want to make sure that we're cross referencing all the agencies that do have them, but if they don't, we want to make sure that there is a one stop shop for immigrant and refugee issues and affairs just across the board, across agencies.

And is there a concern or a thought about if, you know, I'll use health, for example.

If someone in the Health Department is specific to the health needs of immigrant and refugees, pulling them out of that Department and putting them in this particular Department would cause problems in terms of, you know, I believe if you're healthy, you should be under a health facility and not necessarily outside of the health realm.

The same could happen for education, them actually being off in a silo. You don't have any concerns about that?

No. I mean, we're going to establish the Bill calls for a Director of Refugee and Immigrant Affairs to be able to just coordinate all the good work that's being done, whether you're in the health Department, Trans-transportation, et cetera.

I mean, there's a multitude of different programs that are being done that support everybody, including, but mostly primarily immigrants and refugees. So we want to be able to consolidate that work with the through the Director. But I mean, that work is still going to continue in, you know, with their individual Agencies too.

It's just being able to have a one stop shop. A lot of folks don't know publicly that there are immigrant representations or immigrant programs in many of these agencies at all. So I think this would just level up the discussion even further. But I don't know if anyone would like to add to that too.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Morning Chair and Members. My name is Cynthia Gomez. I'm the Deputy Director of State Policy for CHIRLA. I just want to add to the comments that the Senator just shared. So the, the real importance behind this Bill is that there is no centralization in terms of the support services that are offered for immigrant and refugee communities.

So we know as a state we have done quite a lot to support our immigrant communities. But because there is no sort of central hub, a lot of folks, you know, I can speak personally from CHIRLA, a lot of folks do not realize that these resources are out there and folks will seek out organizations like CHIRLA. But unfortunately, you know, there is not a CHIRLA in everyone's backyard.

And that's the hope that, you know, with the Office of Immigrant affairs that we would be able to cover the these regions that don't have access to a trusted nonprofit or a large trusted nonprofit like the way that, you know, folks have in Los Angeles when it comes to CITLA and be able to receive the support services and these information from the Office of Immigrant Affairs.

Okay, thank you. So I understand the importance of collecting data or having all information like in one, like a one stop shop. But I guess I was a little confused by the fact that this Bill would require every officer and employee who is performing a function at another office, agency or Department that is transferred to the Office of Immigrant and Refugees affairs to also be transferred to that office.

So if I am a health care provider and like CDPH and I specifically focus on issues dealing with immigrant and refugee health, public health, you know, then I am, according to what I'm reading, my job is going to be transferred outside of the realm of public health into this particular office.

And I'm not sure if that's the best method of going about it, removing someone from the actual Department. Now I can understand getting information, but removing that particular Fund function, that individual outside of the realm of public health into this particular space. I don't know if that's, I don't.

Think that's the intention. I think what we're trying to do is ensure that we have the Director that oversees all of these immigrant and refugee issues within their respective departments, just as you would.

I remember being a City Council Member, and there were a lot of folks that were working on the same issue, and they would have, you know, they didn't even have interagency meetings to know who was doing what, whether you're the part, again, Department of Transportation or Department of Health or Department of. Whatever the case.

So just starting there to have someone that sort of oversees all of these departments. And we can clarify the language if it needs further clarification, but I think overall, we want to highlight the good work that each of these representatives are doing. We just.

Many folks don't know about them, and that's the whole impetus of the Bill, on top of the public support for our communities.

Yeah. If we could clarify the language, because when I read it, it's very concerning to me because you're actually taking individuals out of the expertise of their Department, whether it's Health or education or whatever, and you're putting them over in this other area, away from the greater good.

And I think there was discussion about it in the analysis as well, based on the way in which this is written. Sure. And then there's another question that I have. When they talk about interagency sharing of information shall be limited to demographics only.

Like, I know where we're trying to get, but can you explain to me, what does that mean, demographics? What would be considered demographics?

Well, I think obviously, where, you know, everything related to who people are. You know what I mean? Obviously everyone thinks of immigrant communities or refugee communities maybe as being just Latino, but they're not. We know there's immigrant, you know, populations within the black community, within Middle Eastern community, et cetera.

So we think of demographics in that sense, of course, but we're going to ensure that there's adequate privacy protections for that. And I think we've, you know, ensured that we're solidifying that as well to apply to data protection laws here in the state, too. That's a big concern.

Yeah. I think I know what you're trying not to release to other agencies, but I was. When you talk about focusing on demographics only, especially in a Bill where you're talking about removing certain individuals from certain departments and putting them under this new agency, I immediately went to, of course, with my health background, the sharing of medical information. Right.

