Assembly Floor

The Assembly is now in session. Assembly Member Gipson notices the absence of a quorum. The sergeant of arms will prepare the chamber and bring in the absent Members. The Clerk will call the role.

Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Khan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Shiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Mr. Speaker.

Members, the quorum is present. We ask our guests and visitors in the rear of the chamber and in the gallery to please stand for the prayer in the flag. Salute. Today's prayer will be offered by our Assembly chaplain, Imam Yasir Khan. Imam Yasir.

In the name of God, the most Gracious, the most merciful almighty God, you know our needs. We stand before you ready to fulfill a mission that will give glory to Your name and ensure the dignity of all humanity. Me, we plead for your wisdom. Give us the courage to open our ayes to see. Give us the fortitude to endure when the demands of our office seem overwhelming. Transform our lives, and we will remember that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the greatest work we will perform on behalf of all people. Amen.

Assembly. Member Wicks will lead us in the pledge.

Please place your right hand over your heart. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America indivisible with liberty.

Assembly Chamber, Sacramento, Wednesday, June 28, 2023 the assembly met at 07:00 a.m the honorable Freddie Rodriguez...

Reading of the previous day's journal.

Assembly Member Bryan moves and Mr.Gallagher seconds that the reading of the previous day journal will be dispensed with. Presentations of petitions: There are none. Introduction in reference of bills will be deferred. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments deemed adopted. Messages from the Governor, there are none. Messages from the Senate. There are none. Moving to motions and resolutions, absences for the day family Medical: Assemblymember Grayson will be out. Majority Leader Bryan, you are recognized for your procedural motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 45.5 to allow Assembly Members Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva and Wilson to speak on an adjournment in memory today.

Without objection such shall be the order.

I also request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 118 A to allow Assembly Member Wilson to have her guest seated at her to have a guest seated at her desk today.

Without objection, such shall be the order.

I request unanimous consent to suspend joint rule 62 A, the file notice waiver to allow the Appropriations Committee to hear SB 35 Umberg at their hearing on Thursday, September 7, upon adjournment of session in swing space room 1100.

Without objection such shall be the order.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, at the request of the author, please move file item 136, SB 74 Dodd to the inactive file.

Clerk will note.

Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to suspend the rules to withdraw the following bills from the Budget Committee and order them to the second reading file. The action is necessary to prepare the bills floor votes beginning later this week. The bills are as follows SB 104, SB 135, SB 137, SB 138, SB 140, SB 141, SB 142, SB 143, SB 148, SB 151, and SB 152.

Assembly Member. Flora, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We object, and withhold...it's going to be one of those days. We object and ask for roll call votes.

Without objection. This is non debatable. Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote. The second is by Assembly Member Hart. Hart, I can't see him behind you. Clerk open the roll. Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote. Clerk open the roll. Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote. His keys gone out. Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote. All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote. Clerk close the pardon me. Yeah. Clerk open. Clerk open the roll.

Clerk close the roll. ayes 48, no, 16. Motion passes. Members, I want to remind you that we have quite a few bills over in the Senate without a jockey for jockey, and this is why we sometimes have delays. We can continue to have those. If you haven't taken care of those, please do so sooner than later. We would greatly appreciate it, and I'm sure you will on Friday so you can get out of here earlier.

So again, make sure you check who your floor jockeys are and that they have the information that they need to move these out. Thank you. Members, pursuant to Assembly Rule 772, I am re referring the following bills to committee: item 22 AB 663, Haney to the Business and Professions Committee, and item 33 AB 969, Pellerin to the Elections Committee. We have a guest with us today, Members. Assembly Member Wilson's sister is joining her at her desk today. Let's all welcome Shakira Edgerson to the Assembly.

Members, moving to the business on the daily file. Second reading, file number ten, AB 458. Clerk will read.

The Senate Bill is 326, 344, 410, 441, 605, 43 and Senate Bill 815.

File item ten, AB 458. Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 458 by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer, an accolade to mobility devices.

Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. AB 458 is back from Senate on concurrence. Senate amendments clarifies that aggregate limits on third party liability insurance are not prohibited by existing statute, and that scooter insurance are not subject to the same requirements as auto insurance. AB 458 has bipartisan support and has no registered opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no discussion nor debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk close the roll. Aye 60, no zero, measure passes. Senate amendments are concurred. Majority Leader Bryan, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the request of the author, please move file item 297, SB 577 Hurtado to the inactive file.

