Senate Labor Public Employment And Retirement Committee

Senator Smallwood Cuevas here. Smallwood Cuevas here.

Senator Cortese.

Senator Laird. Here. Laird here.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm pleased to present SB 1166, a bill that would authorize the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, or AC Transit, employees' access to the Public Employment Relations Board, or PIRB, for adjudicating unfair labor practice charges. PIRB oversees labor management relations for the vast majority of California's public sector employees, ensuring that claims of unfair labor practices and disputes are resolved, enforcing collective bargaining laws, and providing appropriate remedies. In recent years, the legislature has authorized employees of numerous transit agencies to access PERB, such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit District or BART, Sacramento Regional Transit District, and most recently, the Valley Transportation Authority. AC Transit remains one of the few transit districts under a separate framework, requiring labor disputes to be resolved through the courts rather than through PERB. This change is needed. Resolving labor disputes through the courts is often slower, more costly, and lacks the specialized expertise that PERB provides. By moving these disputes to PERB, SB 1166 creates a fair and streamlined process for both workers and employers, ensuring that AC TREDs and employees have the same just treatment that other public employees currently enjoy. With me to testify in support of SB 1166 are AJ Martin and Nick Cobell from ASME Local 3916, representing the members of the AC Transit District.

Greetings. Is it on? Testing. One, two, three. Greetings, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nick Coble, and I'm a data engineer at AC Transit and a member of the AFSCME Local 3916. I'm here today to encourage the California State Senate to support SB 1166, placing AC Transit employees under PERB jurisdiction, the same rights already afforded to millions of public sector employees in California. This bill will help both the union and the district to resolve critical issues related to bargaining unit determination, benefits, and resolution of unfair labor practices. While AFSCME Local 3916 and AC Transit often work in partnership to resolve issues and grievances PERB will help the union have a new tool in our toolbox to ensure good faith negotiations with our employer and to keep costs down and services running Our last arbitration cost the union over with similar costs to our employer We expect to have several more of these costs this upcoming year, particularly as we fight to regain classifications at AC Transit improperly removed from our bargaining unit over the last few years. We believe this bill will help streamline problem resolution and help us get back to delivering public transit service that residents of the AC Transit service area rely on. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. We now will move to any other Me Too's in support of this bill. Please step forward, state your name and affiliation.

Thank you. Any other in supports?

Don't see any other support witnesses. Are there witnesses here speaking in opposition to this bill today? If so, step forward. Okay, seeing none, any me-toos? Any in-betweeners? Okay, seeing none. We will move now to the dais.

Any other senators wish to speak? Okay. Well, that's a great way to move to you, Mr. Senator. Would you like to close?

