Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Okay. Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement will convene. We have an author in the room. So excited about that. We have SB 921.

Senator Grove, please step forward. When you're ready, your witnesses are welcome to have a seat at the table. We are beginning as a subcommittee, so this bill will likely have to be held unless folks show up during your presentation today. We'll take it up later when the members arrive.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll wait for my witnesses. Good morning. So thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Senate Bill 921 proposes a tax credit to support payment of overtime wages for agricultural farm workers in California.

This tax credit would be similar to the tax credits enacted by bipartisan basis in Oregon and New York. The bill is needed to help farm workers who have lost take-home pay since agricultural employers were required to pay overtime wages over 40 instead of over 60. Workers are used to making an average of $18 to $20 an hour in a sixty-hour work week. So let's just calculate the losses for the farm workers.

If they were able to make $20 an hour for sixty hours a work week, they are now using that $20 an hour at forty hours a week, and they're losing $400 a week, approximately $1,600 a month out of their paychecks.

This bill does not touch AB 1066 in the way the overtime is structured. It simply allows a tax credit, hopefully a funding mechanism, to help farmers pay for the overtime work that the employees perform. In 2016, the Governor signed into law AB 1066, requiring ag employees to receive overtime compensation for overtime hours worked beyond eight hours a day or forty hours a work week. Like I stated earlier, the previous hours of work were sixty hours in a work week.

That's, that's, the stated goal of the legislation was to reduce poverty for farm workers.

But that legislation, and all the data that we've been able to collect, has reduced farm worker wages, like I said, roughly $400 a week, sometimes $1,600 a month, which is significant for anyone's paycheck, much less anyone who's working in the fields to produce the food that we eat every single day. Regardless of where any of us stood on that legislation, it's becoming clear that the take-home pay for farm workers has in fact declined since the Ag Overtime Bill took place.

While several factors contributed to this, the bottom line is that California's agricultural industry is suffering, and many ag employers simply can't afford to pay the overtime at the higher rate. The other thing is that this is one of the only things that farmers and growers have the opportunity to control. They can't control the regulatory process.

They have to pay what comes forward. They can't control the climate change process. They have to pay those fees in excess. They can't control the water cost, and they can't control SGMA. They can't control any type of other involvement.

They can't control trucking and transportation and the cost of fuel. But they can control this. And this is how, why, it's impacting our farm workers. Members, I'm honored to represent the top three food producing counties in the entire nation. Our farmers don't get enough water every year to grow the crops.

The price of everything has increased with inflation, and the regulatory burden keeps rising with new equipment costs and new regulatory requirements. As farmers see their expenses rise, like any other business, employers look for ways to cut back. Labor, like I said, is one of the few areas in which the employers have any flexibility on cost. And the data is clear. Employers have cut back on how much overtime is being paid to the workers.

When Oregon and New York, not red states by far, saw that California required overtime compensation for agricultural employees, these states did the same thing. However, the Democrat governors and legislators in both of these states also understood that ag employees, farm workers who are in the field, that pick the fruit, produce it, put it on the trucks to go to market, need help affording overtime costs. And the workers would not receive any real benefit for the overtime law.

That's evident by study after study here in the State of California. So working in a bipartisan manner, they created a tax credit to accompany the overtime law in an effort to support the actual real-world use.

The tax credit offered under my bill helps farm workers by creating a dollar-for-dollar credit on the time-and-a-half pay of the overtime. So let's just say it's $20 an hour. Let's go to, I know it's not 10, but for easy calculation, if they get $10 an hour, they only get the credit on the $5, which is the half time on the overtime wages. So calculate that at 20, because most of them make $20 or more an hour.

The tax credit offered under this bill will help farmers, making sure that the employees can work overtime and get paid for overtime, and help put money back into farm workers' pockets.

This would be a form of a payroll tax credit. What they would receive when they make their periodic tax payments to EDD. This is recorded on their DE6, which they would submit quarterly that shows the wages, the overtime wages, and it's all tracked by the EDD department and the Franchise Tax Board. It's part of their EDD payment, or their DE6 payment of reporting.

If the employer is paying $20 an hour for normal wages and $30 an hour for overtime, the tax credit would only be on the $10. To be clear, the tax credit only applies to the overtime wages for farm workers.

It does not affect the straight-time wages in any way, shape, or form. It would not apply to management, administrative staff, or mechanics. Only the employees under Wage Order 14, which are those that are represented here in this building and in this conference room today, that actually work in the fields, that pick the fruit to get it to our tables that we have and supply to our constituents every single day. In no way does 921 make changes for the farm worker overtime law.

It actually supports opportunities for farm workers to earn overtime by making it more likely that employers can afford to pay the overtime.

In my district, the top three food producing counties in the entire world, these are my people, and they're hurting because of October. And this is a mechanism to help these farm workers. They travel from, often, from county to county, but the majority of the work is done in Fresno, Tulare, and Kern Counties. And these farm workers need a break. We see that they're hurting.

They're coming to our office looking for food assistance. They're coming to our office looking for other assistance. And they weren't doing that when they were making sixty hours a week. $1,600 a month out of someone's paycheck is significant. And I'm asking for an aye vote to help this bill get through the Legislature so that they have some ability to recoup some of that money.

Agriculture in my district is about producing food that we eat and keeping the food supply secure from foreign disruptions. It's also a way of life and creates jobs for thousands of people in my district, predominantly our Hispanic and Latino population. And for those ag communities that are hanging on, farm workers face reduced hours and less compensation.

SB 921 will raise every farm worker out of poverty, and the bill is not an end-all solution for our agriculture employees' problems, but it's definitely a good start. The grower that's on the edge needs overtime work, and harvest to be picked in periods that will help.

This bill will help, and it gets hours to the employees that need those wages. This is a substantial loss of $1,200 a month for every hour. Every average farm worker is really hurting our workers. This is a disconnect between many businesses that operate in our state. With me today to support SB 921 is Emmanuel Torres of Bar 20 Dairy in Fresno, and Bryan Little from the California Farm Bureau.

Thank you very much, Senator Grove. Witnesses, you each have two minutes.

Okay. So good morning. My name is Emmanuel Torres, and I'm here standing respectfully requesting your support for SB 921. So California's overtime laws were designed to benefit workers, but in the agriculture sector, they have unintended consequences. Rather than increasing earnings, these policies have often led employers to limit employee hours in order to avoid overtime costs.

So as a result, many agricultural workers are experiencing reduced schedules and lowered overall take-home pay. I've seen this impact firsthand when I began to work at Bar 20 Dairy in 2017. I had consistent opportunities to work extended hours and earn additional income. Over time, however, overtime opportunities steadily declined, and schedules were adjusted to avoid triggering overtime pay requirements.

So this reduction in hours significantly affected my income and ultimately required me to seek a second part-time job just to make ends meet. So now, in my role as a supervisor, I continue to see this pattern across the workforce. We receive at our dairy 10 to 15 applicants each month from agricultural workers in the area, and one of the most common questions applicants ask is overtime availability.

Many share that they are seeking new employment specifically because their current employers have reduced schedules to standard eight-hour days, five days a week, to avoid overtime obligations. SB 921 offers a practical solution by expanding access to overtime pay in a way that supports both the workers and employer.

This bill can help restore opportunities for increased earnings, improve financial stability, and reduce economic stress for hardworking agriculture families. Agriculture workers are essential to our food supply and our economy, yet many continue to struggle to earn enough to support their households. Supporting SB 921 is an investment in these workers, our families, and the long-term strength of California's agricultural industry. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Bryan Little for California Farm Bureau, the largest general interest agriculture organization in our state. Our farm employers are committed to supporting our employees, and that's why we're cosponsoring SB 921. We're not here to debate whether overtime pay is a good idea. It's firmly established in law.

And I want to be clear, our farmer and rancher members are in full compliance with that law. But what overtime law has meant for employees is lost work hours and foregone income. Research from UC Berkeley found that take-home pay for ag workers has declined since the overtime law took effect. Democratic governors in Oregon and New York learned from California's experience and created tax credits to help employers cover the cost of overtime wages.

They know that when an employer is losing money or is on the margins, overtime hours will be reduced.

This is basic economics. That's why several Democratic candidates for California governor agree that it's time to revisit this law to make it work for farm workers. A way must be found to fund overtime premium wages if you want to increase take-home pay for farm workers. That was the expressed goal of the proponents of the overtime law, but that promise has yet to be fulfilled.

SB 921 addresses this problem by permitting agricultural employers to deduct from their payroll taxes an amount equal to overtime premiums they have already paid.

The deduction can't be used until their employees have already received overtime wages. Last year, the Legislature decided to help California's iconic film industry by providing global entertainment companies with substantial tax subsidies. One of those companies is currently negotiating a buyout valued at more than $110,000,000,000, nearly twice the value of California's annual agricultural output. Agriculture is an iconic California industry too, employing hundreds of thousands of people.

But our workers were left behind last year when this Legislature said no to farm workers and yes to billionaire entertainment companies.

Every single dollar of the projected $300 to $400,000,000 cost of SB 921 tax credit will go directly to California farm workers, helping them afford gas, electricity, groceries, clothes, and shoes for their kids. If we can give tax breaks to Warner Brothers, Twentieth Century Fox, NBC, Netflix, and Amazon, can't we do this for farm workers? California Farm Bureau urges you to help us help our workers and support SB 921. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other me-too in support of this bill, please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of Supervisor Townsend from the Tulare County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Anna Mobaugh with KSC on behalf of a number of agricultural organizations in support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kimberly Clark with the California Farm Labor Contractor Association in support. Thank you.

Morning. George Coventa on behalf of the Alamo Alliance in support.

Matty Hyatt, Capital Business Alliance in support.

Michael Miller, California Association of Wine Beer Growers. We're cosponsors of the bill. Thank the author for her leadership. Thank the community for your consideration. We support the bill. Also, I was a tax auditor in a past life for EDD. If you have any questions about the administration of how this tax credit would work, I'm happily available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other support, me-too. Let's go to opposition. Opposition witnesses, please step forward.

Can you, yeah. Let's transition. Yep. If we have enough seats. Thank you.

Okay. Wonderful. Good morning. You have two minutes.