Clerk will note. Members, we are moving to the third reading file of the Senate bills, file number 69, SB 400. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 400 by Senator Wahab, an accolade to the peace officers.

Assembly Member Ortega, you are recognized.

Madam Speaker and Members, I stand to present SB 400 by Senator Wahab. This Bill is a thoughtful step forward in transparency for law enforcement, and I am pleased to report that the author has come to an agreement with the opposition to address their concerns. SB 400 will improve transparency and trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve by providing access to critical community information in a timely manner. On behalf of Senator Wahab, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no debate or discussion, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 52, no zero. Bill passes. Moving on to file number 70 SB 798. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 798 by Senator Glazer and others in accolade to elections.

Assembly Member Pellerin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. I rise today on behalf of Senator Glazer to present Senate Bill 798. Senate Bill 798 is a simple Bill that would require the tax rate statement included in the ballot materials for local bond measures to express the tax rate per $100,000 instead of the $100 of assessed value. Voters consume data in larger numbers than we did in the 1970s.

If it takes time to calculate a more realistic cost, the voter might skip the ballot measure or vote no. By requiring the estimated tax rate on a voter's ballot statement be expressed as the rate per $100,000 of assessed value on all property to be taxed to fund a bond measure, it will provide a more relatable dollar amount for voters when deciding to approve or reject it. Simplifying the math for voters provides a better level of transparency.

SB 798 seeks to modernize a ballot's tax rate statement so that voters understand what they are voting on. This Bill has passed with bipartisan support and no no votes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Senator Glazer.

Seeing no discussion nor debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 69, no zero. Measure passes. File number 109, SB 68.

Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 68 by Senator McGuire, an accolade in vehicles.

Assembly Member Connolly. You are recognized.

Good morning, Madam Speaker and Members. Today I rise to present SB 68 by Senator McGuire, an important measure to ensure that cal fire planes and helicopters will have the fuel they need to combat wildfires. A critical part of California's coordinated response to wildfires relies on having enough aviation fuel for our fire suppression aircraft.

This Bill provides a California highway patrol with the needed authority to allow truck drivers to exceed their maximum driving time requirements when transporting aviation fuel used for emergency related activities, such as fire suppression during a state of emergency. SB 68 will allow CHP to create a permanent fix to address these emergencies, ensuring truck drivers are safe and our firefighters can be supported by our firefighting aircraft from above. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no discussion nor debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk close the roll. Ayes 68, no zero. Measure passes. File number 110, SB 82. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 82 by Senator Seyarto, an accolade in taxation.

Assembly Member Hoover, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. SB 82 reduces barriers for disabled veterans to access the property tax exemption in the Constitution. It does this by requiring county assessors to accept an electronic letter of the veteran's disability status when verifying eligibility. The Bill has no opposition, no no votes, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Seeing no debate or discussion, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk can close the roll. Ayes 68, no zero. Measure passes.

File number 120, SB 38. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 38 by Senator Laird and others, in accolade of energy.

Assembly Member Addis, you are recognized. We'll pass and retain. I'll pass temporarily on file number 120. Moving on to file number 121, SB 420. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 420 by Senator Becker and others in accolades of electricity.

Assembly Member Muratsuchi, you are recognized.

Madam Speaker, I just received the request from the author to pass and retain.

Thank you.

We'll pass and retain on file number 121. Moving on to file number 125, SB 461 Clerk will read

Senate Bill 461 by Senator Wahab and others, an accolade to public employment.

Assemblymember Gabriel, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased today to present SB 461 in a truly excellent Bill on behalf of Senator Wahab. This Bill would authorize state employees to take 8 hours paid holiday credit in lieu of 8 hours personal holiday time for religious or cultural observances for holidays that have not traditionally received official state recognition. So this could be holidays like is coming up. Diwali, Nowruz, Eid al-Fitr, or even Ohi day.

To be clear, this Bill does not increase available holiday credits or hours off for state employees, but will strengthen, inclusivity and raise awareness of the true diversity in our state workforce. It will improve employer-employee relationships and reinforce country's values of respect and acceptance of diverse traditions. On behalf of Senator Wahab, respectfully request your aye vote on SB 461.

Seeing no debate or discussion, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk close the roll. Aye.66. No zero,measure passes. Moving on to file number 129, SB 29.

Clerk will read Senate Bill 29 by Senator Glazer and others in accolade to the Political Reform Act of 1974 and declare the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Assemblymember Pellerin, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam Speaker and Members, I rise today to present Senate Bill 29 on behalf of Senator Glazer. SB 29 authorizes the Fair Political Practices Commission to administer a political reform education program as an alternative to an administrative proceeding for low-level violations of the Political Reform Act. This program would be open to individuals who committed a violation with minimal public harm and who have a low-level of experience.

