Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the role.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Members, a quorum is present with the members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery. Please rise. We'll be led in prayer today by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, after which we're going to ask you to remain standing and will be led in the Pledge Allegiance by Senator Stern.

Thank you. Let us remember that we are in God's presence gracious God silenced hands and heart open I pray brush away what keeps me stuck dulled by figuring, not listening to your presence, your words what am I looking for? What am I expecting to see? Like the banks of a river I need to wait ready to receive sacred life and ready to let go tuned to your rhythms o God, give us eyes to see the shadows where holiness lies invisible in questions and uncertainties without answers we dwell in mystery, connection, communion your heartbeat everywhere amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of. The United States of America and to. The Republic, indivisible and justice.

Mr. Majority Leader. What purpose?

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Democratic Caucus.

Members, we're moving to a Democratic Caucus Members, Senate is back in session. We're now moving to privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the governor will be deemed read. Messages from the assembly will be deemed read. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted, motions and resolutions and notices. Approval of the Daily Journal? Without objection. The Senate journals for May 22, 2023 through May 26, 2023, will be approved as corrected by the Minute clerk, Seyarto. Senator. Seyarto.

Well, thank you, Mr. President. I would like to move file item 117, which is SCR 70, to the inactive file.

The desk will note. Thank you. All right, members, moving on. We're now ready for consideration of the daily file. All right, we're going to move on to file item number two. Senator Ochoa Bogh. Is she prepared? She is Secretary.

Senate Bill 612 by Senator Ochoa Bogh an act relating to healing arts.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, SB 612 will would clarify that the provisions of SB 1453, which I authored last year, apply only to speech language pathologists who are licensed on or after January 1, 2023. SB 1453 sought to address the confusion surrounding the authorization needed for a speech language pathologist to perform a procedure known as flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, commonly referred to as fees. SB 1453 clarified the issue, but did not specify whether the new training provisions were retroactive. Recently, the Speech Language Pathology and Audiology Board announced that they interpreted SB 1453 in such a way that they would apply the bill's new training requirements. To all SLPs. This means that SLPs who were performing fees prior to 2023 may no longer be able to perform them without meeting additional training requirements. Despite clear competency and experience, SB 612 will ensure that SLPs who were performing FEES before this 2023 are still able to perform them. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item any further discussion or debate, hearing and seeing none. Secretary please call the role on file.

Item two. Allen. Aye Albrado Gill. Aye Archuletta. Aye Ashby? Aye Atkins? Aye Becker? Aye Blakespear? Aye Bradford? Aye Caballero? Aye Cortsse. Aye Dahle? I Dodd? Aye Duraso? Aye Eggman? Aye Glazer? Aye Gonzalez? Aye Grove? Aye Hurtado. Aye Jones? Aye Laird? Aye McGuire? Aye Manjivar. Aye Min? Aye Newman? Aye Nguyen? I Niello? Aye Ochoa Bogh? Aye Padilla? Aye Portantino? Aye Roth? Aye Rubio? Aye Seyarto? Aye Skinner? Aye, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye Stern. Aye Umberg. Aye Wahab? Aye Wiener? Aye Wilk?

Ayes40, no zero. The measure passes. Now, members, removing back to file, item number one, senator Allen. He's prepared. Secretary you may read.

Senate Bill 681 by Senator Allen. An act related to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Senator Allen?

Yeah, Mr. President. Thank you. Since the Political Reform Act was first passed by voters back in the mid seventy s, the Legislature has enacted a number of significant PRA amendments to improve government accountability and election transparency, including expanded financial contribution restrictions to public officials, increased transparency in lobbying and political advertising, et cetera. Bills amending the PRA must be available for public review in their final form for twelve days before being approved by either House or the Legislature. But some important PRA reforms, sometimes that involve very widespread support that have been really impeded by timing conflicts between end of session, legislative deadlines, appropriations, and the twelve day final form requirements. So, just to give you an example, appropriations Committee suspense file hearings currently leave literally no time for critical amendments to be made on the floor. Because of that twelve day requirement that's currently in the PRA, the Legislature has twice shortened the final form requirement from the PRA's original 40 down to the twelve that we have today.

The current timeline dates back to 1985, when bills were distributed through the Postal Service, and before the advent of the modern Internet, which enables immediate access to legislation not only for us, but for all the advocates. So this bill will help facilitate updates to the Political Reform Act by shortening the final reform requirement to seven days. The bill also retains twelve days for gut and amends to prevent last minute PRA bills slipping through on a shorter timeline. This change will maintain a public review period that's longer than required of other legislation, while easing the ability of making critical amendments to PRA bills on the floor. Remember, PRA also require two thirds vote. This bill is supported by the good government groups, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Hearing and seeing? None. Secretary, please call the role and file item one.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Eggman. Aye.

Ayes 32, Nos eight. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on. The file item number four, Senator Becker. He's prepared. Secretary you may read.

Senate Bill 537 by Senator Becker an Act relating to local government and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Becker.

Good afternoon, Colleagues. This bill will provide accessibility to multi jurisdictional, cross county board meetings, and encourage participation by allowing members coming remotely when they have greater barriers to attend in person. With the state of emergency health emergency expiring in February 2023, multi jurisdictional boards have begun to feel the impact on transitioning back to in person meetings. They've already had issues with membership retention, concerned about a drop in public attendance, and for multi-jurisdictional boards covering large areas, it can be difficult for board members in the public to travel great lengths to actively participate in a meeting. This bill encourages participation by allowing these boards with appointed members to convene in hybrid settings, allowing those most impacted to join remotely while maintaining an in person quorum. It also offers an important update to facilitate attendance and participation in these meetings while creating guardrails to preserve the intent of the broad act. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 32 knows eight on the urgency. Eyes 32 knows eight on the measure. Measure passes now. Members, we're moving on to file item five by Senator Wilk. He's prepared. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 247. By Senator Wilk an act relacted to alcoholic beverages.

Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise today to present SB 247, which is cleanup legislation from 2016. Back then, a Democratic assemblyman, Tom Daley and myself introduced a bill that would allow beauty salons and or barbershops to offer one complimentary can of beer or a glass of wine. Unfortunately, many of the field offices for the ABC have said that the definition is correct for barber shops, but that it's unclear for beauty shops. So I've had beauty shops in my district be cited by the ABC. I think if it's okay for a guy to go to a place and have a complimentary beer when he gets a haircut, it should be same for everybody else. I know. We affectionately called this Vanessa's Law back in 2016, named after my wife, because I had no idea she was breaking the law at the time. But so, anyway, if we don't act today, she will be once again breaking the law. So I sincerely asked for an aye vote on SB 247.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using it in unanimous roll call on this item seeing none. Ayes 40. Nos zero. The measure passes now. Members, we're moving on to file item number nine by Senator Padilla. He is ready. Secretary you may read.

Senate Bill 751. By Senator Padilla in an act relating to franchise agreements.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you. Mr. President, I rise to present SB 751, which would preclude a not common but detrimental contract provision that has been placed in franchise agreements between public entities and waste haulers. This provision has the material effect of tying the hands of local governments and their constituents to enforce a contract for provision of waste services in the event of a work stoppage or labor issue or strike, because the provision describes a work stoppage, a labor action or strike as an act of God, otherwise known as force majeure. When waste taller franchises are so often exclusive to the corporate product providers and they involve the public health and safety. These provisions have no business being in a contract for public services, for public health and welfare. The bill removes the ability of any jurisdiction to include such a provision, negotiate such a provision, and it also provides consumer protection provisions relative to the ability to have notice, to the ratepayer of when a stoppage may occur, and to receive credits or refunds. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing and seeing none. Secretary please call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Ayes 30. Nos nine. The measure passes. Now, members, let's move on to file item eleven. Senator Wahhab. She is prepared. Secretary. You may read

Senate Bill 466 by Senator Wahhab an act relating to housing.

Senator Wahab

President, permission to use a prop?

Permission granted.

Thank you. So, I have a sleeping bag here. We're going to need thousands if we do not expand and preserve affordable housing and rent. Regulations are a simple tool for preserving affordability. SB 466 is not controversial. It's an update to an outdated policy. It is not about politics. It is about policy. SB 466 maintains the integrity of Costa Hawkins. This legislature is in constant debate about how to address the housing affordability. We discuss tax breaks, bond measures, and array of funding mechanisms to address this issue. And yet we have hamstrung the mechanism that provides a backstop to runaway rent increases. A tool that, at its core, keeps people housed and would put a significant dent in our financial obligations regarding affordable housing and homelessness. Because it's less expensive to keep people housed than it is to return someone to permanent housing once they are homeless. But instead we allow landlords to raise rents with impunity while taxpayers foot the bill for a problem that could be mitigated if jurisdictions were allowed to enact common sense rent regulation policies. Landlords who oppose SB 466 claim they need the stability and predictability provided by the existence of Costa Hawkins. You know who else would like some stability and predictability? Tenants. Tenants living paycheck to paycheck who are on the verge of displacement and homelessness if the rent increase is financially unstable. When people own homes and have decades of longevity in their communities, we praise them for housing stability. Yet when tenants live in a single unit for decades, it is decried as them squatting over a rental unit that could be used for someone else at a higher cost. Why the double standards? Why are homeowners more deserving of aging in place than tenants enacting? SB 466 does not impose any form of rent regulation across the state. It simply refines a tool in the toolbox for local jurisdictions who see rent regulation as one of the many tools to address the housing affordability crisis. SB 466 does not change any of the existing exempted units, nor does it touch the vacancy control provisions in the existing law. All we are doing is saying that a jurisdiction, if they choose, may regulate units that are at least 28 years old, with a gradual rolling in for jurisdictions with existing rent regulation policies. Do you all honestly believe that developers, after 28 years, have not earned their return on investment? Everyday people know that Costa Hawkins must change. SB 466 will maintain the naturally affordable housing by providing local jurisdictions with improved tools to address the housing affordability and homeless crisis. Thank you.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Secretary please call the role on file item eleven.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Secretary please call the absent members.

Allen? Archuletta. Becker, Cortese No. Grove? No. Hurtado? No. Limon? No. Newman, Portantino. Roth, . Stern.

Senator Wahab moves the call. Now, members, we're going to move on to file item 15. Senator Ochoa Bogh. She's prepared. Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 807 by Senator Ochoa Bogh and acquaintance to adoption.

Senator, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, in January of this year, the Sacramento Bee published an article regarding their in depth and heartbreaking investigation into the unique status given to the California Adoption Facilitators. An Adoption Facilitator is an unlicensed person or organization that advertises as an entity able to locate children to be adopted or acts as an intermediary between the parties to an adoption and charges for those services. The Sac B investigation found that nearly two dozen families hoping to adopt paid more than $245,000 to one Facilitator. Not one of these families was matched with a child, in spite of investing so much financial and emotional capital. Unfortunately, this is the norm, not the exception. While these are facilitators. Sorry. While there are Facilitators whose hearts may be in the right place, each registered adoption Facilitator appears to be out of compliance with state law. For example, many have advertised adoption agency or have promised to provide services far outside their statutory scope. Moreover, 13 of the state's 14 registered Facilitators fail to adequately disclose the fact that they are an adoption Facilitator in their advertising materials.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Secretary please call the roll on file item 15.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Thanks so much, Mr. President, Members, California, up until the budget we approved last year has been dead last in providing home to school transportation for our public school students. And with last year's budget and ongoing, even with the shortfall of this year, the funding for our home to school transportation is not in jeopardy. Partly because of Prop 98, we have greatly increased the ability for schools to provide our students rights. This bill helps ensure that the people that our schools hire so people that our schools pay to drive our kids to school are safe, that those people have background checks, that they meet certain requirements, that their mandate are reporters, a variety of things like that, as we would want to, because our kids, making them safe is a priority. SB 88 does not impact rides a parent provides or that families choose to arrange for themselves. Additionally, I wanted to just raise that there have been some concerns raised about whether this bill would affect, for example, transportation to field trips or to sporting events and such. And there are some things that we are looking at to address in the assembly to make sure that we are not at all hampering the school district's ability to provide students the ability to go on field trips or to sporting events or that sort of thing. But basically, the bill ensures that those people paid to drive our kids are safe. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item. Senator Allen. I'm sorry.

Well, thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the author for some of the work that she's doing to address some of the key issues that have been raised. I know there's some outstanding issues, everything from co-curricular, extracurricular activities, parents being able to drive a special ed kid to school if they're compensated under their 504 or IEP. I got a list of amendments that you're going to be taking in the second House that I think address these core issues. And so it's without understanding. I'm happy to vote for the bill today. We want to make sure that this is something that is workable for school districts. Glad you're working on it and happy to support it today.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members I know the author's intentions are good, but on this issue and many others like it, we have elected school board members in our state who are there to protect the health and safety of the children in which they are responsible for. So a bill like this creates a one size fits all solution for the state. And for that reason, unluckily, I can't support it today.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Senator Skinner, would you like to close?

Thank you. I ask for your aye vote.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. And members, SB 96 allows historic venues around the state, many of which are over 100 years old, to keep a portion of their sales tax revenue to help renovate and invigorate those, think of the Hollywood Bowl, think of the Cal Memorial Stadium in Berkeley, and think of the Rose Bowl. And you think of these historic venues that need love and care. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item, Senator Grove?

Thank you, Mr. President. It's not often I get to rise in support of this author's bill, so I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this bill forward. I really do support it. And we have venues in my district that will benefit from this. And it's not very often that you do things that support Kearns. So God bless you, sir.

Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

Wonders never cease. I respectfully ask for a vote on SB 96.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes. 38. Nos. Zero. The measure passes now, members. Remove it on a file. Item 19. Senator Durazo. She is prepared. Secretary, you may read

Senate Bill 227 by Senator Duraso and acquaintance to unemployment. Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. President. Federal law excludes over 1 million Californians from unemployment insurance benefits when they temporarily lose work like related to the floods. Yet employer taxes on the labor of undocumented workers contribute an estimated $302,000,000 each year to our unemployment insurance system, even though those same workers never see a cent of the benefits. This disparity hurts employers as well as workers. That money is supposed to help sustain industries and help workers get back to work when jobs and business become available. Farm workers, restaurant workers, construction workers, and others do not have a safety net. Without unemployment benefits, our economy suffers. Missed paychecks, spiral into missed rent checks, missed car payments, and the inability to provide food for families. Model on successful programs in New York and Colorado. SB 227 creates a program to provide unemployed workers who are excluded from unemployment insurance due to immigration status. This safety net is good for families, helping to ensure that they get food on the table and have a roof over their heads during the breadwinner's unemployment. It is also good for employers, ensuring that they have a stable workforce when market forces turn around and they are able to hire their experienced employees as business allows. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Debate Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Mr. President. And members. I rise in support of SB 227. Some of us took a trip down to the Senator from Bakersfield's District down to Tulare County to see Tulare Lake and some of the issues going on down there. And while we provide a lot of state and federal resources to that area, some of the folks who get left out are some of the people who would be covered by this program. And we had a group with various groups coming in to talk with us. This is one of the number one things they talked about. You can provide a lot of things, but actually getting money in the hands of people who find themselves suddenly unemployed is incredibly important. And I ask for your aye vote on SB 227.

Thank you. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I rise in support of SB 227. This bill acknowledges the central role of undocumented workers in our communities. Almost 80% of undocumented immigrant workers in California work in jobs deemed essential or critical. And one in five young Californians live in an undocumented family member or are undocumented themselves. This means unemployment benefits like those proposed in SB 227 will extend a safety net to valued community members, neighbors and family. The excluded workers program in SB 227 would provide undocumented workers with $300 per week for up to 20 weeks a lifesaver during unemployment. Passage of SB 227 is a step towards a fair economy for all workers. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing no microphones, Senator Durazo, would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. President, these workers contribute. These men and women help make California the fourth's largest economy. I ask you to do better by them and ask for your vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Secretary please call the roll on file item 19.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 30, Nos seven. The measure passes. Now, moving on to file item 20, Senator Dodd. He is prepared. Secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill 263 by Senator Dodd an act relating to Insurance.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members SB 263 pertains to annuities and consumer protections. SB 263 would adopt the 2020 updates to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Suitability and Annuity Transactions Model Act, as well as include additional consumer protections. The updated Model Act will help consumers understand the advantages of products they purchase, understand any conflicts of interest, and will assure that the sale of an annuity is made in the consumer's best interest based on feedback from stakeholders. The recent amendments ensure that consumers insurance and financial objectives are appropriately addressed. And I'm continuing to work with the California Department of Insurance, the insurance industry, including agents as well as consumer groups, to address a few remaining issues. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate today. I also want to speak and strong support of this bill and thank my colleague from Napa for working so diligently on this bill. This bill updates and adds important consumer protections, which is something that was very important to stakeholders. Annuities are very complex when it comes to insurance issues, but it's intended to provide a safe and reliable retirement income for our seniors when sold inappropriately. However, they can trap a senior citizen in a financial nightmare without access to funds that they really need. So, once again, I just want to commend our author. I know the bill is not necessarily at where it should be, but the conversations will continue. And again, just wanted to highlight how long and we worked with the author on this issue. And with that, I asked all my colleagues for their support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion on this item hearing? None. Senator Dodd, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Secretary please call a roll on file, item 20.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 33, Nos zero. The measure passes. Senator Dodd. You're back up. He's ready. Secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill 271 by Senator Dodd an act relating to powered wheelchairs.

Senator Dodd.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members SB 271 is an important step that will allow powered wheelchair users to have viable alternatives to costly and time consuming repairs by allowing consumers and independent repair providers to access parts, documentation, and software necessary to repair their own devices while also protecting manufacturers trade secrets. Furthermore, this legislation includes other important safeguards by clearly defining the scope of repairs that can be safely carried out by independent repair providers and providing written notice to consumers about their warranty rights. Lastly, in order to improve access to this life changing technology, this legislation removes prior authorization requirements and recurring prescriptions for complex rehab technology, or CR2. We have been and continue to collaborate with the opposition, and I plan to address their remaining concerns with the amendments in the Assembly. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing and seeing none. Secretary please call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes. 38, Nos zero. The measure passes. Now, moving on to file item 22. Senator Allen. He is ready. Secretary you may read.

Senate Bill 389 by Senator Allen an act relating to Water.

Senator Allen. So good afternoon, Mr. President. So presenting SB 389 today, which will provide the state Water Board with the ability to verify the existence and scope of claims to senior water rights. Our state has a very complicated history when it comes to water rights. Those who claim to hold rights provider to the 1914 establishment of what's now the Water Board are exempted from the same scrutiny giving to their post 1914 counterparts. No other state does it the way we do it, and so as we are facing increased drought and water shortages, it's become more challenging for the board to approve new diversion applications or to limit orders for reduced usage, given their need for accounting for diversions that they simply lack sufficient information about. So the bill, what it does is it provides the board with the ability to ask for proof of these rights along with information pertaining to its scope. With that, the board will be able to make some more informed decisions which will be benefit to all holders in the system regardless of the right or the kind of right that they hold. This is a bill about information gathering. Now, I understand one of the concerns is that information gathering could result in enforcement should it show that water has been or is being diverted unlawfully. The bill does not create any enforcement mechanism. Any enforcement of the bill would be facilitated through existing authorities granted to the board. We've been having very productive conversations with the opposition. I want to thank them for productive and ongoing discussions that we're having. We're going to be getting together at the end of the week for further conversations. Some of the key concerns that have come forward have related to due process. Obviously, we want to make sure that there are protections, these are valuable assets. So we offered amendments last week to make it explicitly clear that this would be conducted through existing structures. The Ministry of Hearings Office. We also, very importantly, a lot of folks have brought up concerns about burden of proof. Your bill, as originally written, had put the burden of proof on the claimant, and we're now removing that provision. It's my hope that this reasonable offer will remove those fears of due process violations that the conversations are going to continue. This bill ultimately. I heard one person say, oh, this is leading to an overhaul of the water right system. And the funny thing is, it's doing just the opposite. It's actually aimed at ensuring that our system is operating the way that it was intended before we run out of time to fix it by giving the Board some tools to get basic information about the validity of rights. So I ask you to give me the opportunity to continue to work on this important issue. As I say, I think we're getting closer to striking a deal. But regardless, this is a really important thing for our water board to have the ability to get this basic information about rights. And with that, I respect for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect to the author, I rise in strong opposition of SB 389. This bill would severely undermine water rights holders due process and disrupt the reliability of water purchases. The State Water Resources Control Board already has the authority to investigate the validity and scope of any water right. What this bill does is takes this a step further, placing the burden of proof on the water right holder instead of the board investigating it. SB 389 places Draconian guilty until proven innocent, meaning lose your water rights until proven that they're yours. It's a mark of shame on the water right holders requiring them to build a case to defend themselves. And it's undemocratic there's no legal process in our state that should have allegations such as having a leg to stand on like this unless evidence is first produced by the plaintiff. I come from a very volatile weather district. When you think it's either very dry or now we're under flooding in the tilleri area, as my colleague from Stockton just said. And to have this water right infrastructure on agricultural and other areas of our district where we produce the food is just not right for water right users to be able to not supersede other water right users that are downstream or anything like that. And we depend on these water rights that are essential to our state's economy, social and economic, environmentally sound policies that, again, allow us to be the top three food-producing counties in the entire world. Even if a water right is misused, the board has the right to investigate it. And it's fair and a transparent process. But this process in this bill is not fair and transparent, and it does put the burden on the water right user instead of the board to investigate it. I can't support a bill that unreasonably investigates growers and public agencies that need to buy water under consistent and measurable standards, and I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for his generous conversation with me to help to remove that provision on the burden of proof on our claimants. Although I will not be supporting this bill today, I do want to acknowledge the merits of that work and encourage the author to continue to work on this bill currently in its form, it would allow the State Water Resources Control Board to investigate any preclaim 1914 claim of water rights. Before Internet, before a lot of the devices that we have now that give us information. I respect that this is an information gathering, but without enforcement and without provisions, it turns into a witch hunt. It turns into an avenue that can put lives and families and properties and our economy at risk. This is an attack on the way of life in our Central Valley with a breadbasket of our world. It gives the State Water Resources Board more authority and more power is the last thing that we should be doing. They are unelected bureaucrats that have made things worse, not better. And I want to make sure that we are creating certainty, reliability when it comes to our water policy. We must never disregard our farmers and our communities that rely on the very water rights that SB 389 would threaten. So on behalf of the growers, ranchers, farmers, water districts, irrigation districts, and all those who protect over a century's old water rights here in California, I will respectfully stay off.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank the author for his work on this bill. This is a very important issue in a water-scarce environment. Taking a look at making sure we're managing the scarce resource in the best possible way. I'll be voting for the bill today. I know there is some continuing work, and I appreciate the author acknowledging that around the process and making sure our water agencies and our communities are being treated as fairly as possible. But I want to, again, thank the author for his work.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members. I saw this bill in committee, and I just want to it's not about AG or it's not about the process. I think here is what the author is looking at. And I just want to say, in California, we've done a lot in the area of water conservation. We have sigma, we have now real time data that was passed legislation in the last ten years. We've done more on making sure that we don't waste water. So now we're looking, we're going to give the board investigative, basically pre investigative rights. Let's be honest, nobody's stealing water. And if they're stealing water or not using it properly, somebody in California knows about it because it's a very high quality, high priced market. Is our water rights system antiquated? Absolutely. And we put money towards bringing it to a digital age. But I would just say we're going to give an agency that can't even get a marijuana grower who is obviously contaminating our water to go enforce water contamination, and now we're going to ask for them to get into the water rights area. I think this bill needs a lot more work before I would be comfortable with it. And I just think that it's interesting that this isn't about we've heard lots of talk about AG. This is municipalities that have water rights, senior water rights. Those of you in Los Angeles, when they went and took the water from the Owens Valley a long time ago, they have water rights. They paid for them back then. This is muddy the water. We're doing the right thing by we're making sure that we're getting our records at the state Water Resource Control Board digitally. We're doing sigma. We're doing a lot of monitoring on our water. And I think this bill is not needed at this time.

Thank you. I do appreciate my colleague, Santa Monica, taking up this complex and important issue on water and riparian rights. I like saying riparian rights. Sorry, I might say it a few times, but as Senator Wiener says that we are doing a lot that has to be done in terms of digitization and other pieces of getting our water rights strategy in place. Number of water agencies in my district have had some concerns. I want to say I appreciate the conversations with the author. I will be supporting the bill today. I appreciate some of the recent amendments and his commitment to keep working on it. Thank you.

Thank you, president and colleagues. Water rights are complex, and in many instances, we have more questions than answers. SB 389 is not perfect, but it does address an ongoing question of who owns the rights to surface water. With the backdrop of a decadeslong drought, it is imperative we treat our water as the precious resource it is. We cannot afford to be wasteful with water. We can't afford to be diverted and allocated in potentially wasteful ways. And we must ensure water rights are properly accounted for and put to beneficial uses. For all the reasons, I will be voting aye. And thank you.

Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wasn't going to get up and to speak because my good friend from Santa Monica works really hard and he does really good work. But I feel like I really had to because I think one of the issues involved here is that, as my good friend from Bieber said, this isn't only about agricultural land. And I feel like I've got to say that over and over and over to this body, because whenever there's a drought, it becomes AG's responsibility to fallow land. It doesn't become the responsibility of the golf courses to stop watering or for our parks to cut back as well. We make a big show here at the Capitol by letting some grass grow brown. But the reality of the situation is that the valley has been gray before this year because of the drought. And then you've moved to other communities and they're green and they're flowering and they're beautiful. The reality of this situation is that LA gets their water from the Owens Valley. That's a pre-1914 water, right? And we should be looking at that and we should be evaluating. And yes, we've done conservation and everybody's done a great job, but we really need to know that LA imports their water from the Owens Valley as well as from the Delta and that San Francisco gets its water from up behind Modesto, the same water area that the Modesto Irrigation and the Turlock Irrigation District get their water. But there's never any discussion about how that water gets piped as far as it does. And so I want to be really clear that there's no question we understand there's a drought. We really understand that we've got to conserve, but we ought to be doing everything we can scientifically to increase the ability to identify sources of water that we can clean, that we can recycle, that we can reuse, and that we can appropriately divvy up so that it doesn't always fall on 500,000 to a million acres in the Central Valley. That's right smack in the middle of the Central Valley. Is that a possibility for the future? Yes. But there are technological solutions. And before we start looking at water rights so that we start fighting and we're in litigation and we're in court about all of this, I think we need to have really good data about how can we do water differently so that we can be self-sustaining, we can be drought-proof, we can get there. But so far we haven't made the commitment to do that. Until we do that, I can't support the bill. But I understand what you're trying to do with it. And so I will respectfully not support the bill until we really get a handle on are you intending any kind of enforcement other than just data? And I respect the author tremendously for what he's trying to do, but I think it's premature.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Senator Allen, would you like to close?

