Senate Floor

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 of quorum is present. Would our 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 to the Flag by Senator Durazo.

Into God's holy presence. G. K. Chesterson said, we are all in the same boat and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. Gracious God, Mother and Father of us all, in the urgency of our world context below, the violence and turbulence of the waves help us to make evident our passionate commitment to address the issues that cause misunderstandings and judgments in our world. May our growing consciousness of the interdependence among us and with all creation galvanize us in that loyalty that we owe to one another. A loyalty of faith that entrusts our fears to the goodness of those who love unconditionally, a loyalty of hope that impels us to work for a sustainable future and a loyalty of love that allows us to be faithful to each other regardless of perceived differences. For we know that your love excludes no one. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag. And to the.

All right, we're going to Privileges floor. On behalf of Senator Allen, the California Senate would like to welcome Dr. Zaw Wai Soe, who joins us in the gallery. A leader in the democracy movement, Dr. Zaw Wai Soe serves as the Union Minister of Health and Education under the democratically elected national unity government. Myanmar in exile. Welcome. Now we're moving. Messages from the governor will be deemed red. Message from the assembly would be deemed red. Reports of committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Now moving to motions, resolutions and notices. Are there any members wishing to be recognized at this point? Seeing none. Now moving on to consideration of a daily file. Moving to Senate. Second reading file.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 667.

Now moving to Governor's appointments. Senator Grove. She's prepared. We'll start with file item two.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues. Good morning. File item two is a confirmation of Patricia Cassady for reappointment to the Board of Parole Hearings. Ms. Cassady is the Commissioner. It's her first appointment to the Board. She was first appointed to the board in 2016. Prior to that, she served on the board several positions since 1995, including the deputy commissioner and the chief deputy commissioner. She was approved by the Rules Committee on May 17 on a unanimous vote. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this appointment 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.

Senator Grove moves the call. Now moving on to file item three.

Thank you, Madam or Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. File item three is a confirmation of Lawrence Nwajei for the appointment to the Board of Parole Hearings. He served as a board he served on the board since 2021 and previously served as a Board of the Deputy Commissioner and the Administrative Law Judge. I know there are some of my colleagues on this floor that I know there are some of my colleagues on this floor that have a huge concern with the release rate that they appear to have with Mr. Yahweh. But I want you to know that or Yaj, I apologize. Asking this individual questions asking this individual questions and getting the responses he carries a heavy weight and burden because he feels like there is a balance that these commissioners have to be able to grant someone freedom, that has earned freedom, like a lot of second chancers that, frankly, work here in the building with us and that work in the oil industry and that build lives after they've served their time in prison. He has to balance that with granting freedom, with protecting the public and making a mistake of releasing somebody that would cause harm to citizens. And he carries a great heaviness in his heart to make sure that he makes the right decision. And I realize he said something to me that he always follows up on those that he grants this particular freedom to, of people that he feels have met the metrics and taken the classes and done what they are required to do in order to earn that grant of freedom. He goes so much to meet with individuals five years before they're actually going to be granted parole. And he says, if you do not meet these things, you will not come before me or you'll come before me, but you won't be granted. He tells them how to get that freedom back that was taken from them for the rightful purpose of harming another human being. But I think that this individual really carries weight when you look at things in that situation because whether it's governing, whether it's a parole board hearing, whether it's the way we represent our constituents, it should all be about balance and not one-sided. And although that there is some feedback that I've gotten about speaking publicly about this individual. I don't care. I think he's a good person and I think he carries a lot of weight when he makes decisions about parole grant releases and the public safety. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing C 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.

We're moving the call members. We're going to go through the roll one time on each item and we'll put it on call. So we ask that all members join us on the floor next. We're moving now to file item number four.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues. Michael Ruff is a reappointment to the Board of Parole Hearings. Commissioner Ruff has served on the Board since 2017. Before joining the board, he services the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations as a special agent in charge of division of adult institutions. He previously served in the United States Air Force. He took a nose to defend this country and its Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He has the right heart for this position and the right no nonsense. This is the way it is, take it or leave it type attitude. And I thought he was really great on the interview and the questions that he responded to and respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this appointment hearing? 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.

Senator Grove moves the call. Members moving the file item five, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. President. File item five is the confirmation of Mary Thornton for reapportment appointment to the Board of Parole Hearings. Commissioner Thornton has served on the Board since 2019. Prior to her appointment. She is serving on the Board of Deputy Commissioner administrative Law judge. She has also previously served as a Deputy District Attorney for Madeira County in Kings County, and she was approved by the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote May 17. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this appointment hearing? 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.

Moves the call now, members, we're moving to Senate. Third reading. We have quite a few items. Our first author is Senator Min. Is he prepared? Senator Min. Are you prepared? He is. File item nine.

Secretary please read

Senate Bill 741 by Senator Min, an act relating to Domestic violence.

Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 741 would amend the Domestic Violence Prevention Act to allow discovery only if specifically authorized by the court. While domestic violence restraining orders, or DVROs, have proven to be an incredibly effective legal remedy for domestic violence, survivors lack of clarity in the discovery process has too frequently been exploited to their detriment, often at the result of harassment and intimidation of domestic violence survivors, creating unnecessary delays through this abuse of this practice and creating delays in the adjudication of DVRO requests. SB 741 would ensure that parties only use prehearing discovery when necessary and with good cause. It has come to my attention over the past week that the bill does need some additional amendments to address concerns raised by several stakeholders. And I will tell you here, I'm committed to work on these issues. Should this bill make it over to the Assembly, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

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.

Senator moves a call. Members, now we're moving to file item 20, Senator Laird. He's prepared. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 508 by Senator Laird. An act relating to cannabis.

Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Mr. President and colleagues. This bill is about the cannabis regulatory system. What we really want to do is we want to make the legal system work and have that juxtaposed against those that haven't come into the legal system yet. This bill is designed to fix a problem, to move from two sequel reviews to one on the same project. It does not fix the entire system. And we have moved people to the table. So we've had, in the last few weeks, very constructive talks, and we intend to get to an even better place in the Assembly. The thing about this is, this is a support support bill. And the reason I wanted to speak is I know there are a few members that are going to lay off, even though it's support support, but we're getting to a good place. This solves a problem. I respectfully ask for your aye vote..

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate hearing z none. Secretary police call the role and 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.

Senator Laird moves a call. Now, let's move back to file item 17. Senator Archuletta. He's prepared. Secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill Eight Six by Senator Archuletta. An act relating to public safety.

Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Bill 868 makes minor changes to last year's Bill 1111. Senate Bill 1111, the Rick's Best Safety Act, which addresses safety concerns with unmarked trash receptacles, also known as dumpsters to some by requiring that these trash containers that are placed on roads, curbs and alleyways have reflective marketing on each side. The reflective marking serve as an important safety measure to prevent accidents and collisions, especially at night and during low visibility. And for these reasons, I ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate seeing none. Secretary you may 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.

Please call the absent members.

Secretary, please call the absent member.

Allen. Allen

Ayes 40. Nos, zero. The measure passes. Now, members were moving on to file item 29 by Senator Portrantino. He's prepared. Secretary you may read .

Senate Bill Two by Senator Portentino. An act relating to firearms.

Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mr. President and members, I rise to present SB 2. Sadly, in our country, there have been far, far too many mass gun deaths. Children, families, first responders, average people, moviegoers children at school. And we have to do better. We have to do more to protect them. The Supreme Court said that California can no longer have an arbitrary or unstandard nonstandard way of issuing concealed carry permits. We know that the proliferation of guns in houses leads to dire consequences. We know that there are some folks that just, frankly, should not be permitted to have a weapon. And the Supreme Court says we can regulate that. And so I want to thank Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta for working collaboratively to come up with SB 2 to set in place a framework that becomes statewide, that puts in place concrete regulations. Again, according to what the Supreme Court says we can and can't do. That says if you are a person who would be dangerous to other people, if you have a history of violence, if you have domestic violence in your background, if you've been posting violent things, if you can't get people to vouch for you, you should not have a concealed carry permit. Supreme Court also says you can have prohibited places. So do you need a weapon to go to your daughter or son's? AYSO soccer game, to Disneyland, to a ball game? I would submit no. And so, SB 2 includes a robust list of prohibited places. And again, like many of us, I don't want to see sad statements about tragic events that don't lead to results anymore in the gun debate. We know statistically that those states that have lax gun regulations have more death due to gun violence. We know California is safer because of the laws we pass in the state Senate. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 2 to continue making California and Californians safer from gun violence.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. And Members targeting CCW carriers as the cause of the tragic shootings, the mass shootings is probably the wrong target, because statistics bear that out. CCW carriers are not the instigators of those types of violence. And the instigators of those types of violence can't get a CCW through the processes that we already have. So it's really not doing anything to curb our gun violence issues. There are some things we can do. We need to enforce the laws that we already have on the books to curb gun violence. And we need to target the backlog of some 23,000 people that are known prohibited persons, felons that we know have guns, and yet we do nothing about it. If you want to take guns away from irresponsible people, we need to start taking them away from the people we already know are irresponsible and are illegally carrying them. But we won't do that. We won't do that because what do you do when you catch somebody who is illegally carrying a weapon? We have to do something with them. And we don't want to do anything with them. We don't want to put them in prison. We don't want to hold them accountable. We want to take away their gun. Sure.