And sophistication, with the applicable provisions of the PRA, the program will provide individuals with a new opportunity to learn how to comply with the PRA, remediate the violation, and avoid a mark on their record. The initial version of the program is expected to launch this year. The Bill has received bipartisan support and no, no votes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Senator Glazer. Thank you.

Seeing no discussion or debate, Members, this is a 54 vote Bill. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. A 54 vote Bill. Clerk close the roll. Bill passes on the urgency aye 68 no zero. Bill passes 68-0. Moving to file number 147, SB 247

Clerk will read Senate Bill 274 by Senator Skinner and others, an accolade in a pupil discipline.

Assemblymember Bonta, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members, I rise to present SB 274 on behalf of Senator Skinner because all kids deserve an education and to thrive in school. SB 74274 prohibits out of school suspensions for willful defiance for middle school and high school students until 2029. Additionally, this Bill prohibits suspension or expulsion of any student based on solely on truancy, tardiness or attendance records. Students who are black and brown or differently abled are disproportionately suspended for willful defiance.

This matters because students who are suspended or expelled are more likely to drop out of school or enter the criminal justice system. This Bill preserves the right for teachers to remove a student from the classroom for disruption or defiance, just not from school. SB 274 is co sponsored by State Superintendent Tony Thurman, along with 14 organizations, and has support from the California Federation of Teachers and the association of California School Administrators, with no opposition on file. Thank you. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta. Clerk excuse me. Excuse me. Assemblymember Gallagher, you are recognized.

Thank you. Members. And we have seen this Bill know this is an extension. This is bad policy. It is a very bad policy in our schools that is leading to disorder in our classrooms and making it so other kids can't learn, because you have no ability to deal with people who are being very disruptive. And I understand the intent behind this. I understand the heart behind it. But it has been shown that it is not working in our classrooms.

We shouldn't continue a policy that we know is not helpful. It's not helpful to ensuring that our kids right now, our kids are failing. They're failing. Almost 50% can't read at grade level right now. Two-thirds of them can't meet standards in math. Taking away tools from administrators and from teachers to ensure that they have a classroom that's not being disrupted, where you don't have someone who is causing a lot of problems in that classroom.

Now, there's different ways we can deal with that discipline, of course, right. There's different ways that we can address that. But saying that you cannot suspend that, you cannot remove someone from a classroom who's being disruptive is not a good policy. We should not continue this. But I know we're going to do it. I know we're going to continue to pass these things. But, look, don't continue to do the same thing and expect different results, folks.

Thank you. Assemblymember Gallagher. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. You are recognized.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. As a classroom teacher. For 30 years, we did deliberate over this policy. There were amendments taken. And to be clear, it does allow a classroom teacher to remove a student from the classroom. And that was one amendment that was essential. Classrooms do need to be able to remove disruptive students. It's what happens to that student after they are removed, and there are opportunities for administrators to make deliberations about what that consequence will be.

So, certainly, we want to protect not only the students in the classroom, but the teachers so that learning can take place. But we also want to make sure that suspensions, and also expulsions are reduced for some of the students that need to be on the school campus. So I rise in support of SB 274.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Assemblymember Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would like to rise in support. I appreciate the argument. As a classroom teacher for 16 years, I had the same issues that my colleague from my colleague is raising. I had a similar Bill. I authored a preschool expulsion Bill where kids were being expelled in preschool for reasons that were part of the developmental cycle of a child. But after that Bill was passed, I also authored a measure to provide mental health consultations in those classrooms.

My goal has always been to work with the education community to provide that support for kindergarten, first grade, and on. I taught kindergarten. I taught first grade and fourth grade. And I completely understand what you're talking about. But suspending the kids, sending them home to watch TV or play video games, reinforces their behavior, if we can prevent the behavior by providing mental health support.

And my measure provided support for the parent, the student, and for the teacher, we were not taught to do mental health consultations as teachers, so that's why providing that support afterwards would be essential. So I asked for support on this measure. And I would love to co-author a Bill with Mr. Gallagher sorry. Well, I said his name, Mr. Gallagher.

So that we could provide mental health consultations to those students in the classroom in kindergarten and beyond, because we can't continue to take the kids out of the classroom when we know that they're not learning anything at home. Again, as a classroom teacher, as a parent, I get frustrated, or would get frustrated as well. But removing them completely from school doesn't help.