Well, I appreciate the discussion a great deal. I want to just reiterate a couple of things that I said at the beginning. First of all, we are dropping, so we've been engaged in good negotiations with the opposition, have added in additional we sent over amends that, added in additional due process protections to address their concerns. Also language that removed the burden of proof, which was raised by my friend from Bakersfield. So I think some of the I know folks, and I know maybe some, maybe not everyone had access to this information in advance, but I know, I know that to some extent, I think folks are responding to their understanding of where the bill negotiations were earlier. Fair enough. The other thing I will say to my friend from Mercedes and Salinas is that there is no new enforcement mechanism put into this bill. This just gives the water board the right and ability to ask the same questions of the folks from 1913 as they can of the folks from 1915, which is to show some proof of the validity of their right. No other state kind of gives a blanket kind of hands off approach to a massive portion of the water rights, water claimants holders. And we've tasked this water board with this an extraordinary mission. It's a sacred mission to not only investigate all of our bodies of water and take testimony in regard to the rights ascertain whether or not water filed upon or attempted to be appropriate is appropriate under the laws of the state. And then we basically give them the task of making sure that we have a fair, equitable system that is rooted in law, in riparian law and water law. And they're coming to us and saying, look, the status quo doesn't even allow us to carry out the duties that all of us, the legislature, has tasked these people with doing. We approve this board, we authorize this board. They are carrying out the work and the policy and the laws passed by this Senate. And sometimes some of the comments I've heard about the board suggest that maybe we need some massive overhaul of the folks going on the board. But these are the people that we've put forward to carry out water policy in the state, and they're implementing the policies that this Senate and this Legislature passes and sends to them. So we're giving them an impossible task if we don't give them tools to do basic information gathering about the validity of rights. And that's what this bill is ultimately about. And I ask your aye vote thank you.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Archuletta. Ashby. Bradford. Caballero. Cortese. No. Dodd. Glazer. Hurtado. Newman. Padilla. Roth. Rubio? Smallwood-Cuevas. Umberg

Senator Allen moves the call. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 23. Senator Limone. She is prepared. Secretary, you may read Senate Bill 476.

SB 476 by Senator Limon an act relating to food safety.

Thank you, President and colleagues, currently in California, every food service worker must go through training on food safety. This training is paid for by the employee, and it is required every three years. This bill would require that an employer pay for the food safety training and the employee's time completing the training. Additionally, it would require that the state to compile lists of eligible trainings, providing more transparency about the different options and the different costs available. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing and seeing none. Secretary please call the role on item 23.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil. Eggman. Aye. Grove? No. Padilla? Aye. Wilk?

Ayes 30, Nos nine. The measure passes. Now we're moving on to file item 24. Senator Becker. He is prepared. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 485 by Senator Becker an act relating to air resources.

Good morning, members, and thank you for opportunity to present SB 485 methane emissions from enteric fermentation, emissions, which are created from the digestive gas and livestock. Think cow burps and cow farts compose 30% of all methane emissions from livestock. In California, the AG industry has been a leader on methane emission reductions. Then Senator Lara's SB 1383 set a target of 40% methane emissions reductions from the AG industry by 2030. However, this target excluded the regulation of emissions from enteric fermentation. And as such, the Air Resources Board has indicated that we may fall short of our 2030 goal absent a strategy in this area. So this bill implements CARB suggestions by having a voluntary incentive program for dairy farmers eager to be early adopters of feed additives once they're demonstrated scientifically to be safe and effective legislation and support from industry partners as well as climate groups. The early adoption program thank you. The early adoption program in this bill will help bolster a much needed technology to meet California's GHG reduction goals and signal to market investors that California will help its agriculture industry get to net zero in a steady, thoughtful manner. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Is there any further discussion or debate on this item? Senator Limone. I mean Senator Min. I'm sorry.

Thank you. I think this is a good bill, and I would like to moooove this when appropriate.

Like to mooooove this. All right. Senator Grove.

Don't give up your day job. I'd like to thank the author for accepting the amendments to exclude range cattle and cattle, the beef industry, because that's vitally important. The additive is not a beneficial use for them, and I understand where it's coming from, the retailers, costco's, and others that want to make sure that they're doing everything they can so they can have a green portfolio. And I just like to thank the author for taking the amendments that again benefited my district.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this? Seeing, None. Senator Becker, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call the role on file item 24.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 38, Nos zero. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 26. Senator Smallwood Cuevas. She's prepared. Secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill 497 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas an act related to employment.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I'm pleased to present SB 497, which would help ensure brave workers enough to report violations in the workplace of Labor Code and Equal Pay Act are protected from retaliation by their employer. California has some of the strongest workplace and equal pay protections in the country. However, our strong workplace protections are meaningless if workers are too afraid to speak up when their rights are violated. California laws do prohibit employers from retaliating against a worker for exercising their rights. However, the labor commissioner is unable to prosecute many of these retaliation claims because it is difficult for workers to show that an employer took action against the employee specifically in response to their reporting a labor violation. SB 497 would provide real protections for these workers by creating rebuttable presumption that an action taken against an employee was retaliatory if it occurred within 90 days of the employee reporting the violation. This kind of rebuttable presumption already exists in other parts of the Labor Code and is working well to protect workers from immigration related retaliation, such as threats of deportation and retaliation for use of paid sick leave. We also know we want to make sure that the labor commissioner is able to do these investigations quickly. And so adding this protection to the code will allow the labor commissioner to identify retaliation more quickly and to prevent law breaking employers from avoiding accountability, leveling the playing field for other businesses that are following the law. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate, hearing and seeing none. Secretary, please call a role on file item 26.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil, Ashby. Atkins Dodd. Limon. Min. Wahhab.

Call the absent members one more time, please.

Alvarado-Gil. Atkins? Wahab? Dodd?

Ayes 28, Nos ten. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 29. Senator Padilla. He's prepared. Secretary you may read

Senate Bill 619 by Senator Padilla an act related to electricity.

Senator Padilla the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise to present SB 619 to expand CEC authority to permit bulk transmission projects to greatly accelerate our efforts to rebuild and modernize our electrical grid. As you know, Cal-ISO estimates we will need more than 7000 transmission capacity every year for the next decade. Unfortunately, our permitting system, which is currently exclusively vested with the CPUC, is not keeping up with demand. In fact, we're nowhere near where we need to be. Delays in permitting result in higher construction costs, threatens our climate goals, but most importantly, makes it increasingly difficult to keep the lights on during summer months. SB 619 seeks to authorize the CEC, who regularly can process permitting applications within a year or two to create an alternative outlet for the backlog of applications and a faster system to process transmission applications. This is a complicated process, and I am working with all stakeholders to devise a well thought out plan to accelerate permitting. SB 619 has no opposition and has had no votes. It has support from Clean Air Task Force, San Diego Community Power, and Clean Power Campaign. Members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item, hearing and seeing none. Secretary may you call the role on file item 29?

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Secretary please call the absent members.

Atkins, Dahle, Dodd Grove Menjivar

Ayes 36, Nos zero. The measure passes now, moving on to file item 30s, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. She's prepared. Secretary you may read

Senate Bill 627 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas an act relating to employment.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you again, Mr. President. I rise to present SB 627, the Displaced Worker Transfer Rights Act, which would require large chain employers with 100 stores or more to give 60 days advance notice to workers of the store of its closing. It would additionally grant workers displaced by these closures a right to transfer to an available chain store within 25 miles of the closed location. I would also like to thank the Senate Labor Judiciary Committees for all of their work on this draft and clarifying amendments which I happily accepted to ensure franchisees would not be impacted by this bill unless that individual owned more than 100 of the same store. In July, Starbucks announced that they were closing 16 stores nationally, including six in Los Angeles. The chain closed more stores in the fall, with Starbucks CEO Howard Schwartz warning in a Twitter video that there would be many, many more closures to come. These closures are indirect response to workers advocating for their rights for safer workplaces, higher wages, and more reasonable hours. And as we have seen, store closures have a devastating effects on our communities, on workers financial security, and destabilizing our economic revenue stream, particularly in communities that we all call home. These store closures occur disproportionately in low-income communities, communities of color, where these jobs are vital, further compounding the economic and social challenges that so many of our residents are already facing. SB Six, Two, Seven will ensure workers have a safety net and that their lives aren't completely upended when they lose their job in the event of a store closure. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate? Hearing, seeing none. Please call the roll on file, item 30.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Alvaado-Gil. No. Archuletta, Bradford,Caballero. Dodd,Grove, No. Rubio, I.

Ayes 28, Noes ten. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 31, Senator Wilk he is ready. Secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill 643 by Senator Wilk an act relating to school safety.

Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, today I rise to present SB 643, the Saugus Strong act. This bill will improve student safety by requiring anonymous reporting systems to be available for students, parents, or concerned community members to report dangerous, violent, or unlawful activity on campus. California students are experiencing increased mental health issues, higher rates of suicide, and increased instances of on campus violence. Countless lives have been forever altered by acts of violence within our schools. The fear and anxiety that plague our students should not be their constant companion. An anonymous reporting service provides a vital lifeline for our students that allows them to speak up and report potential threats without fear of reprisal. An anonymous reporting system empowers students to take action and potentially prevent tragedy before it strikes. The sad truth is that today, no community is immune to these tragedies. I remember coming home on November 14 of 2019 from an early hike to walk into my family room to see an aerial view of what looked like my neighborhood. And it was a very surrealistic moment. And it was my neighborhood because it was a media helicopter flying over because there had been a shooting at the campus that both my children had attended. Two students killed, five injured, and the shooter took his life as well. If it can happen there, it can absolutely happen anywhere. It's still something that haunts us. The fact is, only one out of three California school districts are currently providing anonymous reporting programs. The Saugus Strong Act will keep our students, teachers and communities safer. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Secretary call the roll on file, item 31.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 35, Noes zero. The measure passes. Members now will move on to file item 32. Senator Portanino. He is prepared. Secretary you may read

Senate Bill 696 by Senator Portantino an relating to notaries public.

Thank you, Mr. President and members, I rise to present SB 696, which would allow remote online notarization in California, as we know. COVID-19 pandemic. It highlighted the importance of giving people options for safe, notarial transactions beyond traditional means. Remote online notarization revolutionizes the process and allows folks to conduct business in a more efficient and safe manner and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Secretary please call the roll and file item 32.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Ayes 34, Nos zero. The measure passes now, members, let's move on to file item 34. Senator Min. He's ready. Secretary, you may read

Senate Bill 704 by Senator Min an act relating to coastal resources.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 704 amends the Coastal Act to remove outdated oil and gas policies and to add policies promoting offshore wind energy deployment, leveling the playing field. When the Coastal Act was originally authorized, a loophole was created that allowed oil and gas development, refineries and petrochemical facilities to circumvent environmental protection standards applied to all other projects. This loophole, known as the Industrial Override Provision, is severely outdated and continues to perpetuate 1970s era statewide energy goals. This bill would close the industrial override Loophole from new oil and gas development while allowing existing facilities to continue to be repaired and maintained. In doing so, the bill levels the playing field to ensure that all energy development meets the same standards for approval. A long overdue and common sense reform. Just last week, we saw another investigation showing that state oil industry profits will not be enough to pay for cleanup of existing wells and facilities. My own district was devastated by the 2021 offshore oil pipeline spill off Huntington Beach. It's long past time for oil and gas development to meet the same requirements as other energy sources. Additionally, SB 704 promotes offshore wind energy by enacting Coastal Act policies to encourage and facilitate offshore wind deployment. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing seeing none. Secretary, please call the role on file item 34.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, during the Pandemic, we saw private jet travel double in capacity in the state of California. This bill is about helping airports that have high levels of private jet travel that are also in disadvantaged communities start to green their operations so that both the local air quality improves, but also that those high net worth individuals who are using these private jets to get around are actually utilizing cutting edge technology. And that we're building the kind of infrastructure that's needed to power a new generation of aviation. Where you're going to see planes starting to elevate on electricity or hydrogen and be whisper quiet moving out of an airport where private airports start to become resilience hubs for the local community. To do that, we know we're going to need some kind of better data out of the private airports about their operations to take advantage of a lot of the incentives programs that are currently not being utilized there. So we've had very productive conversation, I think, with the association in recent days, and I appreciate the feedback of members on this front. We've taken a number of amendments. The bill is now narrowed from, say, a scope of about 50 airports down to about eleven and really targeting only about six or seven key areas. You think about areas like Van Nuys, which I represent, that's in my backyard, or somewhere like San Jose where you have some of the wealthiest people in the whole world who want to go green but really have no way to do so. And so what we're hoping is that this is no longer seen as sort of a mandate approach, but really one that's using incentives to help drive this industry forward. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate. Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. President. So I want to thank the author for his work on this bill. He has changed it significantly in the promises that the bill will relate to how to incentivize airports to do the right thing. Because quite frankly, airports, they produce 1.1% of the greenhouse gas emissions in our state, and of that, only 10% is related to takeoff and landing and on airport activity. The rest of it, 90% of that 1.1% is in the air. And so unless we can develop a new renewable energy source like hydrogen or any other energy source to be able to get them in the air and get them across the state or the ocean, we're not going to get there. And so to have them spend time and money trying to figure out how to green a facility that depends very heavily on airplanes taking off and flying and coming and going doesn't make any sense to me. It makes much more sense that we incentivize and we set as a priority that we develop these green renewable energies and that we use them and that we support their use within the state. And I think that's where he's going with this bill. I'm willing to give him an opportunity to tie financial resources in with this bill in order to be able to make it workable. Otherwise, what we're doing is it's busy work. And there are a lot of people in the Legislature that like to be able to say, I passed 20 green energy bills, but none of them do anything other than do reports, right? So I'm going to rely on the author for his promises because otherwise the bill as is written, doesn't make a lot of sense. It needs some amendments and he's made that commitment. And so with that, I'll support his bill, and I urge you to do the same.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing and seeing? None. Senator Stern, would you like to close?

Thank you for the discussion. We have limited jurisdiction in the state of California over private airports and private jet travel. But if we limit the scope of those incentives to just what's happening right there on the ground, we can't change the nature of aviation travel. But if we think about how to utilize our position as sort of a first mover, then we may actually change the whole world. This bill hopefully be one small, modest part of that equation.

