Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good morning. There are eight bills on today's agenda. One Bill is on consent. That bill's item number is number five, SB271.

Witnesses may be asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the Committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Saying as we do have a quorum, we'll go ahead and assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Madam Chair, I would move the one consent item file, item five.

So, let's go ahead, and Senator Laird has moved that consent item.

Senator McNerney needs to wait longer.

So item number five, SB271 on the consent item.

[Roll Call]

We will put that bill on call. Alrighty, I believe our first bill to be heard is SB225 by Senator McNerney. Welcome, Senator McNerney; you may begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm glad it's April 2nd and not April 1st, but I'm also glad that I'm the first one on the docket. I thank Senator Laird for sparing me from having to wait another hour or so. Appreciate it.

I'm going to present a Bill this morning, SB 225. And to start by saying that in California, we have the fifth largest economy in the world, and yet we still have significant hunger issues. One in five families in the state faces hunger insecurity.

So that's a situation that I am going to address with this Bill or try to address a part of it with this Bill. I also want to say that this Bill complements SB411, the Sun Banks Bill that's being presented by the chair later this morning. And we do that by offering meals, summer meals to kids.

There's a federal program to provide summer meals to kids, but when kids come in, they're going to be hungry. Their caretakers are likely to be hungry. And it doesn't make sense to give the kids food without the caretaker's food. So what SB225 does is provides meals to caretakers when they bring their kids in for summer meals.

It's a fairly straightforward bill. It's common sense. You don't want adults in the household to be hungry when kids are being fed. I don't know about you all, but I get hangry when I'm hungry and I don't get violent, but I get into a bad mood and that filters down into the household.

So, I'm asking you to consider an I vote on this bill, and I have with me to present Becky Silva from the California Association of Food Banks to present a case on the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Becky Silva with the California Association of Food Banks. The alarming food insecurity rates that you heard about just now come at a high cost to our state and harm our entire harm entire families.

Food insecurity is linked to poor school attendance and performance for children, reduced workplace productivity for adults, and negative physical and mental health outcomes. Unfortunately, families are particularly vulnerable to hunger during the summer months when school is out of session.

Without access to free school meals, children may miss out on essential nutrition as parents often struggle to afford the additional cost of feeding their families.

At this time, we're really grateful for the Federal Food Service Program which helps mitigate the harmful effects of school closures by providing free meals to children at safe, trusted locations and communities such as libraries, schools, and parks. Many summer meal sites also offer educational and enrichment activities, helping to reduce the summer learning loss experienced by many children.

And while the summer meal sites are crucial in combating child hunger, they leave parents and caregivers without access to meals.

Even though we know that if a child of a food insecure household is hungry, the parents or caregivers are likely also hungry. Many of our food banks and food pantries have seen the really heartbreaking impacts that this has on families who visit summer meal sites.

Just as one example, a volunteer at a summer meal site in Sonoma County, shared that one of the children in their neighborhood actually refused to participate in summer meals because he knew that his parents wouldn't be able to receive a meal too. He knew that it was unfair.

SB225 will help address food insecurity for the entire family, improving their nutrition, health and well-being by ensuring parents and caregivers can bond over a meal with their children at summer meal sites. CAFB is really proud to sponsor SB225 and we urge your I vote today. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation. Do we have anybody else here in support of this Bill? And if so, if you could please come up to the mic. You'll have two minutes and if you could just state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Thank you. Madam Chair Andrew Antwee on behalf of the office of Cat Taylor in support.

Morning. Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support. Thank you.

Sarah Brennan on behalf of NextGen California in support.

Good morning. Andrew. Shane Grace and Child Poverty California in support.

Good morning. Keeley O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Excellent. Anybody else? All righty. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us.

Good morning, Senators. My name is David Bollog. It seems like it would be hard and it is hard to come up here to talk against anybody getting fed when they're hungry.

But I am part of a coalition of Californians that have a growing concern of the overreach of education under the guise of education of the state providing services for people. It makes sense that we feed people when they are hungry going into school so that they're able to concentrate on their studies.

But now we're talking about going when they're not in school, having the state provide that food for them when it should be something that every individual should be able to provide on their own. And this is not just with food. It's also with health care, with community schools. It's also with housing for staff of schools.

And we also fear that in the future it will be for housing for students that are removed from their parents from, say of the results of welfare and family code 6924 which allows a 12 year old to remove themselves from appearance with the guidance of a counselor without any reason for it.

Where this was passed last year, a year prior, you had to be either at risk of hurting yourself, suicide, or somebody abusing you.

So for those reasons, although I do like to support the ideal people being fed, we do not feel that it's the state's responsibility and the taxpayers responsibility to feed people through our education funding during times when they're not at school. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing. And please only state your name, organization and position on the Bill as there is none. I want to thank our support and opposition witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members.

Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Yes. Senator Laird?

Yes, thank you. I know the Education Budget Subcommitee, of which you and I are Members, will be focusing on school nutrition programs in this Thursday's. Excuse me. And Senator Ochobog, who's looking at me very directly, we have all three Members of the budget Subcommitee here and we'll be considering the nutrition programs on Thursday.

I had this experience last fall where I visited a high school in my Senate district, Marina High School. And I was very surprised at the percent of kids in that school that were unsheltered.

And so they had a special program with washers and dryers, extra clothes, and they would pack backpacks every Friday and let kids take them with food, and they would bring it back empty on Monday or Tuesday. And it was the only food they were getting during that period.

And if you looked at what happened during the pandemic, which was a perfect indicator of what our schools do, we as a Legislature put in $360 million to food banks because whether it was seniors in congregate meals, whether it was school kids getting fed during the day at schools, that had to fill the gap for what was taken away for the closure of the congregate meal sites.

And we just experienced food trucks coming to California that were being turned around and being turned away from food banks that are stepping up in all these situations now. So I think it is incumbent on us to support every effort we can to bring food to kids and their families. And so I would move the Bill.

Yes, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So thank you for bringing this bill forward. So, interestingly enough, you know, like Senator Laird, I actually also experienced in our school district the opportunity that our school districts had to actually provide meals for our families and at that time had been extended to even every other children in the household and adults.

I think the only concern I have with this notion is I'm going to start with the practical part of it, the ability for school districts to have kitchens that are prepared to prepare all of this food at a mass scale.

And when I mean mass meaning not just the children that are enrolled in the school and perhaps their siblings, but also the adults, it's the extension of it. Our school districts are right now not being fully funded when it comes to that particular.

I think we had a conversation a couple years back in Committee and budget with regards to our kitchens, our school kitchens not being fully prepared or they needed to be updated. And I'm not sure where the funding went on that if it was funded or not at that particular point.

So that is one concern that I have is that, you know, we put this in place, but our schools and their kitchens may not be up to par to be able to handle the mass quantity.

So I think we need to start first with ensuring that our school districts have the facilities to be able to accommodate this need. And second, the other concern that I have is the fact that according to my notes, we have CalFresh that's currently available for our adults. And I mean our adults, I'm not talking about the kids.

I'm all for ensuring that our children have the food accessible to it. We can prepare for that.

But as far as the adults and also it's my understanding that additionally the summer EBT program, the sunbox, also provides families whose children are eligible for free and reduced price school meals with grocery benefits of $120 on a debit type card. Here's the other concern I have.

Ultimately we're trying to address the issues of the high cost of living in California. And it's making it very difficult for our families to be able to provide for themselves.

And this is where I really have a hard time because you know, when I look at if say, say we were to cut gas taxes, right, our gas tax, it would free up some funding or money for our families if we were to lower, you know, have a Bill on.

Not that I'm promoting any bills right now, but I mean, but just to say, you know, families, especially single moms, were impacted, quite frankly. But from bills that, I'm sorry, from earnings that include tips, if we were to, you know, exclude them from taxes for being.

That's extra money that these single moms could have to provide, that's actually addressing the root of the problem, which is the fact that people, their dollar doesn't yield. Right. And right now when I look at all these programs supplementing, it's still a band Aid, it's not fixing the cost of living in California.

So I'm very supportive of the measure. I'm going to abstain on this one just because of the, of what I feel is going to be unfair for school districts until we as a state, you know, prepare our school districts with the kitchen, with the infrastructure to be able to implement some such a task.

You know, I'm grateful, I'm so grateful that we have so many nonprofits, so many organizations, service organizations are actually providing for the adults in our community. And also the fact that we're supporting measures where it adds to the funding, like for CalFresh, for instance, we're trying to increase the amount that is being given to our families.

I'm for that.

However, that still, when we look at what the cost is to the state, it's still more most costly or more costly for the state to implement those programs because of what it takes to actually put it forward than it would be to actually lower the cost of different areas that we, you know, that we pay high taxes on.

So ultimately, I think as a society, as government elected, I think we need to start thinking about how do we start redirecting our intent and our efforts to actually address the issues at the core, at the root of the problem, instead of trying to expand more commissions, more departments, more programs that actually cost more money to implement, rather than just lowering the cost of living.

So I'm going to stay off, not because I don't believe in the principle, but because I truly believe that we need to prepare and then maybe redirect our focus in other ways of ensuring that we can afford a better quality of life for folks in California.

Thank you. Will I be able to respond?

You can do so in your closing. I'm going to go ahead. I know Senator Choi had some comments as well as Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Chair. Senator, I fully understand your intent of the Bill and hunger is something that we must try to eliminate in this so called rich country of the United States. But it's so surprising to hear 1 out of 5 people, 1 out of 4 people, families face hunger issues. We need to do more on this.

