Senate Standing Committee on Education

The Senate Education Committee will come to order in thirty seconds. Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Education Committee hearing. There are 31 bills on today's agenda. AB 1547, is a busy agenda today has been pulled from today's agenda at the request of the author.

There are 12 bills on consent. Those bills are item number 11 AB 1763 item number 14 AB 1871 Item number 15, AB 2176. Item number 17, AB 2436. Item number 19, AB 194. Item number 20, AB 2524. Item number 23, AB 2,003. Item number 25, AB 2467. Item number 27, AB 2241. Item number 28, AB 2251. Item number 29, AB 2324.

And item number 31, AB 2693. Witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to two minutes to ensure the committee is able to complete today's agenda in a timely fashion. Seeing as we do not have a quorum, we'll begin as a subcommittee with the first bill, and I see our first author, Assemblymember, Aguiar Curry, here, to present AB 65. Assemblywoman, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Senator and and committee. I just wanna thank you for what I heard that many committee bills you have today. I I really understand. So I'll make this quick. Good morning.

Thank you, madam chair and members. AB 65 would grant grant public school employees up to fourteen weeks of leave with full benefits for pregnancies and pregnancy related health issues. Today, our educators can't earn paid pregnancy leave. If teachers need time to recover from pregnancy, they must first use all of their accrued sick leave if they have that to begin with. After that, they receive differential pay.

That's a fancy way of saying a teacher must pay half of their salary to cover a substitute. Too often, educators are told they simply can just schedule their pregnancies around the school calendar or accept going without the pay. As we work to ensure Californians can care for their families, we cannot allow the very people who care for our children to bear the burden. A current system also puts pregnant educators at a financial disadvantage.

Data from the CalSTRS shows women will receive almost a $100,000 less in retirement benefits than their male counterparts.

In a profession where seventy percent are women, that is shocking and it is unacceptable. At the same time, California is struggling to recruit and retain educators. According to the California Department of Education, there were more than 10,000 teacher vacancies statewide at the end of twenty twenty two. Modernizing these outdated policies is an important step towards improving recruitment and retention as we invest in our students and their future. This bill corrects an outdated system and ensures educators are supported through pregnancy without penalty.

Speaking in support today is Adara Clark Gunn from the California School Employees Association, and Britney Ward with the California Teachers Association, and Bryant Maramantes, who is available to answer any technical questions.

Good morning, Chair Perez and committee members. My name is Britney Ward, an elementary school teacher and president of Twin Rivers United Educators, speaking for the California Teachers Association as a cosponsor of AB65. I have seen far too many exceptional educators leave the profession due to the rising cost of health care and the financial challenges of starting a family. Assembly Bill 65 is a transformational solution to the persistent teacher shortage we face year after year. No educator should have to plan their pregnancy around the academic calendar.

Forcing teachers to exhaust their accumulated sick leave to welcome a child is stressful and inequitable. Sick leave should be reserved for illness and recovery. When unused, it directly contributes to retirement benefits through CalSTRS. Because of this, the current system creates a massive financial disparity. Educators who must drain their sick leave lose vital retirement credit, disproportionately impacting mothers and widening the gap between female educators and their male counterparts.

As a union president, I regularly receive distressed calls from members. They face the agonizing choice of prioritizing their newborn's care or prematurely returning to the classroom just to survive financially. One of our members experienced a serious pregnancy related complication. After exhausting her FMLA leave, the district forced her to use her baby bonding leave before her child was even born. Consequently, she had no bonding leave left when the baby arrived and was forced into an unpaid leave of absence.

Paid disability and parental leave should be a standard workplace benefit. If we are serious about recruiting and retaining high quality teachers, we must support them in caring for their own families. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote on Assembly Bill 65. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Adara Clark Gunn, and I'm the data and compliance technician for San Juan Unified School District Special Education Department and president of CSEA chapter one twenty seven. I've been a part of the San Juan family for over seventeen years, a K-twelve student turned employee. I'm here representing the California School Employees Association speaking in favor of AB 65.

Personally, I received a layoff notice in the spring of twenty twenty one while seven months pregnant with my first kiddo after a decade of employment with my school district.

I immediately began investigating my rights during this process and how I could best cushion the landing for myself and my yet to be family. Now, fortunately, this was during the pandemic, and I could do Zoom interviews from the waist up and hide my belly like a boss. I was unsure what job protection and or leave what I would be afforded with my new employer, though.

Would I need to call out sick to give birth to my daughter and then immediately send her off to childcare so that I could return to work? What if something went wrong during birth?

What if she got COVID at childcare? Or what if I brought COVID home to her? Fortunately, my layoff was rescinded. And I was able to access my ten plus years of sick leave to receive a full paycheck while I was recovering from six for six short weeks. Cut to January 2023 when I gave birth to my son.

My late balances had not yet recovered after my first pregnancy and would only

be able to provide me with a full paycheck for two of my eight weeks of leave. I thought I had done my due diligence and had enrolled in disability insurance through our provider. However, when I submitted my claim, my pregnancy was deemed a preexisting condition due to the timing of my enrollment in the supplemental insurance. After being denied and receiving my first paycheck with two weeks of half pay, I made the difficult decision to go back to work early.

My son had been out of the NICU for about three weeks.

So I got a note from my doctor releasing me back to work, where fortunately, my boss allowed me to work a hybrid schedule for a month or so between president's week and spring break. By offering fourteen weeks of fully paid leave, AB 65 ensures families do not face the impossible choice between caring for a newborn and financial security.

This bill would provide public school certificated and classified employees with up to fourteen weeks of leave with full pay when an employee is pregnant or experiences pregnancy related health issues, such as miscarriage, internal bleeding, or an infection. So for these reasons and many more, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you, for your presentation. We'll now hear from any me too's in support in the audience. Please use the mic at the railing.

Good morning. Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, proud cosponsor requesting your aye vote. Thank you.

Sadovaches with children now in support.

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

Good morning. Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.

Good morning. Navne Perrier on behalf of the California School Employees Association. We're proud cosponsors.

Good morning, madam chair, members. Connor Gustman on behalf of Teamsters California and the Amalgamated Transit Union and proud support. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Tristan Brown with CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals here in Strongsport.

Good morning, Board Members. Douglas Knapp, first grade teacher, proud support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sixth grade science teacher, Tessa Hevelin Martinez, happy to support.

Good afternoon. Jean Paul Woodall, physics teacher, in sport.

Good morning. Folsom Cordova, Unified School District, fourth grade teacher, happily to support.

Russell Manning, California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, proud cosponsor of the bill.

Good morning. Carlos Rojas representing the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office. We currently have a support if amand position on the bill. AB 65 doesn't identify a funding source. We wanna highlight the importance of a funding source.

And in light of the governor's provision, pro proposal in May revision to provide funding through the LCFF, we wanna also highlight that lots of programs are staffing people who are not funded through the LCFF. So to ensure equitable access to this program, call for money and get it as well.

Thank you.

This is Me Too's only, and I just wanna remind everybody of that. If you could just do name, organization, position on the bill. We have 31 bills today. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Dorothy Johnson, the Association of California School Administrators previously posed, now support if amended, aligning with Mr. Rojas' comments. Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Du on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials, also support if amended. Thank you.

Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Glendale in support. Thank you.

Kylie Lindeli, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in support.

Peter Elliott California State Teachers Retirement System in support.

Anybody else? Great. Seeing nobody else rising we will turn it now to witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition here to speak? Seeing no one rising, we'll turn it back to the committee.

Do the committee members oh, and we also have a quorum. So, secretary, if you could call the roll so we could establish quorum.

Senators Perez? Here. Perez here. Ochoa Bogue?

Here.

Ochoa Bog here. Cabaldon? Choi?

Here.

Choi here. Cortese? Here. Cortese here. Gonzales Reyes.

Thank you. And the secretary notes a quorum has been established. Do we have any comments or questions for the author on this bill? Senator Cho Bogue.

Thank

you. So first of all, I am in in support of the paid leave. I'm a huge advocate of families and trying to do what we can to in order to support our family structures in our communities. And we have a really harsh system in our society that is just incredibly hard on families overall.

And quite frankly, the sad part is and I've stated this over and over again in any of my town halls that I've held in my in my district as well in when I've had the opportunity in committee.

And that's the fact that you know if many parents could choose if finances were not an obstacle, they would rather stay home during those first early years of their children's lives if finances were not an obstacle. I know that for a fact. And unfortunately we've made it incredibly difficult in in in the state and the country in general to to be able to do that and many people that actually have it's a privilege.

It's a privilege to be able to stay home and be with their children during those first early years. So I've been supportive of policies that that promote our family structure.

Having said that, I do have some concerns the way that it's structured right now and I and we and I actually commented on this on our sub one committee with which had to do with the way that it is currently funded and structured. It doesn't provide for some of our school districts that would not be qualified to receive some of this funding. Has there been any conversations about how to address the school districts that are not included in this type of funding for family leave?

So thank you for the question. Obviously, we're looking for some trailer, language that's still gonna come in so that we can, adjust to questions that have come up since we've got this bill out there. The bill ensures that the will as the legislature will fully take the time to consider the policy through the legislative process. So we're not done. As you know, we did get some funding through the budget, but we also know we don't know what's gonna happen between now and then.

