Senate Floor

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

A quorum is present with the Members and our guests. Beyond the rail, please rise. We'll be led in the prayer by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, and after which, please remain standing. We led in the pledge by Senator Menjivar.

So let us bring our minds and hearts and bodies into the presence of God and into this room. Merciful God of justice and peace. This weekend, we dedicate time and prayer in memory of all those who have died in the service of our country, even as we lament the violence of war. Comfort and sustain all those who still mourn. Heal those wounded in body, mind or spirit. Bless those who courageously left home and family to follow their vision in the cause of justice and peace. Through our work for peace, bring freedom and dignity to all people and help all leaders use diplomatic means to resolve conflicts so there is no need for wars. Again, we ask this in your name. Amen.

Members and colleagues, today, as we look upon our flag and we enter into this weekend, I want to honor and memorize and honor those who have lost their lives overseas and those who came back home and lost their battle here in our soil. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States of America . . .

Members, you'll hear some noise from the jackhammers. We will have noise during the session today, so if you can extra careful of taking your conversations off the floor, please do so so we do not have additional noise. Privileges of the floor: there are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Message from the Assembly will be deemed read, reports of Committee will be deemed read, and amendments adopted. Motions, resolutions and notices. Is there anything under motion? Resolutions and notices?

Seeing none, we'll move to considerations of the daily file. Start with a second reading. File items one through seven. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 455, 449, 424, 611, 353, 525, 815.

Now we move on to Senate third reading. We will start with file item eight. Senator Portantino? He is ready. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 712 by Senator Portantino and act relating to tenancy.

Thank you, Mr. President. And Members, I'd like to begin. We are moving SB 712, and I'd like to thank the Committee for working with me on this Bill. We've had a lot of conversations and I think it's in great shape. And so I'm respectfully asking for support for a person owning a micro mobility device and storing them in their dwelling units.

Unless the landlord provides a secure long term storage facility, those electric bikes and scooters will then be allowed to charge in those apartments if the landlord doesn't offer an alternative. And so with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members any discussion or debate? Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So I have to respectfully oppose this Bill. And I understand the desire to get folks into different forms of transportation. But essentially what this is doing is requiring a landlord to allow what is a fire hazard essentially inside of a building. And when you have apartments, especially with older electrical wiring and things like that, many times that leads to catastrophic fires. New York has had several of these.

As the popularity of these devices grows, these type of incidents are increasing and they can be catastrophic and there's loss of life associated with that. I think this really should be a consumer choice and a consumer responsibility issue.

If I am moving into an apartment, I'm not going to buy a motorhome and tell the landlord that you need to accommodate my motorhome. I'm going to think about those things ahead of time. Where am I going to store it? Where am I going to charge it? Does this fit the lifestyle that I have right now? And if it does not, then I need to figure out what I need to change to be able to do that as a consumer.

I think this puts too big of a burden on landlords. It's forcing them to put fire hazards inside the house or inside the dwelling, which we don't do. When you park a car under a garage, there's a four hour separation that is required for fire reasons.

And to just have a law that says it's okay to bring a fire hazard inside the house or apartment dwelling is not going to be conducive to fire safety. So with that, I oppose the Bill. My apologies. And I ask for a no vote. Thank you.

See no other discussion or debate. Senator Portantino, would you like to close?

Yeah, I would submit the opposite is the path we're on is, first of all, we're working very closely with the California Apartment Association and with the Alternative Transportation community specifically to hit the sweet spot, to make sure that, A, apartments either have a place for the storage of ebikes or B, that we have the batteries and the charging devices that are the most safe for consumers to use.

In addition, we charge our cell phones, we charge our iPads; we charge many things in apartments. It is just a function of our society. And so we're doing everything we can to make this a safe, common sense way to encourage alternative transportation and also the public safety of our residents. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen? Aye. Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Aye. Ashby? Aye. Atkins? Becker? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Bradford? Aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Dahle? Dodd? Aye. Durazo? Aye. Eggman? Aye. Glazer? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Jones? No. Laird? Aye. Limon? Aye. McGuire? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Min? Aye. Newman? Aye. Nguyen? Niello? No. Ochoa Bogh? Padilla? Aye. Portantino? Aye. Roth? Aye. Rubio? Seyarto? No. Skinner? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Umberg? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Wilk? Aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil, Caballero, Dahle, Grove, Nguyen, Ochoa Bogh, Rubio, Stern.