I would only question on that basis. I have no problem addressing this issue.

But the only concern that I have on this is this is an education Committee and your Bill is addressing providing meals not for children, it's a guardian, as parents, step parents, grandpa's guardians, et cetera, during the time of school is closed or extended period over five days. I thought we had plenty. Food assistance programs formerly known as.

What is it? The food is a supplemental snap. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a Federal Government program. And also food stamps, that's I think the former name. And then also in California we provide food costs, what the EBT or ATP bi weekly, certain number of dollars for needy families which they can use for grocery shopping.

So I thought that they are already provided for enough assistance for families to be fed. And this is all through social service programs.

And when schools are turned into social service agencies, you know what's the mission of the schools is they need to focus on educating the children and children has to be Fed, not hungry, in the classroom. So providing all the meals, some places, breakfast, lunch and even dinner that can be provided, no question for students.

But we are now getting into adult food problems. So how we can define our role of the schools? Can we leave this type of services to the social services agencies rather than schools to be responsible?

Was that a question to the witness?

Yeah, that's my concern to the witness.

Okay, yeah, sure. Happy to address that. I think the one thing that I would say about why the structure of this Bill makes sense in terms of using the already existing summer meal programs is just that, that they already exist. There are already kitchens preparing the meals. Those relationships are established.

There already are summer meal programs all across the state that are already there and able to help the families. Oftentimes children are so young that a parent has to take them to a summer meal site in order for that child to receive a meal.

So I think we would say that, you know, the parent or the guardian is already there with their child. It's incredibly heartbreaking to watch situations where a child is offered a meal where literally the parent has to stand to the side of where the children are eating to wait for their child to eat a meal.

I shared in my testimony earlier that we've heard of examples of children, children themselves refusing the meals because they feel it's unfair that their parents can't receive a meal as well. Just one last thing I'll mention.

I also have little kids at home and I'm sure for anybody with kids who can attest to this, that a parent eating a meal with their child is one of the best ways to ensure that the child will eat the meal and will learn how to eat healthfully.

And so that's another aspect is the sort of the social and the health benefits of families eating together and the caregivers being able to share that meal.

Can you address my related question that state and the federal already provide enough food assistance programs for needy families. So, you know, when they bring the children to schools and the wild, you are saying the child is eating, the parents or guardians are standing hungry. I don't believe that.

Yeah, I'm actually really glad that you. Is it okay that I keep answering? Okay, okay. I'm glad that you brought that up. Yes, there is CalFresh, which is a program that provides benefits to families, adults and children alike. Currently, the minimum benefit for a CalFresh household is just $23 per month.

So I think we can probably all relate to the experience of grocery shopping these days. I often tell people that I think, you know, $23 is barely enough to cover a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and maybe some eggs, let alone that helping you through the entire month.

So if we increase that CalFresh amount enough to cover the number of family Members in that household, then we don't need to. Schools don't have to worry about this adult hunger issues. Would you say that?

I would say in an ideal world, it would Be Wonderful if our CalFresh benefits, SNAP benefits, covered an entire family's food budget. That's not the reality today. And what we know works is a patchwork of these programs.

You know, I work at the California Association of Food Banks where we have 41 Member food banks that provide free groceries to community Members every day. We know that CalFresh recipients, that about one third of them we know through data also visit food banks because their benefits just do not cover the whole month.

And so it's the entirety of all of these programs that work together and complement each other that enables families to stay nourished through the whole month.

Okay, thank you for your answer. This is little more complicated issue to find a solution through our dialogue here. So I will stop here and I will consider. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. We'll move to Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on Senator Choi's point because I think there's, there's, there's something real here. So I was mayor of a city during a pandemic, during the pandemic.

And we in the pandemic revealed a lot of hunger issues, but it also revealed our capacity to sort of every, all hands on deck. We're all doing whatever we need to. By Tomorrow morning at 7 in the morning, we need to have food. And is it going to be at the school?

Is it going to be at city hall? Who's going to provide it? Where are we going to get it? We're all doing this together. And so we were learning how to figure it out. And it turns out we did have some resources from the state and certainly from the Federal Government as well.

So very good lessons about the different parts of the ecosystem. I think, you know, where I agree with Senator Choi is that we, we haven't now, now we are in a place where it's very difficult to figure out how to, how to manage this as a, as government.

Like how do, how do we know if we're getting the job done? How do we hold ourselves accountable? How do we manage, how do we assure maximum efficiency and effectiveness at dealing with the hunger issue?

And the challenge for me is, is that, you know, if you, if you move into the brand new affordable housing project that's just been built in woodland and apply for CalFresh, you might be waiting six months to get benefits at all.

So, but we, we have CalFresh and the county is responsible under, you know, section 17,000 to, to take care of these issues. This has always been the county's lead, responsible responsibility. Schools have this responsibility. And, and here we would be adding guardians. We now require many housing projects to include, you know, food closets and other.

And other things. We require colleges and universities through our basic aid programs that they also should be. They are now charged with that responsibility. And so everyone is now responsible and everyone is doing the right thing. But it makes it almost impossible for us to tell what's working, where are the gaps, Sort of everyone is doing everything.

And that was the right moment, that was the right strategy in a moment of an emergency because we needed to do the impossible quickly. So I'm very supportive of the Bill. I'm very glad the authors brought this forward.

I think this is, you know, the fact that this is an existing mechanism that is out there is a good approach. I also think, though, that we ought to be thinking about what is the most effective way of delivering this that is centered around the human being and not just about every agency that could do something.

Doing something, often for the. Often because we want to feel like, yeah, you know, yeah, I'm in charge of the parks Department and parks should be there to support hunger too. So let's do a parks program. Like, we all feel like we should do it. And the problem there is that there's just, no, you can't manage that.

And we can't. I know in the Budget Committee, we can't. It's very hard for us to hold ourselves accountable around homeless initiatives, homelessness initiatives, for the same reason. Everyone is doing something and it's completely disconnected. You're the only one I've met that has it all in your head, but we don't. And so I think it's.

I think it's a fair point. Senator Choi and I, and I agree with you that we need to get a handle on what our strategy is for putting the person at the center and figuring out what's the.

What is, what are the most effective, efficient ways of really combating this problem and not only layering on additional programs, but, but as we're working towards that ultimate goal. This, to me, this is, this is a smart strategy.

It is at least not adding a whole new agency, but really building on something that already exists in that infrastructure and that person, that personal human dynamic that you described with the child and their. And their guardian at the site. So I'm supportive of the Bill.

I think, I think Senator Choi raises a good, a good point for us to keep in mind, both in this Committee and elsewhere around. How can we really design a client centered, a human centered approach to how we're addressing hunger rather than just every agency layering on one more program.

But maybe. Thank you, Senator, yourself, and we get together, maybe we can find a wiser solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Bald, and thank you, Senator Choi. So I'll go ahead and. Sorry. zero, you had one more comment.

Final comment to Senator Choice. Question in common is that as a. As the Legislature, we actually have been working towards and bills have been introduced to increase the CalFresh amount in the State of California, and we have failed.

So just as an FYI, we have been trying and we have not been able to do that, including, I believe it was last year with Senator Manager bringing that forward. And we were all very supportive of the measure.

Thank you. So, seeing as discussions finished, Senator McNerney, would you like to close? And I know there were a couple of kind of questions you wanted to address, if you could do that in your closing as well.

Well, I thank the Senators for their comments. There's a lot of useful ideas that are being discussed this morning, and I'm certainly open to considering ideas to improve the legislation. First of all, I'd like to say the summer meals program is a federally funded program. It's already in place, it's already operating.

So this SB225 won't require additional facilities or infrastructure, and it's just reimbursing for the caretaker that's being provided as opposed to the children that are being provided. And again, it makes common sense. I think one of the obligations of a state is to make sure that its citizens don't go hungry, that we don't have food insecurity.

And so if it requires a patchwork to provide meals for people, then I think we're going to have to do that until we can put together a more comprehensive system as, as idealized by Senator Gabaldin and Senator Choi. But until then, I don't see that happening right away.

Another way to make sure that people get fed is something that I strongly support, and I ask for an aye vote on this.

Thank you, Senator McNerney.

Before we go ahead and call the vote, you know, I do just want to say I'm incredibly supportive of your Bill and I appreciate you bringing it forward and appreciate the discussion that happened today about making sure that we're better coordinating our programs and making it easier for folks to access the benefits that they rightfully deserve.

You know, I think one of the challenges that we face, as I've looked at different food support programs, is trying to meet people where they're at, because it's such a confusing maze of services. I worked on legislation before I even got here to Sacramento to make it easier for college students to access CalFresh.

And so we could start coordinating when students are filing and filling out financial aid, because many students in college campuses don't realize that they are also eligible for CalFresh, depending on what their income status is.

And so, you know, part of building out this program and making sure that food is readily available, you know, at summer programs and parks, it's because that's where kids already are and that's where families already are. So, you know, I support your bill and appreciate that it complements mine so closely.

I think it's really important there are cities like mine that have summer programs like this already. And giving them that additional support to be able to cover caretakers too, I think is a righteous effort. So with that, we have a motion from Senator Laird, who stepped away on SB 225.

And the motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. So if the assistant. Can you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

So we will keep that bill on call, seeing as we have Senator Gonzalez here. Senator Gonzalez, would you feel comfortable presenting SB48 other side?