This is just to kind of put the glue around that and to make sure we can move forward with it. So I'm sure we'll be working with other, districts as well. You know, the hardest part is, you know, some districts don't pay for, pregnancy leave disability and the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and that's also unpaid. So, many districts rely on and the use of the FMLA.

So the federal policy that provides twelve weeks of job protected leave for both personal health and family caregiving events, but does not fix the disparities in pay and retirement benefits.

So we're working through that, and I'm hoping we'll have an answer before we're completely done here. The fact of the matter is is since '19 since 2020, I believe it was, we worked with the governor to make sure we could get family pay out there and for fourteen weeks, but he said, nope, we need to do a report. We came up with a report and based upon the report is how we got to the, to the, paid pregnancy leave dollar amounts.

So do you have a dollar amount for this for this program right now? Because it was my understanding that we didn't have a specific amount because you how how how do you estimate an amount? Yeah. I'm sorry?

I'm I'm looking for let me see where my my there he is.

Seth. Through the chair.

Press it again.

I'll scooch. Hello. Seth Bramble here for the California Teachers Association. Regarding your question, there was a lot, of back and forth with the governor's office. There's still conversations occurring about, like, what utilization looks like in different districts.

It's gonna look different, depending on how many people decide to take pregnancy leave. We saw, like like, I think the assumptions that they've been using in terms of calculation, like, one to 3% of a school district might be using, you know, in terms of the certificated employees, paid pregnancy leave at some point during the course of their careers. And so based on a lot of those calculations, the initial estimate was $220,000,000, statewide.

10 and 20,000,000? Okay. So going back to my previous and maybe you have a a a a a little deeper understanding. What about the school districts that don't queer currently qualify for the paid leave, the fourteen weeks?

Yeah. So again, as as the author noted, just wanna say thanks again for championing this for I know it's been a a four year Four years. Really appreciate your leadership. There are still kind of ongoing conversations happening surrounding the mechanism to ensure that there's adequate funding to fulfill the program.

I think some of the conversations currently are that school districts would receive an augmented COLA and that that augmented COLA would be far more than that $220,000,000 I was talking about, say why, but that it would be used to cover paid pregnancy leave that the cost that school districts incur.

But again, some of those conversations are still ongoing and in flux.

The logistics is it seem to be a little bit on the on the confused side. I'm still concerned about this there's certain school districts that do not qualify currently under this this language. It's my understanding.

I'm gonna lay off the bill today, because, I want to ensure that we have language that brings every single if you're going to implement this program and be able to do this program, every single school district should be able to qualify and receive the funding necessary to be able to do that. It'd be incredibly unfair that we we we have certain school districts that receive it and others that do not.

That is my biggest biggest concern is that we have the right language to ensure that you're gonna implement this, make sure that is across the board. One of the things that I do wanna mention, it's gonna go through, the go through, the the bill is gonna it's gonna go through with with no problems which is why I feel it's imperatively important for me to express these concerns for those school districts that right now are not covered.

And that means teachers and and stuff for those particular schools. But I do wanna I wanna comment. I I did have a question also.

How is this different? How did first of all, how did you come up with 14 leaves versus the traditional twelve week leave that we currently have?

Through our expert testimony, working with doctors and pediatricians, obstetricians, and the outreach that we receive from our many committee hearings that we had on the bill. It's the fact is is that a doctor can say only twelve weeks. They can say ten weeks. It's the maximum of fourteen weeks. Got it.

So it is up to the doctor to determine how long a person might be on leave. You just don't just because you're having on pregnancy leave doesn't mean you get fourteen weeks write out. They do have to have a medical note.

Okay. Yeah. Alright. Perfect. And then, how does this differ than the current program that we currently have?

Well, currently, people can go through what they do is they have, they have their sick leave. And if they've used all their sick leave, then they have to use their differential pay, and the differential pay means that half of their pay goes to their substitute, and they the, the teacher has to pay for the differential pay. So the substitute gets a portion of it and it comes out of the pocket of the the teacher itself.

Okay. So that's that's the current system that we have. The way it can take up to twelve weeks. Is that the one where I I I know I had a question between the this program and the pregnancy leave that we have currently in place. So the basic difference is the number of weeks and then the the the pay structure.

So the federal policy so the federal policy provides twelve weeks of job protected leave for both personal health and family caregiving events, but does not fix on a disparity in pay and retirement benefits. So you have FMLA, and then you're not you don't get any of that money goes towards your retirement. So what we found is that during the the study that was done through CDE is that they found that people were, not being able to use their, sick leave as part of the retirement monies.

And so, technically, they can lose up to a $100,000 in the retirement benefits. How we came up with that as well is by we had two teachers come into our office.

One was a man and a wife. They're married. The wife has been teaching longer than the husband. They went to go check out their STRS retirement, and they found out at that time, she had less retirement benefits than he did because she took off time while while she was pregnant and out of the office. So it's it's just disparity all the way around.

Okay. The other question I had was, with the current program that we have right now for for forbearance to take off the twelve weeks, Is this in addition to those current twelve weeks or is this in lieu of that program? In lieu of?

So so as the author was describing, teachers get like ten sick days a year. Right? So you you have to use those ten days before you have access to differential leave, and we've seen the huge disparities as was mentioned in, you know, the lifetime or retirement earnings that educators get based on whether they have been able to convert their sick leave to retirement, service credit. So that's the first thing, is using your ten sick days.

And we're going to now, create a system where you don't have to use your sick leave for that.

So if you get sick later, you'll have sick leave. Or if your child gets sick, you'll be able to take care of your child. So that's huge for our folks. Once you get through that, there's this period of differential pay that teachers have access to that, as as the member described, is, like, what you would normally get paid minus the cost of your substitute teacher. So this fourteen weeks first of all, there there isn't currently pregnancy leave for teachers.

This is new. She's establishing it. So there's not you're saying how does it come on top of what they currently have? They don't currently have pregnancy leave. And so we're establishing paid pregnancy so that you don't have to burn through your sick leave and so you don't have that harm that occurs for you in retirement.

So it it is, as you're directly asking, in addition to, but it's not it's not on top of a current benefit. It's establishing a new benefit that that educators currently don't have.

Okay. So theoretically speaking theoretically speaking, you would have fourteen weeks right now in addition to twelve weeks of sick leave that could potentially be changed or reused if if the mother wanted to stay longer with with their baby, they could be added on to the current fourteen weeks plus the twelve weeks. If if theoretically speaking.

Yeah. I'm not exactly sure when you're referring to twelve weeks what you're referring to, but teachers get ten sick days every year. So it is true that after you exhausted your paid pregnancy leave under this new provision, you could then choose to take sick leave if, for example, you know, in different districts, usually, you need a doctor's note after you take, like, two, three days. Yeah.

So so if the doctor thinks you need to be out further than those fourteen weeks, you would be able to use sick leave.

Okay. So let me let me rephrase it because I'm probably not expressing it correctly. Currently, when a teacher has a baby, they could potentially be with their baby for up to twelve weeks. I was under the impression that they could stay home for about up to twelve weeks. Am I mistaken in understanding that?

Again, what the current system looks like for teachers is that you first use ten days of sick leave, and then you have access to differential pay, which as was mentioned is basically minus the cost of your sub, you're getting that.

And I and I and I get that. But up to but currently, teachers could potentially use the system that is in place up to twelve weeks. Is that correct?

I'm I'm not sure what what the twelve weeks are coming to us.

Alright.

Alright.

So let me let me clarify that. So with the Family Medical Leave Act

Oh, yeah.

And the child That's

what he said.

Unpaid.

He goes unpaid. They could potentially take off 12

Job protected unpaid leave.

Unpaid. If they wanted to in addition to this program. Right? But they couldn't use it Yeah. So they could use it they could use that after the fourteen paid weeks if needed.

Right?

Correct.

Okay. They don't get paid. What's

that? They don't get paid.

They don't get paid. Yeah. And as I said, for those parents that are able to afford to have one parent stay home, it's it's a luxury. It's a privilege in in this state, in this country to be able to do that. So I I get that.

So the reason I'm asking also is because I'm also thinking of the potential, moving forward with legislation that has to do with our substitute teachers.

Because if we're gonna have a system that's gonna be catering to our our teachers, be able to stay home with their babies, We have to ensure that there's consistency within and I just wanna make sure that we have clarity in this in this in the committee as we're having these conversations that logistically speaking, we also have to think about the the students because potentially, I I wanna make sure that we have fourteen weeks, potentially twelve weeks of unpaid, and that's a very long time for a student to be without a a consistent teacher.

So as we're looking at bills moving on and we're and this is a whole cohort bills that we're looking at that are going to be addressing this particular issue. So we would need to have full conversations as to what that's gonna look like in the educational, context of classrooms and our students' ability to have consistency in that classroom.

So, as we're working towards that end, we wanna ensure that when we're looking at the ability for classroom substitute teachers to be able to do that and get paid, that they also have the ability to stay in the classroom long enough to cover a teacher's family leave whether paid or unpaid but has that so I just wanna make sure that we have that planted in our hearts, in our minds as we move forward and we look to see one, that we have parity for all school districts in our state if we're gonna implement this.