So during COVID there was a huge need to know what was actually happening within our immigrant and refugee population. Was the information that was getting out about COVID was it reaching that community? Were they vaccinating? Were they keeping themselves and their families safe.

If everyone that does this is in this agency now and this agency isn't sharing that information with, like, the Department of Public Health and things, things like that, then that's a problem.

And so when we're talking about demographics, only when I think about demographics, I think of, like, you know, age, gender, you know, race, ethnicity, that kind of stuff. You may want to think about what else should potentially be shared.

When you're talking about, like, interagency ability to work together and ensure that everybody's knowing what each other is doing, you may want to kind of think about maybe expanding that a little bit and restricting the things that you don't want shared, but definitely allowing for other agencies to still have information that they would need to keep everyone safe, including the immigrant and refugee community.

So I will be supporting it today. But I do hope that as this continues to move forward, that we're able to kind of.

Those are great comments. And we want to make sure that we're providing as much information that's, you know, De-identifying folks, so it's not obviously being shared with the Federal Government in a way that would. Keep people. Unsafe, but also do so in a way that would protect health. Of course.

And this passed the language in here, passed both Judiciary committees in terms of, like, data protection as well. So we just want to make sure that that's clear. Thank you for your comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Weber, other questions or comments for Members of the Committee? Senator Valladarez?

Well, thank you. I can definitely appreciate the intent behind this Bill and needing to support our immigrant and refugee communities. In 2015, SB84 was created that created the statewide Director of Immigrant Inclusion, and they were tasked with coordinating services and producing a statewide report to see what was working and what isn't. It was due in 2017.

Did that report actually happen? 12. Was there any information in that report that kind of helped guide this Bill? And why not kind of expand that role versus creating a new agency?

Yeah, well, we wanted to create a new agency because. And I'm not certain on the 2017 report, we'll have to check into that. But again, we wanted to create a new agency because we're in a very precarious time right now.

I actually did this before the Trump Administration, to be quite honest with you, been working on this Bill for three years. We just know the need. As been mentioned, the data and the stats are very clear.

You know, one in four people living in California have some sort of immigrant story, whether they're the children of immigrants Whether they are immigrants themselves. You have 25% of our population that we should not be ignoring. So I think it's not enough to say that a report is.

Even if the report provided, you know, recommendations, there's really not been, I don't, you know, nothing significant to this effect that has been done. So we think that, I think that an agency is the most appropriate at this time. You know, again, coordinating all of these services, working with the local offices.

You've got a local office now in Orange County, one in Los Angeles, one across, you know, many across the state. But these nonprofits that are doing the work now that many of our communities are relying on but that don't know exactly how to take it a step forward in working with government agencies.

So this is why we're here now. And obviously it's going to be a continued discussion and challenge during this time. But I think it's a well worthy fight, you know, for the occasion.

So just a follow up really. Question here or not question really. So unfortunately, I can't support this Bill because I do have some concerns and at a time when we have some serious budget constraints, I'm worried about the cost of the agency.

I'm worried that there may be some of this may be duplicative and would love to see what we can do within the statewide Director of Immigrant Inclusion, if that role exists. What are they doing now?

And again, I think Californians have asked us to look at the policies that we are creating through the lens of affordability and saving taxpayer dollars. So unfortunately I'm not going to be able to get to support. But I appreciate your intent.

Thank you. And I would say, you know, immigrant Communities provide over $9 billion in state taxes to our coffers. So I think that this is certainly a well worthy fight for them. Thank you though, for your comments.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas thank you, Mr. Chair. And my question and want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

I think it's important for communities, particularly communities that are so often invisible, to have to have a place in their government to get information, but also for us to be able to collect data, to see where the needs are to reduce investments and programs they may not be working, to look at programs that are working, to be able to have an opportunity to partner with nonprofits in a way that helps to multiply our efforts.

So can you talk a little bit about the ways in which we can sort of go into this very robust government that we have, where we know often acts in silos, where it's very difficult often to get information, even as a Legislator, on very particular communities.

Can you talk a little bit about how you envision this office helping us to streamline, helping us to understand the ways in which we can be more effective in how we serve this community?

Yeah, absolutely. And thank you for the question, Senator. Absolutely. I mean, I see it at home. I have multitude of organizations back at home that are working on immigrant services just as something as simple as providing them information on DMV, language access or what have you.

And most of the time the nonprofits are doing this work, but many of the immigrant and refugee communities that they work with don't know exactly who to go to and where to go. They don't even know what I do as a state Senator. In some cases, they're going to these frontline organizations.