Madam Chair, Members, Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, and we are in respectful opposition of this bill. And to be clear, this is not a tax credit for farm workers. This is a tax credit paid for by the public, by the taxpayers of California, for the employers. In 2016, California passed AB 1066, requiring employers to pay workers overtime, just like every other employer in California is required to do.

The state had to do that because in 1938, Congress enacted the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which explicitly excluded ag and domestic workers from wage and overtime protections, codifying the rot of racism and the legacy of slavery in labor law.

California's law was passed to give farm workers not just the right to overtime pay, but also the right to be treated like a human and not a machine. For decades, ag employers have not had to meet the same overtime pay requirements as every other employer. The trucking companies that ship produce, the companies that package produce, the grocery stores that sell it, the restaurants, cafeterias, hotels, schools, and hospitals all must pay overtime to their workers.

Farm workers did not get the same benefit, and their employers were not bound by the same responsibilities and obligations. Employers should be responsible to pay overtime or hire enough workers to not require overtime hours, rather than shifting the burden onto taxpayers.

Workers are not machines. You can't just put more quarters in and expect them to work twenty-four hours a day. It sets a dangerous precedent for taxpayers to subsidize certain employers for simply following the law. The Senators on this dais author laws that you all intend and expect all residents and businesses to comply with, regardless of economic or other circumstances. If not, you would exempt them.

This bill contains none of those protections, benefits, and guarantees, and undermines the sanctity of our laws. For these reasons, we ask for a no vote today.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Me-toos, name, affiliation, and position.

Catalina Sanchez with the CRLA Foundation in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Any other opposition? Me-too. Seeing none, we will come to the dais. Members.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate what the author is trying to do from the standpoint of the district that I come from, and I know the district that Senator Grove comes from has significantly more agricultural employees, but it's kind of a well-kept secret outside of Santa Clara County that we have 15,000 agricultural employees still in what we call South County, which is part of my district.

And so I've had a little experience dealing with wage issues over the years, particularly going back before my time in the Senate, for the twelve years I was on the Board of Supervisors. Most of the cities in Santa Clara County, there's 15 of them, have adopted some sort of a living wage policy.

At the county, we couldn't do that. And that wasn't because it was a close vote, you know, a three-to-two or something like that. It was unanimous that we could not do that countywide because of the agricultural employees. And it's not because we were worried about, or treating, the ag employers as a special interest or someone that should be treated especially. It was because they're in a commodity market.

And in Santa Clara County, where the cost of living is horrendous as everyone knows, those employers by and large were already paying more than the city living wage and, of course, meeting overtime and whatnot.

But they were already struggling so much that we, over the years, fortunately, I think, you know, for them and for the community, made huge local subsidies in farm worker housing, for example, to try to help with that.

When you're farming and you're growing cherries or apricots like we do in South County, and you're paying as much as a couple hundred dollars an acre-foot for water, and in the Central Valley, they're paying $12 an acre-foot, and in Brentwood, they're paying $60 an acre-foot.

You don't get to go to the LA market with your fruit and say, I need a higher price because I pay more for water, or I pay more for energy, or I'm paying more for wages because I'm in Santa Clara County and nobody could survive there on, you know, on minimum wage. But, so that said, it sounds like, I mean, I vote for the bill.

I'm not, but there's a specific reason for that, and that is, I don't, first of all, I think the California Labor Federation's point about setting up a precedent that looks like we're taking, you know, one industry at a time, or one group of folks at a time, and trying to, you know, do essentially a carve-out. I know it's not a direct carve-out on overtime. It's a, you know, it's a credit. But certainly folks will be coming in and looking for that. We've seen that with SB 5 and some other things.

It just really puts a lot of pressure, I think, on the Legislature and everybody involved to start trying to deal with that and try to do these explanations with folks. No, we can't do it for your industry because you're not in a commodity industry or whatever.

So I do believe, and I'd actually be willing to try to work on it, obviously, if there's some kind of common ground at some point that can be negotiated to protect labor standards, but figure out a way where there's commodity markets like this to try to figure out how to make sure the wage standards are maximized.

I mean, I'd like to see, you know, even more wages paid than they are in general in the agricultural sector, of course, but even outside the agricultural sector.

But in this sector where, you know, the LA market, the New York market, you know, the Chicago market, you know, is basically dictating what we can pay for labor because they're setting the price, and they're going for the price that's really the lowest common denominator. They're pushing our own labor standards into the lowest common denominator, is what I'm saying.

And so I think the Farm Bureau has an excellent point too. I think this is the second year that they've tried to advance something like this. And, again, Senator Grove, I appreciate you trying to thread that needle. But I'm wary about, as I said, opening up the floodgates, and it's not, it's selfish.

I, you know, I've served as a labor chair before. I have served on this committee for five and a half years, and we have to be super careful and really, really narrowly tailored if we're going to try to do something for agriculture that, you know, helps with the situation I was just describing. And this bill goes a long way toward that, but it doesn't completely close that loop. So that's where I'm at. Thank you.

Can I respond? May I respond?

Can you hold. I appreciate the comments, Senator Cortese. And I really want to align my comments, sir, with yours, because the one thing I do see is that labor and the Farm Bureau are on the same page.

And Senator Grove on the same page. Farm workers deserve more wages, higher wages, better working conditions. And I think that is a starting point that we should recognize. I think we are in this industry where, and I appreciate the industry for keeping our food affordable so that people can afford the groceries that are in their communities and be able to really understand the significance of Senator Grove's district, of this industry, and what great service they give to Californians in providing, you know, the world's food basket.

I do agree with Senator Cortese that we do not want to set a precedent of rolling back overtime pay.

I really appreciate the historic context of how we got to overtime and who didn't get it for generations. I think about my family, tobacco farmers, and, you know, my great grandmother who had a Social Security of, I think it was like a hundred and thirty dollars, because, you know, for most of her life, she did not have access to basic workplace protections like overtime, workers' comp, those sorts of things.

So we don't want to roll the clock back on these important benefits, but at the same time, we want to figure out a way to ensure that there are living wages. I think there's a lot to be said about reforming our tax credit system. I think we don't use our tax credit system for good in the way that we could.

I don't think we have enough creativity in that space. I think there are opportunities for us to ensure that we are using that system in a way that helps to uplift workers and to be creative about what we can do to invest in the workforce. And I'm happy and would join Senator Cortese in sitting down and thinking creatively about how we do it. I just don't think overtime is where we do it.

I don't think we want to, in any way, infringe on all of the progress that's been made in overtime.

And for that reason, I cannot support the bill today. I think it sends the wrong message. I think it sends the wrong message to all of the other sectors, that when workers work extra time, that they wouldn't get extra pay. And I think that's not a narrative that we want here in California.

I do think also that the industry has been walloped by the administration's erratic and destructive policies, that tariffs on, tariffs off, that has made this last eighteen months, hasn't even been eighteen months, incredibly challenging.

And we know in some instances, this is an industry that is seeing recessionary pressures because of it. And so we have an obligation to look at that and to figure out what are the ways that we may sit down and figure out a strategy that could involve tax credits that may bring some relief again, but not touching what I would call sacred policy of overtime pay here in the State of California. So I really appreciate the dialogue. I appreciate the discussion.

I appreciate, Senator Grove, your tenacity on this issue.

I think now we've got to match it with some creativity and figure out a way for us to sit down, labor, the industry, and figure out a way to strengthen our farm workers. And I know that we can, because we have before, and we will do it again. And so, again, thank you for your tenacity. I will not be supporting the bill today, but I do have an open door to figure out ways to address the needs of farm workers.

And with that, you may address any questions or concerns you might have, Senator Grove. You're close.

Thank you. I want to make sure that everybody on the dais and everybody in the room understands this in no way, shape, or form affects overtime pay. Over forty hours, like the Chair said, that you don't want it to affect overtime pay. It does not. The employees will still get the consistency with AB 1066.

They'll work eight hours a day, overtime over eight, forty hours a week, overtime over forty. And they'll get the overtime. This does not affect their overtime wages. It simply allows a tax credit for the farmers, the growers, that pay the employees overtime. There's a verification process.

You have to submit the wages to your quarterly DE6 report to the EDD department, who will verify that. It's not an additional cost. Every employer has to quarterly submit a DE6 now. They will verify that those wages were paid just like they currently do. This doesn't change in action for EDD, so there's not a cost measure there. The employers are now providing DE6s based on any wages paid.

It's a requirement that employers in the state are required to have. But it will allow them to take a tax credit on the overtime piece. So if they're making $20 an hour and they get paid $30 an hour on the overtime, they get a tax credit. After taxes are paid, after overtime is paid, they get a tax credit. I would challenge each of you.

My colleague in Santa Clara County, he says you have 15,000 farm workers in South County. This is an opportunity to give them an opportunity to bring more pay home. And I have 500,000 farm workers in my district. And I'm la guera, the gringa. And I'm fighting for these people that need extra wages in their paycheck.

I challenge the opposition and the, like, almost dedicated loyalty. And I look at the opposition's letter for the film tax credit that they supported. Admittedly support the film tax credit. Just last year, AB 1138 Zbur. Admittedly, sir, this is, these are their words.

This is a signature industry. Those people are a signature industry, and they deserve the same thing that we gave, that you guys all voted for. You stood up and said that you don't want to create a mechanism for exemptions. You exempted and voted for a tax credit for the film industry. These people produce our food that we eat every single day.

And like my colleague from Santa Clara County said, $200 an acre-foot for water. You can't control those things. You can't control the regulatory process. You can't control the transition with ultra low carbon fuels and fuel carbon, and the difference between engines that you have to put in the equipment that they use every single day to produce the food that we eat.

In the support letter for the film industry from the opposition: this means that the program will first and foremost be a jobs program for the employees.

This program, which is identical to the tax credit, will be a jobs program for, stand up, please. It will be a jobs program for these people. 500,000 of them in the district, 15,000 in yours. And I know you represent Los Angeles, but I know you have farm workers in your district as well.

The same arguments that California Labor Federation, local unions, are arguing against this bill, are exactly what you guys did for film tax credits. That's all we're asking for. We prove they get the wages. We prove they get the overtime. We increase their paychecks.

And we get treated just like the film tax credit industry, or the film industry, when we produce food. Now we don't do movies. The argument in their bill was that these people will leave. Well, they can't leave. The land is here.