And then they'll go buy another gun. Because that's the other part that we need to work on. And we already have the laws to do it. We need to work on the illegal sales and smuggling of guns, not only into our country, but into California. And we are doing nothing about that. These tragedies that we keep having to deal with over and over, a lot of them can be averted, but we'll never know because we don't enforce the gun laws that we already have. And the people that are responsible for that, we can make all the restrictions we want on them because they're not the people that are going to go out and do this. So, members, I ask that we start in the fire service. If you want to put out a fire, you aim the hose at the base of the flames. You don't aim it at the top. The top makes a better picture, but it doesn't do anything. We keep aiming at the top. We have some rules, we have some regulations that we can use to stop this. We can use it to stop this violence. But instead of putting people in prison, we're shutting prisons down. And we're just taking away a gun that they'll easily replace because they don't buy it on the legal market. They buy it in the illegal market. This does nothing. And members, I ask that you please recognize that and start making efforts to do something. And that something is enforcing the laws that we have already. And I'll bet you will make a dent in that gun violence. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. I respectfully rise in opposition of SB two colleagues. This is a bill which is an attempt to restrict the rights of lawful gun owners and those that are concealed. Carrier permit carriers. Gun owners use their CCW permits for protection and defense. Law abiding gun owners have to jump through hoops, in numerous hoops to get the right to carry a firearm. Gun owners, law abiding gun owners don't use their guns to harm others. But let's talk about, for just a second, who does. Gang members, criminals, cartels that operate in the state of California. Last month, a shooting broke out between two rival factions in Yuba City. A group of 20 men with 41 firearms. Let's talk about that for a second. 20 men with 41 firearms. None of them registered with the Department of Justice. None of them registered or bothered to fill out their paperwork so that they could get those firearms registered like law-abiding gun owners do. None of the firearms were registered. All 41 were confiscated. There was another incident just recently in Wilmington this past week, where eleven people were arrested. They were in possession of 50 pounds of meth, 23,000 fentanyl pills, and more than five pounds of powdered fentanyl and 23 illegal firearms here in the state of California. Not one of these people or these cases that I just mentioned are CCW carriers or holders. Some of the firearms were manufactured illegally in these two arrests, and some of them were ghost guns. Again, they didn't register with the DOJ. They didn't get fingerprinted. They didn't fill out the information that requires you to have a firearm or carry a CCW. They didn't go through the 8 hours training that you're required to have. They didn't get the fingerprints turned in, and they didn't do a ten-day waiting period. They strictly just own these firearms. And we're not doing anything in this building to go after those people. But you are taking the rights away from law-abiding citizens to be able to protect their homes, their families, and frankly, those around them that are in danger from perpetrators. Like I just mentioned, and, you know, the presenter, the author, said, do you really need to carry your firearm to the AYSO or Disneyland or the ball game? Well, I just submit to you a few years ago, where the legislative softball game was going on in Washington DC. And if a good guy with a gun wasn't there to stop the bad guy, that magazine that individual had in that firearm would have mowed down more Congressional members than actually were wounded in that situation. That guy that had that gun was not a lawful CCW carrier. That guy that had that firearm was not abiding by the law, and his firearms were not registered like they're supposed to be. But somebody who had a registered firearm in their possession that had gone through training was the person who stopped that perpetrator from killing some of our congressional colleagues. Interestingly enough, the daily breeze article that covered the story that I just talked about not the one that we just talked about with the legislative members or the congressional members, but the one before that. A quote from the LAPD Harbors Division police captain notes that the impact of getting these types of guns, these ghost guns, these illegal guns, the ones that are in possession illegally in the State of California, that we're doing nothing about those said, he says the impact of getting these guns away from criminals. He said each one of these guns was designated to get into the hands of a violent criminal. And it's no accident in the local harbor area that they've seen a 23% reduction in shootings because they're going after these guns. In spite of what the state of California is doing, I support, wholly support, a crackdown on illegal manufacturers of guns. I don't have a problem with cracking down on illegally obtained firearms at all in any way, shape or form. But I can tell you putting a sign up in front of our schools that says this is a gun-free zone, or Disneyland. This is a gun-free zone. That is a perfect invitation for people to walk into any one of those facilities like Starbucks or anywhere else that are intent on committing harm. That, again, are not registering their firearms with the Department of Justice, not filling out the paperwork, not getting fingerprinted, not going to the training classes that you have to renew every two years as well. Not doing any of that. These people are not doing those things that you require. All of us that have CCW carriers that are CCW carriers that we're required to do to make sure that we are safe. Not only that, but the liability pieces of legislation that go through this building require CCW carriers to carry umbrella policies like $5 million in insurance to make sure that if they go to defend their life, their family's life, or your life if you're in danger and someone with a gun steps in to stop it, like many people that you read about in the newspaper or you hear about on TV that there was a gun shooting in a mall and someone stopped it. That was a lawful gun carrier. These people are the ones that are being put through the Wringer, and their rights are being infiltrated every single day in this building. Again, I don't have a problem with cracking down on illegal obtained guns, but when we crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves and their families, that's where you have to draw the line. SB Two significantly limits where concealed carriers can use their weapons. Again, you put a sign up says, no weapon allowed, that's an invitation for perpetrators to come in because there's no firearms on that facility. You talk about school shootings. Schools do not allow firearms on campus. If we armed our teachers that are qualified to carry a firearm, then they wouldn't throw their bodies in the middle of an active shooter. They'd be able to take down and eliminate that active shooter to protect the students that they are teaching every single day. And I know that's not a popular argument, but there are teachers, former United States military veterans, former law enforcement, that would do that gladly, because what they do every day is they lock their firearm in their car before they go teach in that class. Because it's required by the state of California to have a locked firearm. You have to lock up your firearm in a secure device because you can't take it on a school campus. But the moment a school shooter happened and an active shooter happened, if these people had their firearms in their possession, they would be able to eliminate that active shooter and protect the lives of students, because there are bad people out there that are going to continue to have guns even. I don't care what law you pass. You look at Chicago's laws, you look at DC. There's no firearms allowed in DC. And firearms are strictly regulated in the city of Chicago. And there are more deaths from firearms in Chicago than any other seat in any other city in the nation. We know that dangerous, sometimes public transit systems that we have. On February 23 of this year, LA Metro Chief Safety Officer, released a report on public safety that showed in 2022, there were 162 reports of assaults against Metro Operators. That's nearly one in every day. There were 1435 incidents of assault and robbery and 21 deaths. This is just on one transit system in one city. Under this bill, CCW holders would not have the right to protect themselves or others while widing this public transportation system. For many people, the reason they give to give a CCW is to protect theirselves, their families, and those around them. And it's frankly their right under the Constitution to be able to carry a firearm.

If they so choose. I agree with protections. I agree that people should know how to use a firearm. I believe that. And I agree that firearms should not be in the hands of perpetrators that would be willing to kill another human being for a horrible just being horrible. But I'm telling you, the people that are making these actions or taking these actions are not individuals that are CCW carriers. Why are we trying to restrict gun use from those that cause less than 1% of firearm related homicides? I looked up. There's 22.1 million CCW carriers in the United States of America. If we were the problem, you'd know it. But we're not the problem. The people that you are not regulating are the problem that you don't care to even discuss are the problem. Go after the criminals. Go after the ones that have illegal guns, the ones that sell drugs, the ones that are arrested on a daily basis on our streets. Just go to Paco Baldemara, who's the Chief of Police in Fresno County. Look at his Instagram and his Facebook page. He arrests criminals all day long, every day with firearms, illegal drugs, illegal possession of firearms, firearms that are illegal in the state of California, that are on a prohibited gun list. They're in this state. And we are not going after those people. But you're constantly going after the people who have every right to protect themselves and are following every letter of the law to do so respectfully ask for a no vote.

Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President. And members. And I don't often get up on these issues of gun reform. But today I feel really compelled. And I want to thank the good senator from Pasadena for bringing this forward. It's hard when you have a family member that's been killed by gun violence, as I have, and these laws matter to every single one of us. And I understand what my colleagues are saying about personal rights, but at some point we have to start getting up and start saying, this is absolutely wrong. Just yesterday was the first year that we've celebrated, unfortunately, and this was in a different state, yes, but 19 children and two teachers from Uvalde. And we can't keep having this. We cannot. I often say on my Twitter, when are we going to start thinking about our American children first and foremost before our guns? And it's personal because when you do have somebody that has been murdered by gun violence, it's very personal. And so I implore us to think differently about this issue, especially here in California. Concealed carry weapons have been weapon users have been folks that have actually engaged in mass shootings. That is a fact. And so I think about all the places that we're prohibiting here, public transit, of course, I don't want somebody carrying a weapon at my son's flag football. All of these places that I think that we know and think about when you're just going and going about your daily life that we think about, could somebody be shooting? Could somebody just not be in the good mental state to be doing something that could hurt us? Just the other day I had a friend who got a FaceTime from one of his daughters and the first thing he thought about, because this is during school hours, was a mass shooting and this is in our state, and she was just sharing that she did some great art project. But why is that the first thing that parents have to think about? The first thing, whether you're in California or Texas or whomever, and we have great gun laws here, but why is that the first thing? So I implore us to think differently and I look forward to more discussions. But I thank the good Senator for bringing this forward and I will personally co author every single gun reform bill that comes through my office and through this Legislature. So. Thank you.

Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Morning. Today I rise in opposition of this bill. This bill makes it a crime to bring a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, upon the grounds or within the residence of any member of this state legislature. California already has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. And now this bill aims to restrict my own rights under the Second Amendment solely because I am an elected public servant. Support of this bill is support for the government to come into your home, into my home, and bring the heavy fist of the law to stop you from exercising your constitutional rights to protect your home, your property, your family, your life. Furthermore, this bill criminalizes anyone that comes into your private residence carrying a lawful firearm. So I ask you, what is next? This is a country of freedom, this is a country of opportunity. This is a country where democracy reigns. And yet this bill reeks of bad policy. This bill reeks of dictatorship. I ask for your opposition on this.

Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. So I rise today to speak on this issue because I think that it is one of the most important issues we're dealing with across the country and that's gun violence. And it's important that we level set around some of the statistics related to gun violence. So we are the only country that suffers with the death and injury from gun violence because of our gun laws. Guns have surpassed cars as the number one killer of youth in this country. Guns have surpassed cars as the number one killer of youth. I want to emphasize how important that is when we think about the risks. Every day we have more than 316 people who are shot in the United States. We already have this year 13,900 people who've been killed in gun violence. We don't allow guns in planes for good reason and we should not allow them in schools and hospitals and courtrooms on the floor here, other places that are sensitive. We really need to be very conscious about our decision making around where people have guns. Yesterday, my 9th grader in a public school was under her desk talking to her teacher during an unclear what the incident was event that everybody was on the phone with their parents. They were saying parents don't come to the school. The kids when this whole thing was resolved yesterday, more than half the school went home because of the trauma. They sent out alerts saying if anybody needs to be dealing with this with the counselor, they can come in. This is the society that we are creating because of our gun laws. So this is a very reasonable SB 2 is very reasonable from Senator Portantino. It's critical that we pass it. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and that we are more forward thinking, that we are more aggressive in what we do to reduce the harm to the psyche, to the physical realities, the safety of all of the people in this state and also in this country.

Thank you, Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise as a proud co author of this bill with respect to my colleagues. We have a gun addiction in this country. There are 400 million guns in the United States. That's more guns than people. And the research is absolutely clear that more guns leads to more gun violence. Now, I know there's a lot of statistics that the NRA, the California Rifle and Pistol Association and their allies like to spout about how such and such percentage of guns used in crimes are illegally procured. Basically 100% of those guns were originally purchased through a legal seller of some kind. We make it too damn easy in this country to sell guns. There is no question as to what drives gun violence. It's the fact that it is so easy to have guns in this country. And when we add guns to any mix, we see more gun violence. When you have guns at football games, when you have guns and bars, when you have guns in churches, you're going to see more gun violence. That's just a one to one fact, a one to one correlation. It is ridiculous right now, what we're facing in this country. It's ridiculous that we have to put forward this bill. But we have a judiciary that is out of control. They've taken extremist view of the Second Amendment and we have to, in this state start responding. We cannot sit on our hands when we see gun violence massacre after gun violence, massacre after gun violence, massacre. Enough is damn enough. We have to do something. We have the power to do something. I would urge you to vote yes on this bill.

Thank you, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of SB 2, and I want to thank the author for his persistence and leadership on this important issue, which is about something very basic that we want fewer people to die because they're shot, because we want fewer children to die because they are shot. That we don't want our children to be scared to go to school. That's what this is about. There's a lot of rhetoric about this ideology that we need more and more guns and will somehow be safer if we just have an endless tidal wave of guns. But we know from the actual fact that the opposite is true. California has a low rate of gun violence precisely because of our gun safety laws. We know that in states that have easier access to guns, there are more shootings and more people die. We know that other countries that have fewer guns have far lower rates of gun violence than the United States. We need to be very clear that what's happening in this country with guns and with gun violence is not normal. This is not normal. This is happening because we have made a policy choice in this country at the federal level and in so many states, not to have strong gun safety protection. That was a policy choice. And children are dying as a result. I want to say that this kind of bill makes me proud to be a Californian because as certain other states are literally defining drag queens to be a greater threat to children than guns are, think about how bizarre that is. We're actually acknowledging the fact that it is guns that are harming and killing our children. I respect for an aye vote thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. There's some peculiar topics raised this morning, and there's been a lot of talk about guns doing this and guns doing that and guns causing this. We forget that there's somebody holding that gun. The gun by itself does not cause a crime or an injury. It's the person holding the gun that causes that crime or injury. So let's keep that in mind as we're debating on what to do about guns. I also want to appreciate and applaud all of the arguments that have been raised this morning on gun control in favor of SB 2. I wish we were debating a bill that those arguments actually applied to, because if we were debating a bill about the Armed Prohibited Persons List, all of those arguments apply. If we were talking about getting more illegal guns off the street, all of those arguments apply. We're talking about CCW holders, permit holders, meaning they have gotten permission from the government to carry that firearm. Now let's talk to some specific points that were raised this morning. Yuvaldi. The horrible shooting in Texas that did claim many innocent lives. That school was a gun-free zone advertised on the front gates. There are legitimate statistics in America that mass shooters only go to gun-free zones because guess what? The mass shooter doesn't want to be shot back at. But I will assure you and stand by it today, that if there had been a CCW holder on that campus on that day, lives would have been saved. Lives would have been saved. There's a gun addiction in California and America. Really a gun addiction? Let's talk about a fentanyl addiction in California. Let's talk about policy, as one of our colleagues said, that we've made a deliberate policy of going after guns. Well, we made a deliberate policy in this public safety committee, in this Senate, and in the assembly to not do anything about fentanyl. There's a hundred Californians dying a month or a week because of fentanyl. And you stand on this floor and get all self-righteous about gun control, but won't do a damn thing about fentanyl control. Are you kidding me right now? Let's get serious and have a policy debate on these things. This is not a serious debate this morning on SB 2 and CCWs with the arguments that have been raised. I'm really kind of ticked off about it, actually. And let's talk about one last thing. Churches. It was brought up not to have guns in churches. Are you kidding me? If you're a mass shooter, one of the first places you're going to target is a church. It's happened in my district at a synagogue, and that shooting was stopped by somebody with a firearm that owned it legally. It there's been shootings in other churches and other congregations around the country that those mass shootings have been stopped by somebody that owned a CCW and took the training on how to use it and fired back properly and stopped the shooting and saved lives and.

So I agree. We need to have a serious policy debate on this floor. We need to have a serious policy debate about getting guns away from people that shouldn't have them. And we need to have a serious policy debate about getting fentanyl off our streets so our teenagers stop dying from an overdose of an illicit drug that we've allowed into our country, and we could stop. I ask for a no vote.

Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I know this is a really heavy topic, and I'm the first to admit that it's really passionate in both sides of the aisle, and I could understand that. But I want to speak a little bit about my personal view. I know that I've been very adamant about just being a teacher and experiencing what we're seeing across our nation in terms of our children having to experience such devastation. I think it was said about Yuvaldi. And I think of the little girl, fourth grader, I believe she's nine years old, who, after they shot up her classroom, she had to go back, take blood away from her little friend, who was already deceased, to put all over her body and her face, to play dead on the floor of that classroom. And I think of these circumstances, and it's really difficult not to see that our children are the most impacted sometimes, and they don't have anyone taking care of them per se. I know that every time there's a shooting in the classroom, I get a bunch of calls from friends and saying, we should give teachers guns so they can defend themselves. But I can tell you, as a teacher in the classroom, I don't think I could touch a gun in the classroom. I don't want any guns in any classroom that I'm in. And I know my colleagues would struggle with that because that comes with other risks. We had a little boy recently who's six years old, who shot his teacher in a school setting. Me having a gun to defend myself would not have stopped that little boy from bringing a gun to school and shooting his teacher. So I know that it's a very passionate topic on both ways, but I want to really just consider the impact to our children, what they're having to live in. And I do know we see some students here in the gallery, and I have to think of all the little faces that would have to face something like this someday, and I don't want to. I think it's time that we recognize it's a crisis. I think that we recognize that our kids are growing up every day trying to figure out how they're going to stay safe in the classroom if something happens. Teachers having to strategize, how do they run out of a classroom? It's a constant battle. We used to have earthquake drills. That was the common norm. Now we're having lockdown drills all the time trying to figure out how do we stay safe in the classroom? And I think enough is enough. And I think that I understand the argument on both sides. But at the end of the day, we have to stand on the side of our children, our youth, our kids being safe in our society and growing up in a world where they could go to school and not have to worry what they're going to do next. The interesting part is I had discussions with parents who tell me that the last thing they tell their kids is not so much I love you, but it's more about do you remember what we said, right? If there's a shooter, what are you going to do? That's the last words they hear because they want their kids to remember what to do when there's someone in their classroom shooting. So we have to think of our kids, our children. And I also strongly support this. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members. We've had very passionate discussion, obviously on this bill. I rise in support and it is clear from the comments of most of my colleagues that all of us are committed, we want less gun deaths. And I rise to speak to the comments by our colleague from Santee. And yes, he made the point that it is not the gun that kills the person per se. The shooter. There has to be a shooter. However, this is a circular argument that happens again and again on our floor. The data shows, and the data that is irrefutable, that you aren't a shooter unless you have a gun, that the very presence of a gun on the person in the home, on the facility leads to the gun deaths. It increases it proportionately disproportionately and thus we have to limit the presence of guns if we have any hope of reducing gun violence. And with that, I ask for your aye vote,.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. President. Wow, pretty robust debate this morning. And let me just begin by stating that I commend the Senator from Burbank on working to make sure that our communities are safe. And then there is no question that gun violence is an issue in the US. Absolutely no question. There has been valid points and concerns on both sides. However, I want to go back to the merit of the bill which is targeted at the good actors in our society who are willing and wanting to take an opportunity to educate themselves and go through the permitting process. That is the scope of this bill. It's targeting the people who are willingly wanting to go through the legal process of training and acquiring that particular bill. It's not addressing the nefarious actors that do not follow the 1050 pieces of law that relate to guns in the state of California. Let me repeat that. In the state of California we have 1050 pieces of laws that have to do with firearms. And according to the Violence Policy Center, this is a question that I asked my colleague in committee with regards to the CCWs that he was trying to address were how many of them were responsible for violence in our state or in the US? Well, this is what we found out. So we have about was quoted 21 million CCW carriers in the nation between 2007 and 2020. There were 1134 non self defense incidents among them. That's zero, zero 6% of all CCW's permit holders that were responsible for a gun related death over the 13 period year period nationwide. Nationwide, for comparison, California alone averaged over 3000 firearm deaths per year over that particular span, 3000. Once again, I want to go back and reiterate that this has to do the bill, the merit of the bill has to do with our CCW holders, not the nefarious actors, but the ones who willfully take the initiative to go and educate themselves, train themselves to be able to legally own a gun. And as a parent of a child who's still in school, two girls that are in college, one that's still and as someone who knows many family members and friends who own guns, I want to make sure that we're aiming the anger and the frustration and our fear towards the right individuals that need to be held accountable. Because there is absolutely no question that gun violence is an issue of severe consequence in our country and within our communities. No question. But let's make sure that we aim that concern to the target audience that need to be addressed and not to the law abiding individuals in our communities. And with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Protem. Mr. President. I've actually never shared this story. When I was in middle school, our parents were heading to Orange County and I was left home and a cousin or a friend came by and the door knocked on our house and I ran out and I go, oh my gosh, the alarm's on. And so I reached to the alarm to turn off the alarm. Right when I did that, the door was thrown and kicked and these individual men came in. I had a gun to my head, literally a gun to my head when I was in middle school. So you can't tell me that or somehow we support guns. Somehow we support individuals like that were coming to our family. And I would have not been here today. No one was home. Besides the two of us, the family behind us, they went to the hospital. Two individual, they ran sack our entire house. And at the time, back in the 80s, late 80s, early 90s, where we lived in San Bernardino, because we were a community of very small refugees, gangs were coming into our neighborhoods and knowing that we were the most vulnerable community couldn't speak English. Well, I've never forgone that experience. I've never talked about it publicly. Actually, my staff, most of them have never heard of it. They're hearing it right now. Why are we addressing removing illegal guns from gang members, from those who shouldn't have them? The policy coming from this building that allow early release is ramsacking. My entire district. It doesn't matter if you live in a wealthy neighborhood, gated community or not, they're coming in with guns. Homeburglizing people. Why are we talking about this and why are we addressing that? The comments I hear is this it's out of control. We're sitting on our hands. Children. We are letting children die. We're letting people die. Policy choices here the policy choices you have here is killing 114 Californians per week. 6000 Californians will die at the end of this year. I talk to my children. You've heard my comments about Fentanyl. The policy you're putting in place today, standing on the sideline against Fentanyl is allowing Californians to die every week, every year. And you also not addressing people who are legally carrying guns. That has put a gun right to my head. And I was only in middle school. How dare you stand here and say that you're for the children, for the people? There's children dying every day on Fentanyl, and we're saying it's okay because we don't want to punish drug dealers. Not once have we talked about addressing that issue. When have we done it? I'm pleading to you. I'm begging you. I'll go on my knees if I have to address the Fentanyl issue. Address the issue of getting guns, illegal guns, away from gang members, those who should not have them. Ask the AG's Office to remove those people off the list. We've been having this discussion three generations, three AGs now. So I'm asking you, let's have a robust discussion. Keep those guns away from those individuals. Don't have them burglarize families, businesses as well. Let's look at those families and let's look at us dealing with Fentanyl and the crisis that's happening across the state and across this nation. You had a bipartisan bill. Two-thirds of the state legislative bodies have signed onto it. It couldn't even get out of committee. My bill would have saved my bill two kilogram of fentanyl, 1 Fentanyl would have killed 10,000 people, 500,000 people.

Senator Nguyen, on the merits of the bill.

Again, let's get to policy that takes illegal guns away from those who are trying to harm everybody.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of SB 2, but I have a little bit of a different take on it. It does concern me that the debate, the deliberation has taken some of the turn that it has. The bill, in my mind, is doing something that's long overdue, which is to get a uniform set of policies around concealed carry in all 58 states in California by virtue of state legislation that's not been done successfully. It's been a problem. We have some counties like my own, which have had very public and very problematic issuance of concealed carry permits based on documented in court decided political favoritism and other issues that really shouldn't enter into this kind of statutory scheme. So I want to commend the author for coming to us with a scheme that's uniform. And I think that's where the debate should be, whether or not this scheme works in counties where concealed carries would be issued. I've looked at the bill very closely. There are some provisions in the bill that I would ask the author to keep looking at and keep working on, especially with regard to transport. Because while there's cross references in there that seem to protect people who are target shooters and hunters and folks who are carrying long guns as opposed to handguns, those are all very, very important. Not only so that the legislation is upheld ultimately on the judicial side, but I think for our own credibility. And I just want to acknowledge, I think a lot of the angst from this debate, frankly, comes from a little bit of a disconnect and a lack of nexus between some of our arguments and what's actually on the table today. I don't believe in my own county, I can't speak for the entire state of California that the two-thirds of our gun fatalities virtually every month, according to our coroner, which are self-infliction, which come from firearms, but are self-inflicted, have anything to do with concealed carry. I don't think the VTA mass shooting in my district had anything to do with concealed carry permits one way or the other. In fact, I know that and I think all the investigations have shown that and that's so often the case. This issue, as important as it is for a lot of reasons, some of which I stated and caused me to vote for the bill, are different reasons and different issues than some of the other issues that are troubling us right now, like mass shootings or like the high rate of suicide self-infliction. We need to deal with those issues separately, I think, appropriately. I'm hearing across the aisle people saying they'd like to deal with those issues as well. But I think when we conflate cause and effect on a bill like this, which is really just trying to bring forward a new and clean statutory scheme, we're not doing ourselves any favors. I think we lose credibility, frankly, with folks who are out there in the real world, who are heading out to shoot Clay targets or something like that, and they hear the kind of debate that we're having and wonder why there's a lack of nexus in their own lives. In their own lives. Why it doesn't make sense for them when they hear the debate that we're having about concealed carry. And I just wanted to get that out on the floor. Again, I'll be supporting the bill. I applaud the author for the tenacity and courage to come forward with it and try to again create a uniform scheme. And it's that uniform scheme that I'm going to be supporting today.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item hearing/seeing no mics, I will allow Senator Portantino to close.