He's going to have to.

Senator Gonzalez, you may begin when you're ready.

May I do. May I please present the Senator Reyes Bill first? Just because our Superintendent of Public Instruction is not here for my Bill just yet. zero, that be okay, Madam Chair?

Yes, that's no problem. So you're going to be presenting SB334, Reyes? Yes, correct. Excellent. So we'll go ahead and start with that then.

Okay, great. Thank you. Well, Madam Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB334, the title IX Education Against Harassment act, on behalf of Senator Reyes.

SB 334 will incorporate information on Title IX and the Uniform Complaint Procedures into the Health and Education curriculum framework and provide information on procedures for complaints and investigations relative to sexual harassment and abuse. The Bill will also establish Title IX Safety Weeks to promote a safer and healthier school environment in Senator Reyes District. The U.S.

Department of Education and the California Department of Justice determined that the Redlands Unified School District violated laws related to prevention of sexual assault, harassment and abuse. This occurred while there were existing protocols in place that could have been used to mitigate or prevent these situations from taking place.

With Title IX enforcement in jeopardy at the federal level, it is now critical now More than ever that the state prioritizes the enforcement of these sexual harassment preventions. Here to testify in support is Tristan Brown with the California Federation of Teachers and Rohan Michael Haban.

On behalf of GEN up, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Reyes for SB334.

Excellent. Thank you for your presentation. I see we have witnesses here in support. If you wouldn't mind using the microphone right in front of you and you can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and the Members of the Committee. My name is Ron Mikhail Haban. I'm a junior at Heritage High School in Contra Costa County, as well as the Director of Communications at Generation up, one of California's largest youth led organizations created to foster educational equity.

Today I'm here to express my strong support for Senate Bill 334 because I firmly believe that expanding education and resources are a critical step towards ensuring student safety and fostering a school environment free from sexual harassment and discrimination.

In California, over 86% of women and 53% of men experience some form of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetime. These rates exceed the national average. Furthermore, during the 2016-2017 school year, California public schools reported over 10,000 sexual harassment offenses, which eventually led to suspension, expulsion, or disciplinary action.

At the age of 13, in seventh grade, I myself was a victim of sexual harassment. It has been four years since that incident, and for four years I have been thinking about how I experienced a lack of support and a place to turn to. No student deserves to feel that feeling of isolation or burden.

We cannot overlook how sexual harassment has impacted students like myself, especially because of how preventable this issue is. SB334 is a necessary step towards ensuring that students are informed of their rights and protected from sexual harassment in schools.

By incorporating Title IX education into the educational curriculum and creating dedicated safety weeks, this Bill will help prevent the systematic failures that have harmed so many students in California. I strongly urge you to vote yes on SB334 to empower students with the knowledge and research they need to feel safe, supported and heard in their schools. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Tristan Brown with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. I cannot top what my colleague Rohan has described as what students are going through in schools.

It's hard enough already of all the things that are compounded on students, let alone threats of gun shootings and other violence, to have to come to an environment that you think is safe and secure, yet face cyberbullying, sexual harassment, et Cetera is a compounding issue that really prevents the whole reason why we're there, and that is to achieve academic excellence and provide students with the skills they need to get through life.

We take our role in local parentis, meaning we are in place of parents while those students are on our site and at our activities. We take it very seriously. Any parent with their child would make sure that their loved ones know all of the rights that are available to them and all the protection that they have.

In fact, I think it's a very vital part of growing up is to learn how to fend for yourself and how to assert your right and make sure that you can control your own safety as best you can.

This is why we support this Bill, to make sure that students understand what options are available to them, how to exercise those rights.

Regardless of who might be the person that is impacting their life, whether it's other students and other adults on campus, it is paramount that we make sure that every student feels safe and secure on campus.

This goes a long way to ensure that they feel that they have this shield to use and deploy at any moment if the need arises and to help another fellow student.

I think this is a clear case where we can grow our community in a safe and secure manner and that students will have the know how to do this effectively and hopefully carry that throughout their lives with the other rights that they are endowed with in our country.

So for those reasons, we do urge an I vote this morning and happy to answer any questions.

Excellent. Thank you for your presentation. Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside the railing and please only state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning. Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in strong support.

Madam Chair Members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare foundation with a late support for this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis on behalf of Los Amigos De La Comunidad in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators, Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, proud supporters of the bill.

Is there anybody else? Seeing as there's no one else, we will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use the microphones at the table in front of us. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100?

If so, please use the microphone outside the railing, saying as though there's no one. We will go ahead and move on and bring the discussion Back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments, Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Yes. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, for presenting the Bill on behalf of Senator Reyes. I actually a Senator also, that represents the. The district in Redlands which kind of inspired this Bill and the information that's behind this Bill. I actually think it's a great idea to actually empower our students with the information in order to know what's.

I mean, posting it is one thing, but we don't always pay attention, especially as students. You don't always notice what is posted and available. So having an intentional effort to actually discuss what your rights are under Title Ix, I think it's very, very important. So I am happy to move the Bill when appropriate, Madam Chair.

Okay.

I know Senator Cortese also has. Has some comments that he would like to make, so I'll pass it over to him. I also need to step out. So I'm going to go ahead, Senator Chobo, and be passing the gavel to you so you can continue on the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a proud co author of the bill and of course we'll be supporting it.

I just want to comment that not only do I appreciate the author for bringing the bill forward, but especially in these times where we have federal actions, you know, threatening to, you know, send Ayes into our schools, we've heard stories in parts of the state where Border Patrol has actually made their way up from the border to create that kind of havoc in communities that make people afraid to send their kids to school.

And the irony of it is that in 1982, the United States Supreme Court required all states to provide public education at no cost to undocumented students. And I think that, you know, the idea that we would do anything less than protect that right with whatever resources we have is. It would be a mistake.

So I, I just wanted to get that out there and again, appreciate the author and look forward to supporting the Bill.

And your comments were related to File item number six, right, Senator Cortese, SB334.

Reyes, apologies.

We've got a chair, so I didn't want to. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same file. Didn't want you to be confused.

I was. Thank you. I will admit it. Forward my comments to the next presentation. Thank you.

But thank you.

Presentation.

I do support SB334 as well. Thank you.

Wonderful. Okay. Having no other comments from the dais, we'll. We'll bring it. Well, would you like to close, Senator Gonzalez?

Well, thank you. Madam Vice Chair for your motion and just respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Reyes. Perfect. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll file.

Item 6, SB334. Reyes, the motion.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave file item 334 on call for our absent Members. Now we'll move on to file number four. SB 48 by Senator Gonzalez. You may proceed when when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, here to present SB48, which implements critical protections to ensure students, parents, staff and teachers feel safe and welcome at our California schools. The federal administration's attacks on our immigrant communities are causing real fear and concern in neighborhoods across the state.

California's school resources and spaces should be dedicated to educating young minds and should never be utilized to help tear apart families. The U.S. Supreme Court has long established the Constitution that the Constitution guarantees a right to education regardless of immigration status. And until recently, the Federal Government had treated these sensitive spaces as safe zones.

Immigration actions near schools have a chilling effect on school attendance, increased learning loss and harms student mental health. SB 48 will prohibit school officials from granting immigration authorities permission to access a campus without a judicial warrant and will protect students personal information and educational records.

This Bill will also provide additional statutory clarity to school staff on the ground in our communities and will help schools remain safe and secure and supportive of our children. Testifying in support today, I have our California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, as well as Dr.

Alma Castro, President of the LA County School Trustees Association and a dear friend and resident of Lynwood. I respectfully asked for an I vote on on SB48.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Witnesses. Superintendent Thurmond, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, here today in support of SB48. I would like to thank the Senator for being a great author on this important issue. And I'd ask you to think about this in just three small ways. One, it helps to keep our kids in school. Two, it helps to keep California schools fully funded.

Our schools lose, could potentially lose, millions of dollars from the deportation threats that have been made in California. And third, this Bill does nothing to hinder the ability of law enforcement to address serious issues in our community.

If you think about the number of families in California that are immigrant families, nearly half of the children in California live in immigrant families, and many have one or two parents who are undocumented.

When these threats take place on school campuses or even near a school campus, many times kids don't come to school including kids who themselves are citizens. And so this simply says that kids should stay in school and have good outcomes. Our school should be well funded. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote for SB48.

Thank you, Superintendent Thurman. You may proceed.

Good morning, Chair and distinguished Members of the Senate Education Committee. My name is Dr. Alma Castro. I thank you for the opportunity to stand before you today as a daughter of immigrant parents in support of SB48. If nothing else, history has shown the devastating impact of discriminatory policies that target immigrant students and families.

In 1994, I was a high school senior at Lynwood High School and witnessed the fear and the divisiveness caused by Proposition 187, an initiative that sought to deny undocumented families and children access to essential services and a public education. Today, 31 years later, I'm a school board Member serving in my same community in Lynwood.

I see and I also hear the testimonies of similar concerns regarding the impacts and and the damaging effects of immigrant threats in our communities. These impacts include decline in attendance, reduced family engagement and events of after school programs or weekends. Adult school attendance is now in the decline. Requests for online learning are growing.

Parents are avoiding to do drop offs in schools due to risk of detention. No child should ever experience a trauma of Fearing family separation. In response, school districts have continued to strengthen board protocols and policies and pass resolutions. Build trust with families, providing workshops of knowing your rights, Student education and mental health are being compromised.