So we should have supported them before the film tax industry, because we need them here. And maybe that's why we don't offer support to our farm workers, is because they can't leave. The land is here. They can't, you know, they can't pick up the land and move.

But they have every opportunity. They should have every opportunity in this state. And I listen to the arguments on several other bills, and every one of you say you care deeply about these people. You care deeply about the people that came here to testify. I represent 500,000 of them.

This is my district. The district that I'm fighting for. You have 15,000. Let's give them an opportunity to be able to earn overtime wages. It does not touch the overtime law AB 1066.

It simply allows a tax credit for our employers, the farmers that produce the food or own the land. This is one of the only costs that they can control. They can't control $200 an acre-foot of water. They can't control SGMA.

They can't control the regulatory process. But they can do this. They want to pay them more wages. It's not in the budget to pay more wages because SGMA is one of the biggest disasters our farmers have ever had as well. And the legal fees that are included in that, it's a mess.

And we're trying to save the agricultural industry. Do you know that agricultural farmers are opting out of the Williamson Act on a tax credit to produce solar farms? I drive through my valley up 65, and there are beautiful acres of farmland that are totally destroyed by solar farms because the only option they have is to do that, to retain the land that they own.

This is an opportunity for you to help 15,000 farm workers in your district, 500,000 in my district, and it's the same thing that you guys voted on for the film tax industry, for those jobs behind the camera, to help them. I realize the only difference is that they're signatory, they're union.

A lot of these guys aren't. They have the opportunity to join a union, but forcing them has caused massive disarray in the industry as well. Give them an opportunity to earn more money. That's all I'm asking for, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you for that, Senator Grove. We are in a subcommittee, so we will take this bill up when the rest of our colleagues arrive. Madam Chair.

Okay. We see Senator Perez in the audience, so we will move to file item number three, and that's SB 1083. If you have witnesses in support, they can come and sit at the table.

And if there are opposition witnesses, when the support witnesses are done, we'll switch out.

Great. I'm going to get started. I have to get back to my committee. You can proceed. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members.

SB 1083 builds on the Safe Learning Environments Act, SB 848, which was enacted into law last year and established a statewide data system to track egregious misconduct by school employees. That law was an important step forward in improving transparency, strengthening accountability, and helping ensure that individuals with serious allegations cannot quietly move between school sites without scrutiny. But as implementation has moved forward, additional refinements are needed to ensure the system operates with consistency and fairness, and fully protects students.

First, classified employees do not currently have a clearly defined impartial review process comparable to what is provided to certificated employees. Existing law ensures that teachers receive due process, including a hearing and the ability to appeal to an administrative law judge through the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Without equivalent due process protections, investigations against them involving egregious misconduct can result in professional and personal consequences. SB 1083 addresses this by requiring an administrative law judge to determine whether a classified employee should be added to the statewide data system. The bill also requires the statewide system to immediately notify a current employer when an employee leaves a local education agency or private school before or during an investigation.

This notice would inform the employer that a preliminary report has been filed and an investigation is pending, to ensure that future employers are aware of any unresolved concerns. Second, while the existing framework established accountability for permanent employees, gaps remain for independent contractors and nonpermanent individuals who interact directly with students.

These individuals may have regular, unsupervised access to children, yet are not always subject to the same standards. SB 1083 seeks to ensure that appropriate vetting measures apply to them as well. Together, these improvements strengthen the system, promote fairness, and ensure that all individuals working with students are held to consistent standards, because student safety remains our highest priority. Joining me to testify in support of the bill is Navnit Puryear with the California School Employees Association and Tristan Brown with the California Federation of Teachers.

At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Navnit Puryear, and I'm here today on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing nearly 3,000 classified school employees across the state. We are proud cosponsors of SB 1083. At its core, this bill is about fairness.

Last year, the Governor signed SB 848, authored by Senator Perez, which, among other things, created a permanent statewide database to track accusations and convictions of egregious misconduct by classified school employees. While SB 848 is an important step toward guaranteeing our schools are safe places for children, it lacked important safeguards for innocent employees. It allows classified school employees to be placed into a permanent database based on an allegation of misconduct without any due process.

Most of our members are women of color who make less than $40,000 a year. They are mothers and grandmothers, and being wrongly placed into a database can ruin not only their professional careers, but their personal reputations.

It is also inconsistent with the rights provided to teachers. SB 1083 would require an administrative law judge through the Office of Administrative Hearings to determine if a classified school employee in a TK through 12 school district should be placed into the egregious misconduct database. This bill would provide parity, because classified school employees should not be denied due process rights granted to teachers.

This measure reflects continued collaboration with the author to ensure that the implementation of last year's legislation both protects students and upholds fundamental due process rights for school employees. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with the CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. We'd like to extend our tremendous thanks to the author for providing us with this opportunity to refine an amazing bill that was passed last year, SB 848, which did wonders to help us prevent any kind of so-called grooming practices and other nefarious activity that qualifies under egregious misconduct, to be more preventative.

Student safety is paramount to our members, and I'm sure to everybody in the educational community. The bill went really far to actually try and make sure that anyone who would do harm to a student would be tracked, and any employer in the future would be able to know exactly what they were getting into.

The refinement, though, is very necessary for the due process rights of our members, and we're appreciative that we're getting there with this bill so that we can both make sure anyone may be able to exonerate themselves in an instance where someone maybe was overzealous with what actually occurred, or, you know, sometimes people do make things up. It's very important to have that due process and to make sure that those who actually did not commit any egregious misconduct are able to exonerate themselves.

And in the same token, force the investigation to complete. We do want to catch any baddies. We don't want them, and anyone who would do harm to students, to be working in our school system.

So we're, again, very appreciative that the author has refined SB 848 and that we're working together to bring more protection, but also that those due process rights are protected. So with that, we ask for an aye vote as well.

Thank you very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Oh, I'm sorry. We're going support.

I'm sorry. Support Me Too's. We're not skipping that. Support Me Too's, name, affiliation, and position.

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members, Shanna Somali, AFSCME California. We are proud cosponsors, and I urge your support. Thank you.

Okay. Any other support Me Too's? Okay. We'll move to opposition witnesses. And while you come, we have a quorum.

So we will ask the assistant to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Sarah Petrowski on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials. We want to thank Senator Perez for her leadership on the critical issue of preventing childhood sexual assault. Like the Senator, we believe that every child deserves a safe, healthy environment and the resources needed to thrive.

We are proud to support your efforts to pass SB 848 last year. We are fully committed to working together to achieve that goal. However, we are concerned that specific provisions of SB 1083 would inadvertently undermine the protections recently established by SB 848.

Specifically, this bill creates additional and duplicative layers of due process in the investigation stage. Employees already have established rights to challenge disciplinary outcomes. By adding a challenge to the investigation itself rather than the discipline, we risk inconsistency and delays in taking the actions necessary to protect students from childhood sexual assault through the background check process. SB 1083 would also establish investigation timelines that conflict with established policies that reflect the need to begin an investigation immediately upon receipt of a complaint.

While we support the goal of establishing parameters for how records are to be created and maintained in the statewide database established by SB 848, we must prioritize the prevention and elimination of childhood sexual assault above all else. We hope to collaborate on amendments that preserve the essential tools to prevent and eliminate childhood sexual assault that were provided for in SB 848. Thank you.

Good morning. Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, respectfully opposed to Senate Bill 1083 as currently drafted. CAJPA represents the risk pools throughout California that many public entities use, including school districts, to self-fund their liability and manage their tort exposure. Our members are not only responsible for financing claims, but also for developing and implementing policies designed to prevent them, including the prevention of abuse.

In recent years, public entities across California have paid billions of dollars to resolve claims alleging that institutions failed to adequately protect students and others in their care from abuse.

These outcomes reflect both the profound human impact of such failures and the significant financial consequences borne by public agencies and taxpayers. In light of this reality, it's deeply concerning to consider any legislation that may reduce or weaken safety measures intended to prevent abuse before it occurs. While we recognize and respect the importance of due process protections for employees, Senate Bill 1083, as drafted, risks a framework that prioritizes adult procedural protections at the expense of child safety.

Of particular concern is the potential for the bill to establish inconsistent standards: one governing when an employer may act to discipline or report misconduct, and another lower standard for determining liability for failure to prevent abuse. This misalignment creates uncertainty and undermines the ability of public employers to take proactive, preventative action.

Public agencies must be empowered to act decisively when credible concerns arise, without fear that doing so will conflict with a different standard applied after harm has occurred. A system that imposes liability for failure to prevent abuse while simultaneously constraining the ability to intervene early is not workable. We remain committed to working with the author and the sponsors to achieve our shared goal of an appropriate balance, one that preserves due process while ensuring the safety of children and vulnerable individuals that are paramount to our tasks.

However, any approach that results in conflicting or diminished standards for prevention and accountability doesn't meet that goal. For these reasons, we're respectfully opposed to the bill today, but appreciate the opportunity to continue working together.

Thank you. Any other opposition Me Too's? Please step to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position, please.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, and also for my colleague from the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, respectfully opposed.

Caitlin Jung on behalf of the School Employers Association of California, respectfully in opposition.

Christina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in opposition.

On behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts, in opposition.

Okay. Seeing no other Me Too's, the dais, any comments?

I'll move the bill.

Okay. So we have a motion from Senator Strickland. I want to just say, you know, thank you for the work and collaboration on this bill. Cleanup is sometimes a difficult task to do, but you're all doing it for the right reasons, which is to protect our children in our school districts. Coming from LA County, the issue of liability is a real one.

We've been talking a lot about that in LA County. And so, you know, I'm going to support the bill. I really appreciate that you're going to be continuing to work with the opposition in good faith, to make sure we strike the right balance in this case. And balancing the protection of our workers, the protection of our students, the protection also of our institutions from crippling liability. I know you all want the most, and that's why we're supporting this bill today.

Oh, Senator Laird, you wanted to make a comment?

When you're done.

Okay. So I am done. You may make your comments, and then we'll go to the Senator for close.

Thank you. And this is, I had this moment yesterday in committee where I got there just for the end of the discussion and did not have the opportunity to hear anything up to that, and you run the risk of stepping in it because you don't know what you all just said.

But what I wanted to say is, since I've been working on the issue of these delayed claims for the last year, is that one of the few bright spots of last year was Senator Perez's bill. And to go into the weeds for a second, when Assembly Bill 218 was passed in 2019 and signed, that removed the statute of limitations for five years on old sexual misconduct claims in public entities.