And number two, that the substitute teachers that are going to be taking over these classrooms have the ability to stay in those classrooms while these teachers are are out for maternity leave because it makes it easier for the teachers as well as for the substitute teachers and it's incredibly helpful for the students, to be able to have consistent, access to, one one substitute teacher during that time.

So I just wanted to make those points on that end and I look forward to having further conversations on that end and ensure that, our system in California is conducive overall to the well-being of our teachers and our and our students and our and most importantly, our families as a whole. So with that, oh, I guess, we have a motion by Senator Cortese. Madam secretary oh. Oh.

I apologize. No. That's absolutely Ma'am Rai Carey, would you like to close?

You know, this is an incredible bill that when you run into teachers, they're so excited because they wanna stay in the workforce. This is just one step of many. And as you brought up substitutes, there's other legislation that's running through. This is the first step that we have to get through. We have some budget money that's out there, to move us forward.

There's going to be plenty more discussions, but the fact of the matter is is we need a workforce. You know, teachers teachers are going to more attractive jobs and we need to make sure that we can keep the vacancies down in the state of California. So, with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. This is a ongoing conversation we will have. The fact of the matter is we are losing a workforce and we need our teachers.

The teachers are leaving left and right and we need to make sure we have the workforce to to support them. So with that, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Member Yair Curry. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. Motion is do passed to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue. Not voting. Cabaldon, Choi, Cortese.

Cortese, aye. Gonzales Reyes.

Aye.

Alright. We have member Jackson. Is it Oh, there we go. File item number 2ab673. Welcome,

sir.

I'll be quick. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee Members. First, I wanna thank the committee and staff for their amendments, which I will be accepting today. This is AB 673, which establishes an unaccompanied youth support grant program.

This program would provide assistance to 16 and 17 year old students experiencing homelessness and who are not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian as they continue their education. With me today is Eric Dunk on behalf of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to speak on the impact of this bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Eric Dunk, and I'm a legislative representative at CDE testifying on behalf of State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, who is proudly sponsoring AB 673. California is facing a growing crisis of student homelessness.

In the 23-24 school year, LEA's reported 287,000 pupils experiencing homelessness, and of those, approximately 9,000 were unaccompanied youth. Unaccompanied youth are a particularly vulnerable population. They are homeless.

They are minors, and they are not accompanied by a parent or guardian. Exacerbating the problem, they do not have access to housing like minors in foster care, with only 130 beds statewide to provide temporary emergency shelter for unaccompanied minors.

Because of their unstable living situation, these students are more likely to be chronically absent, less likely to be engaged academically, and less likely to graduate. While McKinney-Vento requires schools to identify and enroll these students, only about 10% of school districts receive dedicated McKinney-Vento funding.

AB 673 closes that gap by establishing the unaccompanied youth support grant program, a five year pilot program that would fund eligible LEAs to connect unaccompanied youth ages 16 and 17 to housing navigation, basic needs, tutoring, employment readiness, and social services.

Funding flows through a weighted formula targeting LEAs with the greatest need, and the bill requires annual outcome reporting with a final evaluation to the legislature. In conclusion, this bill is a targeted, accountable approach to stabilizing vulnerable students' lives so they can focus on learning and graduating.

It is about connecting unaccompanied youth to services and strengthening community partnerships so these students can thrive academically. Thank you for your consideration, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll continue with any additional witnesses here in 2100 for AB 673. Please come to the microphone. State your name, your position, and the organization that you are representing.

Maclean Rozansky with the Alameda County Office of Education in support, and on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education Youth Advisory Board, also in support. Thank you.

Michael Henning, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.

Thank you so much. Having no other witnesses in support, we'll continue with any lead opposition. Seeing none. Do we have any members of the public who would like to express their opposition to this bill?

Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? We have a motion by Senator Cortese. I do have some comments and questions for you on this bill. Did you wanna say it? We have a motion. We'll take the motion, but... Okay. So everybody is...

Okay. We have... Our Members are all attending... We have multiple committee hearings going on right now. So it's no disrespect, no reflection on you or on our Members this morning. I do have some some comments and some questions along the line.

Because I know that through our LCFF formula, we have additional funding for students who are impoverished or low economic in the in the low economic demographic. We also have, and then my first question before I start with these particular funding systems that we currently have already.

I was kinda curious, how are these unaccompanied minors not part of the foster system? How does that work? I didn't realize we could have students that were not within the system of the care of under whether it's a foster person or within the within the social services.

Yeah. So I'm not an expert on foster care, but what I do know is that they have to be foster care system by some kind of social services expert. A lot of these unaccompanied youth are the federal term sometimes you'll hear is runaway. So they're 16 and 17 year olds, and they just run away from home, and they were never connected to the foster care system to begin with.

And then since they're 16 and 17, they just try to make it on their own. They couch surf at a friend's house, and they never actually get plugged into the system, which is part of what the bill is trying to do is connect them to the right. So, like, that's one of the things it does is connect it to the social services provider that could direct them into foster care.

Do we need this particular bill to be able to connect them to the to the Department of Social Services? I thought that was automatic when we see a child that, a minor that is not under the purview of of the state already?

Yeah. Like, so what I mentioned in my talking points is one of the ways that LEAs can do that is to identify these students as unaccompanied and that they need to go into foster care, for example. And the funding for McKinney-Vento from the federal level is inconsistent.

And it's only, it's only provided to about 10% of LEAs right now. So the bill is trying to augment some of the things that McKinney-Vento would be trying to do as well, like connecting the students to the right services.

So it's not the automatic responsibility of the school official when they see a child that is unaccompanied to report them and basically get them the assistance that they have?

It is under McKinney-Vento. Yes. It is one of their responsibilities if they identify them to try and connect them to the right place. But we've seen that the LEAs are under resourced to do that.

They're under resourced to be able to do that.

Yeah. They have to they have to identify the student first and foremost. And a lot of times, the McKinney-Vento Act requires them to have a homeless liaison. So every LEA has a homeless liaison, but a lot of times, that's just one role that, for example, the vice principal or the principal would take up. And so they don't always have the resources to identify them and connect them to the right services in the community.

Okay. So currently, it's my understanding that there are several programs in place to help this population or students who fall within these parameters. Of course, you mentioned the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, where all California, it says here, where all California school districts already receive federal funding and are required to identify and support homeless students.

That's what I have here, that is accessible to them. It also states that every LEA is required to designate a homeless education liaison whose job is to identify homeless students and connect to services. It says here all required students.

And that's number two. Number three, the California funds for the HETAC, the Homeless Education and Technical Assistance Center, provides statewide training and assistance to support schools serving homeless youth. That is also accessible right now. Is that correct?

I'm not sure where the all came from because McKinney-Vento is a competitive grant that LEAs apply for, and it's my understanding that only 10% of them received the actual funding.

Is that because only 10% apply for it?

I don't have that offhand. I'm not sure.

Okay. Because it's available and it'll be important to note that because we're allocating another designation when we have three here. We also have, number three, the California funds the... I'm sorry. The HETAC, I just mentioned that, the Homeless Education Technical Assistance Center, which provides statewide training and assistance to support schools serving homeless youth in the 2025-2026 budget.

HETAC received 500,000 per recipient out of 1.5 million pool. And number four, we have HIP, the Homeless Innovative Program Grants that are given to LEAs to improve education stability, access, and support serving homeless students. There was also a $9 million allocated with 450,000 per LEA that is currently available.

So we've, the state has done a pretty good job in trying to address these issue, this particular demographic quite a bit very generously. So I'm just kinda curious as to, you know, why we need an additional one we already have. And the reason I'm asking is the state is in budget constraints.

And so when we see, when I see any additional requirement for a new program, especially when I've seen similar demographics being already served with funding, I'm gonna ask the questions. What are we not doing in order to already use the programs that we currently have in place that are supposed to be actually taking care of these of these students already in place?

Yeah. Thanks for the questions, Madam Vice Chair. I think, so you mentioned homeless students. The definitions can get a little tricky because in McKinney-Vento it defines homeless students, but it also defines unaccompanied youth. So the bill particularly targets unaccompanied youth.

So, in theory, it's like a sub, it's a sub population of the larger homeless student population. And a lot of these times, these students are invisible to the system because they're 16, 17, like this bill mentions, and they're unaccompanied.

So they may not appear homeless necessarily because they've run away from home, let's say. And McKinney-Vento defines homelessness in a number of ways. Like, you could be couch surfing at a friend's house. You could be sleeping in your car.

You could be staying in a motel. So they may, so homeless we have this idea of what homelessness looks like, but not with unaccompanied youth who may be more invisible to the system. So the idea is to try to help LEAs identify that particular subpopulation.

So under the current system, what you're stating is that these unaccompanied kids do not qualify for these particular programs?

No. It's not that they don't qualify. It's that they're a different type of subpopulation. So homeless is the broader overarching term, and then unaccompanied is a subpopulation of homelessness. And it and then McKinney-Vento, it's specifically defined as not in the presence of a parent or guardian.

Which technically they're not. Right?

As unaccompanied youth they are not. Yes.