Okay, I think we are ready to call the roll. Motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Cortesi? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. This motion has a three to one vote and it is on call and when the other members go, we'll close it out. Thank you very much. All right, everybody. We are moving quickly. Let's see that Senator Cabaldon is here. So we're going to go back up to file item number one. That's SB 1054. Senator, you may proceed when ready. Madam Chair, members, thank you so much. I'm here to present SB 1054. This bill has both immediate and long-term implications, and one is a little bit nerdy, and another one is a little bit urgent. SB 1054 proposes to add a couple of data elements, essentially, to the base wage data file for unemployment insurance reporting, and that has two consequences First it will first and importantly we allow the state and DHS I sorry both Medi and we hope also with DSS to be able to expedite our automated processing and other processing of Medi redeterminations to meet the moment of H We are currently at the state level as many of you know relying on a contract or series of contracts including with Equifax in order to do this but we we need to be able to collect that data ourselves both to make sure that we get our contract isn't price-counced but also in order to be able to provide that information throughout the to the counties as well and to collect data for employees beyond those covered by payroll processing firms like Equifax. So that's job one here is to try to meet that moment of H.R. 1 to assure that hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians don't lose their coverage inadvertently simply for not having the data validation at the local level to be able to verify hours worked. So that's number one. Number two, though, is an issue I've been working on for a couple of decades. When I was vice chancellor of the community colleges, we crafted one of the first multi-agency agreements between state agencies to, for the first time, share data that we have between EDD, the ETP at the time, the community colleges, the state workforce board, and others, to assure that the investments that we're making in workforce development, in retraining, things like refinery work or retraining in my own district, that they're effective and that those investments are paying off, not just our own programs, but also things that we conducted, the Sunset Review last week for the Bureau of Post-Secondary Education, and many of the colleges there make claims about job placement and wages, which they can't and we can't verify them. And that's partly because we don't have more fine-grained wage data, but also because we don't have good occupation information in that data set. And that makes it impossible for us to say, did folks who are coming into a local job training program or into a trade college or into community college, and they take a program in order to enter that sector, do they get jobs and what are their wages? kind of the basics for assuring that we have accountability for public programs and researchers and others can help us understand at the state level as well how to design and implement better programs. So SB 1054 would meet that gap by including occupation and also the hours worked and a couple of other data elements in order to make our ability to oversee and hold accountable our workforce development programs. And by accountable, I'm just effective for the people that we're trying to serve on a long-term basis. And so that's the point of the bill. I do want to note that I'm enthusiastically accepting the excellent amendments proposed in the committee analysis as well to assure that the bill accomplishes what it is intended to do. And I would like to introduce our witnesses on the bill as well, who are both coming forward. Step forward. So it's Maxwell Johnson, who's with California Competes, Cynthia McCreason with the California Edge Coalition. Okay, great. And each witness has two minutes, and you can proceed as soon as he's done. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Maxwell Johnson. I'm a senior policy and research analyst with California Competes, higher education for a strong economy, and here to voice our strong support for Senate Bill 1054. We see this as essential. California invests tens of billions of dollars in education and training programs. And as the Senator mentioned, we lack the data to understand whether these investments are truly helping Californians meet their career goals and achieve economic mobility, and in helping the state meet its economic and workforce development needs. SB 1054 can change that by allowing us to answer key questions like, for instance, do education and training programs connect people to the right jobs, including in particular high demand occupations that address labor market shortages? This bill also allows California to respond quickly and efficiently to federal changes in CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and student financial aid. New federal work requirements for CalFresh and Medi-Cal could threaten the benefit access for more than 4 million Californians. The data enhancements in SB 1054 could protect the most vulnerable Californians from losing these critical social safety nets by reducing administrative burden for both residents and the state, including by helping to support greater automation of verification. Additionally, the proposal positions California to seize new federal opportunities. Students in high-quality short-term programs will soon have access to grant aid through the new Workforce Pell program, but for that to happen, states must have the ability to track detailed employment outcomes for these students starting in 2029. Currently, California doesn't have the capability to do this, but SB1054 provides the state the data in order to meet Workforce Pell's requirements. Through the addition of just a small number of known data elements to existing data systems, this bill would have far-reaching impact in supporting more Californians in reaching economic stability across education, social safety net programs, and state planning and accountability. Other states, numerous other states, have implemented similar enhancements successfully and are benefiting from the ripple effects of strong data systems. Your two minutes is up. I urge your support for SB 1054, and we see this as a rare opportunity that is both straightforward and offers improvements across so many key policy areas. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Zima Creason. I'm the Executive Director of the California Edge Coalition. I'm also a trustee serving on the San Juan Unified Board of Education, 10th largest district in California, located right here in Sacramento County, but I am here with my edge hat on today. The California Edge Coalition advocates for education and workforce investments as well as systems change through nonpartisan policy engagement that expands access to high-quality jobs, economic mobility, and families sustaining prosperity for all Californians. EDGE is proud to co-sponsor SB 1054 because it's a practical response to the new federal work verification pressures. As H.R. 1 creates more verification requirements, counties will need better tools, not more paperwork and not more red tape. SB 1054 helps California prepare by improving the reporting and sharing of hours worked and other employment data so public benefit eligibility can be verified more accurately and efficiently. That matters for working families, and that's why we're involved in this bill. When verification systems are inefficient, eligible people can lose health care or food assistance, not because they are ineligible, but because the system cannot verify their work in time. This bill supports key statewide priorities, strengthening the social safety net, helping Californians comply with new rules, and preserving access to food security and health coverage that make work and education possible. It also advances the broader priority of using better cross-system data and policy alignment to improve economic mobility and reduce administrative friction for both counties and workers. For these reasons, EDGE supports SB 1054, and I thank you so much for your time. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from everyone in support of the bill. Me Too please step to the mic Name and affiliation please Good morning Chair and members Carol Gonzalez on behalf of EdTrust West in support Thank you Koisi Tern on behalf of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support Good morning. Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Good morning. Kate Ladish. I'm president of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance and chair of the Yolo County In-Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee, both organizations in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next we'll hear from opposites. Oh, me too? Please. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Colin Stemmiller with Browns Day on behalf of the Barrier Council in support. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay, now we will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none. Any opposition? Me too's? Seeing none. We'll come to the dais. Move the bill. Move the bill. Okay, so we have a bill moved by Senator Strickland. I just want to say to the author, thank you very much for bringing this forward. And we know that we don't want one worker to lose their health care. so critically important in this moment, especially given the devastation of HR1 in so many ways. I did want to ask one question because I've been in conversations with DHS quite a bit, and they are doing everything that they can to soften some of these requirements to figure out waivers. So my question is I think it's important. So often we can work in silos. We don't know what the other hand is doing, and in the end it comes back and it bites us when we're trying to implement. So I just wanted to get a sense of how you're working with the different agencies as this bill is moving forward and what kinds of steps and procedures, protocols that we may be putting in place through our own negotiations between our health systems and the federal government. Just how are those conversations going? Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's a very, very important point. Like the challenges that both Californians and then all the agencies that are trying to meet this immediate urgent need, it is right now. And as you know, the bill doesn't have an urgency clause. We are trying to build the capacity of the state and its agencies to be able to respond effectively and to pivot and adapt. So we know that, as you've highlighted, that those agencies are doing everything that they can. And we held a hearing at the Budget Committee as well about this. They're doing everything that we can. We don't want to divert them from that mission while also giving them the tools, additional tools, to be able to respond. But they're going to need to do whatever they need to do right now while adding these data elements to give them the capacity to have a better toolbox that doesn't depend on private contractors in every sense. And it gives them that flexibility is the goal here. Well, I appreciate that. And I know that you're going to do everything you can to continue that dialogue to make sure that we are all moving and building the capacity we need to fight this. And so I will be supporting the bill, and you're welcome to close. I just respect – oh, sorry. Senator Rosso. No, just very quickly, I just want to compliment the author. I think this is a great bill. And to have the insight into our agencies and what already exists in our departments to say how do we use that. And I just really really glad for this for all the reasons that everybody already pointed off I think another reason that I think this is a great bill is because the director of EDD Nancy Farias is really great hardworking She's done a lot to change the agency. And I think the combination of the drive and the purpose and a department like that will really be helpful. So I just want to thank the author. Thank you for that, Senator DeRosso. Senator Cobaldin? Thank you so much for the questions, for the comments, and for all of your leadership on this important issue. I just wanted to respectfully ask for an aye vote, and thank you. Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll. Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. My apologies. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Aye. Senator Strickland. Aye. Senator Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Okay, this bill has a vote of 4-0. It's on call, waiting for other members. Thank you, Senator. So, it looks like we are now turning inward to our own committee and our committee member bills. So we will start with Senator DeRosso. She is ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. First, I want to draw your attention to the author's amendments. hopefully receive a copy of this prior to the hearing. And the amendments do two things. At the request of the Chamber of Commerce, they permit employers to limit employees to, quote-unquote, one designated person per year for purposes of bereavement leave. And two, they clean up a redundant reference to parent-in-laws who are already included in the definition of parent in the current statute. As proposed to be amended, SB 1149 would allow workers to use bereavement leave following the death of a, quote, designated person, which is defined as an individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. Existing law allows most workers to take up to five days of unpaid job-protected bereavement leave following the death of a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild. To use this law, an employee must work for an employer with five or more employees, and the employee must have worked for that employer for at least 30 days prior to the commencement of their leave. Bereavement leave must also be completed within three months of the family member's death. In today's world, more and more people have strong bonds with and rely upon the support of their chosen and extended family members. Our caregiving laws reflect that reality, and it is time that our bereavement leave laws do, too. Here with me today to testify in support are Jenna Shankman on behalf of the California Coalition on Family Caregiving and Alice Kessler on behalf of Equality California. Thank you. You both have two minutes. Good morning, Senators. My name is Jenna Shankman and I am here representing the California Coalition on Family Caregiving a proud co of SB 1149 by Senator Durazzo SB 1149 updates bereavement leave to allow workers to use leave following the death of a designated person someone related by blood or with whom an employee shares a family-like relationship. This definition is already used in California's other family leave laws, so SB 1149 simply corrects an inconsistency. In 2022, AB 1949 gave most California workers up to five days of unpaid job-protected bereavement leave, but only for eight specific relationships. Meanwhile, recognizing that family is more than these eight relationships, AB 1041 updated the California Family Rights Act to allow workers to take unpaid job-protected leave to care for a chosen or extended family member and to use their sick leave to care for these relationships. Starting in 2028, SB 590 will update paid family leave so that California workers can receive benefits to care for a designated person as well. This means that under current law, a worker can take leave to care for a chosen or extended family member but has no right to bereavement leave when that same person dies. SB 1149 closes that gap. Aligning family definitions also reduces confusion for employers and workers, particularly small businesses without HR departments. It's important to note that since SB 1149 mirrors the California Family Rights Act, employers can still limit bereavement leave to one designated person per year. The California Coalition on Family Caregivers advocates for unpaid family caregivers of older adults and people with disabilities. We're seeing, and the data also demonstrates, a rise in solo agers or people aging without a partner or adult children. These individuals often depend on chosen family for care. Caregiving relationships often span years or even decades, and that bond deserves to be recognized with time to grieve. Workers whose family relationships do not fit within the current statute should not have to choose between their job and mourning someone they love. I'm sorry, your time is closed. Yes, SB 1149 is an easy fix to prevent that choice. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Alice Kessler, I'm here on behalf of Equality California. We're a co-sponsor of the bill in strong support. as was explained by the author and the other witness. This really just builds upon existing laws who've already passed in the state and gets that consistency. This is an issue that's of particular relevance to members of the LGBTQ plus community, many of whom have strained relationships or even estrangement from their families of origin. We have one of the largest LGBTQ plus communities of any state. This is millions of people in the state, and it's important that our policies are evolving to fully reflect the reality of our families. So we would urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you both. Okay, we will now hear the supports. Me Too's, please come to the mic. State your name and affiliation. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice. Proud co-sponsor and support. Also on behalf of my fellow co-sponsors, Equal Rights Advocates and our Family Coalition in support. Also on behalf of some additional supporters, California Federation of Business and Professional Women and Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Thank you. Good morning. Grace Glaser on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence in support and also registering Lisa's Care Connection, and Microenterprise Collaboration of Inland Southern California, Nevada County Citizens for Choice, Nourishing Justly, and Orange County Equality Coalition in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman. My name is Catalina Sanchez, here to register support by Parent Voices California, Poder Latinx and the San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition in support. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Daphne Rodriguez Alvarado, here on behalf of California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Good morning. Monica Garcia-Ortega, here on behalf of Women's Foundation California, Working Partnership USA and WorkSafe in support. Thank you. Good morning, Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Ken Wang here on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co-sponsor as well as Legal Aid at Work, hand-in-hand the Domestic Employers Network, California National Organization of Women, and the California Women's Law Center in support. Thank you. Good morning. Pete Hansel with AARP California. We are a co-sponsor in strong support. Ramon Costa Blanc, California Alliance for Retired Americans, in support. Good morning. Jennifer Robles on behalf of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network. Thank you. Good morning. Ruby Arcel on behalf of Children Now in support. Good morning. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Good morning, Elmer Lazardo here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thanks. Good morning, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Unite here, the California Conference of Machinists, Utility Workers Union of America, and the Engineers and Scientists of California in support. Thank you. Good morning, honorable members. Edgar Ortiz on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center in support. Thank you. Good morning. Katie Duberg with California Work and Family Coalition, proud co-sponsor of SB 1149. Also registering support on behalf of the following organizations, Breastfeed LA, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, California Latinos for Reproductive Justice, Caring Across Generations, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and United Auto Workers Region 6. Thank you. Good morning. Jasmine Amyan, also with the California Work and Family Coalition, proud co-sponsor of SB 1149. Also on behalf of the following organizations in strong support, Courage California, Disability Rights California, End Child Poverty California, Family Values at Work, Gender Affirming Professionals, and Gender Alchemy. Thank you. Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association in support. Angel Jaimes on behalf of the TransLatina Coalition in strong support. Good morning. Lauren Darlene Robles on behalf of the TransLatina Coalition in strong support. Good morning. My name is Sofia Garola. I represent the American Association of University Women, California, and we support this bill. Good morning. Missy Maseko, also with the American Association of University Women of California. We are in support of the bill. Thank you. Good morning. Kathleen Harper, also here on behalf of the American Association of University Women of California, with strong support. Good morning Amy Hom also with American Association of University Women of California in support Thank you Good morning Jacqueline Lopez also with the American Association of University Women in support Good morning. Sunri Sadar, also with the American Association of University Women, and we are in support. Last one, Kathy Van Austin on behalf of AAUW California in support. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Nothing like a good shot of democracy in the morning. Next we'll hear from opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Any Me Too's in opposition? Seeing none come to the dice. I want to say to the author thank you for bringing this and closing this important loophole we want everyone to be able to celebrate the life of loved ones and this bill allows them to do that and so I will offer the close for you Senator DeRosso I just want to thank everybody who showed up today it's a beautiful coalition from AARP to engineers and scientists all over California support this bill so thank you and I urge an eye vote Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll. I move the bill. I'll move it. It's okay. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Thank you. Senator? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. My apologies again. The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Senator Strickland aye. Senator Strickland aye. Strickland aye. Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo aye. Durazo aye. Senator Laird. We have a three to zero vote. It's on call for members to return. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Appreciate you stepping in. Good morning, everyone. I'm proud to present SB 909. This bill strengthens enforcement of California's public works laws by updating contractor registration fees and penalties, tying them to inflation and reinvesting the penalty revenue into the state public works enforcement fund to support enforcement staffing. This is a revenue-generating bill. In a time when our state is in deficit and structural deficits, it's important for us to look at ways to increase revenues. When the state spends public dollars on construction, workers should be paid the wages they earn, and responsible contractors should be able to compete on a level playing field. But that is not always the case. We know that wage theft and labor violations remain a serious problem on public works projects and these penalties have not been meaningfully updated in more than 10 years As a result enforcement has fallen behind penalties have lost deterrent value over time, and staffing shortages have delayed investigations and leaving opportunity for too many bad actors to treat violations as just a cost of doing business rather than addressing the problem and obeying California laws. For workers, this has real consequences. A construction worker can be put in long hours working on a public project, expecting a fair paycheck, only to find that they were underpaid. And that missing pay, we know, is rent, it's groceries, it's childcare, it's gas, it's the things that keep our communities thriving. So SB 909 is also about creating a level playing field for responsible contractors, contractors who do follow the public works law and do pay prevailing wages and should not be underbid by those who cut corners and gain unfair advantage through noncompliance. compliance. The bill also reflects an important budget and revenue point. SB 909 increases revenue by updating fees and penalty amounts that have gone flat. We think that by tying them to CPI moving forward that they will keep their value and they will deter as well as raise the revenue needed to ensure that the laws that we pass are enforced. In other words, SB 1241 will lead to more penalties being assessed through stronger enforcement tools, and the bill modernizes an underlying fee and penalty framework. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I will have with me to testify Matt Crimmins with the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Elmer Lazardi with the California Labor Federation. Thanks for being here. Two minutes each. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of SB 909, which would modernize public works contractor registration fees, update penalties for prevailing wage violations, and seek to take a critical step to ensure that we are prioritizing enforcement of our state public works laws. It's often said in this building that our state budget is a reflection of our priorities. And I think the same exact thing can be said for the enforcement of our laws, and that it is truly a choice. We are either willing to put forth the resources that are needed to protect our workers, or we are not. As I know this committee knows well, misclassification is a major issue in the construction industry, with a recent UC Berkeley study finding that one in five construction workers will experience wage theft throughout their career. And the growing frequency of wage theft can also clearly be seen when taking a look at our State Labor Commissioner's Office, which a recent state audit found had 47,000 backlogged wage theft cases that were taking an average of 854 days to resolve. So with that being said, SB 909 simply seeks to take the important step to ensure that we are prioritizing the enforcement of our public works laws, and it's going to do so in three ways. First and foremost, it's going to raise contractor registration fees for the first time in almost a decade. It's going to increase prevailing wage penalties for the first time in almost 15 years. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the bill is going to ensure more steady streams of enforcement funding by mandating that when the Labor Commissioner does collect penalties, 50 percent of those penalties shall go back into the Public Works Enforcement Fund to further protect workers. In closing Senators I would just say I know there has been a lot of talk about affordability in this building over the last couple years And I know this bill will not solve all of those issues but I think it important to note that from our perspective there is no better way to tackle affordability than ensuring workers are getting paid what they are properly owed Happy to answer any questions or concerns. I would respectfully request your aye vote. Next witness. Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. We're proud co-sponsors of SB 909, again, which updates public works contractor registration fees and penalties for prevailing wage violations to ensure that proper enforcement of public works laws that protect construction workers. This bill builds on the labor law enforcement work that we have prioritized over the last several years since violations like wage theft are so pervasive in California. Workers lose billions of dollars every year due to wage theft violations. And a study conducted by Rutgers in 2024 found that on average, workers affected by wage theft had about 20% of their entire paycheck stolen from them. Most families cannot afford this type of loss, and wage theft disproportionately impacts workers doing some of the toughest jobs in the construction, agriculture, garment, and hospitality industries, worsening the economic inequality in the state. And it's also important to note that violations like wage theft also end up putting law-abiding employers at a disadvantage in costing taxpayers and lost revenue. With this in mind, SB 909's simple goals, as already stated, will ensure that the state can help enforce public works project violations and also help continuously reinvest funds towards this critical work. We want to also thank the committee for their diligence and analysis, especially in outlining the modest adjustments in the fees and penalties that the bill would provide, as they also underscore the need to keep them up with inflation. Ultimately, we just want to make sure that workers on public works projects no longer have to continue waiting for the pay that they have earned or the justice that they're owed whenever a violation occurs. And we think that SB 909 will help the state make progress towards that goal. Thank you so much, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes? Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union in support. Thank you. Vince Agroo on behalf of SMART, Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104 in support. Thanks for being here. Thank you, Jeremy Smith, here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also in support. Thank you. Good morning, Dalia Fonseca with the State Council of Labor is here in support. Thank you. Good morning, Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you. Good morning, Cassie Manzini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? Two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in respectful opposition to SB 909. AGC supports strong and fair enforcement of public works laws. However, SB 909 takes a cost-heavy approach that increases fees, penalties, and uncertainty without addressing the underlying challenges in the state's enforcement system. First, the bill removes the statutory cap on contractor registration fees and allows the Department of Industrial Relations to increase those fees annually without a transparent rulemaking process. This creates significant uncertainty, especially for small and mid-sized contractors, about the cost of simply participating in public works. Second, SB 909 substantially increases penalties of Christ's across a wide range of violations, including prevailing wage, payroll reporting, and apprenticeship requirements. These penalties apply even in some cases of clerical or unintentional errors, while prime contractors remain responsible for subcontractor compliance. The result is a sharp increase in financial risk for responsible contractors trying to follow complex rules. Third, the bill directs more penalty revenue into enforcement, but it does not fix the core issue identified by the state auditor. delays and staffing challenges within the Labor Commissioner's office. Increasing penalties, fees without improving administrative capacity will not lead to better outcomes for workers or more efficient enforcement. Ultimately, higher costs and higher risks will reduce competition, increase bid prices, and drive up the cost of public infrastructure at a time when California can least afford it. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on SB 909. Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition? Mr. Chair and members, Scott, Governor, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, I apologize for not getting our letter in on time. We share many of the same concerns as AGC and look forward to continue to work on this bill. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Richard Markson, on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association, we share the concerns of AGC and CEC. We're opposed. Thank you. All right. Now it comes back to committee members. Bill's been moved. Madam Chair, would you like to close? Well, I just want to thank the witnesses who spoke today. And, you know, we know that the price of eggs has gone up, milk, transportation, gas. We know that, you know, doing business with the state is a premium, and we pay well, and we want contractors who are going to follow the law. And that's essentially what this bill encourages. It encourages a fair playing field for all contractors. It takes into account the cost of doing business at the state to ensure that we have a vibrant, robust system that can enforce the laws that we pass. This is a common sense bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Clerk, please call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? The bill is 2 to 1. We'll remain on call for other members. Madam Chair, the next item that you have is item number 6, SB 1132. Thank you again, Mr. Vice Chair and members. I am pleased to present SB 1132, which requires the California Workforce Development Board, in coordination with subject matter experts, to develop a standardized Know Your Rights curriculum delivered through the state's workforce development system. California's public workforce development system is the largest in the country, and every day our workforce board connects Californians to employment opportunities through training and education services, wraparound programming. Existing law provide valuable workplace rights and immigration enforcement rights education to high school students. In fact, a number of trainings