It created the thing I think you were just talking about, which is, I mean, the County of Los Angeles has basically, for some units, put a 0% salary increase on the table.

City of Santa Monica is having a rough time. A school district in Montecito, 60% of their budget was a settlement. These are happening in ways that there are horrible impacts on local governments. And in 2023, the legislature passed a second bill by Assemblymember Addis, removing the end of the statute of limitations. And so all our efforts last year to help cities and counties and school districts were looking backward, and it was looking to the old claims that were covered by that first bill.

And yet, if there's to be liability heading forward, it requires prevention programs to be able to mitigate that liability, and that's why the bill last year was so important. And my concern here is just, when you read the analysis, it's sort of in the silo of equity, and equity that classified employees get the same rights that certificated employees get in schools.

And I think that is a matter of equity and is a matter of justice, but you have to have the backdrop of making sure that we're not backsliding on the bill from last year. That we're making sure that prevention is out there and prioritized and done so that, while we attempt to redress the past issues with local districts, we mitigate against there being any future issues. So, I appreciate the author's work on this.

I intend to vote for the bill today. But at the same time, I want to make sure, as this bill moves along, and I would have loved to for the testimony. As this bill moves along, that if there are considerations to make sure that we do not step back from our commitment to prevention and everything it takes to do it, that we are not stepping back.

So that was my concern, and catching the last thirty seconds of your comments, I think it mirrored some of the things that you said. So I appreciate everybody bearing with me.

I was just the keynoter at the budget centers conference with 500 people. And your name came up.

Well, appreciate the comments. And Senator, would you like to close and get back to your committee?

Yeah. Certainly. You know, I'll say a couple of things. One, you know, this is a very important issue for me, and I understand that there's been a lot of focus on this because of the FCMAT report. And for me, my concern around this issue doesn't come from the FCMAT report.

It comes from being directly impacted, which is a very different experience, I think, than some of you here. I wanted to work on this issue two years before I got here to the Senate. When I was a student in high school, I had a school guard who attempted to groom me and asked when I was going to turn 18 because he wanted to be romantic with me.

This was somebody that I looked up to, that I considered a mentor, and who wanted to take advantage of the relationship that we had because I was having challenges at home. I know multiple victims like this.

I got away. And fortunately, I know many people who didn't. I've convened conversations with survivors. I've had conversations with survivors who have told me about times that they've written documents outlining the pain that they've gone through, identifying somebody on campus that has been assaulting them, harassing them, given those documents to other teachers and administrators, and had those documents be hidden.

It's utterly terrifying to hear so many of these stories, and it absolutely breaks my heart that this is something that has gone on for so long, and that there's been so little protection here.

And that's part of the reason why I wanted to do this bill. When I met Mike Fine when I first got here to the legislature several years ago, you know, I told him that this was my top priority issue because I had seen so many bills be introduced in this space that had failed.

And so, you know, what we're trying to do here, I think, is make sure we just don't have alignment, but also ensuring that we're including contractors as well, and that it's very important that we do have an ALJ process. I recognize that, you know, placing somebody on a pending status list is something that I think makes everyone uneasy while an investigation is ongoing, but as I've spoken with several folks, it's also very critical.

I cannot begin to explain to you how many victims I've spoken to where, when we identify the perpetrator, they have bounced around to two to three school districts, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly, knowing their past and what they've done to other students.

It is absolutely unacceptable. So, you know, for me, this is a very personal issue. I recognize that there's cost associated with trying to implement something like this, but it's super important that we get this right. There's the fiscal component of this, which I know we've had lots of conversations about. Senator Laird has certainly worked on a bill in that space, but, for me, there is a ton of work to be done here.

And I'll be honest with you, I'm just getting started. So I thank you all so much, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Assistant, please call the roll.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, the motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of three to zero. The bill is on call. Thank you. Okay. I see Senator Richardson is with us.

So we will move on to file item number four, SB 1089. And if you have witnesses in support, they can sit at the table and we'll be ready for them. Okay. You may.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee and, Senator Laird since you said, Senator Perez had the best bill, that you saw last year. I'm committed to this being your best one for this year. So, I'm gonna do my best at this. So, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of this committee.

I'd like to start off by confirming my acceptance of the committee amendments and thank the chair and staff for working with us. Me and my team to make SB 1089 a true valued benefit to the state employees and ultimately all Californians. Today, I want to have a frank conversation about weight. Chronic weight disease is a serious problem in The United States.

Of the 39.5 million people who live in California, approximately 24,500,000 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 are currently living in California with some sort of weight issue.

Being overweight comes with many challenges such as the predisposition that someone might have to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disorders, chronic respiratory diseases, and digestive disorders. In addition to some of these chronic weight, diseases that they can extend, when you look at this beyond these diseases but to actually leading to potential cancers. Thirteen have been identified. I'm only gonna mention a few. Colon and rectal cancer, excuse me.

Between, let's see. I took TheraFlu, Sudafed, and now a Lozinger all at the same time. So if I mix a few words, you'll have to excuse me. Endometrial of the uterus, cancer, gallbladder, renal cell carcinoma, liver, ovarian, and thyroid cancer. Further, in addition to increasing cancer risk, chronic weight disease is also associated with more than 200 core morbidity conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, fatty liver disease, diseases of the gallbladder and pancreas, and kidney disease.

More simply stated, what is GLP ones? What do they do? They stimulate the insulin secretion by suppressing an appetite and delaying gastric emptying to promote a significant waste loss. Maybe let me state that a little more simply. What that means is is that a person, by suppressing an appetite and still feeling full, an individual is less apt to want to now say, okay, two hours later or four hours later, what am I gonna have for lunch?

What am I gonna have for dinner? G L P ones are demonstrating more and more the capacity to improve health in the areas beyond weight loss. Recent studies have also shown that, by having assistance through G L P ones, it can improve cognitive and behavioral health, lowering risk of heart attack, stroke, liver disease as already stated, and they're now, looking at benefits potentially towards dementia and Alzheimer's.

Chronic weight management can be related to also reduced labor participation earnings, increased early mortality, absenteeism, disability, and health care costs in an excess of over $1,000,000,000 that impacts our California gross domestic product. So why did SB 1089 need to take place?

So now I'm gonna get into my personal story here. The reason why I brought forward SB1089 is because even with the proven results that are coming forward, insurance companies are still not providing GLP ones to people who need them, even if they're prescribed by their doctor. As a state employee, I'm a current state employee, and my insurance, we have some of the best insurance.

I was told they do not offer despite the fact that my BMI numbers, blood numbers, all the different things that they test individuals for, including being on the prediabetic level, I was still told that it was not available to me even though it was prescribed to me by my doctor. That my insurance, an insurance here with CalPERS, does not offer it only in the sense if a person is diabetic.

It is why those particular products are offered. So when we talk about G L P ones, it's important. The reason why I did SB 1089 was to start with one of the largest employer groups because the health plan said they will offer. So I went to health plans and said, why aren't you offering something that could actually save you money in the end?

Because if I'm healthier, why would you want me to gain more weight, have core morbidities, have diabetes, all of that that's gonna cost you more money to provide health insurance for me.

And, no answer. Basically, the answer was, health insurance plans provide services that the employers require. So that's why the first part of this bill is saying that Calpers would have their health plans offer. It is not requiring people. Everyone is not going to have to pay for something they don't need.

I, more envision something like, I wear glasses so maybe I pay more for the vision plan or you may have dental issues, so you pay more for a dental plan. Or you decide because you look at the history and say, I wanna pay more for long term health planning. These are decisions that people based upon their personal health history should be able to have offerings that can help them to live better.

And so by calpers offering, as an option to their health plans, State employees are a good pool of people where we could frankly look at and see, the potential need if people the value of having it with other health plans. The second piece of the bill though, The number one issue with G L P ones is accessibility.

People being able to get it and then the second piece is at an affordable price. When I first started paying for GLP ones and my doctor prescribed it, I ended up getting a compound because compounds are cheaper than actually getting the brand product. And so you have people out there who are getting compounds which is a mixture of the drug that's not even the, you know, fully the end compound that you're getting is approved.

But how that is formulated is debated of whether it is best in the same of getting a brand. So for me, I started off even with a compound spending almost $700 a month.

That's like a car payment. Most people, most Californians cannot afford to take out for their personal, I wanna live better, make that decision themselves to take away $700 a month. Even with the price reductions, I'm still paying out of pocket. Now I pay the brand direct. So I pay about $75 more per month to pay for the brand instead of doing the compound, and I'm still paying almost $500 a month.

And the question before you is whether state employees and whether Californians should have to decide between sending their kids to a summer program, being able to do a car note to be able to decide, hey, I need to live healthier because I'm on the verge of becoming diabetic. And so, this bill, the second part of it, the reason why we have the CalRx piece is that the governor has already made movements in the insulin realm and some of those areas.

And this would give all Californians, not just people who happen to work as state employees, but to potentially Cal Rx could give all Californians the ability to purchase G L P ones at a reasonable and affordable price.

And so, with that, for this reason, SB 1089 would require calpers to offer to be available, if needed, G L P ones as a part of their health plans to reduce chronic weight management, to increase access for their workforce, and improve affordability and maximize better health outcomes. Now, for the final part of the story, I started taking Zepbound in August.

I have lost 43 pounds. You can't argue with results. I'm not someone who's six hundred pounds sitting in the basement playing video games. I'm a person who goes to work every day, seven days a week, busting my you know what and still, was having a challenge and seeing an increasing weight even though I was eating salads and trying to do the right thing.

So I think it's time for us to give state employees, number one, a person who people choose to work for the state because we believe in public service, not because we're trying to get rich.

So certainly, state employees, if there's a way for them to be healthier and they're willing and they know that, they should be able to do that at an affordable price and not at the expense of their family. And then finally, the second piece as I stated, all Californians frankly deserve the right to have access to make thingS Better. And so for that, I urge your aye vote on this, SB 1089.

And today, I have with me, individuals who are going to share with you from their professional perspective their knowledge that I hope will, urge you to support this bill.

Thank you, Senator. You have two minutes.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Cher Gonzales, and I have the honor of representing the American Diabetes Association. We are in support of SB 1089. We are not the bill's sponsor. It's very obviously author sponsored, but we are in strong support and are grateful to the esteemed author.