Thank you, Mr. President. And members. And I want to compliment my colleague from San Jose for reading the bill and commenting on the bill itself and what the bill does and doesn't do. I want to compliment my colleague from Long Beach who shared her family story about having somebody who was a victim of gun violence, and that's why we're doing this bill. My colleague from Long Beach brought up Yuvaldi. And if you remember, last year when I presented this bill, it was literally 15 minutes after that tragedy. It was the same day. And so I also want to comment, when people don't want to support something, they say, well, it's not door number one. It's door number two. We have car accidents in California that claim people's lives. This bill is not about car accidents. Sadly, we have drug overdoses that claim far too many children's lives. This bill is not about drug overdoses. As my colleague from San Jose pointed out, this bill is about creating a uniform policy of who should and shouldn't be granted the privilege of carrying a weapon. This bill is not, as been said many, many times by colleagues who don't want to vote for it. This bill does not target law abiding citizens that can have a concealed carry. This bill targets folks who, for a set of concrete rules, should not be granted that privilege. If you're a domestic violence abuser, you should not be granted a concealed carry permit. If you're on social media making serious violent threats against a neighbor, you should not be given a gun so you can follow through on those threats. If you can't have three people vouch for you and say you are a law abiding citizen and a person of upstanding character and a responsible gun owner, you should not be granted that privilege. The argument that we're targeting the law abiding citizen is the exact opposite of what this seeks to do. This seeks to come up with concrete criteria to assess that individual's wherewithal to be equal to that responsibility. That makes sense. Frankly, that should be bipartisan. We should agree that there are certain Californians that are not equal to that responsibility, and we should work collaboratively to come up with that criteria. Should be in a uniform basis that applies to every county throughout the state of California. That's a viable, important conversation to have. But instead, we get you're targeting law abiding people. Oh, and isn't it terrible that somebody died for some other reason? And because you won't address that other reason, I'm going to use that as a reason not to vote for SB 2. That's not a good, healthy use of our floor time. This bill does not infringe upon an individual's right, a Constitutional Officer or a Legislator, to have a concealed carry permit or to have somebody, a family member. What this bill says is a person without your permission, if you're having your son or daughter's birthday party, someone can't show up at that birthday party without your permission with a concealed carry permit. That's what this bill says. That's important because we don't want that information to be misconstrued. Read the bill. It's there. On a personal note, I know what it's like to have my daughter at the mall and get noticed that there was an active shooter at that mall. I know what it's like to have her friends, families call me and say, what's going on? I just heard on the news those are real calls that many of us have had to deal with. Some of them have ended in tragedy. We should not be sending our kids to school and wondering if they're going to come home safe. We should not be going to the concert and wondering if we're going to get shot. And as my colleague from Berkeley said, we know statistically that more guns mean more death. We know statistically that California is safer because of our gun control laws. And we know cities and counties and states that have lax gun control laws have more shooting deaths per capita than those that have robust laws. We know this works, and we know what the arguments are, but they're not because someone else died of some other reason we shouldn't vote for this, or because we didn't address somebody's pet peeve. We shouldn't vote for this. Those are false sidestepping arguments. And maybe it's Pollyanna of me, but maybe if there is a real desire to have a conversation about who should or shouldn't have a gun, we have that conversation. But you know what? Yesterday we had a bill that said, if you're already on the prohibited list, we're going to evaluate whether you come off. And you know what? The same people who said, let's look at who should or shouldn't have a gun voted against that bill too. And when we have bills that say, safely lock up your gun, the same people who are opposing this won't vote to lock up a gun. Why should that be partisan? Lock up your damn gun shouldn't be a partisan issue. You got to be 25 to rent a car. Shouldn't you have to be 21 to own a gun? Why is that a partisan issue when we say you have to be 25 to rent a car? That's bipartisan. So let's cut to the chase and go back to what this bill does and doesn't do. It says, let's come up with a robust, concrete criteria of who should be trusted with the ability to kill their neighbor, or who shouldn't be trusted. That's what this bill does, and so I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 2.

Thank you all. Debate has ceased. Secretary please 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.

Allen? I Artado. Roth?

Ayes 29. Nos nine. The measure passes now, members, we're returning back to Privileges of the Floor on behalf of Senator Dodd. We'd like to welcome students from North Davis Elementary School who are joining us today in the gallery. Please give them a warm Senate welcome back to Senate Third reading. Next up is file item 39 by Senator Wahab. She's prepared. Secretary.

Senate Bill 399 by Senator Wahhab. An act relating to employment.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. SB 399 clarifies that workers have the freedom to decline mandatory meetings or communications where their employer expresses personal views on religious or political matters, including political, party or union support or opposition. These meetings are often referred to as captive audience meetings because, although not job related, workers are not permitted to leave or attend. Not attend without facing discipline or adverse action. In many workplaces, employees are at will and can be fired at any time for almost any reason. It gives employers tremendous power to pressure workers to do as they say. So let's imagine that you are at work and your boss calls you into a mandatory all staff meeting. At the meeting, the boss asks you to vote for a candidate or proposition that you oppose personally. You try to leave, but are told you will be ridden up and possibly fired if you leave. This is what workers are facing today. California has long prided itself on a sanctuary for workers, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political leaning. It is important that workers are free to go to work without feeling coerced into listening to the political or religious views of their employers against their will. I also want to highlight when there's an imbalance of power, there is more pressure. This bill provides exemptions so employers can communicate legally required information essential for workers to fulfill their job duties. Likewise, nothing in SB 399 prevents employers from communicating their personal, political or religious beliefs to their workers. It simply clarifies they cannot require workers to attend meetings to discuss religious or political matters that are not germane to the work that they do. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Secretary please call the role on file item 39.

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. Alvarado. Gill, Archuletta. Ashby. Caballetto Dodd Glazer. Grove. Nguyen. No. Roth, Rubio. Rubio

Ayes 26, Nos seven. The measure passes. Members, we're going to be moving around on the file right now, so next up is file item 46 by Senator Atkins. She's prepared. Secretary you may read

Senate Bill 519 by Senator Atkins. An act relating to corrections.

Mr. President, thank you so much. SB 519 will bring additional transparency and accountability to our county jails, specifically around in custody deaths. In 2020, there were over 150 in custody deaths statewide. Currently, there are at least ten county jails under a federal court consent decree regarding the treatment and care of people in custody. SB 519 is intended to provide local governments and the public important information in order to help address these issues at the local level. To that end, SB 519 would ensure that full reports of investigations relating to in custody deaths are publicly accessible, consistent with a State Auditor recommendation. SB 519 also restores local control by reauthorizing a county's Board of Supervisors discretion to establish a local department of corrections headed by an executive officer. If a sheriff is unresponsive in addressing the problems with its county detention facilities, I continue and will continue to engage with all the stakeholders on the issue, including justice advocates and, of course, law enforcement, to help restore public trust and with the hope of preventing future deaths. I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Seeing none. Secretary please call the role on file item 46.

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.

Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen Niello, Ochoa-bogh, Seyarto, Wilk.

Eyes. 32 knows zero. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 94. Senator Skinner. She's prepared. Secretary you may read Senate Bill 54.

By Senator Skinner, an act relating to Professions and Vocations.

Senator Skinner.

Thanks so much, Mr. President. Members, california, as we know, is the state that is famed for innovation. And much of that innovation comes from the result of bold entrepreneurs. And when those innovative entrepreneurs want to bring their concept to market, start a new enterprise, start a new business, it is capital investment, particularly venture capital investment, that is their lifeline. But if you are a woman or black led startup, such investments just don't come your way, regardless of your expertise, your track record, or the viability of your business plan. And despite the fact that 50% of all new companies are formed by women, and nationwide, less than 3% of venture capital is invested in women or black led startups, what SB 54 does is simply ask our venture capital investors in California to report on the diversity of their investments. And they would give that information to our state civil rights department, the same department that posts our gender, pay, the salary, pay equity information. So it's purely a transparency measure. That's all that it requires. And we hope that by doing so, that we will get an improvement in the diversity of investments from our venture capital investors. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill. As Vice Chair of the API Caucus, I just want to emphasize the importance of diversity at all levels. We know it's associated with greater economic returns. And I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

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

Thank you. I ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the role on File Item 94.

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.

Alvarado-Gll, Archuletta, Becker, Dahle? No. Dodd, Nguyen. Ochoa-Bogh.

Aye. 32, no, six. The measure passes now. Members, we're moving to file item 118. Senator Becker, are you prepared? Yes, Secretary.

Please read Senate Bill 308 by Senator Becker, an act relating to greenhouse gases.

Senator Becker.