Prolonged exposure to such stress can lead to chronic absenteeism, academic setbacks and long term emotional trauma. SB48 is a necessary safeguard to protect all of our students.

It is our opportunity to stand on the right side of justice in history and uphold the promise of an equal access to education and protect our families from unjust targeting of immigration enforcement. Ensuring that schools remain welcoming and safe spaces. Learning opportunities for every student.

Let us ensure that no child is ever too afraid to come to school. I urge an aye vote and stand together with our California students, families, educators and staff. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. Now we're going to move forward with supporters of SB48. Here, room 2100. Please proceed to the microphone. State your name. It's me too, so I'd. State your name. Organization that you're presenting and your supporter opposition.

Thank you, Senator. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Long Beach City College and Hispan organized for. Political equality and support. Thank you Senator.

Hi. Yadi Yan with Oakland Privacy in support.

Hi, my name is Ellen Brittingham, I'm here in support for Ellen Brittingham.

Becca Kramer Mater with Kaiser Advocacy here in support for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Hello. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Madam Chair, Members, Tristan Brown with CFT also in support.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Magali Zagal on behalf of Aspire Public Schools. In support.

Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, also known as CHIRLA. In support.

Morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're in support.

Al Grant on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Good morning. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good morning. Jennifer Baker on behalf of the California Association for Bilingual Education as well as Californians Together.

Sara Bachas with Children Now in support.

Marcel Reynolds with California School Based Health Alliance in strong support.

Craig Pulsar on behalf of Equality California in support.

Valerie Johnson with the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support.

Andrew Shane Grace, End Child Poverty in strong support.

Good morning. Keeley O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Becky Silva with the California Association of Food Banks in strong support.

Good morning. Elmer Lazari on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Fresno Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Brian Rivas on behalf of Education Trust West in support.

Good morning. Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of CAREC and the Central American Resource Center. And strong support.

Xavier Maltese with the California Charter School Association in support.

Madam Chair and Senators. Adam Keglin on behalf of Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Chair Members. Colonel Hampton with the Association of California School Administrators with the support of amended position. While we agree with the intent of the bill, we are seeking clarifying language regarding exigent circumstances. Just provide school districts with more how to balance school safety with individual rights.

We've already reached out to the author's office and their staff and appreciate their communication and work. Hope to work with them more in the future. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. We'll now proceed with any lead. Do we have any lead registered opposite? Nope, we don't have. Okay. We don't have any. Any witnesses in opposition that are lead up? zero, we do not lead. Not registered. But you. Okay, no problem.

We'll now proceed with any witnesses in opposition to SB48. You may proceed to the Microphone, sir, at the table, if you. Thank you. So you'll be our unregistered lead witness in opposition.

I came just in case somebody did not show up.

So.

Hi, my name is David Bollog. I'm here on behalf of the 6 million California voters who voted for a change and our policy federally in regards to immigration. The last administrator and I do believe that this legislation is in result to our current federal Executive administer.

What people do in California and throughout the nation would like to see enforcement of immigration from people that have just come in here through very. Lacked very lax immigration policy from the. From the former. From the former Administration. So I would be amiss if I did not take the opportunity being here to actually come up and register.

Although I do know in this room I am in the minority and also we are in the minority in California that this is a concern of people throughout California and throughout the United States that our immigration policy be addressed.

And I would also say with this legislation, it does seem to be redundant in the fact that schools are already private policies are already private places where you will need a search warrant in order to get in there if you do not have permission already from the administrators. So for that I register opposition to this. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your. For your testimony. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition to SB48? In room 2100. Cenan. We'll bring it back to the dais.

Senator Cortese, I just wanted to ask the Superintendent what his awareness is in terms of the President of the United States issuing Executive orders to direct immigration enforcement in schools and in churches.

You know, that's why I'm proud to be a sponsor of this legislation. You know, who directs enforcement in churches and in schools. You know, this Bill does nothing to interfere with the work that must be done to address any enforcement concerns.

It says clearly that a person still may have a judicial warrant if they need to seek a person who was a concern. And Ayes may do that. What it says is that schools cannot give data about our children, about immigrant children.

And it says that school should not be the place for deportation because it has many impacts on the children themselves and it could cost upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars to our schools. California simply is one of the few states in the country that still gets its funding based on average daily attendance practices.

And it is proven that deportation threats suppress attendance in our schools, which means less revenue for our schools. Our schools have been through so much. No matter how you feel about the President's views on immigration, you cannot deny this type of activity has a negative effect on our schools.

This isn't a statement about immigration opinions or the President. This is simply saying California schools deserve to have guaranteed revenue and that our kids, including our citizens kids, should not be afraid to come to school because of these types of reckless behaviors that have no place on a school campus.

Thank you through the Chair. Thank you Mr. Superintendent. And I don't want to give in, give, get any give and take with opposition witnesses. But to repeat my comments earlier, and I apologize for speaking on the Title 9 issue which which I also think is under siege from the Federal Government, but that Bill has already been heard.

Plyler v. Doe, 1982 United States Supreme Court decision based on a Texas state law that attempted to keep undocumented children out of public schools was ruled as a violation of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

That is still the law of the land, the United States Supreme Court and those decisions are the law of the land. That's paramount over any Executive order or anything that we would do here. In fact, we're sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, each and every one of us who's voting here today.

So the notion that somehow we can coexist under that Supreme Court case by saying we have an obligation to educate these children and at the same time not do everything that we can to prevent federal agents, law enforcement agents, including the work that we've done to keep our own law enforcement away from that situation, to say that we would do anything less than to protect the education of those children, that's been by ruling of the United States Supreme Court declared to be a right, a right under the equal protection clause, United States Constitution would be foolish.

So again, picking up on my ill timed earlier comments, I just want to thank the author and I was very, very happy to, to be included as a co author on the Bill and hopefully we won't have to to do more work like this.

Hopefully the message won't be necessary, but especially with, with this law presumably being this Bill presumably being signed into law and requiring warrants in the first place. But let's hope they're not even needed in this state. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no other comments from our from the dais, I do want to make a couple of comments. First of all, let me start by stating that I will be supporting the measure today. I think it's, it's a good Bill. However, I do want to make some points for clarification purposes.

It's my understanding as a Former school board Member, that we were not allowed. The school districts are not allowed to ask immigration status of our student. We don't know who is. You know, you can assume.

But the reality is none of our records actually show whether a child is immigrant, an immigrant child or undocumented child, or a US Citizen. Is that correct?

Well, Senator, the reality is that people at school do know. And Ayes shows up on campus or near campus, and certain kids, whether they be athletes or involved in student organizations, they don't show up. And so the reality is that you're correct, no one is supposed to be able to give any information to anybody.

The school districts don't collect the data, whether or not they're undocumented or documented.

To my knowledge, no. Okay. But there's still information being exchanged. Ayes agents still show up on campus, and people are very unclear about what to do if Ayes shows up on campus.

Okay. And I think we're doing. I just wanted to make sure that we knew that because I think it's important to note for the public to know that school districts do not ask for the legal status of our students. They're not supposed to ask. It's not.

It's my understanding that it's not within the purview of the school districts to ask what the documented document status is of our students. It's important for the public to know that.

The schools ask in a different way, though, Senator. The schools ask each student to produce certain documents, and there's a conversation happening about documentation all the time. And schools do know. And so that creates a threat that someone who feels pressured could give information to an Ayes agent.

And if I may as well, AB699, which was the Bill that this. That SB48 builds off of, which was the Assemblymember O'Donnell Bill says, speaks to this and ensures that requires the Attorney General, obviously, to establish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement and also limits the data sharing as well.

But this builds off of that to ensure that we're updating the model policies as well as just continuing to ensure that additional data is not shared with the Federal Government while also not violating federal law.

Perfect. Thank you. So I just want to make clear that under current state law, a school district, County Office of Education, or charter school is prohibited from collecting or soliciting Social Security number information from students or their parents unless otherwise required by state or federal law.

It directly prohibits school officials and employees from collecting information or documents about immigration or citizen status of students or their family Members. Educational institutions are also subject to federal and state privacy laws that limit the type of information that they may disclose.

I just want to make sure that we have the correct information out in public because there is a lot of fear being promoted and it has to stop. I mean, and I can see why the bills are being introduced in order to protect and give that security, but that is the law that is currently already in place.

So to promote this notion that our students, you know, could be in peril within the school districts. I'll leave it to your interpretations. The other thing that I wanted to to note here for the record is that our places of learning should be a priority.

I completely agree, but I also want to make sure that we have clear that during. So under President Trump's order to heighten deportation efforts. Let's see. No, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong page. I apologize. Okay.

So also to note is that, I guess just for clarification, President Trump has taken away the sensitive location status of schools as it relates to immigration enforcement. It does not mean that the federal immigration agents are going into the campuses to make the arrest.

According to a NewsWeek article from February 12025 John Fabricatore, a retired Ayes field office Director in Colorado, stated that the police change or the policy change does not specifically aim to increase operations in schools, but rather to remove restrictions on ice's ability to operate in neighborhoods around sensitive locations.

They didn't get rid of it so they could go into schools and churches. This is according to Mr. Fow record. According to this article.

The other thing that I wanted to note is that as of right now, and I kind of mentioned it in a previous Committee hearing with another Bill, according to the records, as of right now, there are no Ayes activity on campuses. And this is for the benefit of our students.