Ayes are a 29. The noes are three; the measure passes. Members, moving on to File Item 28: Senator Portantino. Again, he's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 257 by Senator Portantino, an act relating to health care coverage.

Go ahead, Senator Portantino.

Hold on one second. Thank you, Mr. President, Members. SB 257 will provide medically necessary health care coverage to women facing follow-up diagnostic breast imaging. Imagine having to choose between waiting a year to see if your lump gets bigger because you don't have the 800 dollars to go to an imaging prescription that your doctor finds medically necessary for your own health benefit. No one should be faced with that decision. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? See none. Please call the roll.

Allen? Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Aye. Ashby? Aye. Atkins? Aye. Becker? Aye. Blakespear? Aye. Bradford? Aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Dahle? Aye. Dodd? Aye. Durazo? Aye. Eggman? Aye. Glazer? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? Aye. Hurtado? Aye. Jones? Aye. Laird? Aye. Limon? Aye.

McGuire? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Min? Aye. Newman? Aye. Nguyen? Aye. Niello? Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Padilla? Aye. Portantino? Aye. Roth? Aye. Rubio? Seyarto? Skinner? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Umberg? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Wilk? Aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Allen? Aye. Alvarado-Gil? Caballero? Rubio? Seyarto? Stern?

Ayes are 35; noes are zero. That measure passes. Now we're moving on to File Item 35: Senator Min. He's ready. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 493 by Senator Min, an act relating to air pollution.

Go ahead, Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 493 would require CEC, CARB, and CPUC to roadmap out our infrastructure needs on the back end for hydrogen and electric for medium and heavy duty transit. These vehicles account for almost one-third of GHG emissions on the roads and highways of California, and as such, decarbonization is crucial to meeting our climate goals.

That being said, we don't really have a great idea of what the total package as far as generation, transmission, storage is going to look like, what we're going to need going forward when it comes to electric, hydrogen, and anything else. This bill will set forth meaningful benchmarks and hopefully allow us to better understand the investments we'll need to make going forward. It's support support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, any discussion or debate? See none, Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen? Aye. Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Aye. Ashby? Aye. Atkins? Aye. Becker? Aye. Blakespear? Aye. Bradford? Aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Dahle? Aye. Dodd? Aye. Durazo? Aye. Eggman? Aye. Glazer? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? Aye. Hurtado? Aye. Jones? Aye. Laird? Aye.

Limon? McGuire? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Min? Newman? Min, aye. Newman? Nguyen? Newman, aye. Nguyen, aye. Niello? Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Padilla? Aye. Portantino? Aye. Roth? Aye. Rubio? Seyarto? Aye. Skinner? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Umberg? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wiener? Wilk? Wiener, aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Caballero? Limon? Aye. Rubio? Stern?

Ayes are a 36; noes are zero. That measure passes. Next up will be File Item 38: Senator Allen. He is ready. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 588 by Senator Allen, an act relating to taxation to take effect immediately. Tax levy.

Senator Allen.

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill lists the cap on the value per property owner, claiming the welfare exemption for non-publicly financed rental housing under a series of conditions. This is all about trying to help make it more affordable for us to transition old buildings to affordable housing and not create a tax penalty for that transition. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen? Aye. Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Aye. Ashby? Aye. Atkins? Aye. Becker? Aye. Blakespear? Aye. Bradford? Aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Dahle? Aye. Dodd? Aye. Durazo? Aye. Eggman? Aye. Glazer? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? Aye. Hurtado? Aye. Jones? Aye. Laird? Aye.

Limon? Aye. McGuire? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Min? Aye. Newman? Aye. Nguyen? Aye. Niello? Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Padilla? Aye. Portantino? Aye. Roth? Aye. Rubio? Seyarto? Aye. Skinner? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Umberg? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Wilk? Aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Caballero? Rubio? Stern?