Okay. I won't be able to support the bill today because I believe I just based on conversations that I've had and these are just the four that were given to me as identifying additional funding on there. I think I think we already have programs and funding that can help these students. And we even have support system for our school districts to be able to have access and guide them through that the process of being able to get money.

So literally, we have covered every single single aspect of trying to get the funding forward as well as ensuring that they are being assisted with funding itself. So I have a hard time supporting an additional program right now especially in light of where we are as a state financially, and I will not be able to support the bill today on that.

And if I didn't see this particular, and I think we can be very, we can be technical in the language that we're using. But I think those students could qualify and do fall within those parameters both on the on the LCFF formula.

Where they are considered on the low social economic demographic, in addition to every single one of the four items that I mentioned here today. So with that, I won't be able to support the bill today, Dr. Jackson. Do we have any other comments or questions?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I just wanna say, and I really respect my colleague and I understand what she's saying. I actually am gonna support the bill. I actually think it's wonderful having gone through the homeless count every other year in my own city.

Seeing so many unaccompanied minors out on our streets and needing the additional supports, you know, is certainly needed. And so I'm grateful. I know there's a lot of work to be done still and I'm sure you'll address that in your close. But with that, I, you know, will certainly motion and thank you for bringing the bill forward.

So we have a motion by Senator Gonzalez. Would you like to close, Dr. Jackson?

Sure. Again, this is a population that's really in some cases legal limbo. It is possible that a young person is still trying to get their education, but even a guardian cannot be found. This could be a situation where a parent could be in another country. A parent could have passed, and for some reason, they are not connected to some type of structure.

And which means there's a whole other host of issues that need to, that we have to consider. Number one, does the, does current funding streams allow for housing vouchers? Does current funding structures allow for making sure that meals are being taken care of? Sometimes, it's also what you can do with the funds that are equally as important as funds being available.

And also, I think all of us can agree that there may be various pots of money, but the question is, does it fulfill all the needs of the populations? And I don't think a county would ever say we have enough money for housing vouchers. No problem. We have enough money for... Right?

So I think the idea is is that this is a unique population that's often forgotten. And in many cases, some don't even know exist if they're not paying very close attention. And so we wanna make sure that there's dedicated funding specifically for this population because, literally, they are the most vulnerable with no supports whatsoever.

And so this is a pilot program. And so the idea is is that we wanna see how this works, how we can improve, and maybe how can we realign even current funding structures to even be able to serve this population in the future as well.

I just wanna thank the State Superintendent for identifying this population and trying to figure out how we can serve them and make it flexible enough to make sure that their multiple needs that they may have are fulfilled. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Dr. Jackson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. Motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Human Services Committee. [Roll Call]

And we'll keep that bill on call for our absent Members, Dr. Jackson. Thank you so much for coming today.

One more.

Oh, yeah. One more. Sorry. I apologize.

I'm not looking at my agenda. Alright. So we'll continue with AB 1552 by member Jackson. Please proceed.

Thank you very much, madam chair, committee members. This bill will require the public higher education segments to report recommendations to the legislature on how to foster a greater knowledge of American democracy and meaningful civic engagement opportunities to ensure our graduates are prepared to assume their roles as Alexander Hamilton will describe in Fearless paper number 16, fulfilling their roles as the natural guardians of our democracy. Respectfully ask for a nigh vote.

Thank you. Doctor Jacks Jackson, no supports no witnesses.

My gift to you. No witnesses.

Alright. So we'll continue with any witnesses in support in the audience for AB 1552. Please proceed to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your and your position, please.

Good morning. Katrina Linden on behalf of Young Invincibles, cosponsor on this bill. Thank you, Assemblymember Jackson. Also speaking in support of Alliance for a Better Community, UCSA, the UC Student Association, and several other partners in our community who support this bill. Thank

you. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Jaden Villanueva. I'm a graduate student at Cal State Long Beach, and I am in support of this bill.

Go Beach.

Go Beach. Hi. My name is Jasmine Rodriguez. I'm from Santa Ana, and I support this bill.

Hello. My name is Daniel Bosuano. I'm also a graduate student at Cal State LA, and I'm in support of this bill.

Bill. Kylie Lynn Deli, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in support.

Thank you so much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing no lead witnesses, do we have any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing them, we'll bring you back to the dias. Comments and questions?

We have a motion by Senator, Gonzales. I am all about civic engagement and awareness. So I completely appreciate this bill. And this one, I know we have had several bills that have to do with civic engagement, throughout the through my time here and through, our education, whether it's k 12 or higher education. So I am happy to support the bill today and, thank you for bringing this measure forward.

I'm glad I get to say aye on your bill, doctor Jackson. With that, would you like to close, doctor Jackson? I'd like to ask for your aye vote.

Thank you doctor Jackson. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogay, Cabaldon, Choy, Cortese, Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Reyes.

Thank you so much. We'll place that on call for absent members. And doctor Jackson, you know, I I appreciate the opportunities when we do get to collaborate and support your bill. Absolutely. You know that.

Have a great day, sir. Alright. We'll continue with file item number five, AB 1572. Member Alanis, welcome.

Good morning. Thank you, madam chair. Everyday, hundreds of thousands of students participate in school athletics. They place their trust in the adults responsible for making sure their games and competitions are safe and fair. AB 1572 aims to strengthen that trust by requiring the California Interscholastic Federation or CIF to conduct annual reviews to make sure that sports officials such as referees, umpires, and judges have met their highest safety training and qualification standards.

Additionally, this bill requires that these qualifications are published and accessible to schools and athletic programs. AB 1572 establishes a clear and responsible implementation timeline beginning 01/01/2027 to ensure a smooth rollout. It further enhances student safety by requiring, starting 07/01/2028, that officials hold an activity supervisor clearance certification from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Yes.

By improving transparency and accountability, schools will be better equipped to ensure that only properly qualified individuals are officiating students, sporting events. And with me today, I have Michelle McKay Underwood, who represents CIF, to testify and answer any technical questions.

Thank you, ma'am, and welcome.

Good morning. Vice Chair Ochoa Bogue and members of the committee, as the assembly member introduced, my name is Michelle Underwood, and I am the legislative advocate for CIF and speaking on behalf of Executive Director Ron Acchetti this morning. On behalf of the CIF Executive Committee, 10 local CIF sections, and the sixteen twenty eight member schools and more than 820,000 student athletes, I'm here to support AB 1572.

High school athletes make a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people every year, protecting the integrity of the games our kids love to play by demonstrating qualities like honesty, objectivity, consistency, courage, and common sense. They have the opportunity to help California student athletes learn life lessons and play an integral part in providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete in education based athletics.

CIF has voluntarily instituted a system that would meet the initial requirements of AB 1572 and we believe the health and safety of all interscholastic athlete participants, so our students, parents, coaches, and officials is worthy of being codified into law. Additionally, we understand that California is moving towards comprehensive fingerprinting background checks for virtually all adults, who interact with students and we will be prepared to implement that standard, for the 28 29 school year.

In closing, we wanna thank assembly member Alaniz for carrying this important legislation and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am, for your for your testimony this morning. We'll now continue with any members of the public who would like to express their their, support for this particular bill. AB is fifteen seventy two. Seeing none, do we have any lead, witnesses in opposition?

Seeing none, would any members of the public wish to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the diocese. Yeah. Thank you, madam. I'm just grateful that you're bringing this forward. I have kids in sports and looking forward and ahead to college and and seeing how important this is.

So thank you so much for putting this forward. I'd like to be added as a co author as well if I could, and I'd like to motion at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much. And we do have a motion by Senator Gonzales. Member Elanis, thank you for bringing this measure forward. Would you like to close?

Disrespectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Elanis. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bog. Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Cabaldon, Choy, Cortese, Gonzales.

Aye. Gonzales, aye. Reyes.

And we'll place that bill on call for our absent members.

Thank you.

Have a great day. Thank you.

We'll continue with file item number six, AB 1586 by member Ramos. Good morning, member Ramos. Welcome.

Good to see you. Good to

see you. Looking great in that suit.

Thank you.

You may proceed when you're ready, sir.

Well, thank you, madam chair and senators. I want to begin by accepting committee amendments. AB 1586 will ensure the school the school resource officers have both the training and the tools needed to respond in cases of an overdose on school grounds. Right now, SROs are not required to receive standardized training for opioid overdose. This bill would create a uniform process so that any campus with an SRO electing to serve as a volunteer can safely administer naloxone.

Additionally, it would require SROs to undergo an opioid overdose response training every two years through the peace officer standard and training. Through this process, we hope this bill will encourage more SROs to carry naloxone on their persons when on campus. Students deserve to feel safe at school and to know that someone is prepared to respond in case of an overdose. AB 1586 is a practical and common sense measure that will help protect students and support our schools.

With me here today to testify on this bill is Stuart Selecta, program operations supervisor for the Tarzana Treatment Center, and Tom Renfri on behalf of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program executives.

Good morning and welcome.

Good morning chair and vice vice chair and members. My name is Stuart Selecta and I serve as the Program oPerations suPervisor at Tarzana Treatment Centers. A community based substance use treatment Provider in Los Angeles County. I'm here in strong suPPort of a P fifteen eighty six. Everyday my team works on the front lines of the overdose crisis imPlementing evidence based common sense strategies to keeP PeoPle alive.