The bill ensures that California state and local government employees have access to GLP-one medications, treatments that represent one of the most effective tools we have to prevent and manage Type 2 diabetes. These are not cosmetic weight loss drugs. They improve insulin sensitivity, reduce blood glucose, support healthy weight loss, and cut the risk of developing type two diabetes by as much as sixty percent in people with prediabetes. California faces a diabetes crisis.

More than three million residents already live with diabetes, with another ten million adults living with prediabetes.

The toll is enormous, over 40,000,000,000 a year in healthcare costs and lost productivity. According to the Department of Healthcare Access and Information, twenty five percent of all preventable hospitalizations in California are diabetes related. Prevention is our best chance to reverse this trend, and GLP-one medications allow us to intervene before diabetes develops. Yet, too many Californians who could benefit cannot access these treatments because insurers exclude or severely restrict coverage.

This inequity worsens health disparities, especially in communities of color and among lower income families who are already hit hardest by diabetes.

By requiring coverage for GLP one medications, SB 1089 would save lives, reduce health care costs, and move us toward true health equity. The science is clear. When people can access proven prevention tools, we prevent disease, not just treat it. On behalf of the American Diabetes Association, I therefore urge your aye vote on SB 1089 to give more Californians a fair chance to stop type two diabetes before it starts.

Thank you. Any more support me twos out there, please step to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Thank you, madam chair. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology and the California Rheumatology Alliance in support.

Good morning. Natalie Pita on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians in support.

Any other? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Please have a seat at the table.

You have two minutes.

We'll need two minutes. Good morning, chair and members. We thank the Senator for important work on this on advocacy on this issue. We still have some concerns with the bill in print, but we're encouraged by the conversations we've already have with the senator's office as a way to achieve these goals without harming patient access or innovation on life changing medications like GLP ones. Thank you.

And can you identify yourself for the record?

Austin Airth with pharma.

Any other opposition me twos out there? I've seen none. We'll come to the dais.

We have a motion by Senator Strickland. Any others? I will just say oh, did you wanna say something Senator Laird? Or were you just stretching? Okay.

Stretching.

No. I'm leaning forward to both.

Well, let's get the show on the road.

I just wanna thank you for acknowledging your acceptance of the amendments from the Health and Labor Committee, and I deeply support this bill. And we have a motion from, Senator Strickland. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assistant, can you call the roll?

The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland?

Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye.

Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.

And we have a vote of four to zero. That bill is on call. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

We see Senator Blake Spears in the audience. So Adam

oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were done.

No. We are going to call we're gonna move on to file item while we have everybody. File item number two.

I was just gonna suggest while she was moving to the mic that I would move the consent agenda.

Oh, wonderful. We have a motion for Senator Laird. Thank you, Senator Laird. Let's call the roll in the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar, Senator Smollett Cuevas.

Aye.

Smollett Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.

Okay. We have a vote of four to zero. The consent calendar is on call. Senator, you may begin. Okay.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and members. I am here today to present SB 954, which provides thoughtful improvements to the CEQA exemptions that passed through the budget act last year in SB 131. Last year, the legislature passed SB 131, creating over a dozen new CEQA exemptions. Many of these CEQA exemptions are sensible and promote needed development that doesn't harm the environment or jeopardize human health.

However, SB 131 created an exemption for advanced manufacturing that is so broad that it covers strip mining, lithium mining, and other activities that are known to be especially harmful to the environment.

This undercuts California's long, proud tradition of protecting the environment and the spirit of CEQA, and it does not build the clean, abundant future that Californians deserve. That is why so many senators and assembly members raised serious concerns about the policy when it was jammed through the legislature at the end of session. In response, Senate leadership and the Senate budget chair committed to revisiting the definition for advanced manufacturing and adding stronger protections for habitats for sensitive species and tribal resources.

This bill, SB 954, follows through on the promises to clean up SB 131 and and adds critical labor protections for advanced manufacturing projects that do get the CEQA exemptions. SB 954 preserves habitat for protected species and closes other loopholes in SB 131.

And primarily, it starts the conversation that should have happened last year with stakeholders and legislators on where to draw the line about what actually is advanced manufacturing. Specifically, SB 954 clarifies the intent of the legislature to refine what advanced manufacturing should be granted a CEQA exemption, and it adds important environmental guardrails, including that advanced manufacturing within a thousand feet of a disadvantaged community must go through CEQA. It provides protections for tribal resources and for workers, including those who work in these advanced manufacturing facilities.

The labour criteria require skilled and trained workforce and prevailing wage for construction. It is common practice to add labor provisions for construction when granting large scale CEQA exemptions.

SB 954 also goes further with labor protections compared to existing CEQA exemptions by requiring that project applicants meet high road employment standards which include good wages above the local or regional living standard, commitments to invest in employee training, incorporating worker voice, and requiring safe and healthy working conditions. This is especially important for advanced manufacturing that gets a CEQA exemption because advanced manufacturing, as it's currently defined, can include severely polluting industries like semiconductors that have a history of harming the health of workers.

There are still a lot of work that needs to be done in SB 954, particularly in identifying what types of facilities actually are going to count as advanced manufacturing and what aren't. I look forward to providing productive conversations with the opposition here today and beyond as this bill continues its way through the legislative process. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Witnesses, you each have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions. First, again, we want to thank Chair Blake Spear for SB 954's introduction. It is allowing us to have this public debate on the issue that has been deferred since the introduction of SB 131 from last year. We represent over 2,300,000 union workers in California, including thousands of skilled workers who build, maintain, operate, and labor in manufacturing facilities in the state.

Our unions fully support expanding California's manufacturing base, but we have to ensure that industry growth is accompanied with protections for workers, communities, and the environment. SB 131, with its massive exemptions for broadly defined advanced manufacturing projects, eroded labor standards for workers, environmental safeguards, and public accountability in the process. Without any significant cleanup legislation, companies will continue to take advantage of the overly broad definition to skip over the public environmental and community review process to access building permits.

This status quo allows companies to deprive workers, unions, and their communities of the opportunity to provide necessary input for large industrial projects that are sited in their own backyard. And as the EQ committee analysis clearly outlined and as the author outlined as well, the facilities that we're talking about here include incredibly toxic and dangerous project types like semiconductor facilities, fertilizer production, and rare earth mining that requires radioactive waste containment.

Workers are the first line of exposure to the carcinogens that are found in these projects, and building any large scale industrial facilities without safeguards that are traditionally required under CEQA increases exposure to unsafe conditions, accelerates timelines, and compromises safety, and removes oversight mechanisms that ensure that projects are built correctly the first time. With this in mind, we support SB 954.

It is a great step towards establishing oversight over advanced manufacturing projects, while prioritizing labor standards, like skilled and trained workforce requirements, prevailing wage standards, high road job standards, and community benefits agreements. We look forward to working with the author and stakeholders on the definition to allow for growth in the state's economy while also investing in safe middle class jobs for the workers, propelling that growth, and of course ensuring that the communities in which they live are protected. Thank you, and we request a aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you,

chair and members. My name is Raquel Mason with SEHA Action, here today in support of SB 954 by Senator Blake Spear. I also wanna start and share our sincere thanks to Senator Blake Spear and her team for all her work on this bill. Last year, when SB 131 was signed into law, it created a sweep B exemption for advanced manufacturing, removing facilities with known track records for water contamination and air pollution from any environmental review.

This exemption applies to project types like strip mining, metal forging, and fertilizer production.

Our communities rely on CEQA as a tool for accountability and public participation. Without it, residents lose the ability to understand what is being proposed in their neighborhoods and the ability to advocate for safer alternatives. And under SB 131, a broad swath of harmful project types can develop without any of the public processes we depend on. In environmental justice communities, we have seen CEQA work across our alliance.

Our members are using CEQA to educate residents about projects coming into the communities, discuss the impacts these projects may have, and work to improve them.

SB 954 takes important steps to restore safeguards by limiting the advanced manufacturing exemptions to projects that adhere to strong pollution limits, labor standards, and are located at safe distances from sensitive communities. These are necessary protections. At the same time, we need to ensure that the final definition for advanced manufacturing is narrowed to a limited and clearly defined set of projects that truly align with state climate and equity goals and do not create significant harm.

We look forward to continuing to work with the author, to continue strengthening this Bill so we can ensure that no project moves forward without censoring the people most impacted. And with that, we respectfully request your eye vote on SB 954.

Thank you. Okay. We will hear support me too's state your name, affiliation, and position.

Madam chair, member Scott Wedge on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheena Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union in support. Thank you.

Will Breeder for Climate Action California in support.

Good morning. Alberto Turico on behalf of United Auto Workers in support.

Good morning. Gabriel Tollson with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Also registering support on behalf of the California Native Plant Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Forest Forest Trust, National Parks Conservation Association, Environmental Protection Information Center, Resources Renewal Institute, Environmental Defense Fund, California Coastal Protection Network, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Sonoma Land Trust, and Californians Against Waste. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mariela Retro with leadership council with justice and accountability in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Unite here, International Union, and Teamsters California in support. Thank you.

Judy Yee with the state building trades and also registering support for the United Auto Workers in support.

Good morning. Juan Munoz with Unite Here Local eleven in support.

Ada Welder with Earthjustice here in support.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support.

Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Thank you.

Marie Lu expressing support for Surfrider, Occidental Art Center, and the Ecology Center. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more support me twos? Okay. We will move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses?

Please step to the table.

You each have two minutes.

Good morning, madam chair and committee members. My name is Louis Marante with Baird Council. We represent about 400 of the region's largest employers. We are the first business we were the first business group in California to support AB 32, and we believe California should lead the world in building the clean energy economy. But we are here to respectfully oppose this bill.

I want to express express our appreciation to the author and her team for working with us despite our opposition. But we are worried that the overlapping restrictions in this bill will render it, less useful than it should be. We're here because this bill risks having the practical effect of repealing the advanced manufacturing exemption. California has some of the cleanest energy, highest energy efficiency standards, and cleanest fuels in the country. We should build the high-tech and green future we invent here in California.

Preventing industrial leakage is also critical to convincing the world to adopting our broader climate system. But in December, a Bay Area company called Anthro Energy, which invented a cutting edge new battery with over $5,000,000 from the California Energy Commission, announced its first factory. It's in Louisville, Kentucky where 78% of electricity comes from coal and where the the factory will have a carbon intensity four times higher than it would in California just from the grid. This is a trend.