Ayes are 37; noes are zero. That measure passes. Next up, we have File Item 39: Senator Menjivar. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 600 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to CalFresh.

Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I'm pretty sure we are no stranger to what happened on April 1st. The emergency allotment for CalFresh benefits decreased approximately 280 dollars, meaning a family of one or two is now receiving 23 dollars a month to be able to put food on their table, something that none of us here would be able to survive off of.

So SB 600, the bill I'm rising on today, is looking to increase it to a number that still I recognize is not enough, but it will move a step forward to ensuring people put food on their table. SB 600 is asking to add 50 dollars, an increase of 27 dollars to be able to put food on the table, and if people struggling to afford food isn't compelling enough for you to support this bill, let's talk about it in terms of money.

With every one dollar we put into CalFresh, that's a dollar and 80 return in GDP. We are looking at since April 1st, a loss of 900 million dollars in local economic activity per month. The State of New Jersey already increased it to 95 dollars. I think California, as we always say, we're leaders, should follow suit in this case and do our turn, so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Caballero? Jones? Nguyen? Aye. Niello? Rubio? Seyarto? Stern?

Ayes are 34; noes are zero. That measure passes. Next up, File Item 44: Senator Durazo. She's ready. Madam--Mr. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 686 by Senator Durazo, an act relating to domestic workers.

Go ahead, Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 686 provides health and safety protections for domestic workers who are currently excluded from the Cal/OSHA protections that cover all other workers. Homes, by the way, are already considered work sites by OSHA. If you employ someone to help you at your home with administrative tasks related to your home-based business, they have OSHA protections, but if you hire someone else to help you with household domestic service work, they have no protections.

This does not make sense, and this antiquated exclusion of domestic workers is part of the lasting legacy of slavery and the devaluation of household work by women that had previously been performed by enslaved Black women and now is largely being performed largely by immigrant and women of color. For too long, the workers we entrusted to care for our loved ones and our homes have been marginalized and dehumanized by intentional exclusion from our workplace health and safety laws.

That's changing. In 2021, the governor signed my bill, 321, which created an advisory committee composed of domestic workers, household employers, and occupational health and safety experts to develop voluntary, industry-specific health and safety guidelines and make policy recommendations to the Legislature. The Advisory Committee met throughout 2022 and earlier this year, released their report with voluntary guidance for household domestic service employers and the Advisory's Committee policy recommendations to us.

The Advisory Committee's top recommendation was to remove the household domestic services exclusions from Cal/OSHA. So 686 does just that, and additionally, the bill establishes a financial assistance program to help those low income household employers make their homes safer and expands the Education and Outreach Program. Household employers played a critical role in developing that Advisory Committee's recommendations, and this bill takes the next step to provide resources and tools to support them in ensuring health and safety protections for the people they care about and the people they hire. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any discussion or debate? Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. If I may ask a question of the author?

Will you take a question?

Yes.

Go ahead.

So I'm just trying to understand exactly how this would work. So if I had someone come to clean my house and--who would be liable to pay if there was an OSHA violation? Would it be me, the homeowner, or the company that they work for, or--I'm trying to figure out who's on the hook.

Well, whoever the employer is. If you are the employer of that domestic worker, then you're responsible. If an outside company sent it and they're the employer, they would be responsible.

So, make sure--I'll repeat it back so I understand. So as a homeowner, I hire someone to clean my house, and something happens with the OSHA violation in my home. I will be responsible for paying the fines to that worker.

Whatever is decided is the result of that investigation. In this case, what will likely happen is fix the problem. I mean, that's what the domestic workers are looking for, is 'fix the problem.' It's not a, 'hey, I got you.' The proof is in the pudding that they have spent several years coming up with what are rational types of guidelines, and that's why employers are so supportive. Household employers are so supportive because they see that it makes sense. When you have safer home, it's safer for everybody. It's not safer just for some people in that household. It's safer for everybody.