Ayes 30, Noes, eight. The measure passes now. Members were to file item 36, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Secretary, please read.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the role on file item 35.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Senate Bill 749 by Senator Smallwood cuevas enact relating to criminal procedure and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues, I rise to present SB 749, which will allow counties to use Proposition 47's, original, more streamlined process for qualified individuals to file petitions to seek records, reclassification or resentencing that lapsed in November of last year. From 1980 to 2000, the California state prison population grew by 225%, increasing cost to taxpayers and destabilizing many of our communities to restabilize and rebuild. A big part of this process is making sure those reentering our communities with a conviction are able to work and take care of their families. As we all know, a felony conviction can follow an individual and hinder their ability to gain real employment, stable housing, and opportunities that will help them the rest of their lives and build our communities for the long term. Under Proposition 47, more than a million Californians have had the opportunity to reduce old, low level, nonviolent felonies on their records to misdemeanors, allowing them to move on from the past and move forward with their lives. However, while Prop 47 offered the most efficient, streamlined mechanism for providing this relief, that process is no longer available to California's formerly incarcerated population. As of November 4, 2022, the deadline to use the streamlined process through Pot 47 came to an end. County courts will now be required to make a finding of good cause to approve this kind of record relief. And unfortunately, proving good cause can require lengthy hearings which can deter I'm sorry, defer tremendous burden on counties and particularly the court system. And while it is unclear what the full ramifications of this change will be, as the county courts develop new policies to provide relief, one thing is certain the extra steps needed to make this additional determination will only add time and cost to the court's process. And this will serve no benefit to petitioners or to the communities where they reside. SB 749 restores consistency and efficiency for all stakeholders in the process, including the courts, district attorneys and individuals petitioning the court, particularly with COVID delaying a lot of the petitions and individuals from utilizing the process. We know this will lead to better outcomes when formerly incarcerated individuals and their communities have the opportunity to live in full contributing capacity and to provide an easier process for our court system. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Any further discussion or debate? Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I rise in support of SB 749, Proposition 47 set out to begin to address the consequences of the tough-on-crime area that fueled mass incarceration in California's unconstitutional overcrowded prisons. We've already seen the benefits of Prop 47's goal of reducing old felony convictions for low level nonviolent crimes to misdemeanors. Many people have been able to clean up their records, which opened up far more employment and housing opportunities. This not only has a stabilizing effect for the beneficiaries of this policy, but it also supports stability in our communities and economy. With the deadline passing in November last year, we've allowed the door to close on thousands of Californians who also deserve the benefits of being able to clean up their record and move forward with their lives. SB 749 will eliminate the sunset date for Prop 47 eligibility, so people can continue to have hope that they can put their mistakes behind them. When we invest in reducing the stigma and barriers people face from old convictions, we invite them to start fresh and embrace the potential they have to thrive. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing and seeing? None. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, would you like to close?

Thank you very much for your comments from the Senator from Hayward. We have to continue the work to ensuring that folks reenter our communities with a real chance to have a second chance and to contribute to our communities, and cost $150,000 to keep someone in prison a year. So let's make sure that we are allowing folks to contribute and not continue to be on the subsidy of our state prison system. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the role on file item 36.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ace 28. Noee eleven. The measure passes on the urgency? Ayes. 28. Noes eleven on the item now, members, we're moving on to file item 37. Senator Archuletta. He's prepared. Secretary. You may read

Senate Bill 757 by Senator Archuletta an act related to transportation.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 757 to ensure that all rail workers who are transported between work sites by a third party contractors are transported with proper licensing, permitting and insurance. This bill will help keep workers safe and ensure that their vital workers that we all should protect are taken care of in case of a transportation accident. Specifically, this bill would define the term Contract Crew Transportation Vehicle as a motor vehicle primarily used by third party under contract with the railroad to transport railroad crew members. Ensuring that these railroad transportation companies all operate under Z permit will allow the Uniform permitting and licensing to end the practice of rail workers being transported by underregulated vehicles. Just as important, Senate Bill 757 will specify minimum insurance standards for operating a contract crew transportation vehicle. The insurance requirement under this bill would be 5 million in combined single limit coverage for bodily injury and property damage liability coverage, as well as $1 million in uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. It is vital for California to adopt the standards to ensure that the transportation of workers is done in a safe manner and there is an adequate insurance in case of an accident. I respectfully ask your aye vote and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Debate on this item hearing seeing none. Please call the roll on file item 37.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 29, Noes eight. The measure passes. Now, moving on to file item 38. Senator Weiner. He is prepared. Secretary you may read.

Senate Bill 770 by Senator Weiner and acquaintance to health care. Senator Weiner.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues arise to present SB 770, which establishes tangible steps on a concrete timeline toward creating a system of guaranteed health care for all Californians and provide better care at lower cost by directing the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services to pursue waiver discussions with the Federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to facilitate the creation of a unified healthcare financing system. Requiring the Secretary to establish a waiver development workgroup of diverse healthcare system stakeholders appointed by the Governor and leaders in both houses. Requiring the Secretary to provide quarterly reports to the chairs of both health committees on the status and outcomes of waiver discussions with the Feds and the progress of the work group. Requiring the Secretary to submit a complete set of recommendations regarding the elements to be included in a formal waiver application by no later than June 1. Stallags the fragmentation and inequities in our current healthcare system from varying health plan eligibility requirements to the continued lack of effective oversight of health plans is harming California residents. These shortcomings result in severe and sometimes lethal gaps in medically necessary health coverage and disproportionately impact historically and systematically marginalized groups. In its final report, the Healthy California for All Commission summarizes the characteristics of this new unified financing system as all California residents being entitled to receive a standard package of healthcare services. The package could include long term care and entitlement will not vary by age, employment status, disability status, income, immigration status, or other characteristics. And distinctions among Medicare, medical, employer sponsored insurance and individual market coverage will be eliminated within the system of unified financing. The report estimates that universal coverage through a unified financing system would save 4000 or more lives each year and finds that absent a shift to unified financing, California will incur an additional $500 billion in medical costs over the next decade. SB 770 is a tangible step toward universal health coverage in California, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none, please call the roll on file, item 38.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 30. Noes nine. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 40. Senator Stern. He's prepared. Secretary. You may read

Senate Bill 781 by Senator Stern and act relating to greenhouse gases.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, we've talked a little bit about some of our other blind spots when it comes to climate change. Imported oil senator from Bakersfield carried a bill through this chamber that would finally get us a snapshot at least of what our emissions look like from our imported oil. We just talked about aviation emissions, which we know very little about because much of it's beyond our borders. This bill is about the gas part of things. 90% of California's gas is imported, and we know very little about the profile of that gas coming in, where it comes from, what states, countries. But most importantly and relevant to this bill, the carbon footprint of that gas. And in a lot of states or other countries, the regulations are not nearly what they are here in California. So this bill, thanks to amendments in the Energy Committee, would no longer be a mandate to use lower emission methane gas in our system, but instead just encourage the suppliers to look at certification standards. This is a place where I think California, without putting a burden on ratepayers, can actually drive innovation in the rest of the country in the world to say, if we're going to have to buy fossil fuel, if we're going to have to buy methane gas, let's make sure it's up to the highest standards in the whole world. And so that certification standard, we feel like, could drive industry to a good place. We think that the bill is almost there. Opposition is nearly all dropped, but we're working through some of the final kinks in the assembly. I think the bill is in pretty good shape, though, now to vote on. That's why I'm bringing it here to you today and would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Please call the role on file item 40.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes. 29, Noes five. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 41. Senator Cabllero. She is prepared. Secretary you may read

Senate Bill 785 by Senator Caballero an act relating to business.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise to present Senate Bill 785, a bill that will protect and empower consumers, athletic sports teams, and live event entertainers by addressing issues affecting live event ticketing. SB 785 expressly protects the ability of artists and sports teams to set terms and conditions on the sale of their tickets, including the ability to use technology to control scalping and price gouging. This limited transferability is a practice that's already been being utilized by artists today in some sectors. In addition, to protecting consumer. This bill recognizes that ticketing works best when artists and teams are in charge of their own events and have the power to choose how their tickets are priced, sold, resold, or transferred, and what technologies are terms and conditions they want to deploy. To protect their fans. The bill would end speculative ticketing and require both original sellers and resellers to specify the seat being offered. By doing so, we can guarantee that consumers get exactly what they paid for. It would also end the hidden fees and force both original sellers and resellers to list prices upfront. In other words, the first price a consumer sees will be the final price that they pay. Too often, consumers go on platforms and find tickets that are within their budgets, only to find out that the checkout page that fees must still be added to the order. This bill would end hidden fees when brokers place tickets on secondary platforms for sale before they actually possess or own the ticket. Consumers are not guaranteed to receive the ticket they purchase or the exact seat they paid for. American songwriter Beyonce recently announced her Renaissance tour with stops at the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood and Levi Stadium in Santa Clara. Within minutes of the tour's announcement, tickets showed up on resale platforms for thousands of dollars, some listed for more than $22,000 or more than 40 times their face value. However, the tickets did not yet exist. Those listing the tickets did not have them in their possession, nor could they promise a specific seat to a consumer. Unknowing, consumers were misled. This practice is known as speculative ticketing, and this speculative ticketing promotes bought activity. When resellers can list speculative tickets for thousands of dollars, they take away a consumer's money to purchase tools to illegally obtain the tickets to help fulfill the order. When artists require limited transferability, they also allow fan to fan face value exchange tickets, which means consumers can resell the tickets for their original purchase price. In other words, consumers will always have the option of selling or giving their tickets to family and friends at face value. Artists do not want to play in front of an empty venue, so they do not enact terms and conditions that might leave seats empty. Instead, they use restrictions to benefit fans by keeping tickets out of the hands of scalpers and keeping prices down. That's exactly what this bill does. Time to modernize California's ticketing statutes in order to protect consumers. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item, Senator Dodd?

Yes, Mr. President. Members, I'm supporting the bill today because of the substantial abuses in the resale market which this bill seeks to address. The fees, inflated costs, and instances of phantom tickets being sold are simply unconscionable. We need to change the status quo. But as the bill moves forward, my expectation is that the bill will be fine. To further protect consumers by ensuring their hands aren't tied and that the original ticket sellers aren't given a monopoly in the resale space like they already have with initial ticket sales. I believe our colleague from Merced is up to the challenge of making critical improvements to this bill as it moves forward to the assembly and look forward to seeing those issues addressed when the bill comes back on concurrence. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President, members, I join with the comments from my colleague from Napa. This bill has some significant reforms in it that are overdue much needed and great appreciation to the author for advancing this bill. But I do remain concerned that with only a few entities with such dominance in this space that there is still vulnerability to consumers that I don't know that they've been fully embraced by all the reforms in this bill, but it has substantial improvements and with that I'm going to support it today. But I want to encourage the author to continue to work with all stakeholders to make sure that consumers are protected. Thank you.

So is this bill agnostic to different platforms?

It is, although if I could answer thoroughly that question, there are currently platforms that allow you to take out a loan in order to purchase a ticket. And those are the more speculative websites because they actually don't have the ticket in hand and they don't have a call on the ticket. In other words, it's really speculative. And once all the fees are added and the price is increased, some people may need a loan in order to purchase a ticket. And that's how you get $22,000 tickets for Beyonce's concert. And so those types of practices would not be permitted under the bill. So it is agnostic in terms of how you do your business. As long as you have access to a ticket and do not allow bots to be used to purchase tickets in bulk, and as long as you're not trying to do a loan on the side as a way to get people to buy the tickets on your site.

Okay. I think I follow. I just want to make sure that whether it's StubHub or Ticketmaster or they're all equally either penalized or helped by this piece of legislation, that we're not picking winners and losers. And I know there's been some significant amendments to the bill and I know that there's a little more work to do. That was what I was trying to get at, that we're not picking winners and losers.

That not picking winners or losers. That's correct.

Thank you, Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to echo the comments of my colleague from Orinda. I too have concerns about the concentration of this industry. I know we can't solve all the problems of ticket selling and live performances with one bill, but I would encourage you to continue working on this bill. I appreciate the amendments that you took in Judiciary Committee to apply this equally to secondary and primary market sellers, but this is a fundamentally broken market. My wife and my daughter are Swifties. I'm calling them out right here. They have tickets for, I think, the August 5 concert at SoFi Stadium. And they just looked up ticket prices last night, $1900. None of us that I know, I have a whole bunch of friends that went on to try to get those tickets on the lottery system when they were first sold. None of us got those tickets. I don't know exactly what's wrong with this, but I do think there's a problem with the secondary market, but also with the primary market. And so I will be voting for this bill today but would encourage you to continue working to make it closer to the bill in the Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. President. With the author. Take a question.

Senator Caballero, will you take a question?

I will.

Thank you, Senator. I think I also have some clarification questions that my colleague from Redding had just to confirm. As it stands right now, if I'm a seller, I mean, if I'm a buyer, I buy a ticket from Ticketmaster and I want to resell. This bill is going to take that away. But now only Ticketmaster would be able to resell and they could potentially resell at a higher price.

The way that the bill is structured is that the artists and the entertainers and the sports clubs decide where they want to sell tickets and then that's where you can get your tickets from is original sellers. Right? If you have resellers selling tickets, they can't sell them for anything above the original price. The idea is that it's the entertainer and the sports teams that are deciding what the tickets should go for, and they do not want scalping to happen, and they don't want bots to be used as part of the scalping strategy where tickets are bought in bulk to one seller and then they resell them on the side at a very inflated rate.