Thank you. Friends, I rise to present SB 308. Last year, you'll recall, we passed a historic bill to set a goal of getting to net zero by 2045. This bill, SB 308, will help make sure we actually get there. Last year's bill set a target of reducing emissions by 85% by 2045. But then we still need to do something with the remaining 15%. Carb estimates that we'll need about 75 million tons a year of carbon removal to cover that remaining 15%. Unfortunately, today the state has no plan for how we're going to develop that much carbon removal capacity in time. This bill creates that plan. There are three parts. First, it directs Carb to write the rules for what can count as net in net zero. This bill includes important principles such as requiring that the carbon removal is long lasting, that it's additional to what would have happened anyway, and that only the net amount of carbon that has been removed is counted after taking account any emissions that were caused by the carbon removal process itself. Having clear rules is important. So we get scientifically valid carbon removal and not just pretend to get to net zero with the kind of questionable carbon offsets that are frequently used for greenwashing today. Second, the bill includes safeguards to make sure all this carbon removal has co-benefits for neighboring communities and our workforce, and it doesn't result in bad side effects like air pollution. It also includes a provision that prohibits using the removed carbon dioxide, just like in last year's bill. Third, we need a clear plan for how to pay for all this carbon removal. This bill takes a polluter pays approach, which leads to some of the opposition. It just makes sense that those responsible for the pollution should pay to clean it up, correct? Would we expect that burden to fall on taxpayers? Instead, this doesn't have to be expensive. The bill phases the obligations for emitters to purchase carbon removal, starting with very small amounts at first only, offsetting 1% of emissions in 2030 and increasing gradually until we get to net zero in 2045. So this is the approach that we took very similar in renewable portfolio standard. It required utilities to start buying small amounts of renewable energy when solar and wind were immature and expensive, and then scaled up that amount we purchased. Over time, that approach led to a 90% drop in the cost of solar over a decade, and an enormous increase in solar generation, not just here in California, but around the world. So this bill is just doing the same thing slowly scale up, bring down the cost of carbon removal, let the entrepreneurs work so that it can be cost effective. Part of our climate plan. The last thing that's important, some people suggested this is redundant with cap and trade. I'm going to be very clear it is not. Cap and trade limits the total amount of emissions across the state using the market to allocate a limited number of rights to pollute. This bill will then also require that those polluters clean up a portion of their pollution. Those are separate and complementary ideas, not redundant ones. So I know this is a relatively new topic for all of us in the legislature, but it's a very important one. We need to continue to prioritize emissions reductions, but that won't be enough. We also need carbon removal and we can't delay getting started because it's going to take us a long time to scale up and reduce costs, just like we've seen with renewable energy. This bill will put that plan in place that gets us started. I respectfully ask for your vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Members. I saw this bill in Committee and basically I just want to make a couple of real quick comments. This bill is allowing power to the agencies to basically regulate number one. Number two, we have a lot of opposition from people who are already sequestering carbon. And I think the real overarching issue on this bill is that we haven't really taken a good look at the things that we have already allocated as far as the greenhouse gas reduction funds that are being spent. We talked a little bit about this yesterday when it comes to offshore wind, but things like the bullet train where we continue to dump literally billions of dollars a year into and we know for a fact that the reduction in carbon is not going to come from the estimates that were originally set forth. And the cost is going to be from the 2020 price that was set was 20 billion. And we're talking about a $103,000,000,000. So this piece of legislation does exactly the same thing as the others have done when we really need to analyze the carbon reductions that we know. We know that, as you all know, we don't count forest fires who are emitting like crazy when we know we can reduce carbon from forest fires by reducing actually residue in the forest. So for those reasons, I can't support this piece of legislation and I urge a no vote.

Thank you.

Drive up the cost of energy.

Thank you. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wasn't prepared to speak on this, but I rise in opposition. I rise in opposition because the severely untrue and contradictory remarks presented by the author, with all due respect, the author says that this is similar to the solar program where we scaled up slowly so that the market and technology could catch up with itself and no taxpayer dollars would be used or limited taxpayer dollars would be used to fund the difference in what they consider clean energy. And the solar programs or the windmill programs, they would be equal until technology caught up and created a fair price. Well, when this started back in 2010, when I got here with this solar thing, the legislature created this thing called above market funds. And so if a solar project was priced up here and natural gas and oil was priced down here, taxpayer dollars were collected at the ratepayers expense on their energy bills to deposit those resources into the above market funds account controlled by an agency. And then those funds would be distributed to offset the cost of solar and wind, which would bring the solar and wind costs down. So taxpayers did pay for it. Taxpayers are still paying for it. Because just last year this body after a promise never to do it again passed the solar tax exclusion Bill which doesn't allow thousands upon thousands upon thousands of acres of solar fields. One in particular, 6000 acres of land. 2 million solar panels does not pay an ounce in property taxes to be able to fund roads, infrastructure, libraries, schools and everything else that communities need for their constituents. So to say that taxpayers are not on the foot for this bill and it's going to be the quote unquote, producers of this carbon emission, or what he calls the author calls pollution, is not a true or accurate statement. We are still paying for it through our rate increases with our utility bills. On another note, the author made the statement that the individuals who produce this, quote unquote pollution should pay for this. And I agree wholeheartedly. I wish there was a way we could regulate the Democratic Republic of the Congo for destroying their environment and creating pollution like we've never seen before and producing slave labor where thousands upon thousands of people and children are. Being forced into mining shafts 50, 60, 70ft deep to produce a coal that we need for the battery storage that this legislative body demands. I wish we could put some type of caps or some type of regulatory process on China for producing Ecuadorian oil in the rainforest and sending it here to California on bunker fuel ships that emit tons and tons millions. Of metric tons of carbon emission to get that oil that we use in California right now, it's 1.8 million barrels. Every single day that we consume that we import from foreign countries. So, yes, I agree with the author's comments that we should address these polluters ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China and those countries that are using us as a pawn in their scheme to push us, I don't know, foolishly or purposely to produce legislation that doesn't allow us to produce energy here, make us energy independent, and to keep our producers meeting the needs that Californians so desire each and every day for the way of life that they use or they live. And it's just pretty incredible. To me that you had the gall to say that taxpayers aren't paying for it. Taxpayers put billions of dollars into that above market fund account that was distributed to the solar and wind companies to make them marketable or within the market range of fossil fuels. And the natural gas industry. And California taxpayers and utility payers are still paying for rate increases on their utility bills to cover these green shenanigan things that are supposed to bring some type of balance to the carbon emission issue in the world. And we're not even addressing the fact that most carbon emissions come from outside this state. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Senator Ashby.

Thank you. Be very brief. I appreciate the author for bringing forward this bill. It is an idea whose time has definitely come. Negative emission credits have a place in our process to reduce greenhouse gases. This innovative process to remove carbon dioxide is being explored by many forward thinking entities, including SMUD right here in the Sacramento region. And I urge an aye vote on SB 308.

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

Sure. Thank you. I appreciate the comments and discussion. I think some of it was about ultimately about other issues around solar and the tax that it pays. But I do appreciate my colleagues from Sacramento's conversation about this idea. We're seeing that entrepreneurs are now starting to invest in this. We need to send a signal to the market. I do commit to keep working with environmental justice groups. We want to make sure that these do not have adverse impacts and that we're actually setting the guardrails. Otherwise, CARB can do this on its own right now. I mean, they're going to do it somehow. This actually sets guardrails on that. So look forward to continue working with them. I look forward to continue working with industry as well. So we think about coordination and think about how it's going to affect any other things that they're being regulated today. But with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, ma'am. 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.

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuletta. Atkins. Bradford, Dodd. Eggman. Hurtado Min Rubio. Umberg Wahab.

Ayes. 23 Nos. Nine. The measure passes now, members, we're moving on the file item 59. Senator Stern. Are you prepared? Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 717 by Senator Stern. An act relating to Mental health Services by Senator Stern.

Thank you. Members, in our California behavioral health crisis, we're experiencing, 63% of adults with mental illness receive no mental health treatment. And unfortunately, that happens quite often through our county criminal justice system. And it's interfaced with the mental health system right now in court. If someone's found to be incompetent to stand trial and they're been accused of a misdemeanor, they're allowed to be diverted into mental health services in lieu of sitting in county jail, which has proved a liability in county jails across California. And people are dying in there from mental health crises. So we know treatment is a better option, especially during the pendency of a case. However, if that case is then dismissed, people in those cases are offered services and then they're dismissed. And if you're suffering from acute schizophrenia or psychotic affective disorder and you're offered services and then dismissed, what do you think happens? That is the prison industry pipeline that we need to break. And this bill would simply just require counties to maintain contact with that person while offering those service, but maintain contact for 180 days. It's not fair that we process people and then cut them loose. This doesn't push anyone into a care court. This doesn't deal with conservatorship issues. It doesn't touch any of that. It just simply says we need to keep an eye on people and not just let people get lost in our system and end up on the streets or worse. So seems to be some broad support across the state, and we're really hoping counties step up and do their part. We know it's easy to get stuck between the cracks, but we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Members, this is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on this item? Seeing none. Ayes 39. Nos Zero. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 76 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. She's prepared. Secretary, you may read Senate Bill 864.