Thank you. So I would just like to say that as an employer who's somebody who is regulated by all laws in California, it usually doesn't apply to our home. It applies to our business and place of work, where if you have something that is, you have to put a line around a machine so the employees know they're not getting close to the machine that's operating. Those are the kinds of things that OSHA violations typically make sure that you protect your employer--employees.

In this case, it would be somebody who was doing a service work for you and then if you didn't have a line around a fan in your room and the employee person cleaning your house somehow got injured by that fan, you would have an OSHA violation in your own home. I would think this bill would actually deter people from having those people do those services because of the liability in your own home. For those reasons, I won't be supporting the bill.

Any other discussion or debate? Senator Durazo, would you like to close?

Thank you, and thank you for the comment and the question. Homes are already considered work sites by OSHA. Homes are already considered work sites. The difference is that domestic workers are not included for the health and safety, but anyone else that comes into your premises that you hired to do work, your home is--our homes are work sites. So this is not going to change that.

There's sort of this illusion that somehow anybody who comes into my home, if you have a business in your home and you hire people and they come into your home, they are covered by Cal/OSHA and they're covered by all the other laws. Domestic workers are now covered. They are employees for minimum wage, for workers' comp, for disability. Those are the things that already currently exist.

The only thing that does not exist is health and safety for those domestic workers, and that's what we're trying to correct, and that's why the domestic workers across California have worked so closely with household employers who they work for, altogether saying, 'it's time that we included domestic workers in these health and safety rules.' Thank you very much and I ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen? Aye. Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Aye. Ashby? Aye. Atkins? Becker? Aye. Blakespear? Bradford? Aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Dahle? No. Dodd? Durazo? Aye. Eggman? Aye. Glazer? Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Jones? No. Laird? Aye. Limon? Aye. McGuire? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Min? Aye. Newman? Aye. Nguyen? No. Niello? No. Ochoa Bogh? Padilla? Aye. Portantino? Aye. Roth? Aye. Rubio? Seyarto? No. Skinner? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Umberg? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Wilk? No.

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Atkins? Blakespear? Caballero? Dodd? Glazer? Grove? Min, I don't know. Grove? Ochoa Bogh? No. Rubio? Stern?

Ayes are 23; the noes are eight. That measure passes. Members, I now have a very special recognition to do under privileges of the floor. I'd like to recognize Ezra Allen here joining us today. So I'm sitting at Senator Stern's desk. We teach Senator Stern some lessons when he gets back. All right with that, thank you. Lots of good photos. We're going to now go to File Item 46: Senator Hurtado. She's prepared.

Mr. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 697 by Senator Hurtado, an act relating to workers' compensation.

Go ahead, Senator Hurtado.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Today I rise to present SB 697 which seeks to conduct a study on health care reimbursement and workers' compensation claims. This bill will require the Department of Industrial Relations to hold five stakeholder workshops to discuss the study's findings. By studying health care reimbursement, researchers can identify whether workers are receiving high quality care that meets their needs and helps them to recover as quickly as possible. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debates? See none, please call the roll.

Allen? Aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Archuleta? Aye. Ashby? Aye. Atkins? Becker? Aye. Blakespear? Aye. Bradford? Aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Dahle? Dodd? Aye. Durazo? Aye. Eggman? Aye. Glazer? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Jones? Laird? Aye. Limon? Aye. McGuire? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Min? Aye. Newman? Aye. Nguyen? Niello? No. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Padilla? Aye. Portantino? Aye. Roth? Aye. Rubio? Seyarto? Aye. Skinner? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Umberg? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Wilk? Aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Caballero. Deli. Grove. Jones. No. Gwen. Rubio. Stern.

Ayes are 31, no's are two. That measure passes. Now we'll go to file item 65. Senator Eggman, please read Senate Bill 43 By Senator Eggman and acquisition to Mental Health. Go ahead, Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members, this is a support, support. But I'm going to take a minute or two just because this has been a Bill That's been a long time coming for me. When I came into the Legislature in 2012, this is an issue that I really wanted to work on. Like many of you, having struggled with mental health issues in my own family and seeing the struggle of trying to get a family Member help, only to be told they didn't meet the criteria.