And I agree with my colleague from the OC. It is a broken system. But I have concerns where we're addressing the broken system from creating another potential broken system where we're taking it away from the consumers, which they shouldn't be scalping and selling at a higher price, but just confirming that Ticketmaster won't buy that back and they themselves sell it at a higher price.

I think what you're talking about is the business transaction in between businesses and businesses. But what the bill does is gives the entertainer to the sports team the ability to say, these are how we want our tickets sold, and this is who we want to sell them. And so secondary buyer may get an opportunity to buy some tickets, but they have to sell them under the same condition as the original buyer. That's the goal so that we don't have a situation where right now what's happening is that the ability to use technology allows all these other platforms to buy up tickets before anybody actually a consumer actually buys them. And then by the time they're on sale, they are at extremely inflated prices. And it's a bidding war. It's a bidding competition where the consumers are trying to figure out, how do I get my hands on a ticket, and is it a real ticket? And I get on, and it shows that it's a $500 ticket, which is a lot of money, but I'm willing to do it. And at the end of the day, by the time they're ready to check out, it cost $1,000 because all these fees have been added onto it. What we're trying to do is to clean up the system and to look at all the different ways that consumers have been duped. People have thought they bought tickets, but in the end, that seller didn't really have any tickets, and so they're left without a ticket, but they paid through a charge card for a specific ticket on a particular day. We're trying to get rid of those kinds of abuses, and I agree with you. I think there's a concern about the monopoly that we have, but the bill is not seeking to improve it or to make it any worse. It's just trying to give the artists and the teams the ability to have a little bit more control over how their tickets are sold.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Becker.

Thank you. I rise to support the bill just to address, I think, the comment, maybe a couple of misconceptions, a comment from my friend from Orange County. I think the Taylor Swift situation was a situation where you had bots flooding the site. These are the bots that the Author is talking about flooding the site, and that's actually what really kind of caused it all to go down. So this bill, I think, is an attempt really to implement the wishes of the Artist. If the artist wants to limit tickets to those who and limit prices and then limit the ticket to those who actually bought the ticket to actually attend as opposed to buy, it just a resale and say, hey, if you buy this ticket, you're attending the concert. This bill helps implement that, and so I rise as part of it today.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing no more microphones. Senator Caballero, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Mr. President. Thank you to everyone who spoke today. Really valid concerns. I think the really important thing about this is that this bill can't solve all the problems in the industry. It's trying to deal with the real specific issues, which is how do we protect entertainers and the sports teams, and at the same time protect consumers who want to be able to attend some of these events and who have faced incredible price increases because of bots and other technology that's been allowed to proliferate. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote today, and I do will continue to work. There have been some suggestions that I take a look at some of the laws of other states to get an idea. We've looked at them, but we'll continue to do that. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the role on file item 41.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members. Ayes 34, Noes zero. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 43. Senator Stern. He's prepared. Secretary you may read.

Senate Bill 795 by Senator Stern an act relating to energy.

Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, those of you who ever had your air conditioning break during the middle of the summer knows how it goes from inconvenient to scary real quick, especially if you live in hotter parts of the state. I had that exact experience myself with a one-year-old and a 95-year-old living in a house, and it's 110 degrees in the San Fernando Valley, and you have to get a replacement really fast. Well, what happens to a lot of people who want to replace that HVAC is they end up doing it as fast as they possibly can and often do it unpermitted as a result. And data out of the CEC and PUC shows that people are pulling replacement permits as little as 10% of the time, and that increased energy use and sort of other bad performance from those kind of installed units can really hurt consumers and leave people empty handed. So there's a lot of jurisdictions now that have e-pirmitting infrastructure that goes really quick. City of LA had that. We got it done and got it done that day. But this bill is really about trying to help jurisdictions across the State of California. Building officials just be able to know where those AC units are going, that they've been installed properly and hopefully get permitting up and get our state cooler faster. With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none, please call the roll on file item 43.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Ayes 32, Noes eight. The measure passes now. Members were moving on the file item 47, Senator Cabiero. She is ready. Secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill 831 by Senator Caballero an act relating to agricultural workers.

Senator, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President and members, I rise to present SB 831, which would give authority to the governor to negotiate with the federal government to create a pilot program for undocumented agricultural workers in California in order to create a pathway to permanent residency status. California's ability to grow and feed its population and large portions of the nation are essential to the national security of the United States. California's agriculture contributes significantly to the state's economic well being and is vital to its stability and growth. And this business sector relies on a stable workforce to maintain economic production and revenue. According to the center for Farmworker Families, between one third to one half of all farmworkers in the United States reside in California. Approximately 500,000 to 800,000 farm workers. And as you know, they were determined to be essential workers during the pandemic. SB 831 would create a partnership between the Governor and the federal government to create a pathway California recognizes the value of undocumented workers and their family and has enacted legislation to protect the rights and integrate them into our society. However, undocumented workers continue to face the possibility of deportation, family separation, lost wages and benefits due to their immigration status. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing seeing none, please call the roll on file item 47.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members. Ayes 34, Noes two. The measure passes now. Members, moving on the file item 49. Senator Potantino, he's prepared Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 834 by Senator Portentino an act relating to housing by providing the funds necessary, therefore, through an election for the issuance and sale of bonds of the state of California and for the handling and disposition of those funds and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. And members. SB 834 would create a $25 billion voter approved general obligation bond on the next statewide general election. It would help first time homeowners have a piece of the American dream. Renters of all income level, but especially those of low and moderate income, view homeownership as an unattainable goal, sadly. This bond would provide and create a program to help those first time homebuyers actually buy that home. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing? Wahab. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. It's not a secret that I'm obviously very passionate about housing, but I just wanted to say that this is the area that I think everyone is deserving of safe, dignified housing. And there are three things that I typically consider. Does it help people? Does it help the most vulnerable people, and whether or not something hurts people. And I think that SB 834 has the potential to help some people, but it doesn't help the most vulnerable community members. And it may, in fact, hurt people by obligating the state to an enormous bond that I find fiscally responsible. This is $25 billion bond measure. After accounting for $17.1 billion in interest, the cost to taxpayers is $42.1 billion. What do they get in return? Mortgage assistance for people who earn 180% of the area median income. In Alameda County, the area median income for 2021 was $112,017. 180% of AMI would be people who earn 201,000 a year. And it's not that I don't believe people making over $200,000 are undeserving of homeownership. What I believe is that they don't need the state to subsidize their homeownership. I'm also concerned with portions of the bill that override local inclusionary ordinances. I know some jurisdictions don't go far enough with their inclusionary ordinances, but this would put those jurisdictions more robust and impactful ordinances in an impossible situation regarding how to leverage funding that has too many strings attached, as well as the funding mechanism. And if they can default or not, for these reasons, I will be voting no. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Dahle

A question author, if I may.

Senator Portantino, will you take a question?

Sure.

I was actually the chairman of the largest housing authority in California a long time back, and we did tax exempt bonds. And so can you explain for first time home buyers? And so can you tell me what the difference between those programs and putting this bond? I know that this bond will be obviously voted on and then appropriated by the state, which is paid back by the bondholders. But what's the difference between the two? And why would we need more that we're not getting now in that space?

So this would create a unique program specifically targeted to these first-time home buyers that meet these income eligibilities. And as you pointed out, they would be repaying it over time. And so that's, to me, why this is a fiscally sound approach. So we're creating a completely new opportunity for the state to increase first-time home buyership from a group of folks that want to buy homes but can't afford the down payments. And so that's what we're doing. That's why this is different. It's unique, it's new, and it's going to pay for itself over time, because those homeowners are going to repay back into the fund, which then will get turned over to help the next generation of first-time home buyers.

Well, I would just say that there's programs out there that already exist for first time home buyers, even with a credit score of 500, and you can go to 105% of the loan through those tax exempt bonds that are available. So I'm just wondering why we would put our general fund at risk. That's the question. And for those reasons, I'm going to lay off the bill and watch it. But there's already programs out there that do this without encumbering our General Fund, which is decreasing every day.

Thank you. Senator Becker.

I'll say quickly that I think a lot of folks can make rent payments which are extremely high. They just need help with the down payment, and this is a repayable people will pay back into this fund, and that's why I'll be supporting it here today.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Senator Portrantino, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Secretary, please call the role on file item 49.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Ayes. 28. Noes nine on the measure. Now, members, we're moving on to file. Yeah. File item 51, Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 226 by Senator Alvarado-Gil an act relating to controlled substances.

Senator, floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Current law makes it a felony to possess heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine while also possessing a loaded and operable firearm. Senate Bill 226 would add fentanyl to this list, despite the fact that many drugs currently on the list have often been, quote, unquote, laced with fentanyl. It is not listed by name and therefore it is not eligible for felony prosecution, even though fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin, which is on the list. Treating fentanyl with a gun differently than heroin with a gun does not serve public safety, nor does it make practical sense. Senate Bill 226 crafts a simple solution to a serious problem and will help provide clarity to the courts while also curbing gun violence. This bill was on special consent and has received unanimous votes in committee with bipartisan support. I respectfully request your aye vote any.

Further discussion or debate on this item? Senator Durazo

May I ask a question of the author?

Will you take a question? Go right ahead.

Yes. My question is, do you have a response to the concern raised by the opposition about this bill that undermine that this would undermine the good Samaritan law, in other words? Right. Someone who has, for example, a weapon and they're with somebody who's overdosing NARCAM could save that life, but they're afraid that they then would be arrested. So if you could please respond, if you can, to that issue. Yeah, so I disagree with the opposition that it is an issue. I think those who are lawfully owning and possessing a firearm do so in good faith and do so within the law. So I disagree with the opposition's concern. Follow up question. You said if they lawfully own a gun. That's correct. Okay, so if they don't lawfully own a gun and this is happening right in front of them right. And Narcan could actually save their life, how do you respond to that? Yeah, I don't think there's many news articles or data that shows someone possessing a loaded an operable firearm in one hand and a Narcan spraying another hand at the same time having pockets full of fentanyl. So I respectfully disagree with the opposition on this one.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill for two reasons. Number one, it addresses some of the issues with fentanyl. It allows people to help. The police are not inclined to, I guess, take somebody who has helped with some narcan and frisk them down to see if they actually have a weapon. So I agree with the author that this is not an issue out there. I've never seen that happen on any drug ODS where somebody helping person that is down. Because I've been on a lot of drug ODS and there are a lot of bystanders and not once has the police taken the bystanders, lined them up and then frisk them down to see if any of them have any weapons or any other paraphernalia on them. They're glad that they tried to help and those folks move on. So I think this would be helpful in two reasons. Somebody who is dealing fentanyl, if they are carrying a weapon that's not good, they shouldn't be because they are already breaking the law. Anyway, I support this bill and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Senator Alvarado-Gil, would you like to close?

Thank you. I may consider in the future requiring drug dealers to carry narcan because I think we could save more lives, but I don't think they would go for it. So I think those who are in the business of carrying illegal substances, dealing them and continuing to kill our citizens, our children, our brothers, sisters, moms, dads, aunts and uncles, at the same time possessing a loaded firearm, should be held accountable. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you. Secretary please call the role and file item 51.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 36, Noes zero. The measure passes. Members, this is now the time. We'll take a 45 minutes break for lunch. We're asking all members to remain in the Capitol and not return to your office. We'll be starting session back up at 06:00. P.M sharp. We're now on lunch break. Well, dinner break, thou the same.

The Senate will come back to order. Hope you enjoyed your break, Members. We're getting ready to get started here, and we are going to start off with file item 25 by Senator Bradford. The clerk will read.

Senate Bill 490 by Senator Bradford, an act relating to state government and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Bradford?

Thank you, Madam President. This is a straightforward measure that simply extends the California Task Force to study and develop reparations proposals for African Americans. And it's due to set set, and it would sunset on July 2024. By July 1 of this year, the reparations Task Force will publish its final report to the Legislature. However, at that date, the Task Force will cease to exist. This poses significant challenge to the Task Force ability to engage in discussions and provide technical assistance on the final recommendations. It will also assist in this legislative body and the Governor not having to answer the questions of where's my reparations? Having the ability to provide technical assistance after the final report is published will help avoid misreporting and misinformation about the Task Force's work. This will also allow the Task Force to engage in briefings on the report and participate in informational hearings about the Task Force work. This bill is simply an extension of the Task Force sunset date to July 20, I mean 2024, and does nothing to delay the publication of the report or its recommendations. I respectfully ask for am aye vote.

Seeing no other members wishing to be recognized, clerk will call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

On the urgency 31 to two. The measure passes 31 to two. Moving on in the order, file item 27 by Senator Bradford, Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 512 by Senator Bradford an act relating to cannabis to take effect immediately. Tax levy.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Madam President. SB 512 would exclude the state's cannabis excise tax as well as other local taxes from the definition of gross receipts under the Sales and Use Tax Law. Additionally, the bill would prohibit a local jurisdiction for the purposes of their own local tax from including the state's excise tax and their definition of gross receipts. High taxes, excessive regulatory hurdles, and various hurdles that cannabis businesses have to deal with have done little to help this legal market grow and succeed in a way that voters had intended under Prop 64. Taxing the taxes and ultimately increasing purchase prices, deincentivizes the consumers from purchasing from legal retailers, it only exacerbates the continued struggles of cannabis retailers. Currently, the difference between going into a legal establishment and illegal establishment is almost 37% more at a legal establishment. By making these clarifications, SB 512 will help remedy this situation by ensuring taxes are calculated on the actual goods being sold. This bill has received bipartisan support and asked for aye vote.

Senator Glazer. You are recognized.

Thank you. Mr. Madam President and Members I had a question for the author.

Senator Bradford, will you take a question?

Maybe.

Should Senator Glazer proceed?

Yes.

Okay.