And so this would be hopefully an opportunity for us to be able to provide more assistance, whether that's, you know, funding at some point.

I know our state budget is tough right now, but nonetheless, being able to provide these nonprofits with the resources available, also being able to provide, again, just sort of a wider network of immigrant services for the areas that don't have local offices either, or local nonprofits.

There's a lot of sort of areas now that we know of, maybe that's in the Central Valley, that lack services for immigrants and refugees and lack also the additional institutional knowledge of who to go to in this in state government or local government. So I see it doing a wide variety of things.

And this will be an ongoing discussion. Again, we're in a time now where I think the Federal Government has been sort of taking away and attacking these communities, when in fact, you know, these communities are the most hardworking.

Again, one in four of them are working professionals here in the state, whether they're working in transportation or farms or they're working in offices or in hotels, what have you. They're working and they're doing the good work. They just don't feel like government is working for them back. So it's going to be an ongoing discussion.

It's going to be a lot of resources, a lot of work and insight that we'll all have to do to make this really a successful program.

Thank you, Senator. Any other questions?

Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. So going back to a different angle, I have just a little different of an angle from Senator Valladares, but I do want to expand a little bit more on the 2015 Bill. But it was a budget.

It was a budget trailer Bill, SB84, according to my notes, it said it established the Office of State Statewide Director of Immigrant Integration to serve as a statewide lead for the planning and coordination of immigrant services and policy policies.

So basically, it's almost similar to what you're trying to do right now. So is this office not working?This is still not effective. Did it not do its job well?

It was a state. It was an existing role. And what we want to do now is make them the Director of this new office is what we're going to do. And from what I understand, too, the report that Senator Valladares was referring to has not been published yet.

So there's been a lot a lack of work that's been done, in my opinion, to make this as robust as it needs to be for immigrant and refugee communities. So we want to make it a full office again, all state agencies included, and hearing loud and clear on some of the clarifications that need to be done.

But we think that it's time, especially, especially now, to be able to have this robust office in our state government.

So should we, and I have not looked into going further on this one, but should we first get the information regarding the SB84 and its mission and what it's done before we continue on expanding?

Because the biggest concern that I have, and one of the things that I've seen these past four years is that we try to establish additional government agencies to oversight. So we have all of these different entities, and then we start hearing that there's just too many. There's not a whole coordination.

So we try to create a bigger an umbrella, and we do that over and over and over again. And it just seems to be very costly. I'm not sure it's as efficient as possible.

So I'm just kind of curious as to whether or not we need to assess as a Legislature first the role in where this, this particular, the status of this particular Bill lies in the state or the statewide Director of Immigrant services and follow up on that, whether or not this needs to be revisited or reassessed or canceled and then create something different.

I'm just kind of curious that we're being redundant in our, in our efforts and not as efficient. But I think before we move forward, I really think that we need to follow up on the report of this particular effort and see whether or not there was what we need to do with it.

I just, I, I'm not sure that moving forward with an additional cohort rather than following up on this report, it seems like it's been 10 years, but we don't have anything assessed yet.

No, I hear you loud and clear on that. And thank you for the comments as well. You know, I think, again, I can't reiterate enough what time we're in now. And the need and the report will be great. It's going to be a static report, whatever it comes out with. Right.

It hasn't been published yet even in this time. So, you know, clearly there's no urgency to do this, but I think the urgency is now. But what the Director is required to do under this Bill, and I'm just going to read this, it's number six in the analysis.

It requires to develop a mission statement, strategic plan, a matrix of success for the office, identify effective practices and successful modes of delivering services to immigrant and refugee communities. Evaluations are needed for the improvements in the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to immigrant and refugee communities.

How many bills do we do every year, and especially now, I can't even imagine how many bills are just going to be on immigrant refugee communities and then reporting back to the Legislature, which I think is important on a biannual basis on successes and challenges as it relates to this community.

So it's a very structured role, which I don't believe we've had before, but will be part of this greater agency and office to be able to continue to coordinate the policies, the agencies, any guidelines that have been put out by the Attorney General that were just put out just recently, that no one knows what the heck they do.

And I'll invite our, you know, folks back up here if they'd like to add to this. They're the ones on the ground. So regardless of what the report says, they're the ones that actually are stressing the need for this as well.

Thank you. Senator, state your name for the record. Thank you again.

Cynthia Gomez, Deputy Director of State Policy with CHIRLA. One thing that I want to add to this is, you know, we're talking about a role that at this point is almost like 10 years old. We know that things have rapidly changed, especially given the context of COVID Covid and how drastically that had changed the dynamic.