We train families, school personnel and community partners to recognize the signs of an overdose and respond immediately. And I can tell you from that experience the window to act is incredibly short. Often seconds matter. Survival depends on whether someone nearby is prepared to recognize what's happening and intervene without hesitation. Unfortunately, our schools are not immune to this crisis.

We've already seen overdoses occur on California campuses, some with devastating outcomes where students never made it home. In those critical first moments, school resource officers are often the first adults on the scene. AB 1586 ensures that when that moment comes, the person standing there has the training and the tools to quickly save a life. The bill also addresses a critical gap in our response. Data.

Currently, the state does not consistently capture in overdose incidents occurring on school campuses. Without that visibility, we cannot accurately direct prevention resources or respond strategically. AB 1586 closes that gap, equipping providers like Tarzana treatment centers and policy makers like you with the tools and the information needed to target those interventions where they're needed most. This is a practical evidence based and life saving measure. It does not create new complexity.

It simply ensures we are prepared to respond to what is already happening. On behalf of Tarzana treatment centers I respectfully urge your aye vote and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Is Red Mean on? Yeah. I guess it does. Good morning, madam chair members. My name is Tom Renfrey.

I'm a policy consultant with CADPE. We represent substance use disorder treatment providers throughout the state. Youth overdose risk has increased dramatically in recent years due to the proliferation of fentanyl in counterfeit bills and counterfeit pills and other substances. Adolescents may unknowingly ingest fentanyl leading to sudden overdose situations that require immediate intervention. School campuses are increasingly encountering these emergencies.

And in many cases, school resource officers or other safety personnel have standardized training and access to naloxone. This is a common sense step to improve school safety and protect student health in everyday school environments, bathrooms, parking lots, athletic facilities, and before or after school activities, often in the presence of peers or adults. Reports indicate that many times bystanders, are present in these, overdose situations, but are not able to intervene in time either because they don't have naloxone or they don't know how to use it.

This bill, will strengthen campus emergency preparedness at minimal cost since Department of Health Care Services provides naloxone, as part of the naloxone distribution project to to schools. And it won't disrupt current training structures, but it also brings school based safety practices into alignment with California's existing emergency medication and public health standards.

A B 1586 is a critical piece of legislation that increases emergency preparedness on school campuses and helps ensure that life saving overdose reversal medication is available when it is needed. We've got we strongly encourage your, support and thank, assembly member Ramos for introducing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir, for your testimony this this morning. I will now continue with any, any witnesses in support here in, in the public a b for AB 1586. Please proceed to the, microphone. Your name, your, organization, and your position, please.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Tristan Brown with CFT here in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support. Thank you.

McClain Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Thank you.

Sarah Webber with the Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Good morning. LeAngela Reed on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization in support.

Good morning. Great to see familiar faces in the audience. We'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, any members of the general public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing now we're bringing it back to the dais.

Comments or questions? We have a motion by Senator Gonzales. Thank you, member Ramos for bringing this, needed, bill forward and for the sake and safety of our students. Thank you so much for your testimonies this, this morning, highlighting the importance of of this measure. With that, would you like to close Senator or Senator, member Ramos?

Thank you so much for for your comments and and testimony, and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon, Choy, Cortese, Gonzales.

21 with member Murasuchi, which is here. Good morning and welcome, Aloha, sir. Alright.

Please begin. Proceed when you are ready, sir.

Thank you. I have three bills coming up. Bipartisan support with no opposition. First, I'd like to present Assembly Bill 1721. A bill to that would require the state superintendent to convene a work group to review existing school safety plans and to make recommendations and how we can make it make them workable for local school districts.

As, we all know, while school districts are required to come up with, their comprehensive school safety plans every year, the legislature is prone to, pass, bills every year that add to requirements to, the school safety plans. And so a lot of local, school districts are saying that the school safety mandates are becoming unwieldy. First responders are saying that that it's becoming unwieldy.

And, and so we want to convene this work group that's supported by educators and first responders to make recommendations to the legislature and how we can make sure that we're addressing the streamlining the, the school safety plans, make sure that they are workable and accessible to not only the school districts but to the local community. And with me here today to testify in support of the bill is Kordell Hampton, with the ACSA.

Good morning, chair members.

Thank you, and welcome, Kordell.

To you as well. Good morning, Chair and members. Kordell Hampton with the Association of Conference School Administrators here in support of AB 1721. The comprehensive school safety plan is intended to ensure that every school has a clear, locally developed plan to keep students and staff safe and be prepared for everyday risk, as well as worst-case scenarios. State law establishes a framework requiring schools to plan for a range of emergencies at local level.

This includes natural disasters such as earthquakes and wildfires, emergency response procedures such as evacuations and shelter-in-place protocol, and serious incidents such as after-shooter situations. At the local level, these plans are developed through a collaborative process that bring together school leaders, staff, parents, classified employees, local law enforcement, and other first responders, a collaborative approach that this book that is reflected in this bill. Over time, however, the requirements of the school safety plan has expanded significantly.

While well-intentioned, these additions have resulted in plans that are longer, more complex, increasingly difficult to use in real-life situations. And as a result, some school communities have begun to question whether their plans remain effective tool to use during these type of emergencies.

Access supports AB 1721 because it creates an opportunity to thoughtfully review and improve school safety plans. This bill establishes a work group to evaluate both the required elements and to find opportunities for improvement. It requires a work group to report its findings back to legislature. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 1721.

Thank you. And, and just our just so for the audience to know, we the the reason I was so joyous to see Kordell is he was a member of this team prior to his current role. So we're super excited to see him in the professional role here on the on the witness end.

So, thank you. So good to see you. Thank you. With that, we'll continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2060. Please come to the microphone.

State your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Good morning, Lee Angela Reid, on behalf of the California School Nurses Organization and the California Association of School Counselors, in strong support.

Good morning. Harold Tollerup on behalf of San Francisco Unified School District in support.

Xavier Burchfield on behalf of California IT and Education in support.

Rachel Scicluna on behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates, in support.

McClain Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education, in support.

Sarah Petrovski, on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials, in support.

Tristan Brown with EFT in support.

Thank you for your, your this is support. I will now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, do any members of the public would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll continue we'll bring it back to the diocese. Any comments, questions?

We have a motion by Senator Gonzales. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. I think anything that we could do to streamline the process, ensure that there is effectiveness. I'm all for 100%. So thank you for bringing this measure forward.

Would you like to close, member Muratsuchi?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Wonderful. We'll place that bill on call for our absent members. Thank you for being here today, sir.

Thank you. Coming up. Yeah.

And we'll continue with bill item AB 2060 by member Muratsuchi.

Thank you. AB2060 is a bill to strengthen California's teacher pipeline by, supporting, mentor teachers, experienced mentor teachers to help prepare the next generation of educators. We know that strong mentorship is essential to improving teacher preparedness, increasing teacher retention, and ensuring new teachers are successful in the classroom.

AB2060 would establish the teacher mentor grant program to create to require local LEAs to come up with standards on as well as providing, dollars 3,000 in a stipend upon appropriation, to, ensure, and support this practice of school districts providing mentor teachers to new, classroom teachers. With me to testify in support of the bill is, Sarek Kaminski, with ACCENT.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Senators. Serette Kaminski on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, representing over 18,000 administrators throughout the state. We're proud to support AB2060 and urge your aye vote today. We agree with the author that a critical yet under supported component of the teacher pipeline is the role of experienced classroom teachers who mentor student teacher candidates. Districts are finding it increasingly hard to recruit high quality master teachers for mentorship roles.

These teachers are already balancing the needs of their students and their classrooms, as well as their families and and obligations. As the committee analysis astutely highlights, the quality of a mentor teacher can shape instructional practice, classroom management skills, and ultimately the candidate's decision to remain in the profession. In short, this direct peer to peer support helps retain new teachers.

I would add that from an operational standpoint, student teaching pathways are high retention pathways, but California doesn't have a formalized recruitment tool to attract highly qualified seasoned mentors. The bill would help local education agencies broaden the mentor talent pool by incentivizing their support through a $3,000 stipend.

AB2060 not only strengthens the student teaching experience, but complements the state teacher recruitment efforts. For these reasons, ACCESS supports the measure and urges your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses, from the public that would like to express their support. Please come to the microphone. Your name, your organization, and your and your position on the bill.

Good morning. Bryant Miramontes with the California Teachers Association in support.

Seeing no other members, in support, we'll continue with any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring this back to the dias. Any comments or questions? We have a motion by Senator Gonzales.

Thank you so much for bringing this measure forward. Emeritus, it is incredibly difficult to find master teachers and and especially recruit teachers in this profession and I think I had an amazing mentor when I first began my teaching experience as a teacher and he's not passed away but I owe him a world of things for sharing all of his materials, his insights and just really taking out our survey. So I a huge believer in in mentors in the teaching profession. So thank you so much.

I'll be supporting the bill today.

Would you like to close, number one?

Respectfully ask for iPhone.

Thank you, sir. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay. We'll place that on call for absent members.

Yes. Thank you, Vice Chair. AB2440 is a bill to strengthen arts and music education in the state of California. We know that, for too long, not all school districts, not all communities have received the benefits of, arts and music education. Proposition 28 was a major break breakthrough in providing, ongoing dedicated funding, to ensure to help ensure that every community, every school district receives arts and music education.