And this matter came up in committee, so I wanted to just get a clarification on the floor. On the surface, this measure goes contrary to the express language in Proposition 64. I had asked in Committee whether we'd been able to get a legal counsel, Legislative Council opinion about whether or not actions in the bill would be contrary to the express language in 64. I wanted to ask if that had been clarified by Legislative Council.

We've asked, and we have yet to get an answer, but the short answer is no, because there was an Assembly Bill that passed last year that kind of reshifted this whole discussion. And as we know, most of the things that are put in propositions are very convoluted. And many times the voters vote on things that they don't understand. And this is another prime example of all the convoluted language that was put in here. But right now, we say it doesn't go in conflict with Proposition 64.

Great. I want to thank the author for looking into this matter further. Because we don't have that clear legal clarification, I'm going to stay off the bill today. I know the purposes that the author advances on this bill are very worthy and there's a lot of issues and challenges in this whole cannabis space for legal retailers, and that's who we should be protecting and helping. But for the reasons I stated, I'm going to lay off on the bill for now.

Thank you. Seeing no other members wishing to be recognized, senator Bradford, you may close.

Thank you. I stated this is a straightforward measure that will make sure that our legal market has the opportunity to flourish and grow as voters had intended. And I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Clerk will call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil, Atkins, Dahle, Glazer Grove. Nguyen Niello Rubio.

31.. 32 to one, the measure passes. Moving back to Senator Bradford again, file item 33. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 700 by Senator Bradford an act relating to employment discrimination.

Senator Bradford?

Thank you, Madam President. SB 700 strengthens existing law to protect employees and prospective applicants from employment discrimination based on legal cannabis use. Last year, the legislature made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or conditions of employment because of the person's off the job cannabis usage. Some employers throughout the state continue to employ zero tolerance policies on cannabis use and ask applicants whether they have used cannabis recreationally prior to employment. This practice not only dissuades candidates from applying for these positions, but also leads to situations in which individuals respond dishonestly on a job interview. Many are prevented from moving further in the application process simply for using cannabis in a legal and responsible manner after cannabis was legalized with Prop 64. SB 700 explicitly makes it unlawful for employers to request information from an applicant relating to their prior use of cannabis. This bill preserves the provisions of AB 2188, including exemptions for employees subject to the federal background check or the construction industry. It does nothing to change existing law pertaining to testing for cannabis and cannabis use on the job, ensuring employees can maintain a drug free work environment. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Senator Dahle. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam President, members, I respectfully have to oppose this bill. I'm in the trucking business, and the one question we ask is, do you use cannabis because you get randomly drug tested? And for us, we're going to put them through a program, we're going to train them to drive, and if they use Prop 64 for medicine or whatever, you still can't employ them. If they use it's a problem nationally. And so for those of us in business, we're going to be penalized and we're going to not know, pay for all the training and then find out later that we can't employ them. So it's a burden on the business community. It really needs to be fixed at the federal level so that we can allow people to use cannabis for medicine, for recreational use, and still allow them to have a class one license to drive a truck when they're not impaired, just like we do with alcohol. For those reasons, I can't support the bill just going to be a more burden on those of us who are trying to stay legal within the laws.

Seeing nobody else wishing to be recognized. Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

Thank you. Again, this is not about individuals consuming cannabis or even alcohol while at work. It's about individuals who do what in the comfort of their own home to partake, whether it's for personal use or municipal use, just like an alcohol folks drink. Alcohol at home is a straightforward measure, and it will lead to more employment, not less employment. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Clerk will call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members. 29 to nine, the measure passes. Moving on for our final Mr. Bradford Bill of the day, file item 63. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 50 by Senator Bradford an act relating to vehicles.

Thank you, Madam President. SB 50 will limit law enforcement's ability to stop people for minor, non safety related traffic infractions unless there is independent safety related basis to initiate to stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that cities and counties can explore non law enforcement approaches to traffic safety. SB 50 is a priority for the Legislative Black Caucus and bills on the recommendations from the California Racial Identity Profiling Advisory Board, better known as Ripa, and the Committee on Revisions of the Penal Code and the center for Policing Equity, as well as the current policies in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oregon, Virginia and Memphis. Pretext stops are when an officer stops someone for a minor traffic violation, such as attendant windows or expired registration, with the intention of using that stop to investigate on a hunch that that individual has committed a more serious crime. These stops, which require no evidence or suspicion of a more serious crime, disproportionately, impacts communities of color. In Sacramento, for example, black people are stopped five times more likely for non moving violations than their white counterparts. Many individuals are then harassed or even assaulted for a simple violation that can be easily fixed and enforced by mail. Sanya Bland, Tyree Nichols, Ron Settles, Dante Wright, Philando Castile and Walter Scott are just a few notable examples of those individuals pulled over by law enforcement for a low level violation and ultimately lost their lives as the result of this stop. The only thing that they had in common or was guilty of is being black and driving. In Antioch, California, 17 officers engaged in racist and sexist texts where officers admitted and said, I only stopped them because they're black. Opposition has stated that if we have an issue with these stops, that the legislature should just make these violations legal. We want people to pay their registration and display their license plate and make sure their lights are working correctly. But just one of these violations should not be enough to stop and search someone. In fact, we have clarified in this bill that law enforcement has the authority to mail these citations. Law enforcement claims that this is an effective tool in finding contraband and stopping DUIs. Yet less than 1% of traffic stops result in arrest and firearms are found less than 0.5% of the searches of vehicles. But of our white counterparts, they're three times more likely to have guns and drugs in their cars than black and brown community in LA. Where officers have reduced the amount of stops they do for low violations, officers have actually had higher rates in finding contraband now than in previous years. In Connecticut, which has a similar law to what this bill proposes, there has been an increase in DUI arrests after they focus their traffic enforcement on hazardous driving rather than low level violations. Californians across the state have voiced their concerns about rising crime rates, especially theft and violent crimes, not on people having a broken light or something hanging from their mirror. Yet law enforcement spends a significant amount of their time during the day and resources policing these violations that put no one in immediate imminent danger. A national poll conducted by the Safety Cities Research found that nearly three in four voters support banning stops, I should say for minor offenses. After hearing from many of my colleagues, I'm committed to amend this bill in the assembly to one, clarify that more than one low level violation would be grounds for an officer to initiate a stop. And two, suspicion of evidence shall not be a remedy for a violation of this law. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Grove. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I respectfully rise in opposition of this bill. I appreciate what my colleague is trying to do with this piece of legislation to prevent racial profiling, things like that, that sometimes do happen in law enforcement. So I understand what he's trying to do with the bill, but I just disagree with the way he's going about it. Violent crimes are often solved by alert peace officers who investigate or initiate investigations during routine traffic stops, whether it has to do with a broken tail light, vehicle registration issue, cracked windshield, just these minor traffic stops. For example, in San Diego County, a CHP officer stopped a 40 year old white male for an expired registration. During the traffic stop, the CHP officer observed part of the exposed knife handle under the driver's seat and then recovered that dagger, which had an eight inch blade on it. The subsequent search of the driver's phone after the arrest uncovered images of child sexual exploitation. That child ended up being his stepdaughter, who was in the car at the time of the stop. The 15 year old victim went on to disclose dozens of lewd acts over a period of a year, as well as being photographed by her stepfather while she was naked. This child's nightmare ended because a peace officer detained this monster for an expired registration. This past January, a Sheriff's Deputy stopped a vehicle for an expired registration. The driver turned out to have a felony arrest warrant. The driver was arrested on that warrant, and the vehicle was inventoried and searched. Inside the vehicle was 800 fentanyl pills and an illegal firearm with a magazine. And it was linked to shootings 800 fentanyl pills, saved 800 people's lives and all over an expired registration. If your belief that safety requirements should not be enforced my colleagues from across the aisle. I ask you to consider removing these items from the penal code versus requiring our law enforcement officers who are sworn to uphold our safety and the safety of our communities instead of putting them in that position to walk away from an individual that was pulled over for an expired registration and having an exposed eight inch dagger. I would suggest that you change it to where the penal code was responsible and get that removed for the penal code instead of having our law enforcement officers make that decision. I understand, like I said, where the author is going, and I think it's just approached a different way and respectfully ask for a no vote on this piece of legislation.

Senator Seyato.

Thank you, Madam President. I also respectfully rise to oppose this bill is one more piece of legislation that takes away the ability of our police officers to protect us, the citizens that are law abiding, citizens that expect vehicles to work properly, and also for them to be able to stop and ensure that vehicles are maintained in an appropriate working condition. As far as pulling over people and catching bad guys, yes, that does happen every once in a while when they run the plates and they run the registration. A lot of times they will find bad people. Like in Riverside, when they got the notorious serial killer William Stuff, he was actually pulled over for a taillight violation and subsequently they figured out who he was and arrested him. Most of his victims, of which there were numerous, numerous victims, were minority. They come from communities and a lot of them were minorities. And so, yes, there are issues with profiling and things like that, as my colleague from Bakersfield mentioned, but that is not a reason to take yet another tool away from law enforcement so that we can keep our public safe. So for those reasons, I just want to say that I would ask for a no vote on this item. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I want to stand in support of SB 50 and thank the Senator for bringing this forward. I think many of us do believe in the enforcement of the law. But I also just want to highlight that this context is exactly the reason why the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board included this policy in their recommendations. As we talk about law enforcement and public safety, we must take an intentional approach to reconsider what public safety looks like on all fronts. This bill does allow communities to move forward with alternative enforcement strategies for traffic laws that stop or at least reduce racial profiling and promote equal treatment under the law with these amendments that the senator has decided to take as well also, again, reissue the fact that it is a reduction of pretextual stops within appropriate conditions. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Madam President. Question of the author.

Senator Bradford, you take a question? Yes, go ahead.

Thank you. Just to clarify a couple of things. One of the concerns that I have is a thing called the exclusionary rule. So, for example, if there's an illegal act, an illegal search, that there's a body of law that says that evidence must be suppressed, as I understand it, that you have taken an amendment or you will take an amendment rather that says the following that any evidence that's derived from one of these stops is not excluded. In other words, if there's 800 Fentanyl pills, it's found in the vehicle, those 800 Fentanyl pills can be entered into evidence, can be used as evidence to prosecute the person who was in possession. Is that accurate?

That is correct.

All right. Second question, if you'll entertain a second question as well. Second question is as to the infractions that a police officer who notices, for example, two infractions taillight registration, that point police officer can stop that person and do what police officer may do concerning those two infractions, is that is accurate as well. All right. And then lastly, in terms of a police officer that has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, I'm not talking about whether it's a broken tail light, but a police officer that has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed still has both the right and, I suppose, the duty to stop someone if they believe they have a reasonable suspicion. Is that still state of law as far as you understand?

Very much so. This does not impact officers right to do their job.

All right. Thank you.

Public said threat.

All right, thank you. I'll be voting on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues at Rights today as a proud co author and respectfully asking for an eye vote here. You heard from my colleague from Hayward. Senator from Hayward said that this allows cities to move forward with what they feel would be useful. And the senator from Gardena talked about LAPD, the city that I represent. LAPD, just in spring of 2022, moved forward with removing pretext stops. And what they saw was that in South LA, 65% of their stops were of black individuals when only 31% of the community there is made up of black individuals. We're talking about technical stops that are not putting people at harm's way. A broken tail light is not going to ruin my life. It's not going against my safety. If there are suggestions of a mailing ticket, I stand in support of that because what is happening right now is costing people's lives. These stops are actually putting people's lives in harm. It's not putting my life in harm. It's putting that individual that is disproportionately being stopped for being black or brown at the risk of losing their life. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no other members wishing to be recognized, Senator Bradford, you may close.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank the members both in support and opposition of this measure. This is a common sense measure, and as stated, the data clearly shows that these pretextual stops are disproportionately used against communities of color and hearing from law enforcement. I have not only family, but friends that are in law enforcement. Having these unnecessary stops puts not only the community at greater safety, but the law enforcement officers as well. The data is shown that they can dedicate their time to going after the real criminal elements that are out there that we're all concerned about. Again, a broken tail light should not lead to one losing their life, as in Sandra Bland. An air freshener hanging over your rear view mirror should not lead to losing your life, as in Dante Wright. People are losing their lives unnecessarily just because of these minor infractions. And I will use myself as a prime example. Three years ago, leaving a friend's home at around 01:00 A.m. In Pasadena, I was stopped by law enforcement and they approached my car and it says, are you aware that your headlight is not working? I says, yes, I have a short in my left headlight. You can tap it, it'll come back on. It works intermittently, but, yes, I'm very much aware of that. At no time did they say they stopped me for weaving, reckless driving or speeding. The next thing, I am asked to leave my car. And I'm asked at 01:00 a.m in the morning to take a field sobriety test. I have no doubt, had I been white, I would have not been asked to leave my car at 01:00 A.m. In the morning to take a field sobriety test that I easily passed. But again, in. They says, oh, well, we catch a lot of folks driving drunk at this hour. I says, but at no time did you stop me for my driving. You stopped me for my headlight that I was clearly aware that didn't work. So I just want to use myself as an example. Until you spend a day in my farragamos, will you understand the disparities that does exist when it comes to enforcing laws. And this is about making everybody safer, both law enforcement and the general public. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. And... Clerk will call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members. Ayes 22. Noe's. Eleven. That measure passes is next up. We're taking file item 44. Senator Padilla clerk will read.

Senate Bill 797 by Senator Padilla an act related to taxation.

Senator Padilla, please.