We're now, you know, in a Federal Administration that has also very drastically changed this dynamic. I do, you know, we will do our due diligence and follow up on this report, but I think even if we were to be able to get this report, there's a solid chance that whatever information is provided in it has already been outdated.

Just given the context of where we are now and everything that's happened between this 10 year period. And I think it further emphasizes the need for an office of Immigrant Affairs, a centralized agency that has accountability. Right.

When we know that there is an agency that is present who has a role to do, we're able to also hold that agency accountable. So I think it further emphasizes the need to have an agency be present that provides this constant streamlining report to the Legislature. Absolutely.

Thank you. So just one final comment if I may, Mr. Chair. I'm going to lay off the Bill. I supported the Bill in, in 2021, but I'm going to lay off the Bill this time.

Time just because I really do want to see whether or not where we are want to investigate more on on SB84 for 2015 to see what the Department is doing.

Because if it's not doing its job, if it's outdated already 10 years, if it's not doing its job, then the Legislature needs to come back and look at that and say, hey, this is maybe something that we need to cancel and reassess and perhaps create a new agency.

But I just, I'm, I'm a little reluctant especially you know, consider and I know the need, I absolutely understand the need, but I'm kind of reluctant in creating more agencies or more offices without evaluating what we currently have in order to move forward on it and expending and spending additional funding on that.

So I'm going to lay off, I'm going to do a little more research on my end on this.

And I think it behooves the Legislature to actually, and I think this is a great point to make in Committee is that our role as legislators is oversight over state agencies, state departments, directors and so forth and to see if they're actually doing their job or not, if it's effective in it not and if it's not, then reassessing saying okay, let's just let go of this one and start new.

And I see that a lot also in education. So I'm going to lay off on this one. I'm going to do a little more homework and it behooves all of us to actually continue to do our homework on this one as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none. Senator Gonzalez, would you like to close?

Thank you. I just want to say thank you for the comments. I really do take the feedback with heart and I just, I really will fight for these communities. As you know, this is our community. California is we are the daughters and sons of immigrants.

And many of us need to put forward a concerted effort to support them, even in this really divisive time, regardless of what party affiliation you are. So with that, I say thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator. And I know this has been a long journey. Appreciate your leadership in this regard on this item. The recommendation the Chair support with amends. I'll entertain a motion.

Move it.

I'm sorry. Oh, yes. Sorry. See, not enough caffeine. We'll go back to some housekeeping. The adoption of the rules of the Committee Members have been supplied with a copy of the rules for 25-26 legislation. The session questions or comments on the draft rules, if not under the rules, without objection. Those are adopted.

Now we'll move to disposition of this Bill. I'll entertain a motion.

Senator Archuleta, move the Bill, please.

Thank you. The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Assistant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are eight. Noes are one. That Bill is out. We'll move to File item number two, which is the consent, which is one item. SB 70. All right. ISR 9 to correct the record. SB 70. Seyarto, entertain a motion on consent.

We're on File item number two, consent, which is one Bill. SB 70. It's been moved.

Yes.

All right, Any questions? All right, please call the roll.

Padilla?

Aye.

Padilla, aye. Validaris? Aye. Validaris, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear, aye. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Deli.

Aye.

Dali, I. Hutaro. Hutaro, I. Jones. Ochobo. Aye. Ochobo, I. Richardson, Aye. Richardson, I. Rubio, aye. Rubio, I. Smallwood, Cuevas. Smallwood. Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Weber, Pearson. Weber, Pearson, aye.

All right, the ayes are 13, the no's are 0. That item is out.

Put it on call.

Zero, we need eight.

There's 12.

I know.

You need to put it on call, otherwise Members won't be able to add on.

All right, we'll put that on call. Next item is File item number three, SB 90. Senator Seyarto, you're prepared. Please proceed.

Thank you very much, Chair. And first of all, I will be accepting the Committee amendments. So, as we all know, wildfires have been increasingly severe in California, threatening lives, property in our environment.

Our firefighting helicopters are essential first responders, but their effectiveness is severely limited by time consuming need to travel to distant water sources, reducing their ability to quickly contain fires. The situation becomes even more critical during power outages, as in the LA fires where powerful winds caused power outages that made water pumps inoperable during a critical emergency.

SB 90 will clarify that funding for pre positioned Mobile Ridge water storage and Mobile Ridge dip tanks, emergency power generators for firefighting efforts qualifies for Prop 4. With me here today to best explain the important issues are James Lee, the General manager from Crescento Valley Water District and Spencer Street.