By Smallwood by Senator Smallwood cuevas, an act relating to workforce development.

Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon, colleagues. I'm pleased to present SB 864, which would empower California workforce by ensuring the job seekers who visit our career centers are able to advance their employment opportunities and receive the education that they need in terms of understanding their rights. We have done the work of creating strong, powerful workplace laws here at the state of California, but it is only realized when the worker, in fact, knows their rights. Specifically, this bill would require the California Workforce Board to partner with the Labor Commissioner and other subject matter experts to develop a workplace rights curriculum to be used by their community's local career centers. This curriculum will include information pertaining to wage theft, sexual harassment, discrimination, worker voice, and on the job health and safety protections frequently, those who utilize services of our career centers find employment, employment sectors where they are the most vulnerable and where these rights are critical to saving their jobs. SB 864 is critical to ensuring that job seekers will have the necessary tools to better protect themselves and their communities from job loss, unpaid wages, financial insecurity, and other worker violations they would otherwise be vulnerable to. This is about knowledge that empowers, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Respectfully ask for a no vote. The bill in itself is I don't want to say useless. That's just a horrible word, but the bill in itself. Employers in the state of California are already required to do training, provide their employees with an IIPP, which includes all of the rights that employees have regarding the laws in the state of California. It also includes meal and rest periods, rest recovery periods, kalocha, safety violations, lockout tag out. I mean, you just go down the list and there's a series of things that have to be covered under the IIPP. Each employee that goes through an employee safety orientation prior to their hiring has to be able to go through this training. And it's a general training for all employers. Site specific for others, like hospitals, would have different site specific than maybe a roofing company. But the general safety training that's required by this body in the state of California under kalocha requires all of this already. The only thing this bill offers that is not required as of yet by the State of California is the information in there specifically relating to let me see if I can find the exact words workplace training submitted to the state. But basically it doesn't require right now, you are not required to provide the employee with you can give them the information that says they have the right to organize, but you don't have to invite the labor unions in to participate in employee orientation or have a new hireientation or to bribe any other information on unionization. And to me, colleagues, this unionization is the most discriminatory process in our state. California taxpayers, whether you work for a union or part of a union organization or a company or you do, not every California taxpayer funds and pays for mandatory building requirements and things like that that all go through this building. That you can't build affordable housing unless you're part of a union organization or skilled and trained workforce is the term adopted. And to me, it seems very discriminatory that every taxpayer pays taxes and only taxes that are distributed out of this building for buildings, for homelessness, for anything that we do, buildings for our new construction of our capital, anytime that any type of money from the government is issued, that it only goes to a union contractor. So that's just my personal opinion. But the bottom line is that this bill already covers everything in this bill is already covered by every employer in the state of California. It's required you're required to have your employees sign off, initial each page so that they read each page. If they can't read English, you have to read it to them. They have to sign in Spanish or mong or any other language that they speak, that they have been read that in their native language if they don't understand it. And then they have to sign at the end saying that they've received the whole manual. And you have to recap that document, I believe, for seven to ten years. Seven years, I think, for these type of documents. Ten years for wages. But the only thing it doesn't include is the union abortion. And I think adding that to this is just another addition of discriminatory policies, and it's just not right. And respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator. Smallwood-Cuevas. You can close.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to be clear about what this bill does. This bill ensures that our obligation as a state of California, with our federal funds, which fund our workforce development preparation activities, that we invest in programs that, in fact, allow workers to better utilize resources, to better understand information, to work with others, to understand systems related to employment, and to strengthen their employability. This is about ensuring that our workers understand what their rights are, that they are able to use those rights to stay employed, to stay safe on the job, to be able to engage with their coworkers and their employers, and to navigate our economy. Far too many workers are in low wage jobs where they are faced with these kinds of conditions and violations every day. The reason we are passing these bills to protect workers is so that they can operationalize their rights and understand how to protect themselves. That happens only when we educate them through our workforce development system. And with that, I call for an aye vote.

All right, ma'am. Secretary, please call the role on Fall. Item 76.

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. Alvarado-Gil Atkins Dahle, No. Durazo. Hurtado? Nguyen No.

Ayes 32 Nos seven. The measure passes. Now we're moving back to file item 16. Senator Dodd. He's prepared.

Senate Bill 277 by Senator Dodd. An act relating to alcoholic beverages.

Mr. President, members, SB 277 will allow Type 20 licensees the ability to sell low alcohol by volume. Spirit-based, ready-to-drink products. As the name suggests, Ready to Drink beverages or RTDs, are premixed, prepackaged, single-serving alcoholic beverages that have become increasingly popular for their convenience, quality and variety. In California, retailers that hold a Type 20 license are prohibited from selling spirit-based RTDs even when those products contain the same or less amount of alcohol compared to malt based or wine based RTDs, both of which they are permitted to sell. Even when a person wants to obtain an off sale general license in order to sell these products, those can be quite expensive on the open market and sometimes impossible to obtain because of the scarcity of that license. All this results in confusions by customers frustration from businesses because the inability to sell these popular products and limits manufacturers ability to respond to consumer demand. This bill will alleviate the costly burden of seeking a general license, allow smaller retailers the ability to evolve with the rapidly growing market, and give consumers greater choice. I want to repeat that this bill will alleviate the costly burden of seeking a general license, allow smaller local retailers the ability to evolve with the rapidly growing market, and give consumers greater choice. I've had a number of meetings with the opposition. I'm hopeful we can come to an agreement on a number of issues that have been raised, specifically around the concerns of ABV language and providing the department an additional role. However, I do want to be clear. As Chair of GO for nearly seven years, I've always stressed that I'm not interested in picking winners and losers and don't believe it is our role to stifle competition in the marketplace. With that said, we are continuing conversations with the opposition and fully expect this bill to have amendments in the assembly. And of course, that would mean a concurrence vote that would come back on this floor respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President, members, I want to commend the Author for his good work on this issue and I take his comments to heart that he's not trying to pick winners and losers and that's a major reason why I'm going to support the bill today. But I did want to mention that this does change standards for more than 14,000 Type 20 licenses across the state and that's a significant change. And local communities that have understood that enforced that this is going to be a change. The author mentions in his remarks that supporting the Department of ABC in this new change is important, potentially might include more funding to make sure they can do their work in educating. Certainly all of us are concerned about the oversight of these establishments that sell alcohol in our communities. We want to make sure they're going to continue to be safe places and with that would respectfully ask for an aye vote and appreciate the author's work in this area.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Senator Dodd, would you like to close?

Yes. Members and to the Senator from Orinda, I appreciate those comments. Of those 14,000, that is a change, but the oversight of that there's already people monitoring the alcoholic beverages that are being sold and distributed in all 14,000 of those outlets. And none of these products will have any more alcohol by volume than any other products that are sold in those stores. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on file item 16? Hearing seeing none. ayes 39 Nos zero. The measure passes. Next up is file item 106 by Senator Gonzalez secretary. You may read.

Senate Bill 252 by Senator Gonzalez, an act relating to Public Retirement Systems.

Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President and members, I rise today with a very simple bill. This is SB 252, which we came out with last year, but essentially asked that we ensure that our fossil fuel investments for the largest CalPERS and stir system has a time horizon to divest those pension I'm sorry, divest those fossil fuel investments by 2031. We also have an additional four years, should there be an act of God war, et cetera. So it's $15 billion between that time, essentially a twelve year horizon as California goes net zero by 2045, we're prohibiting internal combustion engines by 2035 and 2045, medium heavy duty internal combustion engines. We need our California hard earned pension dollars to reflect that trajectory. This industry is too capital intensive for us to sustain. And we also know that extreme heat within the next five years is going to be even worse. Not even ten or twelve or ten or 15 years. And many of these investments don't even have a good just transition plan for our workforce. And language is explicit too, to refrain from implementing the bill should the pension system know in good faith that it would impact their fiduciary responsibility. So with that, I urge an aye vote on SB 252.