By the way, I'm stating this for for the benefit of our students in our schools.

According to a Washington examiner article from March 12025 despite all out effort by concerned parents and teachers to secure schools, the NEA, which represents 3 million educators, parents, students and activists, told the Washington examiner that it was not aware of any incidents in which Ayes pulled the student from the school.

A spokeswoman for the National Association of Elementary School principals also confirmed NEA's observation that they had not heard of any examples of this scenario from our Member principals.

And then a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest district in the country, also told the Washington examiner in a statement that the district has had no Ayes activity on campus. Once again, I'm stating this for the benefit of our students, to ensure that they know that they are not in trouble.

There's no way to know their document status and ensure that, you know, they can continue going to school and continue with their learning. Anyway, I am happy to support the Bill today, but I thought it was important to ensure that we have those statements made and those facts stated for the record. Any other comments?

Senator Cortese, thank you. Appreciate you allowing me to follow up, and I'm not trying to have the last word here by any means. I appreciate your concern as you just expressed it, as we've had this discussion, which seems to be the same concern for making sure that there's not panic or terror or issues within the schools.

But I do want to clarify that what some of us have experienced and heard direct testimony on from families and students is not that the schools are violating the education Code by giving up confidential information. That's not happening. It doesn't happen with grades. It doesn't happen with curriculum. It doesn't happen with health records.

It doesn't happen with status. But the concern that I've heard testimony on has its roots in the fact that Ayes, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other such entities have data on the parents of these children and have been known to question children as to the workplaces and the residences of their parents. Those are facts.

We've seen it, not just heard about it, not just at the K through 8 or K12 level, but at the post secondary level as well.

And then given the Faustian choice of either you're going to be detained or you're going to tell us where your parents are or where your Tia or Tia is or where some other family Member is.

That's terrorism, and that's encouraged when, despite the fact that it's not happening yet, and I hope it never happens, the President of the United States issues an Executive order that says, go do that. Go do that.

And so I think this is actually a measured response thus far, you know, from, from the author, to come back and say, based on what we know now, let's meet.

Let's at least make sure we put, you know, these due process procedures in place and hope that we don't have to do more, you know, to uphold these constitutional rights. But I just want to clarify.

I don't think anybody is alleging that educators, that the jurisdiction of the Superintendent or anyone down the line on the Education Code side of things is, is, you know, violating confidentiality or releasing information.

This is something that's rooted in a whole other effort that we've had to fight here as a State with SB 54, with fighting the Secure Communities program and so many other programs that are intended to take data that's in federal databases and chase down entire families and break them up. And.

And I think that's really the fundamental point of the Bill, if you don't mind me saying so. Senator, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity for more words. Appreciate it, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. And bottom line is that our school districts are not supposed to be collecting this data. Right? They're not. So when they don't have the data, they're not collecting the data.

It makes it very difficult for, you know, or have an incentive for the federal or Ayes to be able to come in and want to interrogate these children. So I still do not see, you know, that happening unless we violate.

But if they have, you know, in any case, I think we've stated some of the facts on the record. Thank you, Senator Cortese. Senator Gonzalez, would you like to close?

Well, thank you. I appreciate it. Even though there are two Members here in this whole Committee, I appreciate the debate. The fact of the matter is now that the IRS is formalizing a contract to figure out who is undocumented or not, who is an immigrant or not, their student visas being revoked at this time without due process.

And even just the perception, every single day there is something in the news, even just the perception of the President going on TV stating that he wants to hit a quota of 10,000 deportations per month will cause flurry in our communities. It has already caused flurry in Southeast Los Angeles. We know. And which Dr. Alma Castro represents.

We know that the fear is real. We've seen declining enrollment on top of the already declining enrollment we've had prior to Covid or after Covid. And so the threat is real. Folks do not want to go to school. They don't want to take their children to school. They feel threatened.

And it's a direct attack on immigrant communities, most specifically Latino immigrant communities. So I appreciate the comments, but again, even the threat is really real. I also appreciate the Superintendent. He is the one who actually provided this incredible idea for us to move Unison Together to ensure that we were doing everything to protect students in our schools.

And again, even if you're just looking at this economically, the detriment that this could do to our schools, the economy, the industries around these communities is dire. So with that, I really do respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I really look forward to ongoing conversations that are productive on the issue of immigration that are respectful for those immigrants that are working hard in our communities and that really ensure that we know that student protection, student safety, student support is key in these discussions. With that, I respectfully ask for a night vote.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. zero, do we have a motion? Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We'll place this Bill on call for our absent Members. All right. We will continue with File item number two. SB244 by Senator Grayson. Welcome, Senator Grayson. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you so much. Madam Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, good morning. And it is still morning. SB244 removes the cost barriers to diagnostic assessments for students living with disabilities. For over three decades, students living with disabilities have been able to successfully navigate higher education. In fact, 20 percent of all enrolled undergraduate students reported having a disability.

And all those students living with disabilities are protected by federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination. They still face significant barriers to academic access.

In addition to the traditional challenges students may have in paying for college, in general, students with disabilities may have another unique expense related to their disability that may impact their ability to even attend college or to afford it and be successful academically.

By law, colleges and universities are mandated to provide access to appropriate services and resources for people with disabilities, including testing accommodations. Now, testing accommodations are changes to the regular testing environment and auxiliary aids and services that allow individuals with disabilities to demonstrate their true aptitude or achievement level on standardized exams or tests.

However, in order to qualify for testing accommodations, students must obtain their own medical diagnostic assessments, which can cost upwards of thousands of dollars. Depending on a student's health insurance, assessments may be covered, but for those who do not, they may have to pay for these assessments all on their own, creating an unfair and economic disparity.

So SB244 expands on the Legislator's intent to promote educational equity and support students living with disabilities who face barriers to academic success. Specifically, this Bill requires the trustees of the California State University and would request the Regents of the University of California to cover the cost of diagnostic assessments as proof for academic accommodations for specified students.

By removing the cost barrier to diagnostic assessments, all students can thrive and succeed regardless of their disability. And through the chair, my. My witness called in ill today, so couldn't be here.

Sorry to hear that. Okay, so we'll continue with any other witnesses in support of SB244 here in room 2100. Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to SB244? Seeing none. We'll bring it back. Do you have any questions or comments on SB244? We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Senator Grayson, would you like to close?

Yes. My witness would have said this is the absolute best Bill of the day. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grayson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, SB244. Grayson Motion is due passes to Senate Governmental Organization Committee. Perez. Ochobog? Aye. Ochobog aye. Cabaldin? Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez aye. Laird.

That Bill will remain on call for our absent Members. Thank you Grayson.

Thank you.

We will take up the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar, follow item number 5 SB271 Reyes, current vote is 6 ayes and no no's with the chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Gonzalez? Ayer. Gonzalez Aye.

Consent is out. 720.

The committee, the Senate Education Committee, will be taking a short brief.

Great. Next up, we have SB391 by Senator Laird. Senator Laird, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. I want to start by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for working on this. This bill provides authority to the California Community College's Chancellor's Office to impose reasonable fees or charges upon research partners who are seeking access to data from the Chancellor's Office.

This is something that exists in other branches but doesn't exist with community colleges. As you'll see from the analysis, there are certain things, such as academic research and others, that are exempt. And at the same time, this doesn't apply to the dashboards of general information that's out there for community colleges.

So this allows the fact that they can't recover fees for this, and sometimes it either inhibits providing the information or that people would pay for otherwise, such as in Cradle to Career. So I think it works for everybody at this point. There's no registered opposition. With me today to testify is Dr.

Linda Vazquez, assistant Vice Chancellor for State and Federal Relations for the Community College Chancellor's Office. And at the appropriate time, I would request an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Good morning. Chair Perez and members of the Education Committee. I'm pleased to testify on behalf of the California Community Colleges in support of SB391. I will build upon Senator Laird's introduction of this bill.

The California Community College Chancellor's Office is a state agency of about 200 staff that administers over 100 programs to our 116 community colleges. Since 2010, the number of community college categorical programs has increased from 35 to 105 programs, but our staff capacity has only increased by 8%.

We serve more than 2.1 million students who are from diverse backgrounds. Roughly 53% are female, and over 44% are over the age of 25. This is just a snapshot of the data that tells you who we are and who we serve.

The Chancellor's Office already has numerous public dashboards available to the public that give them access to this information, including data on faculty and staff demographics, student diversity and their enrollment, persistence, retention, and more. However, research organizations may request data from us that digs deeper into these layers of the data they are seeking.

Our data generally to answer a very specific scientific question, such as, how does dual enrollment work in different regions of the state? Or how does X influence Y? These research questions may aid in the development of research projects or policy efforts. We enter into a formal MOU with each of these requesting entities.

And these MOUs ensure that the requesting organization clarifies the purpose of their request, establishes a process for destroying the data once they are done with their research project because they don't own the rights to the data when they request it. There are at a minimum seven to eight people involved in managing these MOUs and data projects.

We generally do not decline these requests because the organization may be raising awareness about a very important issue which could inform good policy policy decisions. However, we are absorbing these requests as unfunded workload.

They require significant staff time, diverting resources away from our existing obligations, including over 50 legislative reports, the management of a statewide data system, and the evaluation of multiple programs.

Further, our research team is made up of only six staff, and the chancellor's office is facing an 8% budget cut without the ability to charge a fee for these data requests. We may need to determine which requests we can accept and which ones we need to decline.