Good morning. Welcome.

Good morning, Honorable Chair, Committee as introduced, my name is James Lee. I am the General manager for Crescenta Valley Water District, and I'm going to repeat a couple of comments from the Senator, both because they're in my notes, but also because I think this is a very important issue that needs reiterating.

So this Bill, it provides a tool for our toolbox in fighting wildfires, which we know we need better solutions for and which we know is a growing challenge. And this is a challenge that does not distinguish in terms of geography, socioeconomic factors, urban areas, agriculture, rangelands, etc.

In recent years, our state and its partnering fire agencies have done a remarkable job investing in the firefighting helicopters that are one of the most effective tools in fighting fires. What the state now needs is to invest in the availability and the positioning of Water to work in tandem with the helicopters. Mobile, rigid dip tanks, as drafted in the Bill, do just that. These are portable reservoirs that can either be pre positioned or move closer to where the fire is at.

And this is important again, not only because we can make sure that water is available virtually anywhere, but because how close the source of water is positioned is so critical to the success of firefighting. The perimeters of fires grow exponentially. If you think about a fire, it's a circle and it just grows exponentially.

And we need a solution that is commensurately exponential. Having a mobile tank means cutting a round trip of a helicopter to a water source from 10 minutes or more to 5 minutes or less. And that can mean all the difference in the world.

I think the best part of this is cost efficiency, or in another words, return on investment. For the price of one Chinook helicopter, which we've all seen on TV in recent wildfires, which can run just under $40 million, we can have about 500 of these tanks providing a grid of protection up and down the state.

You can just imagine how drastically this will impact our ability to save life and property. We're talking about many lives and many billions of dollars. I can tell you from experience in the recent wildfires.

We had purchased two of these dip tanks last year, and when the fires happened, we got a call from the Assistant Fire Chief of LA County and we were able to deploy two of these tanks outside of our service area up to 15 or 16 miles away.

And in the aftermath, we had a conversation with the chief and he said that these were an absolute game changer in their ability to contain the fire. The other thing of mention is we were lucky. You know, we had the foresight to develop the relationships so that operationally we would be synced up when the fires happened.

We were also lucky because we found funding. We knocked on the county Supervisor's office, we knocked on the county Firefighting Agency's office and we found funding. And that's great. And we made a difference in this particular fire. But these kind of things should not be left to chance. So I will call this a radically common sense solution.

I will call this a one plus one equals three solution, if you will. And we appreciate your consideration. We ask for your support and we also ask for your input so that we can pass this Bill successfully. And not only pass it successfully, but have the appropriate language in there for the efficacy of implementation. Thank you.

Thank you. Next primary witness, please state your name for the record.

Good morning, Chairmember Spencer street on Behalf of the City of Sierra Madre here in support as a proud co sponsor of Senate Bill 90. During the Eaton fire, the city suffered a power outage at their water facilities, halting water pumping from local reservoirs that could have been used for firefighting and protection.

The existing emergency backup generator failed and the city had to resort to finding another generator to rent to restore water access, a process that cost the city 16 hours amidst an emergency. Without a functional backup generator, the city's ability to provide for fire suppression, public safety and emergency response is severely compromised.

Small municipalities are especially reliant on stable power to pump and distribute water, underscoring the importance of working backup generators. The city is immensely grateful to the author for the inclusion of grant funding for backup electrical generators. And this funding will help cities like Sierra Madre prepare for disasters and ensure uninterrupted access to water and power during emergencies. As a co sponsor of SB90, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses want to testify and support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional witnesses in opposition? If none will bring it back to the Committee for questions. Senator Richardson.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have a couple questions of the author. With this Bill, are you suggesting to increase the amount of funds available? Currently there's 135 million. So does your Bill allow for increasing funding to cover for the additional generators?

No, it would be covered within the 135 million. These are only $98,000 or $65,000 if you want to use a manual pump. The problem with this versus Cal Grants is Cal Grant doesn't have a high enough amount of money to cover that. So accessing this through the Prop 4 funding would be the most appropriate use of that. And within Prop 4 funding, it identifies these type of issues or these type of solutions as part of Prop 4 funding.

Okay, but the problem is the grant program. According to your Bill, the grant program shall assist local and state agencies to leverage additional funds, including matching grants from federal agencies.

These funds, which are already allocated, which were already the Governor is recommending, I'm assuming funds may be used to provide loans, rebates, direct assistance and matching funds for projects that prevent wildfires, increase resilience, maintain existing wildfire risk reduction programs, projects, excuse me, reduce the risk of wildfires to communities.