California has lost 615,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000 in part because our environmental laws make the perfect the enemy of the good.

The overlapping and strict requirements of this bill will likely lead to manufacturers continuing to walk away from California rather than initiate projects here. For those reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on SB 954. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Adam Regli on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, which Chamber of Commerce, which, SB 954 has been tagged as a cost driver. My colleague has outlined, really the issue at heart here, which is does California wanna attract manufacturing to a state that has championed, climate change, energy efficiency, you know, world class labor standards, and drive those out of California and other states. Not just new projects, but expansions and upgrades to facilities all can trigger CEQA.

And year after year, we we come and talk about we need CEQA reform.

It is an abused statute. It has very laudable intent to protect the environment, and it's very easy to utilize it to leverage for other things unrelated to the environment that has driven manufacturing to other states where time and the ability to permit in a global market, is essential. And so they choose other states, regardless of how clean or how, labor standards are here. They choose it because time is money, and money is what drives capital markets, which drives the ability to manufacture here.

As my colleague noted, 600,000 jobs since 82,000, manufacturing jobs lost since 2024.

And so we are seeing this trend continue, not decrease. And when we talk about CEQA, it's really positioned as the end all, be all for environmental review. There are dozens and dozens of permitting and other environmental laws that are still required even without CEQA. And until you fix CEQA, it is one of the biggest impediments for why manufacturing doesn't come here, expand, or upgrade because of the fear that it triggers, a statute that's abused.

It's not the end all be all for environmental review, but it can be the end for projects coming, expanding.

And so for those reasons, we, respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition me toos, please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Skyler Wanakon on behalf of California Business Properties Association and NAOP California, as well as the California Business Roundtable in opposition.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Sarah Polamu with the California Retailers Association, also in respectful opposition.

Madam Chair, Chris McCailey on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Matty Hyatt from the Capital Business Alliance opposed on the grounds we feel it's a high condition pathway that only higher larger firms can afford to implement.

Okay. Any other opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll come to the dais. Senator Strickland.

Thank you, madam chair. I realize I'm probably in the minority here and I have deep respect for the author. And I know her passion for the environment. And she is one of the leaders in California and passion for the environment. But I do believe that we need to start bringing about balance from I think we can get balance between a good environment and a strong economy and jobs.

I've seen now many many bills and exemptions through the legislature on CEQA exemptions. And, a lot of them are, both Democrat and Republican asking for CEQA exemptions. And so I do think that we need CEQA reform because I think the balance is not there. Clearly, the balance is not there. We continue to lose manufacturing jobs.

It's the first time in California history since the gold rush where people are leaving the state than coming in. In fact, if you look at the census, they're saying that we might lose four congressional seats in 2030 in California, and a lot of it is because we are not business friendly. Jobs are leaving to Louisville, Kentucky. Jobs are leaving to Florida. My brother lives in Jacksonville, Florida.

He wanted to stay in California. We had to move where his job went. And I think there could be a balance, here moving forward. You know, again, manufacturing is one of the main things that that we need to fight for, and we continue to lose manufacturing jobs, good paying jobs, to states like Kentucky, Florida, and Texas. And again, personal note, we need to bring this balance back because when you look at California, we live in Oasis.

I live in Huntington Beach, California. There's no better place, in my opinion, to live in the world than Huntington Beach, California. But people are leaving here to go to the cold weather in Montana where it's frozen three months a year, or they're going to humidity and the heat of Texas and Florida because we're not business friendly. And I do think that we can get the balance and I'm hoping that we start bringing about balance here in California.

And again, with deep respect to the author of this because I know your passion.

But I guarantee you, we're gonna see more and more bills coming from Democrats and Republicans asking for this exemption, that exemption. We need to look and and tackle the big issues in California, and I think there needs to be CEQA reform. Again, as the testifier said here earlier, if even if there's CEQA reform, there's other environmental stands that we have here that are so above every other state in the country.

And we do need to preserve our environment but I think we need to bring about more balance and that's why I'm not supporting this bill today. Thank you.

Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, madam chair. Actually, let me talk about why we're here this moment talking about this. And that is because this was jammed through the legislature in a budget bill and not through the policy process last year. And when it was done, it had not addressed certain tribal issues. It did not address certain weapons issues.

It did not address certain issues about advanced manufacturing. It did not address the part of advanced manufacturing that the witnesses testified for. And it is a thankless job that this author has stepped up to because which everybody said, oh we will clean this up next year. And if there was ever an argument for not voting for a bill that people said at the time you were voting on it, it needed cleaning up.

This is it because then the testimony makes it appear as if this is a one off.

Oh, we're just looking at this as opposed to this was everything that fits together and this should have been in the bill last year and it is left to clean up this year to do it as if it's a standalone thing with all these positive and negative issues on it.

And so I know that the author will continue to work on these issues but there really was those three issues that weren't included or addressed in the bill last year and you're doing your damnedest to address them in this bill and I think another vehicle. And so, I know you'll continue to work on this and at the appropriate time, I will be happy to move the bill.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you, madam chair. I'm proud to be a co author of the bill and had the opportunity to be involved in some of the discussions leading up to what it ended up being put in print by the author and I appreciate all of that. Just have a question here, listening to opposition and I'm asking you for clarification.

Advanced manufacturing, as I understand it, so long as it's going into an industrial area, is still receiving benefits under the original one thirty one concept if you wanna I guess, my way of characterizing it.

But I just wanted to you could restate that if you want, but I wanna make sure that we're clear, in terms of the way the bill has been kind of framed by opposition that this is not getting in the way of what I would call day to day, of putting advanced manufacturing into industrial areas in my district in Silicon Valley that are general plan that way in the first place.

Right. Yes. Thank you. Yes.

So the way that the law is currently is if there's an industrial zone and there's a project that wants to claim that they are advanced manufacturing and there are a long list of different, types of businesses that have received, tax exemption as advanced manufacturing, which is the thing that leads us to say strip mining counts because it has received, this tax exemption, Then they would proceed to apply for a CEQA exemption, and then they would not have to do any of the things associated with CEQA.

So that includes mitigation for the project. And some things that are mitigation are, for example, rec doing an assessment of what is happening in that land at that moment. And if it's, for example, a nesting habitat, a decision to do construction outside of nesting season. So that's the kind of thing that comes up as part of mitigation. So there would be no mitigation required.

There's, of course, also no litigation risk when you don't have to do CEQA. And then the labor standards would have to be negotiated in some other way if there are any. And there are different laws that apply, of course, at different levels.

But the reality right now of such a broad, exemption means that there are all sorts of things that would be able to avoid doing any of the tribal consultation, the environmental mitigation, the discussion over labor standards, and that is part of what we're trying to reestablish as part of this.

Right. And I just remember there are distinctions between, for example, important ones here that, in essence protect some of those interests that you're talking about in habitat conservation areas and conservation areas you just mentioned. Areas where there are habitat concerns. I know we're in labor committee here, so I don't wanna go down a rabbit hole in terms of things that have already been voted on and discussed, you know, in the other committee and so forth.

But I really wanna get back to the risk as to manufacturing jobs.

The lands that are industrial zoned in my district as I understand it are not gonna be impacted in terms of their ability to provide employment should they wanna still do manufacturing. Most of the industrial properties in our area are now r and d and just about everything but traditional manufacturing.

But that said, the distinction when I try to apply this to my own district and did so as as a critical thinking co author on this is that we're not impacting jobs in, you know, in areas that are already protected in my area by green line initiatives, by urban growth boundaries, by habitat conservation plans, and so forth. This bill and other cleanup legislation before it has now taken care of that, but still left the ability for job creation to occur in industrial zones.

That's what I was trying to clarify.

Yes. That's right. And also, I just wanna recognize that the opposition is making really good points about California's competitiveness. That we want to be the state of innovation. We want to keep companies that have incubated here.

We want them to take the next generation and then the third generation to stay in California, providing those jobs, providing the creative economy and the energy future and the abundance that we're all looking for. So the multifactorial assessment of why is it that companies are leaving California, what is it we can do to incentivize them. You know, to me, this, there are many things that are layering on top of those decisions. And it's not only CEQA.

So, and there are many different industries that we're also incentivizing like Hollywood, right, which is not really implicated in this type of a bill about advanced manufacturing.

But I think when this bill passed, as, Senator Laird said, it really was jammed through so quickly and in a forty eight hour period that there I think there was a feeling that advanced manufacturing was just semiconductors because sometimes those two words were used interchangeably. But then in reality, once we actually looked under the hood and saw, oh, there's this, actually, this definition of advanced manufacturing that's very broad and can include all these types of manufacturing.

And it could be argued almost anything that uses a computer could be, classified because it's promoting that mechanization in a way that could classify as advanced manufacturing. Of course, all this could eventually lead to litigation as well, but we don't want that. Right?

We wanna have clarity around the law. What is it that has a sequel exemption? And to Senator Strickland's point, I would love to do a bill, and I've already been trying to spitball what would comprehensive sequel reform look like. And there are many sacred cows in the process that are difficult to figure out. What what do we do about who can be a plaintiff?

You know? So some of the things right now, the barrier to entry for litigation is very, very low. So anyone can sue for any reason on CEQA. And but it's like when you start to look at who should be a plaintiff, who could, how do we limit that? It just gets enormously complex.

So that is something that I want to work on and that I think about. But this bill specifically is cleaning up what happened at the end of last year around the definition of advanced manufacturing and also the CEQA exemption in general as it was applied. So, there are multiple parts of this, including the labor part, which is why it's in your committee today.

Right. Thank you.

Yeah. And really, important discussion and debate. And I just wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward. It's a challenge, when we talk about CEQA and we see the intersections of environmental industry and workers, too often those three are pitted against each other. And I think you're trying to figure out a way forward that allows us to accomplish the goals that I think the opposition raised at the same time ensuring we're protecting those communities.

And I just wanna be clear, this exemption will not harm all California communities equally. I represent South Central Los Angeles. We are in a sort of thread of an industrial corridors down in, the Southeast Side Of Los Angeles County, and our communities are definitely most impacted by industry. And we see the health effects of that. And unfortunately, the history of where we build the dirtiest, most toxic industries are typically in black and brown communities, working class of color.