In 1967, we redid, as we should have done. It was righteous to do Redid. The created the Lantern and Petris act, which said that we shouldn't just institutionalize people, which was right, and we should not have done that. What we did at that time also, though, was to promise that we were going to provide community mental health care services. And then for that, we failed. We failed on that terribly. And with that, we have seen the degradation of our most vulnerable people living on the streets, suffering in ways that nobody should have to do, especially in the fourth largest economy in the world. And so this Bill before you today is simply not simply, but simply redefining what it means to be gravely disabled, to actually meet what we're seeing on the streets.

That somebody, because of a mental health or substance abuse issues, is unable to provide for their own self protection, care, nourishment, and that not treating that because of the mental health issue will continue their physical and or mental deterioration. And the Bill also says that we should be able to use the history of their past in being able to make those determinations. This Bill does nothing at all to remove the due process. People still have to be proved before a judge that they meet this criteria. There's still the 52 hours hold, a three day hold, which is the two week and then a month potential hold we did a couple of years ago to give another month before it would move into a full conservatorship. We have to acknowledge that we are always going to have those amongst us who are going to need more care than they are able to provide for themselves.

It's a simple fact of life, and it's time that our laws caught up with the reality that we see on our streets. In the last few years, this body and the bodies before have spent about $12 billion sending down for housing services for mental health services. We now have mobile teams that go out. I worked on advancing advanced assisted mental health treatment through Laura's law. We created a behavioral health system for our kids That's still getting in place that will provide a mental health assessment for every child between the ages of zero and 25. Last year, we worked on care court, which will be a whole nother off ramp, to be able to help those who so desperately need help. And we've also redone our Medi Cal system for Cal AM that we're going to be able to pay for housing and food as social determinants of care.

So it is time that we catch up with where we are. I know many on our friends in the disability community would say voluntary is always best. We always agree voluntary is always best. My life has been as a therapist, as a Professor, and what I would tell my students, you can have as many tools in your toolbox as you can, but unless you can engage with somebody and build a relationship, you're not going to get there. I believe that. But I also believe that sometimes people don't even have. There's something called adignosia that people can't even acknowledge that they have a mental health condition. And so if you can't even acknowledge that something's wrong, it's very hard then to be able to say, well, let me get help for something that I can't acknowledge that is wrong. We've all seen examples on the streets of those, and we hear from our kids, from our loved ones from our community Members say, why can't we do better?

Why can't we help these folks who desperately need help? We have an opportunity now in front of us today to actually make the promise of LPs that we passed way back then that we would take care of people, that we would provide for people's support and also provide for the public health of our communities. This Bill does that. And I respectfully would ask for your. I vote when the time is right.

Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of this Bill along with Senator Wiener, principal co author of the Bill. Homelessness, in my opinion, is probably the most serious issue that faces our state right now. It's really the reason I decided to run to come back here again. And I early on talked with my friend from Stockton, who I knew before I was here. I view her as really the lead on this, and I cannot add to her description of the Bill as well as the need for it. But I just add two things. Number one, we have to be driven in our cure of homelessness to get people to self sufficiency. It's not enough just to get them into shelter. It's not enough just to offer services. It's not enough even to move to permanent housing. It must be to get people to self sufficiency.

And we cannot do that if they are languishing in the streets or continuing to suffer from acute mental illness or severe substance abuse. The other point is that Assemblyman Landerman himself was quoted by a former staffer in a newspaper article some 35 years ago or so, that he himself believed that this needed to be fixed from the Lannerman Petra Short act, that it was an unintended consequence of that Bill. So this legislation needs to pass. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. First, I want to really thank the Senator from Stockton for her just unbelievable leadership on this issue last year, her work and then her work on this and another Bill, actually several other bills to really address one of the most harmful problems that we face, which is untreated mental health and addiction combined with homelessness. And we all see it. This is something that party is irrelevant. This affects blue districts, red districts, and that explains the very diverse co authorship of this Bill, including the Assembly minority leader. But I just want to say, as someone who also lives in a deeply impacted community, when people in my community walk down the street and they see someone day after day after day after month after month, who just continues to deteriorate and is just heading towards death on the street. And they ask me, why isn't anyone doing anything about this?