And this is the one I want to point out, or increase home or community hardening. Now, I think if there's one thing we all learned in the last couple months, is that there is not sufficient home hardening.

So I'm Anticipating from what happened that more people are going to want to utilize these grant funds to do community hardening, because that's one of the things that FIRE has recommended that we do.

So if you're adding an additional item that that can utilize these funds, that means there's going to be less funds potentially for community hardening and so on.

So that's why my question was with your Bill, were you willing to consider also making a recommendation that maybe we increase the amount that's available so it can not only cover these generators and everything else, but cover the original intentions with the grant?

The second option would be, if you don't want to include additional funding, would you maybe consider an amendment that would say X amount of percentage would be utilized for these particular generators?

Because what could happen is we could end up spending, you know, I don't know how many we're suggesting that are purchased, but let's say X amount is spent and then we have that less money for the home hardening.

So I'm willing to support the Bill as you've brought it forward, but I would like for you as the author to consider, obviously, it's not just, oh, we're going to add something in, we got to pay for it, right?

So if we're going to pay for it, it seems to me we would either need to increase the funding that's available in the grants to cover it or to say, you know, not more than 10% or 15% or whatever would be expended with this new item.

Because I gotta believe there's gonna be tons of people who are gonna need home hardening. I, for example, live on a cliff and I went down to look to see what it looked like, and the vegetation is just unbelievable. And I'm sure, you know, millions of people across the state are running into the exact same thing where they're gonna need home hardening as well.

Right. So all this does is make sure that it is included as one of the definitions of what is needed for the resilience effort and also for the middle part of this, which is a response effort, if we are doing this part of it, some of the home hardening.

Because not everybody is going to do every aspect of home hardening that they can do because that covers a lot of things. And so the home hardening process, number one, if I live in one of those things, I'm going to do home hardening anyway.

But also we can supplement this with other grants, such as the CAL FIRE grant, if they're a little short. I don't see this as being something that is going to impact the home hardening program. I really don't.

Well, if you're taking money from one, you're taking it from the other.

It's not taking money from one. It's just making sure that this is included in part of the definition as what is eligible for it. It's not taking money. It should have been included in the first place because this is actually a cheaper option than other things that are eligible for this, like the rigid or the permanent ones.

Those are $300,000. They have to go through a CEQA process that takes two years and costs much more. So if we're replacing these, instead of doing that and having more of these, we're saving money in that space that can be used for home hardening.

Okay. Like I said, I'll support the Bill now, but I serve on budget and appropriations, which also includes. I support. I definitely support that. We need it. Let me be clear. I'm not disputing that. We don't need it. And that's why I'm willing to support it.

My question is by us needing it, and certainly the departments are going to buy them, that's going to take some of the money that was originally allocated for these other items and now that money is going to go down a little bit. That's all that I'm saying. And I'm just saying we need to think about are we going to have enough money for those other items. And if we're not, we may need to increase the 135. That's all that. Right.

And that'll come up in budget, budget Subcommitee meetings, just like where you're supporting.

That increase when it does other.

Other program. Other programs that have overrun what they thought they were going to be, especially when it comes to bonds. We have $10 billion bond. And so we will have to deal with, if that's the case, we'll be dealing with it because home hardening might outrun what we thought it would. Appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Archuleta.

Yes. Thank you. Your timing is impeccable, Senator. Impeccable. As we've heard, Sierra Madre was at the brink of the fires. I toured the area.

I actually toured the entire areas and I just had the honor to go to a company that was minority owned that made part of the future of fire safety and we'll call that Heli Hydros.

They actually made the tank that we're talking about out of steel and in pieces and they can actually put them up and they're about $300,000 for the whole thing. And it's connected with the water agencies. And if we could have those 10 miles apart along the hillsides, imagine what we can do.

So the demonstration that I saw is that the helicopter actually comes over, hits the switch, the tank fills up within six minutes, and the helicopter goes down, drains the water and takes off. The next helicopter comes around and it's filled up again in six minutes.

So you can have three helicopters at a span of 18 minutes, 20 minutes or so on the road and on the air, rather, to go ahead and put out the fires. So, as I mentioned, your timing is impeccable. I think it's so important that we're being proactive. I support the Bill. I'm honored that you brought it forward.

And I thank the firefighters, CAL FIRE, and the residents of Sierra Madre and the surrounding cities. My own daughter is a resident of Sierra Madre, so I know she'll be happy. But more importantly, I think the entire State of California will be happy because we'll see that we are actually doing something.