So why these policies are important? Why this care that we're taking through this CEQA exemption process is, a really, complex and difficult but necessary is because we've got to figure out a way as we move deeper into the twenty-first century and we figure out how we rebound our manufacturing sector here in California. We do it not in the old way, but in the new ways, that protect everyone.

I also wanna say the labor conversations and where we landed in this bill is really encouraging to me because we're going beyond just the labor standards, but also talking about the future of work and what does it mean to have community benefits agreements that guarantee and prioritize those frontline communities, those vulnerable communities, in quality job creation. So I really wanna applaud the author.

I wanna thank her for continuing to work with the opposition on this important work that is really the future of California, because we need strong industries to have strong workers, and we know that builds strong communities. And so I will be supporting the bill today and I think we have a motion from Senator Laird. Would you like to close and then we'll take the vote?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the support witnesses and the opposition witnesses and the dialogue from the committee. I think the the last word I'd like to say on this is that when we introduce the bill and its current stage right now is that advanced manufacturing is undefined in the bill.

So we are welcoming feedback particularly from industry about what are the environmental impacts that your industry is having if you are broadly in this category that could be considered advanced manufacturing so that we could try to chart something that can thread that needle to make sure that we're we're using an analysis that works, that is something that, can achieve multiple goals. So it's really a broad invitation to reach out to my office, to the Environmental Quality Committee so that we can take your feedback.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Laird. Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.

We have a vote of 3-1. That bill is on call. Thank you. Next, we will move on to file item number 5 SB 1299. I see Senator Arreguin is with us.

Senator, please begin when you're ready, and your witnesses can sit at the table.

Well, good morning Madam Chair and Members. My pleasure to present SB 1299, the State Fire Marshall Fire Suppression Education and Training Safety Act. This bill is sponsored by the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California. SB 1299 ensures that California has a clear, enforceable framework for certifying and training fire sprinkler fitters. This bill will ensure that only properly trained and certified professionals perform this critical life saving work.

Prior to 2017, individuals installing fire suppression systems were not required to have specific qualifications despite the state fire marshal's long standing standards requiring knowledgeable and experienced installers. However, ultimately, the state fire marshal promulgated rules requiring specific qualifications and training. Unfortunately, a recent court decision struck down critical life saving regulations that were enacted after 2017 by the state fire marshal.

And I just want to clarify, the court decision did not say that the policy was illegal, but said that the rule making did not follow the the proper process under the administration procedures act and therefore, the regulations were invalidated.

The court in its ruling acknowledge that the certification program is necessary to protect public safety, validating the need for enforceable training standards. SB 1299 codifies and enacts these standards in state law to ensure that individuals working on these life safety systems are trained and qualified to do this work. Every Californian deserves to know that their fire suppression systems protecting their homes, their workplaces, and communities have been installed and maintained by qualified professionals.

With me to testify in support of the bill on behalf of the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California is Scott Wetch.

Yes. Madam Chair, Members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California and the California State Pipe Trades Council, SP 1299 closes a critical regulatory gap that currently undermines workforce standards and public safety in California's fire protection industry. Fire suppression systems are among the most important life safety features in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.

Their effectiveness depends entirely on proper installation, inspection, testing, and maintenance by individuals who possess the training experience and technical expertise required to perform this highly specialized work. The original legislation in 2011- the international residential code and, therefore, the California residential code was amended to require fire sprinklers in all occupancies, meaning single family homes, duplexes, places where they hadn't been required before.

Out of an abundance of concern regarding if there is enough qualified folks to do that work. Then Assemblyman Gordon in 2013 passed AB 433, which authorized the state fire marshal to adopt whatever standards and requirements that they saw fit to ensure the highest level of fire life safety in all occupancies. As an outgrowth of that, a three year process was commenced to establish the fire sprinkler certification program as it is known.

As the Senator mentioned, basically on a technicality that was recently, key components were struck down. Now, we're seeking to codify that program that was very effective.

Nationally, about 8% of residential fires that have sprinkler systems have failures. In California, that figure is only 3% in large part because we've done the training, we've done the work to ensure that these systems are properly installed. We're very concerned if this isn't reinstituted that we could go the opposite direction. And I just note finally that it's not just an issue of fire life safety, but the number one common claim on property insurance policies is water damage.

And, a significant portion of that is caused by fire sprinkler systems that are inappropriately installed.

So you have pipes bursting. You have them inappropriately going off that creates a lot of damage, which is contributing to the insurance crisis that we have in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see. We'll move to "Me Too's" in support. Please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Judy Yee, state billing trades in support.

Okay. We will move to opposition. Is there opposition witnesses here? Seeing none, any opposition "Me Too's" here? Seeing none, we'll move to the Dias.

I'd like to move the bill. It's good to go.

Okay, thank you. Alright. Great. We have a motion from Senator Strickland.

Would you like to close, Senator?

I'd like to move the bill. It's good

I respectfully ask for an "aye" vote. Thank you for the motion.

Okay. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has a vote of three to zero. It is on call.

So members, we're now going to file on number eight, SB 1012 by the chair. And the chair can open when she is ready.

My witnesses might have stepped out.

Madam Chair, I believe there's support on both sides, just so you know.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. Alright. Well, we are gonna get started. Good morning, members. I am pleased to present SB 1012.

This is the Fire Camp to Career Act, which strengthens pathways to stable, skilled careers for incarcerated individuals with fire camp experience. For far too long, California has relied on incarcerated fire camp participants during some of our state's most dangerous emergencies, while failing to ensure that the same service can lead to long term economic opportunity once they return home. I want to ground this conversation in the workforce we're talking about.

During the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, over 1,000 incarcerated individuals were deployed as first responders, working alongside professional firefighters to protect lives, homes, and communities. Our professional firefighters put their lives on the line to contain those fires and protect our communities before the disaster could spread any further.

And standing alongside of them was what I would call the forgotten labor force, our incarcerated fire camp participants. These individuals are not observing from the sidelines. The California Conservation Camp Program gives them an opportunity to do real work in real conditions facing real danger. They fight wildfires. They clear hazardous vegetation.

They support emergency response. They take on dangerous cleanup work and they give homeowners who are facing disaster hope. They gain hands on training. They build discipline and they develop skills that clearly translate to careers in the fire service and the skill trades. Again, they are working in real world conditions, gaining experience that many others do not have.

And yet, when they come home, that training and experience too often does not count in any meaningful way toward a stable career. And I had the honor of being on rules committee when I first came to the Senate and we were able to appoint a number of folks in our parole aboard. And the one thing that struck me is a statistic I will never forget.

They talked about how if an individual had a plan and a potential job, that recidivism was cut by 95%. So this is a win win win because ultimately, if we put our fire camp participants into quality career path, they're not coming back to prison and that saves us money.

California has made important investments in rehabilitation and post release employment outcomes, but the truth is that too many people are still leaving this program without a real bridge to opportunities that they have earned. As someone who has long worked on workforce equity and access to good jobs including through my work on SB 423 last year, I care deeply about making sure that people our state relies on in moments of crisis are not forgotten and left behind afterward.

If we are willing to rely on this workforce when California is in danger, then we should all be willing to stand up and to create a real path to economic stability when that service is over. And that is what SB 1012 does.

It requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to connect participants who complete the California Conservation Camp Program to state-approved apprenticeships. Recent author amendments clarify that SB 1012 requires apprenticeship programs in the building and construction trades to consider prior fire camp training and work experience. So participants do not have to start from square one. And it ensures fire camp service is formally recognized so it can count toward apprenticeship eligibility. At its core, this bill is about fairness.

It's about recognizing the training service and sacrifice. And if someone is good enough to stand on the front lines for California in a moment of crisis, they should be good enough to have a real chance to build a stable union career when they came home. With me today to testify is James Thuerwachter with the California State Labor, Council of Laborers and Enrique Rico Marquez, a former fire camp participant and a graduate of Future Fire Academy.

Thank you for being here. Two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers. I want to first thank the author for her continued leadership both in workforce development and in criminal justice reform. She's been a fierce advocate.

We are honored to be able to work with her on this very critical issue. Our organization is comprised of about 80,000 men and women who proudly build California's infrastructure. And the opportunities that SB 1012 seek to create stand to benefit not just construction crafts like the laborers, but also they bring enormous benefits to the state and to our local communities as well. We all know that positioning yourself in the middle class in California is a daunting challenge in and of itself.

But for those with a criminal history, even those with very old convictions, those challenges often become insurmountable systemic barriers.

The laborers firmly believe that your past should never preclude you from picking up a shovel and earning your way into the middle class. Hard time can and should be transformed into career time when individuals are willing to work for it. SB 1012 creates a direct bridge creates a direct bridge from the justice system into long term career jobs, all while reducing recidivism and strengthening our state's infrastructure. Ultimately, this bill is not just about jobs, but rather the dignity of being a provider.

SB 1012 takes the skills that these individuals have already proven in the field and gives them a fair shot at a pension, health care, and a steady career.

Thank you for your support. Or thank you, and we urge your support.

Thank you. Next speaker, thanks for being here.

How you guys doing? My name is Rico Marquez. I want to speak on part of the bill that a lot of people say, "it's a good paying job. It's great". It's really not that good paying job, firefighting. The hard hours worked, not worth the money at all. For a federal minimum wage job, it's not that great, but for a lot of people, it's not even about that.

It's more giving back to your community and firefighting's more of a transformation. The hard work, the dedication, the long nights of serving someone else, serving your community is more than a good paying job and it'll get you a house. It's more about finding yourself and getting yourself ready for what's out there for you; your next steps in life.

So I mean, for me, it was a big part in getting myself ready for coming out and just becoming a part of community and being a service to my community. It's a lot bigger than just the pay and benefits and all that.

And we ask you guys to help with this. You know, this would be a big step moving forward with this.

Well, I wanna thank you for everything you do, and thanks for being here. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other witnesses, for identification purposes? In support?

Dan Seaman on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, both in strong support. Thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support.

Thank you.

Nico Molina on behalf of the California Forestry Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Matty Hyatt, registering, support for California Civil Liberties Advocacy.

Thank you.

Diego Maro on behalf of the Latino Caucus of California Counties in support.

Thank you.

Kami Peer with NextGen California, a cosponsor, proud to support.