However, when when I was still chairing the Assembly Education Committee, we conducted a hearing, where we heard from arts and music educators, as well as local, educational agencies that, in fact, you know, because of the ambiguity in how to implement proposition 28, combined with, a lot of the, significant financial penalties that would be incurred if they didn't properly allocate, funding, arts and music education funding, it became clear that we need to clarify the law so that we make sure that school districts have the necessary guidance to spend these available proposition 28 arts and music education funding dollars.

Specifically, you know, one of the key tenants of proposition 28, is to make sure that, we're spending to supplement rather than supplant, arts and music, existing arts and music, education funding.

Also, another common sense proposal that this bill is proposing, is to allow small school districts to be able to, pool, resources so that they can have, like, you know, roving arts and music education teachers that can help meet the needs of of the smaller school districts and and thereby ensure that all communities can benefit from arts and music education. With me, to, testify in support of the bill is Nick Romo representing Create California, and Derek Lennox representing the California County Superintendents.

Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Vice Chair Ochoa. My name, and, and all the Committee Members. My name is the Doctor Veronica Alvarez.

I'm the executive director of CREATE California, the state's leading arts education advocacy organization. We are proud to support AB2440 and deeply appreciate assembly members, Martucci's leadership. Our North Star for Prop 28 is very simple. More art education for more kids. Every student regardless of zip code, background, or income deserves access to full promise of art learning that voters overwhelmingly supported.

AB2440 moves us closer to that goal by strengthening implementation and supporting local education agencies as they expand arts programs. I want to highlight three core elements. Aligning the definition of arts education with California's adopted art standards and arts education framework will help ensure high quality instruction and prevent confusion about what counts as arts learning. Refining the supplement not supplant definition will ensure that Prop 28 funds truly expand and increase arts programs rather than backfilling other obligations.

Finally, narrowly tailoring reporting requirements that improve transparency for parents and advocates while avoiding unnecessary administrative burden for districts.

We look forward to continuing to collaborate to ensure clarity, consistency, and strong implementation statewide and thank you for your leadership, for your commitment to strengthening arts education for all of California's 6,000,000 students. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor Alvarez.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Derick Lennox on behalf of the California County Superintendents. Pleased to support the Member's bill. Thank you, Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Also pleased to introduce my colleague, Kyle Holmes, who will be our subject matter expert and speak to some of the merits of the bill.

Good morning, Members. Thanks for having us. My name is Kyle Holmes. I serve as the director of the Statewide Arts Initiative for the California County Superintendents. My role is working with the arts education leaders in all 58 of our county offices throughout the state as our network works to expand high quality access to arts education.

From the statewide implementation perspective for our educators, AB2440 addresses several issues that are important to arts education. I'm gonna echo a lot of what my colleague, doctor Alvarez, already shared. But first, clarifying the supplement, not supplant language is gonna provide further guidance for LEAs as they can spend this money confidently. What we've seen throughout the state is a hesitation in spending due to the uncertainty of prop 28.

And that means we're slowing our expanding access to arts education for our students that we were supposed to see with this funding.

The second is the inclusion of the California art standards and the arts education framework. It's gonna provide important clarity around what allowability looks like with this funding and how that money can be used to provide high quality arts education and resources for our students. And finally, the specificity around pooling funds is an important part, especially for our small and rural communities as their prop 28 allocation might not be enough on its own to hire an FTE or provide an ongoing arts education.

So pulling that funding across school sites would be an important step in helping make sure that those students receive access in those communities. Thank you for your ongoing support of arts education.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses, from the public who would like to express their, support for AB2440. Please come to the microphone. Name and organization and position.

Cabria Payton on behalf of Ed Trust West in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Carlos Rojas representing the Kern County Superintendent School's Office in support.

McClain Rozanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Chad Zellinger, president for California Music Educators Association in full support.

Thank you so much. We'll continue with any lead opposition for AB 2440. Seeing none, any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? I know we have to ask. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the diocese.

Any comments or questions?

I just wanna thank you, Assemblymember, and your witnesses for this incredible bill. You're on a roll with no opposition in this committee today. So you're doing doing really well for yourself, but very righteous bills. So with that, I'll make the motion when appropriate. Thank you madam vice chair.

And we have a motion by Senator Gonzales. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Maurizio. I I very appreciative of the of your bill. As a mom whose children were all musically trained, I am incredibly grateful for the for the emphasis and the importance that arts play in our students education. So with that, sir would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

And we'll place that bill on call for our absent member, sir.

Thank you.

Have a great day. Thank you.

We'll now continue with file item number 12, AB 1784. Assemblymember Pellerin, welcome.

Thank you.

I'm loving your colors today. Thank you so much. Happy, joyful colors.

And just I'm also gonna be presenting AB 2660 by assemblymember Alvarez.

Okay. Perfect.

Should I There we go. I'll start with my first one. Hello. Oh, my gosh. Long statement.

Okay. I would first like to accept the committee's amendments, which reflect ongoing tweaks developed in collaboration with our higher education partners to delay implementation and align the requirements of this bill with the 2027, 2028 academic year. Higher education is one of the most powerful factors for upward economic and social mobility, and California has long been a leader in ensuring educational equity for our students.

Both title nine and the California Sex Equity in Education Act provide procedures for how a campus is to provide academic and structural accommodations for pregnant or pregnancy impacted students in order to preserve their right to equal access to their chosen educational program. Although California's existing Sex Equity and Education Act extends numerous protections to pregnancy impacted graduate students and their partners, but does not extend these protections to undergraduate students.

In 2021, the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights found that a California community college had likely violated Title IX by not allowing a student to make up a quiz she missed while she was giving birth. This is not the only instance in recent years where Californian institutions have fallen short of the expectations of Title IX as evidenced by numerous OCR complaints. For a state that has done so much for reproductive care, this is not acceptable.

AB 1784 prohibits any post secondary educational institution from discriminating against a student or applicant based on the student's current potential or past pregnancy or pregnancy related conditions. Furthermore, in order to ensure that pregnancy impacted students maintain access to their educational program, AB 1784 prohibits an institution of higher education from requiring a student to take a leave of absence or withdraw due to pregnancy.

According to federal data, there are 300,000 undergraduates who are student parents in California. Under current law, a birth parent is only guaranteed a leave of absence and a return in good academic standing because of the birth of their child if they are a graduate student. Partners who are not the birth parent are only guaranteed these protections if they are a graduate student. State law currently does not require that undergraduates be provided with these protections.

AB 1784 closes this loophole and extends these protections to all students.

We must increase these protections because this is a crucial time for pregnant and parenting students given the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the constitutional right to abortion and ongoing attacks to the constitutional right to birth control. Additionally, the Federal Government announced that it will outsource the work of investigating some civil rights complaints from the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education to the Department of Justice, and it is unclear how OCR's current caseload will be handled and the future of title nine enforcement.

This is a straightforward bill with support from reproductive justice and religious groups alike. With me to testify in support is Cathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University Women.

Welcome. Good morning. Thank you, madam chair, members. Cathy Van Austin, AAUW of California. We are very, very proud to support this bill.

We actually worked with Assemblymember Fong last year on a bill that also would have extended some protections for for students, undergraduate students and graduate students. And that bill ended up not not advancing, unfortunately. Access to a quality education is, as you can imagine, a fundamental tenant for AAUW, university women. We care about all people having access to an affordable education.

And while you can have, you know, a a couple going to a university, I have a nephew and his wife going to Cal, you know, they've got a child.

She obviously has extended the courtesy if, you know, as she is pregnant, as she was pregnant. You know, he is a parent. He needs time off as well. So this really does apply to both both male and female, all all gender. We've done a pretty good job of protecting our graduate students and and making sure that they do have accommodations when they are expecting or are going through pregnancy related conditions.

And in California, but we just haven't done that for undergrads. And in California, you know, professors do. Instructors do have latitude. But it's very inconsistent. You may have a professor who is willing to accommodate, an expectant mom and you may have somebody else that feels, you know, you're taking up a slot and you should be here.

So there are very different and there are biases as well. So it's it's inconsistent. And this bill, the important thing that this bill does is it gives you those guidelines. It gives puts down a marker. This is what is acceptable.

This is what is necessary. This is what you need to accommodate. And for that, we're very grateful for the assembly member to bring this back. Our students deserve to be able to complete their education, to be able to go to school without, fear of, you know, losing out on a class, losing out on credits, missing exams.

Have to ask you to wrap up. We have a two minute

I could talk forever. Certainly ask for your aye vote and thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm sorry. We have a policy for two minutes. I should have reminded the witnesses and I apologize. That was my mistake.

It's okay.

We'll now continue with any witnesses in support here, from the public.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support. Thank you.

Kabria Payden on behalf of Allied Trades in support.

Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All in strong support.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 1784. Seeing none, do we have any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions? Senator Gonzalez?

Thank you so much for bringing this forward and of course to Kathy or witness, this is just thinking about my time in college and, you know, not feeling like I couldn't go while I was pregnant and had a child and all of the things and and how that can deter so many people from even going. But this is this is a great step in the right direction. I'm glad you stuck with it as well. I'd love to be added as a co author.