The revenue generated by this fee policy is not to make an income or profit. The fee is a reasonable fee and will be reinvested into the chancellor's office, research team, licensing costs, professional development, and hopefully increased capacity. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope to count on your support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses here in opposition? Oh, support. Are there any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If so, please use the microphone outside of the railing. And please only state your name, organization and position on the bill. Okay, seeing as we have no one else, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition?

There any other opposition witnesses? Please use the microphone outside the railing. Okay, seeing as we have no one else, we will go ahead and move on to bringing it back to discussion for the members. Do any of our members have questions or comments, Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Just one minor question, Senator Laird. As part of the fee policy, will there be an accommodation added to the bill to ensure that the fee imposed by this bill is reasonable and only reimburse costs for the chancellor's office to comply with the request? How is the fee?

Yes, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. This is only intended to compensate us for the time, not to make a profit? We have built out sort of a blueprint for this, but of course it will ultimately be up to the Board of Governors and open for public input as well.

But we've determined there essentially like three layers of requests, like the basic, moderate and more complex requests. And each of those three levels, we've determined how many hours it typically involves to managing a basic, complex, moderate or complex request.

And we've calculated the hourly wages of each of the staff that are involved in those layers, and that's how we'll come up with a fee. And I don't want to get ahead of our board because ultimately they will be the ones to approve this. But we're not talking about tens of thousands of dollars here.

On the low end, It'll probably be $2,000 because it involves, again, eight different staff members, researchers, attorneys, specialists. And on the high end, maybe up to 15. It's not going to be crazy high. Perfect.

Thank you.

And I would add that if there are three layers of requests, that would make it layered requests. I've been sitting in two hearings too long this morning.

This is your fun.

Any other questions? Alrighty. Senator Laird, if you'd like to close.

I appreciate the exchange, and I think this solves a problem. And I respectfully request an aye vote.

Excellent. Do we have a motion for SB391? We have a motion by Senator Choboak. Assistant, please call the roll file.

Item 7. SB391. Laird. Motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The bill is on call, so next we will hear my bill. I will pass the gavel now to Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Good morning and welcome, Madam Chair. We'll proceed with file item number 8, SB 11. Proceed when you're ready.

Excellent. Thank you. Madam Chair. I'm here to present SB411, the Stop Child Hunger Act. SB411 tackles student food insecurity by addressing gaps in the school meals and Sunbucks program to better assure that eligible children that should be enrolled are in enrolled. California has made tremendous strides in expanding access to school meals programs in recent years.

Recent efforts to highlight on this front include in 2022, when California became the first state in the nation to provide free school meals to all students. Subsequently, in 2023, California implemented the federally based Sunbucks program, which provides students with a $120 EBT card in months to purchase eligible groceries from authorized providers.

Although California has taken tremendous strides to expand and provide for these critical resources, there are still existing gaps that have left eligible students without access. SB411 will address three gaps in the school meals programs.

According to state data, while approximately 5.6 million school children are eligible for the Sunbucks program, there are still 1.8 million eligible children yet to apply. The first gap that this Bill is addressing is that many of these students not participating in Sunbucks are not directly enrolled and the program application is not user-friendly.

The second challenge limiting access to school meals is the reluctance of families to apply for meals if their student school uses a third-party platform. Families have concerns with using a third-party application because the application's request can potentially sell sensitive data without notification.

The third issue with school meals access that SB411 is addressing is that Sunbucks and on site school meals are not available during school campus closures.

Regular school breaks result in children losing a critical nutrition resource, further straining family budgets and anticipated closures due to disasters without emergency food assistance exacerbate low income families exposure to the intersection of hunger, related poverty and environmental injustice.

SB411 addresses the aforementioned shortcomings of school meals programs, ensuring that these nutritional safety net programs make the following needed changes. One, establishing a single statewide user-friendly website for families to submit their Sunbucks application. Two codifying key child privacy protections preventing the sale of children's data. Three, requiring school meal applications to include the Sunbucks application to improve uptake and cross program awareness. Four, creating the better out of school time or boost nutrition benefit built on Sunbucks to combat child hunger during regularly scheduled school breaks and emergency school closures. Any five, increasing opportunities to work additional hours providing on site meal options during school breaks and emergency closures.

As an education advocate, I am carrying this Bill because we need to be doing all we can to address food insecurity for students mainly whom rely on what food is provided at school as their most reliable meals. This is a bipartisan issue that we can get behind because no student should go hungry because of our inaction.

With me to testify today and help answer technical questions is Andrew Cheyenne with End Child Poverty and Becky Silva from California Association of Food Banks. I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Witnesses, we want to welcome both of you to the Chair Committee. You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you very much. Becky Silva with the California Association of Food Banks. As you heard earlier in the hearing today, more than one in five households currently are experiencing food insecurity. That number is higher for families that have children. It's one in four families that experience hunger when they have children.

Sunbucks or Summer EBT is the first new federal entitlement program to be created in a generation and we're incredibly proud to have led federal advocacy over the last 10 years to finally make this program a reality. As Summer EBT demonstration projects in other states showed several years ago before we had the permanent program.

Summer EBT is a rare intervention that reduces hunger the most for the kids with the lowest income. And during the COVID-19 pandemic when pandemic EBT was being implemented, which was a similar program that provided food benefits on an EBT card.

While schools were closed due to the pandemic, we published a report that demonstrated how impactful it was, especially for immigrant families who are often excluded from other benefit programs that they don't qualify for.

We're grateful for the very quick planning and implementation work by CDE and CDSS to get Sunbucks off the ground, which is co managed by both departments. But while CDSS is the lead agency, CDE and LEAs play a really critical role. More specifically, we're very excited about the recently published Universal Benefits Application or the UBA by CDE.

But what families really need is a single website, not just a PDF application that has to be printed, which assumes access to a printer and filled in and then submitted to their school, which is likely closed over the summer months.

Having an online responsive statewide application will be helpful in getting the word out about Sunbucks and making it as easy as possible for the 1.8 million children who have to submit an application and who don't automatically qualify.

It's well documented that summer is the hungriest time for children, which is why maximizing the full potential of Sunbucks is so important. But summer isn't the only time that children experience hunger because schools are closed.

SB411 will ensure that children can get a similar benefit during other school closures of five or more days like winter or spring break and also when schools close. You're at 2:18. Thank you very much. And we encourage your aye vote today. That's okay. It's okay.

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew Shane with and Child Poverty California. I'll be brief. I just want to thank the chair for her vision in this Bill. The California model is working for the first time.

We actually have lower food insecurity rates than nationally and I can just tell you how long it took us to get to that point. So I hope that everyone feels really good. I know you have supported school meals for all with Senator Skinner, so the data are finally showing that it's working.

But as has been spoken to, we do have more to do.

So in addition to the points that my colleague made, what this legislation will do is improve our federal reimbursements we want to make sure that families are applying and filling out their income forms, whether they need to go through the path of the universal benefit application. That's majority of students, right.

Who are in community eligibility or provision two schools. But we also use that for our Local Control Funding Formula. And this will improve our apportionment of those funds and making sure that they're going appropriately to the lowest income schools.

This is also going to strengthen our school meal and school breakfast applications which again are also used for LCFF for families that do need to apply in the minority of situations where they're still using the applications. And we need to limit the collection of sensitive data. I can speak personally.

I know that some of the websites that are being used right now, they're asking for gender or other information that's not federally required. We should not be asking those questions in California.

And if there is sensitive information like immigration status, we need to make sure that we're only asking that in accordance with federal law and guidance per the discussion this Committee just had a few minutes ago. You know, this is not theoretical.

One of the major providers in this space, Power School just had a major data breach in January and it was considered the largest breach of children's information in American history. And so these kind of protections really are vital.

And as was mentioned earlier by the Senator, improving the cross program references will make sure families know that when they're applying for all the benefits that they're going to be accessing. And that's going to make it much more worth families time and energy to navigate these systems.

Finally, in addition to the Sunbucks program standing up a new program through the CDE so that school nutrition professionals have on site options. We saw for example in the Eaton fire, right that there was a presidential declaration, there were grab and go options but we don't always get that presidential declaration.

So even if there is a disaster where the Governor has declared an emergency, we want to make sure that our schools are able to provide those because we know that schools are some of the most trusted and go to locations for families who are probably not just going for meals, but other vital resources. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I didn't even notice. Sorry. Well, now continue with any witnesses in support. Please state your name, the organization that you're representing and your either position on support or opposition.

Thank you Madam Chair. Members Tristan Brown and CFD here in support. Thank you.

Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California, proud to co-sponsor and support. Thank you.

Monica Madrid with a Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, also known as CHIRLA support.

Hi, Keeley O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty and also here on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in strong support. Thank you.

Sarah Brennan on behalf of NextGen California. In support.

Jessica Cisneros on behalf of Economic Opportunity Council from Contra Costa. And we fully support.

Dr. Karen Coleman. I'm with the Contra Costa County Economic Opportunity Council and I support the Bill.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support of SB411. Will now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to SP411. Seeing none. Will now continue with any other me too witnesses in opposition to SB411.

Thank you, David Bollock on behalf of Taxpayers Oversights for Parents and Students. We are in opposition to this Bill.

I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Sir. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we'll now bring it back to the dais. Any questions? Comments from Members on the dais? We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Senator Perez, would you like to close?

Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

File item 8, SB411 Perez Motion is do pass the Senate Human Services Committee. Senator Perez? Aye. Perez Aye. Ocho Bogh? Aye. Ocho Bogh aye. Cabaldin? Choi? Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Gonzalez Laird? The bless on call.

We will leave SB411 on call for the absent Members.

So I'd like to lift calls at this time. Assistant, please start at the beginning of the agenda and call the roll for any bills that were on call.

[Roll Call]

Okay, great. I see Senator Menjivar is here, so please begin when you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am bringing back the Vice Chair's favorite bill for the third time in a row. Apologize. So some of you have heard this bill during the past two previous years and last year we were able to allocate funding for a big provision of this bill.

So this version doesn't have the distribution of condoms in high schools. That was incorporated into the budget. What this Bill does have are the remaining provisions. They're looking to bar pharmacies and retailers from asking for an ID when you're purchasing, when you're purchasing Contraception and non prescription Contraception.

Currently there is no state law that exists to ask for an ID. But some facilities, some retailers, some stores are asking for an ID and we're looking to prohibit that outright.

We also want to provide the California Department of Education the authority to monitor the compliance of the California Healthy Youth act that passed years ago and unfortunately is not being. Thank you so much. And unfortunately is not being treated or handled equally or equitably across the state.

Lastly, the third final provision is regarding barring schools from having health centers, community based organizations who come into a school and do a sex education class from distributing condoms specific to the training or to the educational program related to that school. Encouraging safe practices, as I mentioned before, is really important to prevent STI.

These youth or young people group is the highest cases of STIs in California. And in fact we spend more money in the. We spend more money investing in responding to these cases than we do in prevention. Madam Chair, I'd now like to turn to two individuals who are here in support of SB 608 with your permission.

Yes, that's fine, and you may both begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Amaris Yang and I'm a junior at Diamondbar High School. I'm representing Voters of Tomorrow, which is a youth led organization dedicated to educating and advocating for Gen Z in government and politics.

SB 608 doesn't only matter to me personally as a teenager, but it matters to a whole generation of young people. I want to start by sharing how I've noticed firsthand how barriers to sexual health resources are harming teens.

I remember one of my closest friends breaking down, crying after being denied and shamed at a pharmacy for trying to buy condoms. And without support from her family or school community. Purchasing them herself took a lot of bravery to do, but it was also her only choice.

But she did not have ID, and even though there is no legal age requirement, she was denied from purchasing and she felt humiliated just because she wanted to protect herself and her partner. It's important to consider that over half of all STIs in our state are among youth ages 15 to 24.

Condoms are an effective tool to reducing STI transmission, but it is true that condom use among sexually active young people have actually declined greatly due to barriers to accessing and purchasing them like the one my friend faced.

SB 608 would empower students by increasing not only the availability and accessibility of safe protection resources, but also increased educational initiatives promote healthy choices, especially in those underserved communities who wouldn't have these resources in any other way.

And as a public school student myself, I can confidently affirm that on behalf of my peers and on behalf of California's youth, SB 608 would directly benefit our lives and our future.

So I am here today to ask you to vote aye on SB 608 because a whole generation of youth are counting on you to listen to our voices and have our needs in mind. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Marcel Reynolds, representing California School Based Health Alliance. The organization I work with supports 400 school based health centers and wellness centers in K12 schools across California. And we are a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 608.

School based health centers and wellness centers play a key role in providing comprehensive health care to students. They are trusted sources of medically accurate, non judgmental health services, specifically for adolescents. It is common for high school students to have experiences and make decisions that will impact their journey as young adults.

When high school students decide to engage in sexual behavior, access to free condoms at school empowers them to make informed, healthier choices, reducing their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies.

In 2023, an average of 21% of California high school students were sexually active, and 52% of these pupils did not use condoms during their last sexual intercourse, According to the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. There's so many reasons for this gap, which my co witness has outlined.

Barriers teens face to accessing condoms include cost, lack of transportation, and a lack of access to health care providers and our healthcare in General. Teens are shamed, harassed and discriminated against when they do try to buy condoms. Sometimes they're asked to show an ID or denied service because they appear to be too young.

Despite the fact that there are no age requirements for condom or contraceptive purchases, ensuring all youth, especially those most vulnerable to STIs, have equitable access to free condoms at school is a proven public health strategy that breaks down these barriers, reduces stigma, and helps protect young people's health.

Some high schools are already providing free condoms to students, but many schools in areas with some of the Highest rates of STIs do not. Senate Bill 608 ensures a fair, uniform approach so that all students, regardless of where they live, have the same opportunity to safeguard their health.

Thank you for your time and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you for those presentations. Do we have any any folks here in opposition that would like to speak to in support, apologies in support that would like to express their support? Please come to the MIC and state your name and organization.

Parent Members Kathy Mossberg with Essential Access Health co-sponsor. Urge your aye vote.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Alicia Benavidez on behalf of ACLU Cal Action in support.

Craig Pulsar on behalf of Equality California in support.

Marissa Hagerman on behalf of Black Women for Wellness Proud co-sponsor and strong support

Andrew Shane Grace and Child Poverty in support.

Madam Chair, members Tristan Brown of CFT here in support.

Madam Chair, members Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare foundation, one of the largest providers of STD treatment services in the state in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition if there are any. The two lead witnesses may come forward and use some microphones at the table in front of us.

Thank you. My name is David Bollog. I'm here on behalf of concerned parents across California, primarily in Senator Menjavar's district. In the neighborhood of Mission Hills are Lita, Pacoima, Sylar, North Hollywood and in the City of San Fernando.

We're concerned about the abilities of school boards not being able to locally control to decide if they want to pass out prophylactics or not. This bill will take that away from any school boards to be able to have that. Parents cannot weigh in on it one way or another.

I do understand that these prophylactics will help prevent STIs, but there are parents that do have religious and moral reasons for not wanting to provide that to their children at a certain time. They may decide that at a certain time their children will be ready to present that information to them and how they want to raise them.

So this will interfere with that by having those available. And I know and I also want to make the point that even though we're all adults here, but sometimes leaderships or parents will say we can't afford something because they do not want it. They understand it's controversial.

And that might be the reasons for the Governor, even though he did say it was because of financial for not passing, for not chaptering 954 and 541. The prior legislation also want to raise concern about the California Healthy Youth Acts.

Growing amount of parents are concerned about one specific aspect of that Bill 51933D6 which mandates the the education of gender, gender identity, gender expression and gender negative stereotypes. Schools do this differently. I'm finding themselves from surveying of different parents across the state how they present this information.

Some schools may present it in a way that just shares what that is. And then other schools actually tell the kids that this could be actually who they are and motivate them into getting medicalized.

And if a lot of parents are concerned with that, so, so and if I can have 10 more seconds and it's going to depend on who that Superintendent will be is how this will be monitored, how it will be enforced. Depending if we will have a Elmer Suchi or a Sonia Shah that how this would be enforced. So for those reasons, I ask you to vote no on this. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any other additional individuals in opposition? If so, please come to the microphone outside of the railing and state your name, organization, position on the bill. Okay.

Seeing as we have no one, thank you for your presentations, we'll go ahead and turn it over to a Member's discussion. Do any members have questions or comments?

Senator Ochoa Bogh, your favorite Senator Menjevar, we are like this. So once again, I'm going to bring some of the. So let me just begin by saying that I actually bring about this particular notion or idea for a bill to my 57 plus town halls that I've had, I think 57-58 town halls.

And I ask for public feedback as to, you know, some of the ideas are going on in, that are promoting some of this legislation in our, in our district, I mean, in Sacramento. And I have to tell you, they're, they're floored. They're floored.

The majority of the folks in the town halls are actually floored that we're introducing bills that we want to do. This especially when you're considering the age groups between 7th graders all the way to 12th graders, right?

When they, the age appropriateness and the inability for parents to have an input and feedback, you know, feeling that their parental rights are being infringed on that. And I know that, you know, from a student's perspective, they feel that this is, you know, a right, that they should have an entitlement.

But from a parent's perspective, the adults, you know, they would like to be a part of that conversation, not be excluded and have the schools lead that, that intent.

So, so once again, I won't be able to support the Bill in this, in, in the Committee, but I do want to express some additional concerns as we're moving forward because I know the intent and you know, I often quote you on, on stating that we gave them the information, but we didn't give them the tools to be able to be safe.

And people chuckle. You know, that's the response that I get in my town halls, is that they chuckle. But I would do, I do have a concern with the fact that, that the idea that condoms will prevent STIs because it's being promoted as, you know, hoping to decrease the number of STI infections and so forth.

The reality is that, you know, condoms do not protect against many of the STIs that are currently happening in our communities, including herpes, genital warts, syphilis and mpox, just to name a couple of few. And the notion that people would be under the, you know, you don't know what people have many.

They said according to the data, 66% of STI viruses and conditions are asymptomatic. Asymptomatic. So it will give the youth a false sense of security and safety by thinking that, hey, I'm going to use a condom when you don't even know the type of STI that your partner may or may not have.

And knowing that condoms may not be able to protect against many of them where they happen to be, you know, 62% asymptomatic. So it gives, especially our youth. You know, developmentally speaking. You know, I'm thinking of a seventh grader, eighth grader thinking I'm going to use a condom and I'm going to be safe. It's not.

You don't know. You don't know if that's going to be. So it's a false sense of security that we're giving our youth. And as adults, I find that to be, you know, especially for government. And I mean by government, the educational entities to come in and make that statement.