have already been developed by a number of different institutions, including the UCLA Labor Center and they serve as a strong existing resource But a significant gap remains for individuals re the workforce and those that are using our workforce development system. Without standardized rights education at workforce entry points, many vulnerable workers may not understand or assert their legal protections. And we know we can pass all of the laws that are necessary at the state level here in the Capitol. But if workers don't know that they exist, they don't know how to access them, they are meaningless. And so SB 1132 ensures that we strengthen our workforce investments, that we build bridges to access the rights of Californians, and that we promote a safe, fair, and lawful employment here in the state of California. With me today providing support testimony is Edgar Ortiz from the California Immigrant Policy Center and Grace Diaz from the Filipino Worker Center. Thank you. Two minutes each. Good morning, honorable chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Edgar Ortiz. I'm the Supervisory Economic Justice Policy Manager for the California Immigrant Policy Center, a proud co-sponsor of SB 1132. At its core, this policy is really about job quality and ensuring that workers are optimally positioned to be able to succeed in the workforce for however long they're working. The California workforce development system is the largest of its kind in the country and is uniquely positioned to respond to job seekers and future workers' needs given the wide array of services that it provides as well as its size. However, the truth of the matter is that there are limits to what an exclusively skills-based education can provide to individuals. The fact of the matter is that there's hundreds of thousands of workers right now as well as future workers who have never been onboarded about what their rights are. As the senator mentioned, you don't know what you don't know, and this is just something that the system doesn't currently provide at the moment right now. And many of these individuals come from backgrounds where they have some of the biggest barriers to employment, including low-income status, their immigration background, having had experiences in the prison system, foster use, and many more categories that are served by the system. As such, we want to ensure that through this policy, our local boards are able to leverage a statewide curriculum as well as local partnerships that can help to ensure that everyone is equipped with information about their labor and immigration rights. So that especially during this time right now that they are positioned to be able to take care of themselves and their loved ones. If I could just really quickly share a personal anecdote. When I graduated out of undergrad, between that and then going to grad school, one of the very first things I did was actually go to a career fair that was hosted by my local workforce development board in Southern California. And through that, I was able to get a job in the warehousing industry. And that helped to provide a bridge employment, which allowed me to bring in income to my household. But unfortunately, it would have been really helpful at the time, although I didn't get it, to receive information about what my rights are, as they would be covered under this policy. And this really would have come in handy when I experienced my first – Ten seconds. Ten seconds left. Thank you. And so just to conclude, this is a policy that builds the capacity of our workforce development system, while at the same time ensuring that our workforce outcomes are propelled forward so that all workers, even those experiencing the biggest barriers, are able to thrive in this economy. Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Next witness. Good morning. My name is Grace Diaz. I'm a caregiver with 23 years experience. I am also an active member of Filipino Workers Center. I a single mom supporting my three children in the Philippines As an immigrant and as a caregiver this is not just a job It is my survival and support my loved one I truly have passion for caring for people. However, my journey as a caregiver has not been easy. Before I faced many challenges in this industry, I was paid under minimum wage while the agency I was working for got $38 per hour from the client. I used to work in a facility wherein I get paid $150 for a 24-hour shift. I have experience being discriminated because of my color. I was not paid at all. I was even in a situation where I felt unsafe in my workplace, and I almost had faced sexual harassment. As an immigrant, I felt even more vulnerable because there was no accessible resources for me, and I did not always know my rights back then. I don't know where to go to get help. I had to navigate everything on my own. And it is not just me. This is being experienced by a lot of caregivers. This is why SB 1132 is so important. This bill will make sure that workers like me receive Know Your Rights education and is part of workforce training because workforce development should not only help us get jobs, it should also protect us once we are in the job. Ten seconds. Every work deserves that from the very beginning. I am here because I do not want next-generation caregivers to go through what I have went through. SB 1132 will help prevent that by making sure workers are informed, protected, and respected from the start. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes? Good morning, Chair and members. Colin Sammer with Brantsey on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you. Good morning. Daniela Rodriguez with Immigrants Rising, also in support. Good morning. Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud co-sponsor and support. Also registering support for Unite LA, Filipino Workers Center, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and Building Skills Partnership. Elmer Lazarte, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, go back to the committee. The bill has been moved Madam Chair, would you like to close? Well, I just want to say thank you to the witnesses And thank you so much for your personal story And that's what this bill is about Is preventing those kinds of harms And making sure that the laws that we pass Actually get in the hands Of the workers who need and deserve them And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote Clark, please call the roll The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smaller Cuevas? Aye. Smaller Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No Strickland no Senator Cortese Senator Durazo Aye Durazo aye Senator Laird That bill is 2 and will remain on call Thank you for being here. Madam Chair, the next bill that you have is File Item 7, SB 1241. Thank you again, Mr. Vice Chair and members. I am proud to present SB 1241. This bill strengthens enforcement of California's skill and trained workforce requirements so that these standards are meaningful in practice, not just on paper. Existing law already requires that workers in apprenishable occupations be either skilled journeypersons or registered apprentices, and that at least 60% of skilled journeypersons be apprenticeship graduates specified. specified. SB 1241 does not change those standards. It strengthens the enforcement where those requirements apply. Weak enforcement, as we all know, has real consequences for workers. When a contractor is allowed to submit a vague compliance report to keep working without a real correction, and then the workers who completed the apprenticeship training and played by the rules can lose hours and job opportunities and the benefit of the standards that we were supposed to protect them, we have a problem. Responsible contractors that invest in apprenticeships are also put at a disadvantage. SB 1241 addresses the problem by defining what a substantial compliance plan must include, limiting repeated reliance on those plans and strengthening accountability for missing reports, incomplete reports, or continued noncompliance. The bill does not create a new statewide mandate or raise existing workforce thresholds. It applies where a public entity has already chosen to require a skilled and trained workforce. Opponents raise concerns about worker supply, but this bill does not change who qualifies as a skilled and trained or increase the percentage requirement. It simply says that if a contractor takes a project where a skilled and trained workforce is already required, that that commitment be honored. And that's by doing the compliance work properly. Workers who completed the training should not lose out because a contractor accepted the job and then failed to meet the standard. We know there are also opponents who talk about this being too punitive, But monthly reporting is already required, and this bill is aimed at repeated noncompliance, missing the incomplete reports, and violations that continue after notice. Not contractors who are making good faith efforts to do the state's work and who are complying. At its core, SB 1241 is about accountability, ensuring that workers who completed apprenticeship training are protected, that responsible contractors are not undercut, and that taxpayers can trust that workforce commitments on public projects will be honored. With me to testify are David Vincent, Director of Compliance for Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104, and Scott Wetch, who is representing the three crafts. Thank you for being here today. Two minutes each. Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wich on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades, and the Western States Association of Sheet Metal Workers. The problem was skilled in – the legislature adopted a skilled and trained workforce requirement on many different types of public works projects to ensure that we have the highest quality, most efficient, and safest construction projects. Unfortunately, the original statute had a provision that allows contractors to get out of this requirement if they simply show substantial compliance. But the statute doesn't define substantial compliance, and therein lies the problem. What the standard operating procedure for many, many contractors is today is not even attempt to meet the skilled and trained requirement. And if caught, then simply writing a letter stating, oh, we attempted to hire folks. We took out an ad. We've seen all kinds of different excuses. It's the proverbial my dog ate my homework excuse. As a result, the whole enforcement system has been paralyzed. As the senator pointed out, this bill doesn't expand the maximum penalty for violations. But to my knowledge and to our knowledge, never has one max penalty ever been applied. This is absolutely essential. The author has been extremely modest in laying out a whole series of things that must be considered in a first violation, like intent, if they voluntarily attempted to correct, if they submitted a substantial compliance plan and attempted to follow it. So it gives great deference to a contractor who's attempting to do the right thing but then doesn't. And then lastly, the opposition is going to state that they believe there's a shortage of workers that can meet this. According to EDD's last numbers, there's 891,000 construction workers employed in California today. Okay. The State Building Construction Trades Council alone represents 450,000 skilled and trained workers. We currently have 96,000 apprentices in the apprenticeship programs that would qualify for this. And that doesn't count all the non-union graduates that have graduated from all the non-union apprenticeship programs or the federally approved apprenticeship programs, which also qualify somebody as skilled and trained. That is a canard. They don't have the receipts to prove their assertions, and it's not relevant to this bill. Thank you. Next witness. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is David Vincent. I work for Smart Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104 as the Director of Compliance. I've worked in labor compliance and enforcement across public works projects throughout California for more than 10 years. What we're actually seeing right now is a growing gap between what the law requires and what is actually taking place on taxpayer-funded job sites. Contractors who are trying to follow the rules, paying the prevailing wage, hiring apprentices, and attempting to comply with the skilled and trained workforce requirements are increasingly being undercut by those who are not. And the issue is not that the law is unclear. The issue is that there are gaps in enforcement that allow bad actors to treat compliance as simply optional. For example, I've seen numerous contractors over the years from different trades justify their failure to employ a single journey person from a state or federally approved apprenticeship program after characterizing their performance as substantially compliant, with one contractor doing so 18 months in a row with no fear of penalty or consequence under the current enforcement regime In practice this creates a system where responsible contractors are put at a competitive disadvantage and workers are the ones that ultimately bear the costs through lost wages, reduced training opportunities, and lower standards across and throughout the industry. SB 1241 closes a loophole that allows repeated violations to occur without meaningful consequences. Respectfully, we believe that this is a necessary step towards restoring a level playing field and protecting both workers and responsible contractors. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Other witnesses for identification purposes and support? Vince Segru on behalf of Smart Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 104 and strong support. Thank you, Chair and members. Matt Cremins, California, Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are in support. Thank you. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you. Elmer Lazardi, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades, as well as the District Council of Ironworkers in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Two minutes each. Mr. Chair and members, Scott, Governor, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, we are many of the largest union signatory building contractors in the state. We've had conversations with proponents, and we look forward to continuing those conversations. Considering the vast majority of this work, by our estimates, 80-plus percent is done by union builders, we think now is a good time to look at the program holistically to see what changes should be made. It's been in effect a long time to ensure greater compliance before automatically ratcheting up the penalties. Once we address those items, then penalties may in fact be in order, but there are some underlying issues we'd like to talk to them about fixing. It's especially important when you consider that there are perhaps a dozen bills this year that will increase skilled and trained workforce obligations, from local public agencies to CSU to Senator Cortese's bill, which expands it to pharma facilities. If we believe there are compliance issues, then now is the time to fix those before we should consider expanding it. As a basic example of what I'm talking about, existing law and the bill both provide that owners are obligated to tell contractors in the RFP if skilled and trained is applicable. The law also says that if they don't tell you, you're still liable for it. How can you be liable for something if you don't know it exists? So it's items like that that are kind of riddled throughout the statute that we think should be addressed. And, again, we look forward to ongoing conversations with the proponents because we want skilled and trained to remain. We want it to work. My members benefit from it. But there are some tweaks that would be beneficial to achieve greater compliance. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. Good morning, Madam Chair. Chair members of the committee, Felipe Fuentes is here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, again, representing both union and non-union contractors who support strong workforce development policies and high-quality construction standards. However, this bill goes well beyond strengthening enforcement. It significantly expands the scope and rigidity of the skilled and trained workforce requirements in ways that the current labor market cannot support. First, the bill dramatically broadens when these requirements apply, extending them to development agreements permit conditions and other local actions This will capture a much larger universe of projects including many where there has been no analysis of workforce availability Second SB 1241 creates a rigid compliance system with mandatory maximum penalties, eliminates the labor commissioner's discretion to waive penalties, and raises the risk of debarment tied to reporting issues. Even good faith contractors who are trying to comply could face severe financial consequences for technical and unavoidable shortfalls. But third and most importantly, the bill ignores a fundamental reality. California does not currently have enough journey-level workers and many trades to meet expanded mandates. AGC and our members are actively engaged and working with our labor partners to figure out how to promote this workforce amongst the youngest to the folks sort of even in my age, because the average age of a journey person right now is in its mid-40s. I'm much older than mid-40s. AGC and our members are actively investing that through our Construction Education Foundation. We're trying to train the next generation of skilled workforce, and that takes time. Expanding these requirements faster than the workforce can grow will lead to fewer bidders, higher costs, and delays for critical public projects. Ultimately, this bill increases risk without increasing capacity. It discourages participation in public works at a time when the state is relying on the construction industry to deliver critical infrastructure and the future of its construction workforces. For these reasons, we must unfortunately request a no vote. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Now it goes back to the committee. Oh, I'm sorry. Other witnesses' opposition for identification purposes? Absolutely. Good morning, Senator Richard Marks, and on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association, we share the concerns of the witnesses. Thank you. Good morning. Chris Walker on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. We're not here in opposition formally today, but we do want to express concerns about the administrative functions. We support skilled and trained workforce and the program implicitly. We want to see it strengthened, but some of the administrative provisions in here can lead to debarment of very good responsible contractors, and that's a concern that we would like to see addressed. So thank you very much. Thank you. Well, I do have a question. It seems the testimony is kind of different. They say they have enough in the workforce. You're saying there's not enough workers. I just want to kind of clarify what's your response to the proponents that said there's plenty of workers out there to move forward. So I really encourage the committee and its membership to visit buildcalifornia.com. It is a project by the Construction Education Foundation hosted at the Associated General Contractors of California because there isn't the workforce that we need. Recall in the legislative record that it's just as recent as 2016 that we passed as a legislature, and I should say you all passed as a legislature, skilled and trained workforce requirements. It was subsequently amended in 2018 and 2019 because the ratios were difficult to comply with. And that was promoted by our friends in labor. AGC did not take a position in that because, again, we believe in a skilled and trained workforce. And my suspicions say that in short order you will see more legislation asking to relax those ratios. Why? The pipeline is too thin at this point. We are working towards figuring out how to increase that pipeline and that workforce. but we don't have it and we see it on job sites and with the average age of a journey person being in its mid 40s we have to endeavor to figure out how to increase that pipeline so we don have a quarrel with the the pursuit It just you can expand it if you don have the resources It seems like there a witness that wants to respond So let's hear. Mr. Chairman and members, in response to my good friend, Mr. Fuentes' testimony, first and foremost, those pieces of legislation lowered the bar for only a few classifications, none of which I represent, down to 30%, it's 60% for the skilled trades that I represent. Now, I hate to confuse the argument with facts, but the latest data from EDD is there is 891,000 construction workers employed in California today. The Building and Construction Trades Council represents 450,000 skilled and trained workers. We currently have 96,000 apprentices that qualify in state-approved apprenticeship programs. We graduated 19,000 in the last two years. That doesn't even account for all the non-union construction workers who have graduated from a non-union apprenticeship program, which qualifies them as skilled and trained, or a program that's federally approved, of which there are tens of thousands of construction workers who have come to California or who were trained in California through a federally approved program. So I'm sorry, the numbers just don't add up. Thank you. Would you like to respond? You know, my good friend, Scott Wetch, don't disagree with the raw numbers. And I think that's the distinction and the analysis that's necessary to be done. Certain classifications are able to move more through the process and apprenticeship. Others may not be. So just the raw numbers, I don't think, tells us the complete story, because I think our friends would also argue that jurisdiction matters. And so that apprenticeship program and training is highly dependent on its throughput, but there's so many different sort of veins that move to getting ultimately to it. So, again, we are excited and stand by skilled and trained and want to promote it, but I agree with my colleague here that it might be time to look at the program to understand how to maximize the effort versus just sort of looking at it in its totality. All right. Thank you. Any committee members?