I'd love to have you. So much for continuing the the work. Thank you.

And we have a motion by Senator Gonzales. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, I am just shocked that we need this bill. I am I was reading and I just I was really surprised honestly that there is even a need for this particular bill. But I am grateful that you brought this forward.

Thank you so much for for your for your time and your commitment to this bill. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you very much. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Roll Call.

And we'll place that bill on call, ma'am, for our absent members. Thank you for being here today.

And then I could do the Alvarez bills? Okay. Great. Okay. His talking points are in smaller font, and so, hopefully, I can read these.

So, I'm pleased to present AB 2660 on behalf of my colleague as Assemblymember Alvarez. AB 2660 takes the critical first step in strengthening and diversifying California's STEM workforce by building a coordinated pipeline from high school to, faculty positions and industry leadership. Specifically, this bill would codify two existing STEM programs, Cal-Bridge and and ENLACE, to help students from underrepresented - oh, you got glasses. Oh my gosh. Okay.

Well, those are much better. Thank you. Specifically, this bill would codify two existing STEM programs, Cal Bridge and ENLACE, to help students from underrepresented communities to achieve a PhD and join the state's science and technology industry as leaders in their field. California's science and technology industries are a main economic driver of the state's economy. However, due to a lack of diversity in these industries, the state underutilizes its talent.

Only 15% of the 1,500,000 tech workers are Black or Latino and only 26% are Latin despite each group comprising half of the state's population. One key factor leading students from these groups to exit STEM educational pathways is the lack of faculty who reflect their backgrounds. Only 4.5% of UC STEM faculty and only 9.2% of CSU STEM faculty are Latino, Black, or Native American.

Cal-Bridge creates a structured pathway for students from California community colleges and California State universities to pursue STEM PhDs and careers in academia and in the tech industry. Through five sub-programs, students receive mentorship, financial aid, research opportunities, and professional development, supporting them from undergraduate studies through post doctoral stages.

In addition to Cal Bridge, the in LACE program operates independently, but complements these efforts by supporting STEM pathways from high school through undergraduate education. Together, these initiatives would form a comprehensive approach addressing STEM education at every level. I now turn to my lead witness and support, Dr. Alex Rudolph, founder and executive director of the Cal-Bridge Program.

Good morning, Chair Perez and distinguished committee members. My name is Alex Rudolph, and I'm the Founder and Executive Director of the Cal-Bridge Program. I'm here to ask you to support AB 2660, which would codify the Cal Bridge Program in these times of unprecedented assault on the diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education. California size and technology industries represent 17% of the state's economy, generating over $500,000,000,000 of economic activity annually.

However, due to a lack of diversity in these industries, half of the state's current population is woefully underrepresented in these areas, thereby severely underutilizing the state's human capital.

The problem of underrepresentation of Black, Latino, indigenous, and women populations in the science and technology fields has been around for decades with very little progress being made. The Cal-Bridge program is one of the most successful programs at addressing this inability of the state to fully utilize its science and technology talent. Cal-Bridge is a statewide intersegmental program of the community colleges, CSU, and UC systems.

For the past thirteen years, Cal-Bridge has supported the diverse undergraduate STEM majors in California to complete their bachelor's degrees and go on to attain a STEM PhD, allowing them to join and diversify California STEM workforce as leaders, including his professors who will teach and inspire the next generation of the state's diverse STEM undergraduates. Thus, this highly successful intersegmental program fulfills the vision of the California master plan for education by guiding California's own undergraduates through the three levels of its higher education system.

Almost two-thirds of Cal-Bridge undergraduate scholars who apply to PhD programs are admitted, a statistic unmatched anywhere in the country. With recent state support, the Cal-Bridge program now supports these scholars who continue on to attain PhDs within the UC system. Cal-Bridge is currently being funded year to year, which makes it difficult to maintain the multiyear commitment to each cohort of scholars necessary for the success of the program.

By codifying the program, we hope that our future funding will be more secure and thereby keep Cal-Bridge, one of the most successful DEI programs in the state's history, alive. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from me-too's in support. Please use the mic at the railing.

Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, also in support. Thank you.

Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, in support. Thank you.

Maclean Rozansky with the Alameda County Office of Education, in support.

Now do we have any witnesses in opposition? If there are any witnesses in opposition, please rise. Seeing no one rising, I'll now turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members?

I have a question.

Yes. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some questions about the students because it says, it codifies the the program. And the program itself fosters by national collaboration by pairing high school and college students from the US and Mexico for seven weeks of intensive world class research by transcending borders and providing immersive lab experiences. So, this is where I have the question.

It says, "By pairing high school students and college students from the US and Mexico for seven weeks of intensive care." So my part, my question is more on the when - who are these students that we are selecting or choosing to participate? Is this something that the US is through the program selecting from Mexico? Where are these kids from and where are they coming from? And I'll expand as to why my question.

So just please clarify,

You're speaking of the ENLACE program, which is a separate but related program that is part of this bill, not part of the Cal-Bridge program directly.

So, I'll try to answer on behalf of the director who's not here, but my understanding is that she has been running professor at UC San Diego has been running a summer research program for about twelve years, in which she recruits students from high school students from Mexico and from The US brings them together for the summer at UC San Diego where they participate jointly in research projects. I don't know the details of how she selects the scholars or how she recruits them.

And then the other question I have: are these students that are being selected to participate in the summer programs in our universities from Mexico; are they paying to participate in this program on their own or is this something that we as the university or taxpayers are paying or funding for these students?

My understanding is that up until this time, the money has been - the students have been paying to participate. I do believe that there is funding that's obtained to help students who are unable to pay, and I think there may be an appropriation in the current budget which would change that. But again, I'm not director of that program, so I'm trying to speak on behalf of - I don't know if you wanna

I'm looking through my FAQs and I have an answer to that. Okay. So, the student participation fee is 7,500, which covers housing, food, field trips, and all program expenses, excluding flights and visa fees. However, many participants received scholarships thanks to support from industry partners, including Illumina Insulate, ASML, Hologic, Sempra Energy, Viasat, and Solar Turbines, as well as UC San Diego itself.

So, UC San Diego is providing some of that scholarship on - I'm just trying -

It says that university students accepted as chaperones receive a full scholarship.

So, the chaperones receive the chaperones for these students receive full com full scholarship, meaning that they were probably be housed food.

Through those partners that are are doing the fundraising for the program is what I'm -

Okay. So, the UC is just facilitating the the administration, not necessarily funding. I think members would probably - I'm just trying to figure out whether or not we're funding students from Mexico's education on there.

So, I can't - that's fair. I can't really answer the question because it's not a program that I'm involved with directly.

Okay. And I think based on your on your on your comments, I think we it would be fair to say that primarily, they're all self funding or being provided scholarships by private industry. It's not tax dollars as being primarily spent on this

According to the answer, it's industry partners. Yes.

Industry partners: so, would that be fair?

Sounds fair to me.

Okay. Does anybody have any insight? I don't know if anybody else has an insight.

Oh. I have somebody who's texting. Cool. Okay.

I feel like I'm on a game show. Okay. We are not funding Mexican students. That's correct. Okay.

Perfect. Just wanted to have that for the director.

And just to clarify, all of the Cal-Bridge scholars are US citizens or permanent residents.

We don't accept international students.

Okay.

Okay. And that would be okay if we did. I just wanna make sure that because of in light of everything that's going on; I just wanna make sure that we're clear on the programs where the funding is coming in and who we're we're funding just for clarity purposes. I think it's important in light of our where we are right now. So, okay.

With that, I thank you so much for for for answering our questions. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, I support the bill. My recommendation is an aye vote. I'll turn it over to you to close, Assemblymember.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, on behalf of Assemblymember Alvarez.

Excellent. And, that, motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Gonzales. Secretary, can you call the roll?

The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Great. And we will put that bill back on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. I see we have Assemblymember Krell in the audience to present AB 1845. Assemblywoman, you can get started whenever you're ready.

Oh, hey. Also oh, I didn't realize - Apologies. I did not realize Assemblymember Stephanie - the schedule, is that okay? Okay. Alrighty. Let's go ahead and get started.

Okay. Alrighty. Let's go ahead and get started.

Thanks so much, and thanks to Assemblymember Stephanie.

We have an arrangement this morning and appreciate that. Good morning, Madam Chair and senators. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1845 today. This is an important bill that ensures that human trafficking is included in the Title IX framework for universities that are federally funded. You might think that when our kids go away to college that they're safe from human trafficking.

we have an arrangement this morning and appreciate that. Good morning, madam chair and senators. I'm here to present assembly bill 1845 today. This is an important bill that ensures that human trafficking is included in the title nine framework for universities that are federally funded. You might think that when our our kids go away to college that they're safe from human trafficking.

Unfortunately, that's not true. We're seeing a lot of vulnerability on college campuses because of financial instability, because of housing insecurity, and because there are traffickers that are specifically, preying on students in the college environment, both on social media and on campus. In fact, I prosecuted a case before I became an assemblywoman where the defendant stole the victim's financial aid fund and then forced the victim into prostitution.