I think it's a false sense of security and so forth. So I'm going to be voting no again on this bill. But thank you for your perseverance in continuing with the bill.

Madam Chair, can I respond?

Yes, that's, that's fine, Senator.

If we use the mentality of the false sense of hope, that would mean that all our officers who wear a bulletproof vest that doesn't prevent all types of bullets, we shouldn't have them wear them anymore because bulletproof vests for officers mostly prevent 9mm, don't help with shotguns, they don't protect arms or legs.

So some kind of protection is better than no kind of protection. And additionally, I think you can vote for this because your argument, Senator, are on my previous bill and not on this bill.

So in fact, the reason why it's seventh grade to 12th grade is because that statute law from even before I was here, maybe you were here during that time that says that the California Health Youth act has to provide comprehensive sex training in schools starting from seventh grade to 12th grade.

So my bill is not looking to change any of that. That's already in statute. In fact, current statute for the California Youth Health act has a provision that allows parents to opt out of the comprehensive education. So it currently exists.

Right now my bill is saying for the kids who opt in or the parents that don't opt out and actually take this comprehensive sex education, that in that training if condoms are distributed, that they should be distributed.

So it's not a widespread distribution of condoms in schools, it's only for those that are taking the educational courses that has a parent opt out mechanism already in place. I just wanted to clarify that all your concerns, you've Mentioned don't exist in my bill. Okay. So, Madam Chair.

Yes, you may, Senator Ochoa Bogh, I think you can continue, but then after that, let's go ahead. And I want to make sure other members get an opportunity to ask questions, too. But, yes, I'll allow you to.

I just want to make sure that we go on this one. So thank you so much. So, one of the issues that we've heard in the past with a lot of the bills that require parents to opt out is the fact that many of them are not informed.

that's a statute, and I get that.

And that was done before my time as well.

Don't read the letters, don't, you know, don't get the notices. They get lost. So if it had a provision of, I'm sorry, but I can't change it,

But that's one of the concerns that we know have been expressed continuously in the past with many of the bills is that for many of these programs, especially when, you know, culturally, maybe not necessarily aligned with, especially with a lot of our immigrant families that come from very traditional households, it's very difficult for them to either get the message or get the notice or have a language barrier.

You know, there are a number of factors that have been named in the past.

If it were something that would be respectful to those parents and say, hey, you know, this is something that they should be opting in rather than opting out, I think it would probably be a little more reasonable to kind of accommodate that cultural barrier that we may have.

But, but I, but I, but I, but I get that. But we have to think about, you know, I'm thinking of the whole picture, not just the, the little-.

The statute has been in place for years, and currently at the beginning of every single school year, every parent gets to opt out form. Hey, do you not want your kid to participate? Senator, you are more than welcome to change that into an opt. Opt in. But I just, I think your, your, your concerns are already addressed in the bill.

I don't think my bill would have a chance in Sacramento with the demographics here.

All right, thank you for the discussion. We're going to move on to Senator Laird and then after that we'll go to Senator Choi.

I just have a comment. I was going to make two points, and one was made very clearly in the previous exchange. The other one was, is in the list of things that might be transmitted or not transmitted. HIV was not mentioned.

And as someone that ran an AIDS service agency at the height of the epidemic, condoms were central to everything we did and it did prevent the spread of HIV. And it did make a fundamental difference regardless of anything else in that.

And if it's somebody that's in seventh grade or 12th grade, that is a life choice that would be with them for 60 years. And it is why it is very important to do.

And we had a grant that I think speaks to the other point, which is the question was, is how do you educate or get the point across to young people. And basically we were funded by UC San Francisco to identify who were the 3% or 4% or 5% identified as leaders or influencers. Influencers in different settings.

And we worked to educate them and then we sampled the entire group and by extension that worked in educating everybody else. And I think that is something that needs to be a part of this at the level of the programs.

But this needs to be a basic thing that needs to be there so that that kind of education will happen. And I will support the bill.

Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair. I'm very much troubled by this bill because it says it requires public schools serving grade 7 to 12 to allow condoms to be made available during the course of in the connection with educational public health programs and initiatives. I know this health issue, preventing such a disaster diseases through young people's sexual activities.

So sex education is one thing. Opt in, opt out. However, your bill is allowing condoms to be available in educational process. It bars them from, to me. Think about their age, 7th and 8th graders or even 9th or 10th graders. Are they in the mind of a righteous judgment, something is good or bad, right or wrong?

I mean, they are in the age of curiosity, you know, providing such a tool. Oh, there's such and such a thing. You know, I'm so afraid that that kind of, you know, things are made available and publicly and this will encourage them to get engaged in such a, you know, outraged young age people's sexual activities.

So the health concern that we are trying to prevent would be even more because what you are saying is not 100% bulletproof. So that's my, you know, feeling toward this bill approach. What you are trying to do is not 100% proof, as you mentioned. So I'm very much opposed to this bill. That's all.

Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I remember as a teen myself, an older teen, because they weren't, I couldn't get my hands on one earlier, but I remember, I remember acquiring my first condom, opening it up and thinking, that's what this is. That's what the weight has been that's what I. I was expecting. Something magical, something forbidden.

And it wasn't. I said, that's. That's all this is. And I will. I will. I should add, at that moment, if anything, it made me want to engage in teen sex less. I mean, it wasn't. The fact that you have a condom in its wrapper is not the moment where you suddenly think, wow, I'm attracted to someone else.

I think I might want to do something, take the next step with my partner. That's not what happens here. These are adolescents. I think, Dr. Choi, you've raised really the right questions about how we think as teens, how our brains are wired, what the point of adolescence is. Which is the point of adolescence is the curiosity.

It is the learning. It is very much the experimenting. And so no adolescent, especially in seventh grade or in 10th, can learn only in the class with pictures and videos of condoms and other means of reproductive health.

And so I'm less worried that maybe I'm not worried at all that it's the availability of the condom itself that causes people to want to engage in these behaviors they are wired to explore. And they may try 3D printing a condom for themselves.

When that's your drive, in that moment, you will find one or you will not, and your prior intention will still have the hold of your teenage brain or your adult brain. Frankly, that drive is still there. The fact that you cannot get a condom doesn't mean it goes away. It just means you don't get the protection.

And of course, yes, it doesn't protect against measles or Covid. It doesn't protect against homelessness or hunger, but it does protect against some critical STIs and against pregnancy as well. And as part of the. As part of a structured curriculum approved by the state for sex ed, it's entirely appropriate. And I support the bill.

Can I have a response?

No, Senator Choi, I think we'll go ahead. And it seems. Are there any other questions from any other Members? Okay. One, I just want to, first of all, thank the author and thank Senator Menjivar for bringing this forward. I think both Senator Caboldan and Senator Laird have done an excellent job.

In addition, with the author of laying out, I think, why something like this is needed. I appreciate the edits that you've made to this Bill, you know, from last year's Bill to address, I think, the fiscal component.

I know it wasn't signed last year, and I just want to remind the rest of the Committee of that that this is basically, it's It's a ban on bans, if you will. Right.

And making sure that schools cannot prevent young people if they want to access and need access to a condom, they can't prevent that from happening if they are to opt into the California Healthy Youth Act program. So I think that that's. Those are the good parameters to have in place.

As someone that worked on a school campus, particularly in a high school campus, kids make silly and bad decisions, unfortunately, all the time. And whether you know or not, we can lecture them forever about not doing all sorts of things, but the fact of the matter is that they will explore and they do make those decisions.

And you want to make sure that they are doing everything they can to protect their health and protect their safety. So. And I think that at the end of the day, that's what this is about. So I really appreciate what you've done here and the amendments that you've made to get this through.

And I think it's a good bill, so we'll be supporting it. With that, I will let the. If you'd like to close in a few weeks. If it sounds like Senator Cabaldon has a motion. If you'd like to close, Senator Yes.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The CYH-, the CHYA program was created in 2003. And whether you like it or not, in schools right now, from seventh grade to 12th grade, have the ability to take comprehensive sex education. So, Senator Choi, that's happening right now. Parent can opt out from taking that course.

There's always going to be concerns about like is the parent getting these notices. That's for a conversation for a later day. But seventh and eighth graders are getting this training and not to what the Senator mentioned that her constituents don't like not getting the tools to be successful.

What worries me more, Senator Choi in particular, is the seventh or eighth grader getting pregnant with an unintended pregnancy. That worries me more than giving them the tools to be safe and successful because that's happening now. 7th and 8th graders are getting pregnant. Fortunately, we live in a state where they don't they have options.

But this is just to prevent increase in STIs, make them be as successful as possible. And like the chair mentioned, is a ban on a ban. It is permissive in nature and with that respectfully asking for an aye vote.

So Senator Cabaldon has moved the Bill. The motion for SB 608 by Senator Menjivar is do pass to Senate Health Committee Assistant. If you can call the roll, Senator.

Perez aye. Perez aye. Ochoa bohg No. Ochoa bogh. No. Cabaldon. Cabaldon. Aye. Choi. No.

Choi. No. Cortese. Cortese, Aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez aye. Laird. Laird, aye.

The bill is out.

Great. The Bill is out; five ayes, a no, two noes. I'm going to go ahead and lift the call since we have all of our Committee Members here.

Assistant, please start at the beginning of the agenda and call the roll for any bills that are on call.

File item number one, SB 225 (McNerney). Motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. The current vote is five ayes and no noes with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call].

The Bill is out six ayes, no noes.