Why are we just allowing this person to unravel and die in front of our eyes? And there are many factors, but one of them is that our laws were created as a reaction to the horror, the nightmare of mass institutionalization. And thank God we moved away from that. But we didn't replace it with other systems and mental health services. And we overcorrected to the point where it is so hard to get people the help that they need when they are unable to make those decisions for themselves. And this Bill will help course correct. It doesn't remove the due process, as the author said, but it will make sure that people who are dying and need help actually qualify. And That's why the look back is so important. Not just looking how are they in this moment, but what is the history?

And particularly for people who are severely addicted and dying as a result? This will help. To be clear, when people are addicted, they have to be ready to go into recovery. That is absolutely true, and I agree with the opposition on that. But if someone is dying, we have an obligation to help them and to stabilize them and to try to help them get a path to recovery.

Maybe it doesn't work the first time, or the second or the third, but eventually we hope that it will. It is not progressive, it is not compassionate to stand by while people fall apart and die on our streets. We have a moral obligation to act. This Bill will help. And I ask for an aye vote.

Senator Glazer.

Well, I just didn't want the debate to end without also adding my words of praise to the author and the co authors for their diligent work in this space. For so many in our communities, when you see someone who's homeless or as having mental health issues, that the instinct is just to look away and then to say to leaders, why haven't you been able to do anything about this? This person certainly can't take care of themselves.

But the author, through her diligence over many years and a career, is telling us we can't look away. We have to do something responsible about it. This Bill is a quiet Bill, but it's a very significant one in this definition in the mental health space, and I strongly support it.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise in support of SB 43, and I applaud the author, echo My colleagues comments on the author's hard work on all of this particular issue. I come in off of the 50 or, excuse me, the 80 and I come down Twelveth street, and you always drive by individuals that you just wonder why they're there, right? Why are these individuals on the street? Where are their children?

And people can say whatever they want to say, but when someone's standing half naked in the middle of the street, talking to the Bush on the side of the road or screaming at traffic, it is very cruel that we don't have a facility or a place to put these individuals so that they can have some type of recovery and some type of medication or whatever it takes. Right. To get them into a normal lifestyle or productive lifestyle. I do remember that our former colleagues, Senator Moorlock, had brought together a piece of legislation similar to this. It failed a few years ago, but it was heart wrenching to hear a parent tell a story about how when she was able to keep her son, her adult son, over the age of 18, on medication, he had a job at Albertson's. He was productive. He had a studio apartment.

And then once she was not allowed to, I want to say, force him to take the medication, but encourage him greatly to take his medication. He ended out on the street, and he was bathing in little water fountains and just not being sheltered. It was very cruel and it was very heart wrenching for this parent. So I applaud the author for doing this.

I thank all the co authors, and I really am glad that there are some pieces of legislation that we can come together on that make a benefit to the citizens of our state, especially those that are hurting in the cruel environment they're living in on our streets.

Thank you. Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

Thank you. And thank you to all my colleagues who spoke and those who have been supportive in us being able to get here. I neglected to say we're also working on this year a redo, as you know, of Prop 63, to really be able, our Mental Health Services act, to be able to build more of those villages and cottage type issues and be able to use that money more effectively with the county.

This Bill has as sponsors the 13 big city mayors, the psychiatric associations, and certainly the families. The NAMI associations is a broadly based Bill. And again, Members, just to say, people say, we don't have the capacity to do this. Well, our capacity now is on our streets and in our prisons and in our jails, and that is not the place that we want to be humanely and effectively treating those with the most sincere and severe mental health issues was Dr. Susan Pravati.

And I often get credit of it, but she's a street medicine Doctor in Los Angeles who said, people are dying with their rights on. You can help people day after day and see them deteriorate. And you know who's going to die next. Let's not let people die with their rights on. Let's give them care. I ask for your aye vote.