Yes, thank you, Senator. The Building and Construction Trades Council as the umbrella organization and all of the various members of that have a myriad of programs which we invest not millions but tens of millions of dollars into. We have programs focused just on taking the previously incarcerated and getting them into our apprenticeship programs. We have helmets to hard hats for veterans. We have programs, pre-apprenticeship programs that we've established that the state does not subsidize, that we pay entirely out of our own pockets, going into school districts in disadvantaged communities throughout the entire state of California trying to recruit young people. We, you know, every one of the international unions that's I represent have huge, huge priority put on expanding our apprenticeship programs with particularly going and trying to recruit more women into the trades, which is difficult because of barriers for them regarding child care and other things that we all understand. The workouts of construction are very difficult, and particularly in communities of color. I was just looking at the figures for the apprenticeship program that serves all of the investor-owned utilities in California. We have one apprenticeship program. Over the last four classes, a majority of the graduates have all been apprentices of color, which we're very proud of. So there's a lot going on in that area.

Now we'll move the bill. Okay. The bill has been moved. Anything else from the members? See none. Madam Chair, you could close, but my understanding is due pass as amended with author's amendments. Is that correct? That's correct. So with a close. Thank you. So you'll move it with author's amendments? Yes. I am accepting my own amendment. Right. Exactly. Thank you. I was just told. But thank you for that. We'll get that on the record. But I want to just say I really appreciate the conversation and discussion, and I know that these debates will continue. But I want us to not lose sight of what this bill is about. This is about the noncompliance happening right now, not when we don't have workers in the future. You're still working, and look good, Mr. Fuentes, for 40, and you're here doing a great job. And we know there are plenty of workers in their 40s who are on the job, and they're doing a great job today. And having been in a community workforce development program where we saw the participation of black construction workers grow from a few hundred to 2,800 in this sector, I can tell you right now there are community members from your county, my county, up and down the state who would put on some boots and tools today and go work for one of these companies because these are good jobs. And our goal here is to make sure that there's a level playing field and that compliance is happening. And we see this bill as a way of doing that. We see this bill as a way of modernizing and clarifying questions that have been a source of concern as we are investing in these public works projects. We want to make sure that what we've invested in, what the taxpayers want to see, a skilled and trained workforce where we are bringing in apprentices, where they are getting trained, where they are coming out and being able to buy homes and cars and all that good stuff. We want to make sure that that's happening on every single project, and we will not know unless that compliance is in place. So with that, I respectfully ask for the aye vote and to strengthening the ways in which we have a skilled and trained workforce on our public works projects. Thank you. Madam, Mr. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood Cuevas?