As the Senate, the Assembly, the Governor, everyone, we are listening to the people. And I think this Bill is that Bill. Thank you for bringing it forward. I'm going to support it and I will move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Senator, other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? All right. The recommendation of the chair is to support with amends. The motion is due. Passes. Amended. Natural Resources and Water, please call the roll.

Padilla. Aye.

Padilla, aye. Belladeris. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear, aye. Cervantes. Dali. Aye. Dali, aye. Hutaro. Aye. Hutaro, aye. Jones. Ochobo. Aye. Ochoabo. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio. Smallwood. Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood, Cuevas. Aye. Wahab. Weber. Pearson. Aye. Weber, Pearson, aye.

Thank you. To place that on call next, as.

My closing comment, I would say my timing would have been impeccable about five years ago, before I was here. So always good to have that last word. These are important to have. The helicopter process is very stressful to land and take off. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator. All right, I would just note that we are coming up on the last Bill item and I would ask that if there are Members that want to add on when we lift the call, please make your way to the conference room at 1200. File item number four is SB77. Grove. Senator, welcome.

Please proceed when ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I'll be accepting the Committee amendments to expand the bill's scope on zero emission vehicles to all state purchases and light duty vehicles that the Committee suggested and include also aluminum and other covered materials. And I'd like to thank the Committee for their Hard work on this piece of legislation.

SB77 ensures ethical sourcing of state vehicle procurements. As amended, the Bill would require suppliers of any state purchased light duty vehicle containing lithium cobalt aluminum to certify compliance with child labor free trade agreements. Senator Bradford had a resolution that brought this to all of our attention.

And several documentaries have been created over the last few years highlighting abuses in specifically the Democrat Republic of the Congo where they're doing child exploitation, child slave labor, basically 35 cents a day. It's no life for a child or any individual on these artisanal mines.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, the DRC produces approximately 70% of the world's cobalt. It's a key material in lithium ion batteries used for electric vehicles, phones, computers.

However, cobalt mining in the DRC is tied to several human rights abuses as an estimated 200,000 people, including children as young as seven who work in these hazardous conditions, often earning, like I said, 35 cents per hour, are trapped in cycles of debt and bondage.

The minors, not children, but minors, don't have a Department of Industrial Relations, they don't have a Cal osha, they don't have a Labor Standards Enforcement and other agencies to protect them.

And a series of documentaries, as I have said, have been expanded exposing individuals being buried alive, child labor exploitation, brutal beatings for not meeting quotas, and even death.

There are new documentaries and a new film that Scott Budnik is working on with Ben Aleck, the that will be coming out this year to highlight what is today known as our blood diamond in the past and the horrendous conditions that are placed in these individual minors.

Mr. Chair, the only thing that I'm really asking is to make sure that California being the fifth largest economy in the world, that we use our purchasing power for good and not for evil.

And I know that sounds kind of crazy and it seems almost impossible to regulate things that are happening in a foreign country, but we can use our purchasing power from the State of California to send a message that we won't tolerate these abuses on any human being.

Being the fiscal largest economy, I think we can send a clear message. Lithium and aluminum that you highlighted, Mr. Chair, that comes from China where abuses are taking place. The U.S. Department of labor also documented the slave labor policies in China.

I think US using our policy, our purchase policy for good, instead of Evil will help highlight some of the atrocities that are going on in foreign countries where we get most of our cobalt and supplies and minerals that are very vital to the, in the industries that we want to make sure are sustainable here in our community.

I know, Mr. Chair, your area that you have represented has discovered lithium. There is lithium in my area as well. And there is a way that we can produce that product here where we control the process and we oversee how labor is treated and how the supply chain is managed. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any additional Members of the public want to testify in support, any witnesses or additional testimony in opposition? If not, we'll bring it to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator Archuleta.

Senator Grove, thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate all your work over the years since I've known you on working and fighting for children. And I see you're doing it again. Thank you for doing that. But I noticed it says state vehicles. Is it only state vehicles?

Are you hoping that this will be that launching pad to go from state vehicles to all of these EVs? What, what's the status on that?

Well, I think as a state, as a Legislature, we would lead by example. And if, if we are successful in making sure that the state procures its vehicles from an ethical source of supply and we determine that they're child labor free, I think we as a legislative body, I mean, I'll be gone in a couple of years, but someone else could pick up that mantle if they so choose to pursue that avenue

Mine is focusing on state purchased vehicles because we spend a tremendous amount of money on these light-duty vehicles and state vehicles. And so I thought it was a starting point, sir.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. It is definitely an important issue and as you said, one in California that we should lead on. In the analysis they talked about the California sweat free code of conduct and the fact that this should be covered under that code of conduct. Is that not the case? And that's why we need this specific Bill.