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

Thank you. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to SB 252. The pension funds are managed very well by boards, and they also have investment managers that are in charge of determining what investments we should be investing in for the pension systems and which investments we should not be. I would imagine as if oil becomes the industry sorry. As the oil industry comes offline, if we're able to achieve that, it will become less of a good investment for our pension funds, and therefore those boards, the board and the investment officer will determine that that's a lesser investment. But right now, that's one of the investments that actually works. The way our pension systems work is if we don't make 6.8% on our pensions, the persons that are going to pay for that are our citizens. So if this is lashing out at the industry that we feel is so responsible for destroying our planet, well, it's also responsible for a lot of the things that we have here today, that we enjoy today and the lifestyles that we have today. And so if we want to remove them and kick them to the curb, you know what? You can go down that path if you think it's going to solve all the problems of the environment, go down that path. But there is a process to do that. And that process, if it's put into place with it right now or within now and 2031 artificially outside of the market, leaves less investment opportunities that can help balance out a portfolio. So we can make that 6.8% return rate of return on the investments that we need to. So who does this really hurt? It doesn't hurt the oil industry at all. Because guess what? If we sell off those investments and by the way, that's $150,000,000 of transaction fees to sell those investments off, even if it is over the next seven years, that's a lot. But what it does is it hurts our pension system. Therefore, it hurts the people that depend on those pension systems. It puts our pension systems more at risk than they already are because they've had a bad year, by the way. So that's one of the groups that it hurts. The other group that it hurts are the citizens that pay our taxes. Because when their communities do good economic development and are able to get more dollars into the coffers so they can pay for those community parks and those police and those fire and all those services, but instead, that money has to be made up. That money goes to making up the difference between the 6.8% and like last year -7% that they got on their rate of return. We cannot mess with the pension systems with political statements. And this is a political statement that we don't like oil. I'm sorry, but it would mean a lot more if at the end of the day, if we don't like oil, then maybe we shouldn't be ordering 1.8 million barrels a day of it at the end of every single day. This problem will take care of itself over time. If we are successful in making that conversion, it will take care of itself. But we cannot restrict, we cannot take decisions out of the Board of Investments. Plan for CalPERS and CalSTRS. Remember, those are all our teachers out there and put their pensions at risk by limiting the investments at work to offset the investments that don't. This is complicated. We shouldn't be messing with it, especially right now. It's the wrong time for this type of a bill. If in the future we find that somehow they'll be responsible because they have people to answer to, they won't be on. The board anymore if that's what happens to our pensions. But we can't limit them and then have them say, well, the legislature limited us, so now we don't have any money to pay out our pensions. And guess what? All you pensioners, you're out of luck. So I ask you to pass on this bill today because I think it's the wrong time and it's the wrong message. It's going to hurt the wrong people. So I ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President, members, I rise in opposition and I want to say, why not? Because it's oil. It could be anybody that we want to choose. But the author just a couple of days ago brought a bill that said local electeds should have a two day or two hour or two day class to learn about finances. And I supported that bill because I think people should understand how government works and how we finance it. Well, I want to talk about pension funds. How do we fund pension funds is by investing and actually making money. And when the stock market's doing great, our pension funds do well. And when the stock market does not do well, our pension funds drop off. And when those funds drop off, we still have an obligation to the employee that we promised a retirement to. And when we don't have that stock market fund healthy, the government has to step in either the city, the county or the state and backfill out of the general fund, those pension funds. So we've seen these types of bills come through because we don't like a certain industry or we don't like I think there was one, that we don't invest in ammunition because we like firearms. Irregardless of what industry you do or do not like in California, a pension fund is there to make money for the retirees and their health benefits, which is the issue. And trust me, we have literally billions, if not trillions, of dollars of unfunded pension liability as we sit on this floor today in our local governments and at our state level. So that's why I'm opposing the bill, is we should not be telling investors how to make money. We should let them do their job. If you want to get rid of oil, do what you're doing. You're getting rid of it. But don't allow people who do investments to not create a profit for those state workers, local workers that we desperately need. And we also need those pension funds to be healthy so that the promises that the legislative bodies have made to those employees when they retire will be there. And I'll close with this. I had the first city in the State of California who defaulted on their pension funds. And we had retired employees who were getting $50,000 a year go from 50,000 to 18,000. And let me tell you something. When you're on a fixed income and you're retired and you can't work anymore, that's a problem. This bill will exacerbate that. Let the people who do their finances invest in things that make money and then our employees will stay out of this business. It's a bad idea. And I think that if we set precedences on what they can and cannot invest in, we will lose money. And then we'll backfill it with taxpayers dollars. And that doesn't work. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

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

Yeah. I say thank you to my colleagues for standing up on this very important issue. I would just say that over the course of the seven divestment policies that have run through the legislature, every single one of them, except for one, has had a good return on investment for these portfolios. And the S&P's 500 fossil fuel free total return index actually has consistently outperformed the S&P 500 overall. That includes fossil fuels since 2012. So, if you're looking at this purely economically, there is a benefit to divestment, especially in an antiquated, in an industry that will be phased out at some point. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary please call the role on file item 106.

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.

Allen.Atkins. Bradford, Caballerro, Glazer. Roth, Rubio. Newman, Wilk.

Ayes. 22 Nos ten. The measure passes. We're going to take a brief recess. Members.

Members, we're going to ask that all members statue desk, who will be lifting calls shortly. All right, members, we're going to lift calls. We're going to start with file item two. Secretary please call the absent members.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Atkins. Dahle, Dodd, Ochoa Bogh. Rubio, Ochoa Bogh, Dahle

Please call the absent members.

Atkins, Dahle.

Ayes 38, no, zero. The measure passes. Now, members, removing on a file item number three. Secretary please call the roll.

Atkins. Dahle, Dodd aye. Eggman Nguyen, Niello. Ochoa Bogh, Wilk.

Ayes 34, Nos zero. The appointment is confirmed. Next up, file item four.

Allen. Atkins Dodd. McGuire. Ochoa Bogh

Ayes 39, No, zero. The appointment is confirmed. Now, members, move the file item nine.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Atkins. Dahle, Dodd, Grove, Hurtato, Nguyen.

Ayes 32, no's four. The measure passes. Our final on call item is file item 20.

Allen, Dodd, Durazo, Gonzalez, Limon, Menjivar, Nguyen, Stern.

Ayes 36, Nos zero. The measure passes. Now is the time to remove any item from consent. We're at consent calendar under Motions and Resolution. Senator Min you're recognized.

Mr. President, I request reconsideration of file item number nine. SB 741.

Ayes 39, knows zero for reconsideration is granted. Secretary please call a roll on file item nine.

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 two. The measure passes. Now, members were moving to the consent calendar. Is there any member wishing to remove an item at this time from the consent calendar? Seeing none members who are at special consent are there any members wishing to remove item from the special consent calendar? Number twelve are Senator Wahab.

Okay, I rise as Chair of Public Safety to pull SB 14, SB 19, SB 89, SB 268, SB 340, SB 796 for last-minute opposition.

SB 14, 19, 89, 268, 340 and 796 order to third reading. All right, moving to file item 1215. Sir, please read.

Okay, senate Bill 15 1829, 38, 49, 67, 75, 76, 223, 228, 231, 242, 46, 258, 282, 283, 311, 318, 319.

Senator Jones, for what purpose?

Mr. President, I'd like to make a motion that we hold the consent calendar and reconsider it another day.

We're going to take one moment, please, just give us a few minutes. We're going to take a break for a Republican caucus. They're moving the room 215 for Republican caucus. All right, members, for coming back to orders, Secretary of the Senate has determined the pulling of the consent calendar was due to an administrative error. So Senator Wahab, under motions and resolutions thank you.

I request unanimous consent to rescind the motion previously made to remove the following bills from consent calendar SB 14, SB 19, SB 89, SB 268, SB 340, and SB 796.

Senate Bill 14, 19, 89,268. 340, 796.

Now, Secretary, please call the role on the consent calendar.

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, No, zero. The consent calendar is approved. Now, members, we're moving to committee announcements. This is the time for any of our committee announcements. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. President. Budget Subcommittee number three on Health and Human Services will be meeting 15 minutes after session in room 1200.

Sub three will be meeting 15 minutes after end of session in room 1200. Senator Becker, budget Subcommittee two, on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy, will be meeting 20 minutes after session in room 2200. Sub two will be meeting 20 minutes after session in room 2200 in the swing space. And Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. President. Budget sub number four on state administration will convene 20 minutes following recess of the floor session in room 2100.

Sub four will be meeting 20 minutes after the ending obsession in room 2100. If there's no other business. Senator Atkins, the desk is clear.

Mr. President. Thanks so much. Colleagues, through the consent calendar and the legislation we heard on the floor today, we have dispensed with 104 bills. So the work today was not without a good ending. We got through a good number of bills, and I want to thank my colleagues for the work today. And obviously, this was just a test to prove that we all need to remember the procedures, work with our staff, and we will always have a good outcome when we do this, work together and work through the problems. And with that, let me thank all the staff, let me thank the presiding officer, let me thank the colleagues, and with that, we will reconvene tomorrow, Friday, May 25, 2023, at 09:00 a.m..

The Senate will be in recess until 03:30 P.m. Today, at which time an adjournment motion will be made. Will reconvene Friday, May 26, at 09:00 a.m..