Thank you.

Doyle Radford with Construction and General Labors Local 185 in strong support.

Thanks for being here.

Victor Del Toro with La Luna. I'm in full support of SB 1012 because it gives people a second chance.

Lionel Bergen with the Laborers Local 185 five in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Nicholas Brooks with Local 185 Laborers, and I support.

Thank you for being here.

Alejandro Martinez. I'm with the Labors and in full support of 1012.

Thanks so much for being here. One more? Here we go.

Joe Cruz on behalf of the Southern California District Council of Laborers. We're proud to be standing with the author of this bill. Changes people's lives through hard work. It's important. Thank you.

Thank you. Now do we have witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses opposition for identification purposes? Seeing none, committee?

This is a great bill. I moved the bill.

Okay. The bill's been moved. Would you like to close, Madam Chair?

Yes. I thank you very much, and I wanna thank my witnesses and especially our fire camp participant. I think what he said was so poignant about how it's not about the money you make. More important than that is finding yourself and knowing who you are and finding that in the work. I think that's what we all strive for in our work, and I think this is what 1012 is about, reminding California who we are.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Mister secretary call roll?

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

So that bill is four zero. Remain on call. Thanks again for being here. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Now for everyone in the audience, now we're gonna go to the chairwoman's next bill. It's file line number 9SB1284.

Thank you, mister vice chair and members. I wanna thank the committee staff always for their diligent and excellent work on this bill but every bill that they work on. As a point of clarification, I previously accepted a number of amendments in the Senate Health Committee which increased the employer threshold from 50 to 100. Designate the State Department of Health Care Services to prepare the report and, added, privacy protections.

I will also be accepting amendments in this committee to close corporate loopholes and to add an anti discrimination protection, language so workers are not penalized being are not penalized for assessing public benefits.

So at its core, SB 1284 is about affordability and transparency for Californians. It is about making sure that right now the more than 3,000,000 working Californians, who rely on Medi Cal because their wages are too low, or employer coverage is too unaffordable have access. Nearly one in five California jobs held by held by a Medi Cal Enrollee representing more than 20,000,000,000 in public spending tied to the workforce.

That means taxpayers are subsidizing gaps in employer provided coverage even as a large as large corporations remain highly profitable. And we know our taxpayers are struggling with paying mortgages and rent and food and gas and all of the issues that are causing the affordability crisis that we are all working, to address.

On top of that now is subsidizing health care gaps for profitable employers. Under existing law, large employers are already required to offer affordable coverage. When full time workers still rely on Medi Cal, it signals a gap between what is required on paper and what is affordable in reality. And without transparency, taxpayers cannot see their dollar where their dollars are going or why costs keep rising. SB 1284 does not assign blame.

It provides transparency quite simply so policy makers and the public can understand what is driving costs. In my district, I hear from workers who are doing everything right and still falling behind. And they are barely able, as I mentioned, to cover basic necessities. Now, this will help explain what is it that they are paying for. This bill raises a fundamental question about fairness.

At a time of budget strain and rising cost, it is fair. Is it fair? Let me ask the question again. Is it fair for taxpayers to subsidize corporate labor costs? SB 1284 responds with a simple solution, transparency and accountability.

It requires the Department of Health Care Services to publish the names of large employers with workers enrolled in medical along with the estimated cost to tax payers. This is about giving Californians clear information and delivering long overdue accountability. Over 70% of voters in red and blue areas of our state support requiring large corporations to take responsibility for their workers' health care instead of shifting the cost to taxpayers. That is bipartisan. That's Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

Voters across the aisle see this for what it is, a matter of fairness and also potential relief for the taxpayer. SB 1284 is a measured step forward because without transparency, nothing changes. With me today to testify is Irene Green, president of the District Labor Council seven ninety representing SEIU one thousand and Devon Gray, president of the In Poverty in California

Organization. Thanks for being here. Two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Thank you so much. My name as, Senator Smallbaugh says is Irene Green, and I am the proud president of SEIU Local one thousand District Labor Council seven ninety. District Labor Council seven ninety along with several DLCs across the state lift up the voices of more than 96,000 state workers including the frontline DHCS employees who keep California's Medi Cal program running and serve millions of Californians daily.

As state employees, when individuals are seeking public support and services, we wanna make sure these programs are there for them.

And as taxpayers, state employees are like everyone else. We wanna make sure our dollars are going to support those in greatest need. This is why we deeply believe SB 1284 is needed now. For too long, working people have relied on medical for care for care. Excuse me.

Why? Because of poverty raises, because, private employers have not offered affordable comprehensive coverage, and because workers have been held to part time hours just out of reach of employer sponsored benefits. In 2025, the Trump administration and GOP led Congress was quick to create false narrative that our nation's Medi Cal program was caring for the lazy, the unworthy, the other. We know better. We know these are our neighbors, our friends, and our family.

But if the Trump administration and GOP led Congress are committed to linking work and Medicaid, we must now recognize that employers have long relied on public benefits to care for their workforce. Now, as our members at DHCS are saddled with the herculean task of implementing work requirements, we need to do a better job of understanding this interplay of work in Medi Cal. Which corporations are relying on Medi Cal to care for their workforce and which are not?

We need to look at the data at the employer level and understand the trends. With this information reported to the legislature, this body will be more effective in thinking through different policy solutions to hold employers and corporations accountable to address underlying policies, to make sure our tax dollars are getting spent where they are needed, and to the end of the day, make sure we have the right Medi Cal program designed to support it in the best way possible for those that need it.

With that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, speaker. Two minutes. Thank you.

And good morning, madam chair and members. My name is Devin Graham, the president of End Poverty in California or EPIC for short. We're an advocacy and storytelling organization that was founded by the former mayor of Stockton, California, Michael Tubbs. And we're proud cosponsors of SB 1284. Last year, as we all know, the Federal Government signed HR 1 into law cutting nearly a trillion dollars for Medicaid over the next decade and stripping coverage from tens of millions of Americans.

The justification being, of course, that Medicaid is surely full of people who just don't wanna work. I think those of us in this work know that that is a fiction. Nearly two thirds of non disabled, non elderly Medi Cal adults in California are already working. 83% of Medi Cal adults in California are in a working family. And Medi Cal is so commonly used among workers in the state that nearly one in five workers overall in California are enrolled in Medi Cal.

Work requirements don't move people into jobs. They move to work they move to move working people off of their benefits. The real story is that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, and some of our largest employers have simply decided that that is someone else's problem. So what happens is workers show up often full time and still can't afford the coverage that their employers won't provide.

And because these employers pay their workers poverty wages, it's taxpayers that are left to fill the gap through Medi Cal every single year.

We just don't track it by employer. We don't report to the legislature. We don't really name it at all. And so this bill changes that. It asks which large employers have the most workers, independents who are on Medi Cal, and what does that cost the state and taxpayers each year?

The Federal Government wants to audit people in poverty. I think we should be auditing the system and employers that keep people in poverty. EPIC has spent the last four years traveling to 26 counties across the state, talking with Californians who are living in poverty today. And what we hear

Ten seconds. Thank you.

What we hear every day is that people are working, they're doing everything right, they can't get by, let alone get ahead. That's not a personal failure, that's accountability and systems issue. So respectfully, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thanks again for being here. Now, witnesses, our support for identification purposes.

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, proud to support and cosponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Beth Malnowski with SEIU California also cosponsors, proud support.

Thank you.

Katie Van Dynes with Health Access California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Connor Guston on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Thank you.

Janice O'Malley AFSCME California in support. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Now, witnesses in opposition? Can we can we make room? Thank you. I appreciate you being here.

So you have two minutes each. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition to SB 1284. We appreciate that this bill is framed as a transparency measure, and a genuine transparency measure would take a holistic approach accounting for every factor tied to medical enrollment. The bill stated purpose is to, and I quote, ensure that public programs function as a safety net rather than a subsidy for employers.

This same premise is deeply concerning because it assumes that any employer, including small businesses with workers on medical is offloading obligations onto taxpayers. Further, this premise is demonstrably false. Medi Cal Enrollment is driven by various factors, including workers who voluntarily choose Medi Cal over offered coverage, part time or seasonal workers ineligible for benefits under existing law, new hires still in waiting periods, and workers and households with family members enrolled for independent reasons.

A full time worker at California's minimum wage earns nearly $35,000 a year above the Medi Cal threshold for a single adult, add a child or a part time schedule, and that same worker qualifies. That is not an employer's fault.

That is how the program is designed to work. Placing an employer's name alongside a Medi Cal enrollment count without any of this context implies the employer is solely responsible for a problem built by market forces, state and federal policy, and individual worker decisions that no employer has a legal authority to override. Lastly, if transparency is truly the goal, this committee should consider why not a single public entity such as a state agency does not appear in this report while private employers are named and publicly ranked.

Nearly one in five California workers relies on Medi Cal across all sectors, including the public sector, where million, where millions work part time or in lower wage classifications that qualify for Medi Cal by income threshold alone and by no fault of their employer. Anything less than equal accountability is an incomplete picture and an unequal standard. For these and other reasons, we oppose SB 1284. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, testifier.

Mister chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of LA Chamber. We share, my colleagues, stated concerns about the measure and just wanted to highlight three additional ones. First of all, we have, privacy concerns about the, sharing of data amongst state entities and the ability to ensure, the confidentiality in that data sharing. The second item is we think that this bill will have a disproportionate impact on both small and medium sized businesses.

I understand in the last committee and being done here, a a an increase in the threshold from 50 to a 100.

Of course, under the US SBA definition of small business nationally is at 500 employees. There are so many significant ones that are even in the low one hundreds. And the last item in the set of amendments, we are adding a new labor code provision, which of course could be subject to enforcement through the Private Attorneys General Act, and we would prefer not to see additional potential for private enforcement of this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses for identification purposes in opposition.

Maddie Hyatt representing the Capital Business Alliance. We appreciate the author's amendments raising the threshold from 50 to a 100 employees, But, we're going to remain opposed as the bill still publicly identifies employers and may invite conclusions that Medi Cal Enrollment is caused solely by employer practices when many other factors can be involved, including dependence, household income, disability, temporary hardship, and workforce seasonality. Thank you

Thank you.

No problem. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau in respectful opposition for the reasons articulated by the opposition witnesses. Thank you.