So that wasn't brought up in the analysis last year and then this year when we did the research. Most businesses that contract with the state are required to sign a sweat free code of conduct, but SB77 requires more accountability asking for the locations of the mines and where this product was sourced.

And so it brings accountability because you obviously, if we're allowing the producer of the product to self certify, kind of like we do with California Air Resources Board, we allow foreign operators to self certify the carbon emissions to bring ships over here for oil.

If we're allowing them to self certify with no accountability, there's not a check and balance. And so SB77 specifically says that there's gotta be a source of where the product is obtained.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Additional questions or comments? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas

Thank you, Mr. Chair and I supported this Bill when it came up last year. I noticed also in the analysis though that it talks about how the U.S.

agency for International Development, USAID was instrumental in sort of creating more regulations in the mining space space and you know, trying to fortify and strengthen some of the protections for the workers in this particular space.

Can you comment on, you know, I think it's important for California to stand in the gap when our Federal Government is not investing in these kinds of programs that help to protect workers and to build a sectoral set of labor standards.

Can you comment on how your Bill will help to strengthen the protection of workers, particularly in this moment when the US Aid funding has been pretty much eliminated?

Thank you for the question. Good. Senator from Los Angeles, I, like you or anybody else on the dais, can't control what happens at the Federal Government.

But I think that this Bill will send a clear message that the State of California is saying that we will not accept child exploitation and child abuse and child labor regardless of what country it's in. And we will use our buying power to make sure that those children are protected.

A lot of the information that I took out of this Bill was when Senator Bradford introduced that resolution that talked about red Earth. It also talked about the documentaries of the collapsing mines and children.

There was one documentary that Senator Bradford sent me that I watched where a grown man was using a makeshift rope, triangle swing with a wooden board on it where the grown man was pulling like this out of this hole.

It was just a rope in the beginning and what looked like a five year old little kid fell off that swing barely able to breathe. Some other child took his little sack of cobalt that he had gotten a hold of or the child had gotten a hold of and then ran it up a hill.

It's complete child abuse regardless of what country it's taking place. And again, I appreciate the question, but I like no one else on this dais can control what happens in the Federal Government. And I just think that this Bill standing alone by itself will send a message that we aren't going to pay for those abuses.

I Appreciate that. And I particularly appreciate taking a stand in support and defense of workers and in defense of what has happened in terms of our investment, investing in global partnerships and trying to raise the standards for working people and particularly protecting children across the globe.

I think we have a lot of instances now where, because of national decisions, many communities across the country and even here in our state are under great attack and are losing their basic human rights as we speak. And so I think this is an important Bill.

And I appreciate you taking this courageous stand that you're taking on this issue and hope to work with you on others as we're trying to protect California and particularly workers and how we spend our money here in the state to promote human rights.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Other questions from other Members. All right. Any closing comments, Senator?

No, just I would challenge all of you. I feel like I have PTSD watching these films because of. And there's several. They come from the very left and the very right of our communities. This is not a political issue.

This is really a child labor issue where even the United States Department of Child Exploitation and Child's Rights has exposed. Exposed over 200,000 children. 200,000 children that have been affected by these atrocities. And I just would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. The chair recommendation is support with amends. I'll entertain a motion. All right. I think you beat you to it, Senator. But moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do pass as amended to approps. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you. We'll place that Bill on call. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate that. Senators, I will anticipate lifting in about five minutes. We're also looking to follow on with the joint informational hearing for the next few minutes. The Bill hearing will stand in recess. Oh, you got another one. All right, we'll go ahead.

All right. Ah, you gotta go. All right. Start from the top. Yeah, Start from the top. File item one.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 11. Those are one. That Bill is out. zero, I'm sorry. We're still missing one vote, correct? Correct. We'll keep that on call. File item 2. All right. File item three. Yeah, we need. I did. I just said that, so please don't get ahead of me, all right? Perfect. File item two.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 14. That item is on call. File item 3.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 11. We'll keep that item on call. File item four.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 12. Will put that item back on call. All right. Thanks, everyone, for your participation. We'll move everybody at this time. We will. Yeah. Stand in recess and we will lift the call again momentarily.

All right. The Committee on the Bill hearing will reconvene momentarily. Lift the call as to File item number three.

[Roll Call]

All right. That Bill is out. File item four.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thanks, everyone. At this time, the Bill hearing will stand adjourned and we will convene the joint informational hearing momentarily.