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland?

Strickland, no. Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Durazo Aye Durazo aye Laird Aye Laird aye That bill is out of 4 Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we will move to all of our bills on call. We'll start with... Oh, that's right. We've got one more bill. Senator... We're going to go on call. Okay. Okay, yes, we are going to go to bills that are on call. We're going to start with SB 1054. File item 1, SB 1054, the motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 4-0, with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Laird?

Laird, aye. Okay, with a vote of 5-0, that bill is out. Moving on to file item number 2, SB 1166. The motion is due pass to Senate Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is 3-1, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Okay, we have a vote of 4-1. That bill is out. Moving on to file item number 4, SB 1149. SB 1149, Senator Smallwood, pardon me, Senator Durazo. Current vote is 3-0. The chair voting aye, and vice chair voting aye. Senator Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Senator Laird?

Laird, aye. That's 5-0. That bill has a vote of 5-0, and it is out. Moving on to file item number 5, SB 909. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 2-1, with the chair voting aye, and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Laird?

Laird, aye. With a vote of 4-1, that bill is out. Moving on to file item number 6, S6, SB 1132. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 2 to 1. The chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Senator Laird?

Laird, aye. Okay, we have a vote of 4 to 1. That bill is out. We're going to file item number 7, SB 1241. Okay, that bill is already out. Everyone was here for that. So now we'll move to Senator Laird.

Thank you. You may proceed. You have two minutes.

So do we have any Me Too's in support of this bill? Please state your name and affiliation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, we'll move to opposition. Are there any opposition? Oh, no, there are no opposition witnesses. Any Me Too oppositions out there? Doesn't look like it. We'll come to the dais members. We have a motion to move the bill by Senator DeRosso. Would you like to close, Mr. Lane?

Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood Cuevas?

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland?

Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese? Senator DeRosso?

DeRosso, aye. Senator Laird?

Laird, aye. So we have a vote of 4 and we going to hold that bill on call for a few more minutes Okay, everyone, that concludes our agenda for the day. We have... Okay, we cannot close. We're not going to close the roll yet. We're going to go to recess and then come back in about 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you Thank you Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee is back in session. We are not going to have the opportunity for Senator Cortese to rejoin us, so we are going to close the roll. And looking at file item number 3, SB 1038, that bill is out with a vote of 4-0. And with that, our committee has concluded for the day. We are adjourned. Thank you.