Thank you. Madam President, colleagues arise to present SB Seven Nine Seven, which would establish the Lithium Extraction Tax Citizens Oversight Committee to overseed if and provide recommendations on how to best distribute funds collected from the lithium excise tax created in last year's budget staff. In 2022, this one of a kind lithium excise tax created a three tiered tax per metric ton of lithium extracted in California. The Tax Citizens Oversight Committee would ensure those tax proceeds are properly allocated to provide maximum benefit to the community. In my district, the Salton Sea has one of the largest reserves of lithium in the world, with some estimates putting the amount at nearly one third of global demand. However, the benefits from lithium deposits can only be realized through an approach that centers equity, transparency and robust community engagement. As it is a state instrument, the state has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the funds from lithium excise tax are used appropriately to help the residents in Imperial County and elsewhere around the Salton Sea. This will add local accountability and transparency, as well as provide oversight into community based projects that could have otherwise been overlooked. SB 797 has no opposition, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Grove. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I too rise in support of SB 797 in Kern. On the East Kern side, we have the ability to to produce lithium if it ever does get off the ground. This is a bill that would be very supportive and I appreciate the author for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Seeing no other senators wishing me recognized, senator Padilla, you may close.

Thank you.

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Cerk will call the role.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 39, Noes zero. The measure passes. Now, members, moving on to file item 56 by Senator Niello. He is prepared. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 585 by Senator Niello an act relating to disability access.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to present SB 585, which provides small businesses an opportunity to fix construction related Ada violations before they can be sued and before penalties can be applied. Recent amendments address some concerns raised by members of the Judiciary Committee by narrowing the bill from all businesses to just small businesses, 50 employees or less. Right now, these businesses are hurting across the state, especially those owned by minorities and migrants who do not understand our judicial system and, frankly, are sometimes afraid to engage with it. More disability access lawsuits were filed in California in 2021 than the rest of the 49 states combined. And with just five law firms filing 92% of all accessibility suits in California, SB 585 seeks to address the small number of bad actors who are abusing the legal process for personal wealth on the backs of businesses in our communities. I've also amended the bill so that an individual with disabilities does not even need to access a lawyer to start the process and can send in a regular letter. And we continue to work to find easy and effective ways to lodge complaints as the law stands. Currently, the onus is on the disabled individual to seek out counsel in order to start the process and file a suit against a business. This bill seeks to make the process easier. SB 585 strikes a balance between protecting the rights of the disabled to have physical access, while also addressing the real and actual abuses of the process by a handful of small bad actors. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Mr. President. I rise to explain why I will not be supporting the bill. I, too am very concerned about high frequency litigants that may abuse of the current system. I express those concerns in the committee, and that the approach to this bill is worrisome. It shifts the burden away from businesses onto people with disability who encounter barriers to access at businesses that are not complying with the law. However, even with the amendments, this is still requiring that a disabled individual has to provide notice regarding the violation. These amendments will not, in my opinion, prevent the high frequency litigants from filing lawsuits or submitting letters, but it will stop the disabled individual who has been discriminated against at a small business that is inaccessible. I would instead welcome the disability community and business community to work with the Legislature to come up with a solution to truly address the high frequency litigants that this bill hopes to stop. Thank you.

Any further discussion or debate on this item, Senator Dahle?

Thank you. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill. We had a bill a few years ago, actually one of my constituents in Lake Tahoe, who was disabled herself in a wheelchair and had a suit against her. And she was running her business out of a wheelchair, and we could not get that bill put out. This actually has more safeguards in this bill than our bill originally had. And the trial attorneys killed that bill. So, for those reasons, I think this is a common sense approach to help those small business owners and help folks who are disabled truly be able to get access, because that's really what we're after at the end of the day. So for those reasons, I support your bill and think you've done excellent job in narrowing it down so we could actually get a fix here.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing seeing none. Senator Nieillo. Oh, I'm sorry. Who do we have? Senator Glazer.

Just wanted to thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to give a bipartisan flavor to this issue that's before us. I mean, I've had small businesses in my community actually close because of those fixed letters that demand $7,500 to go away rather than simply fixing the problem of access. Of course, we're all concerned about the disability community, of course. And the bill has been carefully crafted, I think, to ensure that their rights are protected, that it allows, if an oversight or mistake has been made, to allow it to be corrected. And that's good lawmaking. And I applaud the author for courage in moving this bill through, and I heartily support it.

Thank you. Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to echo the comments of my colleague, with my colleagues that spoke before. When this bill came before Judiciary Committee, a number of us spoke, and I was one of them, expressing my concerns and balancing those between the real problem of attorneys going after small businesses, particularly in immigrant communities that didn't understand the rules, and targeting them at the same time trying to protect the real rights of those with disabilities. I think this strikes the right balance. Balance. And I really appreciate carving out small businesses, in particular from the scope of this bill. So I will be voting aye again, and I want to thank the Author for its hard work on trying to make this bill better.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Senator Niello, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to stress that we will continue to see that any disabled folks who notice violations can lodge complaints. And I think it's important to note, as other comments have, that this is narrowed to small businesses, 50 employees or less. And I think it is a very important step to take to cease the abuse that we've seen with these so called drive by lawsuits and to make sure that the defects that are pointed out are actually fixed. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call this third no. All right, Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes. 29. Noes. Seven. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 57. Senator Wiener. He is prepared. Secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill Four by Senator Weiner and acreating to housing. Senator Wiener.

I thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues that rise to present Senate Bill 4, which will allow religious institutions and nonprofit colleges to utilize excess land that they own to develop affordable housing. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship have a long history of partnering with their community, offering services and a place of comfort for their neighbors. Many wish to build affordable housing. However, many of these faith-based organizations excuse me, Mr. President many of these faith-based organizations face significant obstacles in trying to build that housing. Sometimes, between the zoning and the approval process, it proves to be completely impossible. SB 4 will allow for these religious institutions and nonprofit colleges to enter into partnerships and to create the affordable housing that they need and that our community needs. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing and seeing none. Please call the role on file item 57.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes. 33. Noes two. The measure passes now, members, we're moving on to file item 58. Senator Cortez. He is prepared. Secretary. You may read

Senate Bill nine by Senator Cortez and acquaintance to foster care. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. President. And Senators I rise for Senate SB 9, which will extend the age of jurisdiction for voluntary extended foster care for an additional year from age 21 to age 22. This is a three-year opt-in pilot program with bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing seeing none. Members, this is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there an objection there? There's no objection. Ayes. 40. Noes. Zero. The measure passes. Next up is file item 59, Senator Menjivar. And she's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 11 by Senator Menjivar an act relating to California State University.

Thank you. Mr. President, colleagues, I rise today for SB 11, asking for there to be a ratio of 1000 to 1500 of mental health therapists for our CSU students, and to incentivize our CSU students to become mental health therapists. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing this too is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using any unanimous roll call on file item 59? Hearing seeing none. Ayes 40. Noes zero. The measure passes. Next up is file item 60, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. She is prepared. Secretary, you may read Senate Bill 16 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas an act relating to civil rights. Senator Floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Mr. President and colleagues, I rise to present SB 16, which would allow local agencies to bring enforcement actions under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, also known as FEHA. FEHA is the principal law protecting Californians from unjust workplace discrimination, and is enforced exclusively through the California Civil Rights Department, either through direct action or authorized private civil actions. Despite concerted efforts by the department, however, many workers do not feel their discrimination cases are getting the attention needed to appropriately respond to workplace discrimination, which is on the rise. In order to address civil rights issues in more focused ways, several entities, like the City of Los Angeles, the City and County of San Francisco, have created their own agencies to address violations of civil rights through local civil rights departments. And while these agencies are doing good work to indiscrimination in their jurisdiction, state law prohibits them from pursuing enforcement actions of violations through FEHA. SB 16 removes the preemption provisions in FIHA that prevent local agencies from participating in enforcement actions and helps to deliver on Fija's promise of a discrimination free workplace in California. Thank you, everyone, for being a part of this effort to support this bill which had come under SB 218. Many of you had voted in the past to support. Today, I respectfully ask for your aye vote as we seek to expand civil rights protections where it happens in local communities.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the role.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 27 creates an ability for employees to recover their earned but unpaid wages. The bill models how prevailing wage laws are enforced and requires vendors to supply the UC and the appropriate Joint Labor Management Committee, the basic payroll information necessary. The bill would also allow a contracting vendor company an opportunity to correct and cure any discrepancies before facing any consequence. If an employer vendor refuses to comply with the UC equal pay for equal work policy or fails to correct and cure, employees would then have the right to pursue recovery of their earned but unpaid wages from the contracting vendor in court, not from the UC. This bill passed through two Senate committees, and I accepted 16 amendments that UC requested. UC can't get sued under SB 27. UC won't be liable for unpaid wages under SB 27. UC will continue outsourcing under SB 27. And finally, UC's own summary of its own audit concluded that over 1000 Californians have not been paid what they earned. SB 27 will give those people a recourse they won't have without your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing no microphones? I'm sorry, Senator Alvarado-Gil.

To thank my colleague from Los Angeles for bringing forward this bill and for always being a champion for workers, particularly in the UC system, where we want to have the best and the brightest and workers to help support our next generation of students. I only have one university in my district, but throughout the California, being a product of the UC system, I believe that this is a great bill and I ask for your aye vote and support.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate hearing? Seeing none. Senator Durazo, would you like to close?

Thank you for my colleagues comments, and I ask for your aye vote.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Secretary, please call the roll on file item 61.

Ayes 29, Noes seven. The measure passes now. Members and women on the file item 62, Senator Roth. He's prepared. Senator. Secretary please read

Senate Bill 46 by Senator Roth an act related to controlled substances.

Thank you. Mr. President, as we are all very much aware, drug overdoses are on the rise in California. Now, more than ever, the state must adopt the policies necessary to support the rehabilitation of those suffering from this epidemic. SB 46 does just that. The bill requires a person convicted of a drug offense and who is granted probation to successfully complete a controlled substance, education or treatment program. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. This is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on this measure? Seeing none. Ayes 40, Noes zero. The measure passes. Now moving on to file item 64 by Senator Cortese. He's prepared. Secretary may read

Senate Bill 69 by Senator Cortese. An act relating to environmental quality.

Mr. President, colleagues SB 69 adds transparency to the secret notification process. SB 69 would require all public agencies to post these notices to the state clearinghouse website so they can all be found in one place. These notices must be posted within five days of action on a project. The bill is sponsored by the California State Council of Labors and has labor and environmental support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate hearing seeing none. Secretary please call the role on file item 64.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 40 knows zero. The measure passes. Now, members, moving on to file item 66 by Senator Skinner. She is prepared. Secretary. You may read

Senate Bill 233 by Senator Skinner. An act relating to transportation electrification.

Thanks so much, Mr. President and members. We California is in the lead of moving towards zero emission vehicles. And we've done a lot to promote electric vehicles. We have rebates for them. The federal government now has rebates for them. And there's a great capacity that electric vehicles have that some people are not aware of, and that is that those very powerful batteries in an electric vehicle can be used to power more than the car. They can also be used in emergency circumstance or during a power outage to power your home, for example. Now, those of us who have been watching the NBA playoffs have probably seen the Ford F 150 truck advertisements where that Ford F 150 truck drives up to the cabin and the driver jumps out and he plugs the car. He plugs the car into the cabin, and the cabin flights go on. So there he's using that Ford 152 to basically power his home. So what this bill does is ensure that every EV sold in California as of model year 2030 has that capability so that no EV owner is disadvantaged. You don't want to have a situation where an EV owner, a person buying in that year, then finds that they don't have that bi directional capacity, which then in an outage, they have to go buy a diesel generator. Or perhaps they got to go spend $10,000 on a Tesla battery pack, which some houses now have, when in fact, they could use their EV. Nissan Leaf, which is the most affordable EV on the market, has always had bi-directional capability. Many of the EVs do. This would just create that level playing field by model year 2030. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Let's have a roll call on file item 66.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Ayes 29, Noes nine. The measure passes. Next up is file item 67 by Senator Portantino. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 234 by Senator Portantino an act relating to Opioids.

Thank you, Mr. President. And members, to combat the crisis of young people overdosing on Opioids, this bill requires all schools, community colleges, concert venues, places where young people congregate to have narcan available, and folks on site who know where it is to make it available in case one of our young people overdoses. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I rise in respectful opposition. And I made this point in health committee. This bill came through the health committee, and I think this is an important issue that we should take seriously. So as the chair of health, I asked that there be somebody who was trained to do this. Because my fear is we're going to have all this Narcan at all these places, but somebody's not going to know how to use it. And oftentimes, as a good Samaritan, if you don't understand what's going on, you're not going to act. There is a free treatment, a free training when you get the Narcan from the state supply right online, doesn't take much time. That amendment was not accepted. My colleague from Bakersfield, who had a similar bill, did accept that amendment. Unfortunately, that bill didn't move forward. So for those reasons I won't be supporting this today. And I hope as a Senator moves forward, he'll continue to think about having the training. So these doses of narcan are actually used and not just given back in two years because they've now expired. Thank you.

So I have similar concerns. However, I am going to support the bill hoping that the author does ensure in the legislation that number one, there is the issue of who's going to be responsible for the expired drugs, because having drugs people aren't checking in emergencies and they may be giving expired drugs and they won't work and therefore they're ineffective. But also the training that's necessary when you're administering narcan, it is a magic drug that reverses the opioid effect. However, there are also after-effects that are unpleasant and can also kill the person as well, and that includes airway obstructions because they can throw up after they've been brought out of their high. And so it's not as easy as just giving it to them. It's the training that is required. If only two people are trained, if any of those people are not there when this happens, that person is going to go. But I also want to warn people against thinking that this is a cure-all for an opioid, especially when it comes to fentanyl, because you do have to be there within four minutes of the overdose to actually reverse and save a person. So it's not going to be effective for everybody because people do this and they are unsupervised. But it can be helpful if the right people are in the right place at the right time with the right drugs that have not expired. So I am going to support your bill today though.