Mr. Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, this is Elsa's unanimous roll call. Any objections to using unanimous roll call? Seeing none. The ayes are 36, the noes are zero. Measure passes. And now we'll move on to file item 83. Senator Seyarto. He's prepared. Mr. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 73 by Senator Seyarto. And accelerating to employment. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. I rise to present SB 73. SB 73 adds California to 38 other states that have clarified that businesses are allowed to follow both the state and federal government's examples in creating hiring policies that give preference to veterans. I've worked hard to address concerns by various groups and members, and this bill enjoyed support by our veterans and bipartisan support throughout our committees, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins? Caballero? Dahle? Aye. Durazo? Aye. Eggman? Aye. Laird? Limon? Aye. Rubio? Stern?

Please call the absent Members one more time, please.

Atkins? Caballero? Laird? Rubio? Stern?

Ayes are 35; noes are zero. That measure passes. Members, next up is File Item 89: Senator Skinner. She's ready. Mr. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 242 by Senator Skinner, an act relating to public social services.

Senator Skinner.

Thanks so much, Mr. President, Members. Last year we all created the HOPE for Children Trust Account. It was for children who lost their parents to COVID and also to our long-term foster care kids. This bill has a few provisions that will improve the implementation of the program, and with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? Mr. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins? Caballero? Dahle? Aye. Jones? Nguyen? Aye. Rubio? Seyarto? Stern?

Ayes 34; noes are zero. That measure passes. Members, that was our last item on Senate third reading. We will now take up the special consent calendar, Number 13. Mr. Secretary, please read all items on the special. Oh, does anyone like to remove anything from the consent calendars? Okay. All right. Seeing none, let's go to Madam--Mr. Secretary, please read all items on the special consent calendar.

Senate Joint Resolution One, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 14, 25, 29, 36, 59.

All right. Will you please call the roll?

Will you please call the roll on file item 170?

Allen. Aye Alvarado-Gil. Aye Archuleta aye Ashby aye Atkins. Becker. Aye Blakespear. Aye Bradford. Aye Caballero. Cortese aye Dahle. Aye Dodd. Aye Durazo. Aye Eggman. Aye Glazer, aye Gonzalez. Aye Grove. Aye Hurtado. Aye Jones. Aye Laird. Aye Limon. Aye Mcguire. Aye Menjivar. Aye Min. Aye Newman. Aye Nguyen. Aye Niello. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye Padilla. Aye Portantino aye Roth. Aye Rubio, Seyarto. Aye Skinner. Aye smallwood, Cuevas. Aye Stern, Umbert. Aye Wahab. Aye Wiener. Aye Wilk. Aye.

Ayes are 36, no's are zero on file item 170. Ayes are 36, no's are zero on the special consent calendar. Before I turn it over to Senator Grove to close us out. Just want to say great work this week. Getting through a lot of bills. Reminder. A little applause. Yes. Reminder. Please be prepared to work late next week. And with that, if there's no other business. Senator Grove, the desk is clear.

Thank you, Mr. President. Point of personal privilege. First, Mr. Silva, you did an outstanding job today. Thank you for. Thank you. We're very excited for you to be on the dais. Like my colleague from San Fernando Valley, when she opened up the floor session today. She talked about the importance of this weekend. Recognizing and remembering all those that gave their life for this country. Fellow veteran, I appreciate the opportunity to close in that same sentiment.

But also, as you celebrate this weekend, to remember those that gave their life for this country. Remember those that were next to them. That still have the very vivid memories of the colors and the sounds of war. When they lost their buddy, their friend, during wartime. Because they will be at these events too. Please take a moment to honor them. Having said that, the Senate will be in recess until 03:30 p.m., which at that time the adjournment motion will be made.

Colleagues, we will reconvene on Tuesday because Monday is Memorial Day holiday. May 30 at 02:00 p.m.

Senate will. Be in recess till 3:30, at which time the adjournment motion will be made. We're reconvene Tuesday, May 30 at 02:00 p.m. Have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. You're adjourned.