So, unfortunately, that does happen, but we have really good tools in order to protect students and make sure that they're able to protect themselves from human trafficking, and that's what 1845 is about. With me today is Hillary Evans, Survivor Leader and the Director of Social Impact at 3Strands Global Foundation, and also Alicia Nagpal, Student and Vice President of Legislative Affairs with the Student Senate for California Community Colleges.

I also wanna thank the committee staff for working with my office on this bill. I accept the amendments, and they make sure they ensure that this is a workable framework, for all our schools, you know, in order to be able to implement this important bill. So with that, I will turn it over to my witnesses.

Good morning, Chair Perez, members of the committee. My name is Hillary Evans. I'm the Director of Social Impact at 3Strands Global Foundation and a survivor of child human trafficking. I'm here to respectfully urge your support for AB 1845. When I was a child, no one taught me what grooming looked like.

No one explained healthy relationships or tactics that traffickers use to exploit young people. If I had received that education, I may have recognized the warning signs sooner and asked for help. I also wonder how different my life could have been if the adults around me, the teachers, the counselors, the coaches, and the professors had been trained to ask what happened instead of what's wrong with her.

AB 1845 provides that training so that when young people signal for help, the trusted adults around them have the tools to recognize it and to act. With a training like this, I could have been connected to resources and help sooner.

I work at 3Strands Global Foundation because I want other children and young adults to have what I didn't. Through prevention education, we've seen firsthand how giving young people the language to identify exploitation helps them protect themselves and their peers. Education creates awareness, awareness leads to action, and action can save lives. AB 1845 extends that culture of awareness into our colleges and into our universities. We recognize that campuses already prioritize safety through Title XI and existing programs.

This bill doesn't duplicate these efforts. It closes a critical gap by clearly defining human trafficking and requiring specific annual training, transforming awareness into standardized campus wide safety practices. We cannot undo the past, but we can give the next generation the knowledge that I wish I had. On behalf of 3Strands Global Foundation and as a survivor, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1845. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Perez and members. My name is Alicia Nagpal, and I serve as the Vice President of Legislative Affairs for the Student Senate for the California Community Colleges. As a recent community college graduate, I'm proud to testify in support of AB 1845, which establishes clear policies and procedures post secondary institutions must adopt to identify and respond to human trafficking on campus. Our support is grounded in two SSC triple resolutions; one of the resolutions, S240212, calls for a system wide campaign to raise awareness about human trafficking. And resolution S261001 calls for the creation of confidential advocates at every California community college, dedicated full time on campus professionals whose sole job is supporting survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, distinct from general mental health counselors. These resolutions exist because the need is real. One in three women and one in ten men experience domestic violence in their lifetime.

respond to human trafficking on campus. Resolutions, S240212, calls for a system wide campaign to raise awareness about human trafficking. And resolution S26 ten zero one calls for the creation of confidential advocates at every California community college, dedicated full time on campus professionals whose sole job is supporting survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, distinct from General Mental Health counselors. These resolutions exist because the need is real. One in three women and one in ten men experience domestic violence in their lifetime.

post secondary institutions must adopt to identify and

Research showing that students of color are statistically more likely to experience sexual violence than their white counterparts. And with seventy seven percent of our system students being students of color, this is not a peripheral issue. It is central to who we serve. AB 1845 builds on prior efforts by the legislature to address human trafficking in California. It requires institutions to adopt policies guiding staff on how to identify students most at risk of trafficking.

By folding trafficking identification into existing training rather than requiring separate program, the bill strengthens safeguards already in place for victims of sex discrimination without adding new burdens on campus staff that has already stretched thin serving our students. The bill also requires written agreements with local law enforcement to reports are promptly and appropriately shared while protecting a victim's right to confidentiality, unless they choose otherwise.

We're especially grateful that the author has recognized the population's trafficking targets and the patterns, housing instability, lack of family support and other vulnerabilities that put community college students at risk. This bill reflects the diverse student body of the CCC system and SSCCC serves and the students we are here on behalf of. On behalf of the students we represent, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear me-too's in the audience. Please use the mic at the railing.

Madam Chair, members: Cathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University of Women California, co-sponsor and strong support.

Good morning. Samantha Ariza here on behalf of Three Strands Global Foundation in strong support.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzales on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Colonnakis in support. Thank you.

Atoria Foley on behalf of the California Survivor Coalition and Three Strands Global Foundation Survivor Advisory Council in strong support. Thank you.

I love these and fully coordinated outfits.

I know. You have to show support

Christina Caffenau, UC San Francisco Children's Hospital and UC Berkeley, alumna, retiree and volunteer in wholehearted support. And thank you everyone.

Excellent. Now we hear from any witnesses in opposition. If there are any witnesses in opposition, please rise. Seeing no one rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have committee questions or comments?

Senator Gonzales?

Yes. Thank you, assembly member, for bringing it forward. I'm on a roll with the co authorship today, but I I really, really do, appreciate this bill, and I I really love, what you're doing here. I think this has been a big gap is connecting our educational systems with this type of training and ensuring that there is prevention, and education on this. How do you and and I wanna thank your witnesses as well, as well, for being here, especially, survivor for telling your story.

Thank you. How do you envision the training? Where would the, you you know, universities adopt this training? Who would be identified as someone who could be a trusted, you know, trainer? What does that all look like in terms of logistics for this implementation?

Thanks so much for your support and and and great point. Since the universities are already required to have, title nine training that, you know, covers gender discrimination and sexual harassment, the the bill really envisions continuing that framework and just expanding it to include human trafficking.

And then in terms of, you know, what materials specifically would be used, I mean, that would be within the discretion, of the of the schools, but certainly there's several, community based organizations that, you know, that I've worked with that I know have been active on college campuses on a voluntary basis, to make sure that, you know, the right information is is, you know, communicated to the right people.

Yep. And Aye, and I think that's yes. Absolutely. And I wanna make sure that it's gonna be customized, I know, based on the region, etcetera. But there are some providers

are more comprehensive than others, and I know you know that very well working in this space. I know that just in Long Beach, there's a difference of opinion on the type of approach to to how to, you know, work with survivors. And we wanna do as much prevention as possible versus the after after they've been abused and victimized and all of that. And I know this is all prevention which is very good.

that

I'm just gonna be very curious as to how this is implemented and it would be maybe good down the road to have some additional sort of highlight on reporting and how it's working in certain regions and how we can continue to support maybe even from a state level even though this does not come with state dollars.

But with that, thank you very much. Look forward to supporting.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you, madam chair. I I am, one of this committee's biggest skeptics of of all the new programs and reports that that we do. I I come from the world of higher ed, and having been Vice Chancellor there, just I often want, can we just let people implement the stuff that we passed over the last five years, we're drowning in new requirements and what have you.

So generally I'm skeptical of bills that add more training requirements and more and more of the more exclamation points behind programs that we already have. That said, I think this bill is very important and necessary.

And part is for the reason that you described about why it wouldn't be that as much work as you might imagine, that it is all kind of captured in Title IX. But you know having having done work on this with local campuses and I was I helped negotiate the Christian Smart Campus Safety Act that you're amending here from when I was at the community colleges.

The Title IX these topics are all together And so, you know, you're supposed to do work on sexual harassment and on sexual violence and on hate crimes and and maybe human trafficking too. And it's it's a lot.

And if you're in at the campus and you're making a judgment about how how to design your materials, where to focus your attention, the, you know, the chances that a student is going to have to grapple that day with with with date rape or sexual assault or sexual harassment are high are high, higher than they are for human trafficking.

So you might you might rationally say I want I'm going to just like even subconsciously I'm going to focus on these areas and human trafficking often gets left behind or it's just like added on. And also you should be worried about human trafficking in the training or here's two minutes on it.

And so this bill I think is important in in both highlighting and creating the framework that human trafficking is it can be related but is essential that students be aware of and others on the in the campus community about what the risks, the warning signs, the resources, the tools, the accountability, all of that is necessarily to be uplifted and so I am supportive of the of the bill.

I think it is a very important step forward to assure that we're not treating it as just sort of the end of a sentence, that but that human trafficking is gets the attention and the focus that it needs to sort of wake up a freshman and say, hey, you may have not thought about this in your small town and in Solano County or whatever. You need to pay attention to it.

And here are the resources and the tools and the ways to recognize what's happening so that so that you can you and and the campus are here to or can protect against human trafficking. So thanks to the other. I also intend to support it. I appreciate it. Thanks Madam Chair.

Great. Seeing no other comments or questions, I support your bill Assemblymember Kroll. My recommendation is an aye vote. I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you so much. Thanks so much for the comments. Just, you know, to to your point, a study was conducted among college students on 12 Southern California campuses, and it found that forty per forty two percent of students reported having known someone who was sold for sex or who was trafficked as a college student. So Aye, you know, I do think it's prevalent enough that, every student should hear about it. And as everybody knows, it's it's devastating.

You know, one student is one too many. So I appreciate, everyone's support on this bill. I think this is really important. I think this will, prevent human trafficking and, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And do we have a motion on, AB 1845?

Where did it go?

We have a motion by Senator Gonzales, and that motion is do passed as amended to the Senate judiciary committees. Secretary, can you call the roll?

Senators Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Aye.

Ochoa Bogue, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Choi.

Cortese Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Reyes? Aye.