Thank you Mr. President. As a co-author of this bill, I rise in support of SB 234, which would make Narcan available in public areas such as schools, concert venues, et cetera. As described by the author. I would like the training amendment added to the bill. I think it would make it that much better and it would actually alleviate a lot of the concerns that most of us had in health committee. However, in 2021 there were 5,722 fentanyl related deaths in the state of California, the second highest in the country. That's 5,722 lives that were taken from friends, families and loved ones. What this bill doesn't do is require the training, but what this bill would do is prevent fentanyl from being given to people. What this bill doesn't do is prevent fentanyl from given to people or sold to people in the first place, but it does offer as a mechanism to be able to try to save someone's life in case of an overdose. Republicans, Democrats have authored legislation this year to focus on dealers that push out this poison, but unfortunately they've been held in committee. I know. That there's some type of legislative fix, hopefully that's moving forward. But in the meantime, before us, SB 234 by Senator Portantino is supportable because it will save lives. Respectfully ask for an Iayevote.

Thank you, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of this bill, and I'm sure the author will continue to contemplate the training issue. I do want to just say, first of all, this crisis is fundamentally a health issue, and Narcan is not the only part of the solution. It's a key part. I also just want to note, we did put a budget request, and I believe it's in both houses, versions of the budget to make sure that we are not just the the may revive, simply pushes out an enormous amount of Narcan, which is important. We're working to put money in the budget, which I think is succeeding, to make sure that that is supported by the infrastructure to get the Narcan out and to make sure that people know how to use Narcan. So I think we are doing various have various approaches here, and this bill should be seen in that context. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise as a co-author to support the bill. This bill is very necessary. And I also do agree, though, is to hopefully as we move forward, that we do add in the training. I'll give you an example. One of my city, the city of Fountain Valley, actually put together and sponsor and funded all of our schools to have Norcan. But they were trained by our fire department from the city, and it has saved lives within our school system. And so I do support it, and I thank the author for moving this bill forward.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members first. The bill requires that these are unexpired doses of Narcan that are available. And so we recognize that we want them to be valid, safe, and usable doses. As far as the training goes, I was recently at a homeless outreach program where we were handing out Narcan. The folks who sponsored the homeless outreach were doing that. And this is something that training is available. It's not necessary. It's a very simple device. And I would assume that those who want to be trained will watch the free video that's available. We certainly don't want to burden this with an unnecessary price tag. So it gets vetoed. Because if it gets vetoed, teenagers will die. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing no more mics, Senator Portrantino, would you like to close?

All right, secretary, please call the roll on file, item 67.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

All right, members, we're now moving on to file item 68. Senator Min. He's prepared. Secretary, you may read

Senate Bill 241 by Senator Minn an act relating to firearms.

Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. I feel like that last bill deserves a slow clap. But SB 241 would require firearm dealers and their employees to complete regular training. That covers federal and state laws governing the sale and transfers of firearms and ammunition, including how to recognize indicators that an individual might intend to use a firearm for fraudulent activity, unlawful purposes or self harm, theft and burglary prevention. Rules of Safe firearm handling and storage, and other reasonable business practices to deter gun trafficking or the unlawful use of firearms. We know that many other industries are required in this state to undergo training for their employees to reduce harm to the public, and the firearm industry should be no exception. SB 241 would establish guardrails at the point of sale and bring gun retailers under the umbrella of professional training practices to ensure that responsible gun ownership is the norm and that fraudulent activity is deterred. This is a common sense measure, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this matter? Hearing seeing none. Secretary please call a role and file item 68.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Call the absent members. Ayes 31, Noes six. The measure passes. Now, moving on to file item 69, senator Egman. She's prepared. Secretary you may read

Senate Bill 244 by Senator Eggman an act related to Solid Waste Management.

Senator Eggman.

Good evening, Mr. President and members. Today I'm presenting SB 244 the right to repair. And we think the time is right for the right to repair. Been working on this issue since 2018. And we're back today with something that I think is going to get off this floor. And this is an issue, members, if you think about our transformation into a community, a world that is driven by technology. When we purchase a phone, when we purchase a piece of equipment, we think we purchase that, we don't think, we lease that, that we have to take it back to that person and can only take it back to that place. It's just a business model. That shouldn't be the way it is. So this bill simply says that manufacturers will make the parts, tools, documents, and software needed for consumer electronics and appliance repair accessible to independent repair shops and to consumers. In California we already have a law that says based on the value of the product, consumer electronics, that the manufactured should reach three to seven years in that lasting. They accomplished that through their own first party networks. So you have to go back to their places to get it fixed. That's again a business model. And if you live where I live, you have to travel at least 50 miles to get to a place that is authorized. So this simply says that that authorization transfers to all the small businesses that exist in our ... to fix our things that are broken. As I said before, we currently in California and California alone throw away 46,000 phones every single day that goes into our waste stream. Some people recycle as they're supposed to, a lot of folks don't. And they just go into our waste stream and we buy another one for another thousand dollars or so and we continue to create an economy and a world that is disposable rather than repairable. So with that we've took a lot of amendments on this bill. Most of the opposition is continuing to work with us and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is right.

Thank you, Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise in support. This author has brought many of these bills forward. Those of us in small business. Example, John Deere is something we operate on our farm and they've proprietary, stopped us from getting the technology to fix our own equipment. And as equipment is getting more electronically based, you need those tools to actually diagnose what you're doing. Actually, John Deere for example, just this last year said, hey, we're going to open this up so people can fix their own equipment. Very helpful to small folks like myself who are a long way from the dealer. We talk about your carbon footprint. Put a tractor on a low bed truck, haul it 150 miles and it's simply a $10 sensor that you could have diagnosed yourself and put back in. That's just an example. I know this is for electronics, but it's the same case for electronics when you're a long ways from where you need to be. If you can have the tools to diagnose it and fix it, we should be able to do that. We paid for it once and we should be able to make the life of it go longer. So I thank you for bringing this forward. I think it's a great common sense bill and I respectfully ask and aye vote on this bill.

Senator Becker.

Thank you. I'd say I have some trepidation on this bill mostly related to intellectual property, trade secrets. I do appreciate the work the author has done on this and over many years and I've seen iterations of this. So I will be supporting the bill today. I look forward to continuing to work with her to look at those concerns. I know it's written in the bill, but just want to make sure the implementation works as well. But I thank her for all her work on this.

Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I stand in strong support of this bill. We've got a number of states doing it. And there was a very famous book in the early 60s by a guy named Vance Packard called The Waste Makers. And it was all about how products are built for planned obsolescence and basically to break down to force us to have to buy more. Well, some of us would prefer not to create that waste, and allowing us to get those things repaired helps reduce that waste. It's a smart bill. Thank you.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And this bill, it does protect intellectual property that this asks nothing to do with any of that part. And again, people are doing repairs just based on YouTube, though, and making up equipment, and we shouldn't have to do that part should be available. And we did work with the tractor industries a couple of years ago to get them to start thinking about this and did a memorandum back then. So we shouldn't have to stop your business because you have to wait for the certified person to come and fix it. There are certified electronic places all over. This is good for small business. This is good for consumers. This is good for our environment. Only thing still working in my house that's as old as me is my 1954 Wedgewood oven. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote hearing.

No further discussion or debate on this item. Please call the roll and file item 69.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

I please call the absent members. Ayes 38, Noes zero. The measure passes. Now, moving on to file item 71.

Senator Weiner Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 253 by Senator Wiener and act relating to greenhouse gases.

Senator Wiener.

I thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues. SB 253 is the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act. It'll require all US-based companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue who do business in California to report their full greenhouse gas emissions to the California Air Resources Board. The emissions registry that will actually compile and disclose this information will take the report and publish it on a public facing website for all to see. Currently, emissions reporting requirements are limited to large point source emitters like refineries, leaving out vast swaths of corporate emissions. Some companies voluntarily report their emissions, but without uniformity around these reports, it's impossible to be certain if emissions are being reported in their entirely in their entirety. And, of course, for many companies, they're simply not reporting anything. SB 253 will allow for much needed transparency and consistency by requiring full disclosure of the three scopes of emission from all covered corporations. Although SB 253 will certainly push some companies in the new territory, this bill does not in any way reinvent the wheel. These protocols and disclosures have been around for a long time. These are very established, and there are many companies that are already making these disclosures. SB 253 is the next step California must take in climate action to ensure that corporate actors in our state are aligned with our goals and are working as diligently as we need them to be. And we can't do that unless we have transparency. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Secretary please call a roll on file item 71.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Ayes. 24 knows nine. The measure passes. Next up, Members, is file item 72. Senator Menjivar.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 260 by Senator Menjivar an related to public social services.

Senator floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I rise on SB 260. Just last week was period, Poverty Awareness Week, and we still have to have that week because we're still seeing one in three low-income women are struggling to be able to purchase menstruating products. SB 260 is looking to address our most vulnerable individuals who are CalWorks recipients, approximately 370,000 in our state, to add an additional $20 to be able to purchase these items. The Legislature isn't new to adding additional benefits to CalWorks. This body has voted to add $30 for recipients CalWorks recipients to be able to purchase diapers. I'm not looking to add $20 for menstruating products. I come from working in the nonprofit world where I saw so many individuals come up to the nonprofit and ask for these products because they were still struggling to be able to obtain them. Individuals who are parents who had to purchase baby formula and couldn't purchase this. If you were in the committee, you heard from a witness, a young mother who got very emotional, talked about as a college student, has to put aside money every single month to purchase these items. And sometimes she doesn't have the funds to be able to purchase menstruating products. So I respectfully ask your I vote to ensure that individuals are able to purchase these products.

Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing and seeing none. Secretary, please call the role and file item 72.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members Ayes 33, Noes zero. The measure passes. Now moving on to file item 73. And Senator Stern is ready. Secretary you may read

Senate Bill 261 by Senator Stern and Acquaintance of Greenhouse Gases.

Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members major companies across the country are being attacked for fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders to disclose material risk, in this case, around climate issues. We just saw State Farm the other day announce that they're no longer going to be offering home insurance policies due to climate risk facing their companies. Companies shouldn't feel some kind of risk for litigation or otherwise if they want to actually disclose these emissions risks or other risks posed by climate change. If you're a major real estate owner, you should know where your assets are and what might be a risk, say, of wildfire or flooding. If you're a major retailer, you should know the risks of extreme heat in your particular areas. And this is a lot of what corporate managers are already doing, but this bill is really designed to create some kind of framework in California that will mesh with federal efforts already underway and really give major companies a pathway to do this kinds of emissions disclosure. This is work that already bank of America apple CalPERS CalSTRS target amazon are already doing. But we want to make sure that those who aren't necessarily public companies, but private equity folks and other major interests are covered here. We've made some really strong amendments, I think, to bring folks further along for the credit unions for an SEC compliance pathway. So I would respectfully ask for your I vote and I think it's an important step forward as a sort of final message from the Senate on disclosure this year.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing and seeing none. Secretary you can may call the role on file item 73.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members. Ayes 27. Noes, eight. The measure passes now. Members, we're moving back on the file. We're moving now to file item 42. Senator McGuire. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 791 by Senator McGuire an act relating to post secondary education.

Senator floor is yours.

Thank you so much and good evening, Madam President. Members, SP 791 will require applicants for administrative or academic positions at the community college. CSU and UC system disclose any final administrative or judicial decision determining that they committed sexual harassment. That information would then be turned over to a hiring committee at a California Community cCllege or Cal State University or UC, ensuring that the cycle of harassment and abuse be stopped in his tracks, would respectfully ask for an Iayevote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to applying a unanimous roll call to this measure? Hearing and seeing none. Ayes 40 knows zero. The measure passes now. Moving on to file item 48. Senator Maguire. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 833 by Senator McGuire an act related to cannabis.

Senator floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Members 833 would allow all small family cannabis farmers to either pause their license fee if they don't grow cannabis for that calendar year, or prorate their fee based off what their crop is for that particular growing year. So currently, small family cannabis farmers have to pay full freight with their license fee even if they don't grow in that calendar year. This goes against common sense, I think we can all agree. And it's one of the many factors why we've seen so many challenges with small family farmers candidly going out of business. The annual license fee for a 10,000 square foot farm or a one acre farm is between $40 to $50,000 annually, even if they don't grow a crop. So 833 is going to give growers the ability to either pause their growing without losing the years of thousands and thousands of dollars that they spent to be able to get their state license. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate hearing seeing none. Secretary, please call the role on file item 48.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent members. Ayes 37 knows one. The measure passes. Now, members, we're going to lift a call. We're lifting call on file item eleven. Please call the absent members. Please call the absent members. Please call the members one more time.

That measure fails. Senator Wahab moves for reconsideration without objection. Reconsideration is granted. Ayes 40, Noes zero. It's now time for special consent. Does any member at this time have an item that they would like to be removed from the special consent calendar? Now is the time to remove an item. Hearing say none. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 10, 45, 61, 74, 265, 281, 301, 306, 309, 348, 350, 354. 420, 428, 442, 557, 589, 632, 635, 659, 675, 695, 699, 803, 814

Please call the role on this consent.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limone, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

Please call the absent member. Ayes 40, Noes zero on file item 135. Eyes 40, no zero on the special consent calendar. Now, members, just a friendly reminder. Tomorrow will be our official Senate photo day, so we ask you to wear your Wednesday best and please be on time for a 9:30 start. Again, our photo will be tomorrow at 9:30. If there's no other business. Senator Atkins, the desk is clear.

Colleagues, thanks so much. We managed to get through 80 bills today with the consent calendar, so we have a universe of approximately 70 bills remaining. So a long day tomorrow. We will see you at 9:30, Wednesday, May 31, 2023. 9:30.

Members, the Senate is adjourned. We'll reconvene tomorrow, Tuesday, May 31, at 9:30 am.