So I would love to support the Bill and work on a measure to provide mental health consultations for the parent, the student, and for the teachers so that we can learn to support the students and not completely shut them out from their education. And the reason that we are behind in math and reading is because instead of resolving the issues, we throw them out of the classroom. And there's no learning going on at home. Trust me, I know the video games do not teach math or reading. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio. Assemblymember Muratsuchi you are recognized.

Thank you very much. I also rise in support of this measure, although I do want to acknowledge the concerns raised by our colleague, the Minority Leader. I had a lot of discussions on this Bill. As Chair of the Education Committee, I also was very much concerned about all the kids whose education is compromised in the classroom with every disruption from the small number who do cause trouble in the classroom.

We made sure that the author took the amendment to allow teachers to exclude the student from the classroom when they were causing disruption, while at the same time, I want to agree with my colleague from Baldwin Park that ultimately, it doesn't make sense to send kids home when they're causing trouble. It sends the wrong message. We want to keep them in the school, in the classroom, to benefit. And for those reasons, I support this.

Measure, seeing no further discussion or debate. Assemblymember Bonta, would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam speaker, as my colleagues from Fullerton and Baldwin Park teachers in our body have expressed, we need to be able to ensure that there isn't a disproportionate impact, particularly on LGBTQ students, black, and brown students, and children who are differently abled. Right now, willful defiance is used to apply to a child who wears a hat to school when they shouldn't, or falls asleep in class.

As my colleague from Baldwin Park stated, we need to be able to provide the mental health supports, and I'd be happy to work with you on that measure as well. But this Bill is about ensuring that our kids are able to stay in school, on campus, and have the learning opportunities that they rightly deserve every single day of their school year. Thank you. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bonta. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 50. Noes 11. Measure passes. File number 155. SB 321.

Clerk will read Senate Bill 321 by Senator Ashby and others in accolade to Illiteracy.

Assemblymember Bonta, you are recognized.

Thank you. In keeping with the education team, Madam Speaker, and Members, I am pleased to present Senate Bill 321 on behalf of Senator Ashby, which will increase youth literacy by ensuring each student receives a library success card by third grade. Existing partnerships between schools and libraries have proven successful, with programs in Sacramento and Oakland, and Los Angeles improving reading rates among students.

California ranks the lowest in the nation for third-grade reading levels, and it is vital that we work to expand programs with proven success. SB 321 has bipartisan support and no opposition. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Seeing no discussion or debate. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 59. No zero, measure passes. I have 181. In the next one. They change that. What time measures?

Clerk will read Senate Bill 343 by Senator Skinner in accolading to Child Support.

Assemblymember Maienschein you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. SB. 343 will require the Department of Child Support Services and the Judicial Council to conform with federal rule changes that will increase the ability of non-custodial parents to pay their child support orders. It will benefit children and reduce the demand of safety net support. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Seeing bo discussion nor debate click the open the roll all those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 59, no zero, measure passes.

Pass temporarily on file number 181. Moving to file number 190. SB 540. Clerk will read

Senate Bill 540 by Senator Laird in accolade to Cannabis.

Assemblymember Berman, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam Speaker and colleagues, I rise to present SB 540 by Senator Laird, a Bill that will ensure warning labels on cannabis products keep up with evolving science, and new consumers are offered a brochure that includes steps for safe cannabis use. Recent amendments move all prior opposition to neutral by refining the information to be included in the brochure and require the Department of Cannabis Control to reevaluate regulations every five years to determine if additional warnings are needed based on evolving science.

Ultimately, this Bill makes progress to ensure that the Department of Cannabis Control is basing future warnings on evolving science and consumers have access to safe cannabis use information at the point of sale. This Bill is received bipartisan support. Respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 540.

Seeing no discussion or debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the rolls. Aye 66, no zero, measure passes. Moving back on file number 181, SB 506, Clerk will read

Senate Bill 506 by Senator Laird In accolade to railroads.

Assemblymember Boerner, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I rise to present Senate Bill 506 on behalf of Senator Laird.

This Bill directs the PUC to develop and implement a colored pavement pilot project at one or more highway railroad crossings by January 1, 2026, and to report the findings to the Legislature no later than one year after project completion. This pilot project will provide additional data to help understand the effectiveness of colored pavement markings in reducing safety incidents. The Bill has received unanimous bipartisan support and has no registered opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 506.

Thank you, Assemblymember Boerner. Seeing no discussion or debate. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 65, noes zero, measure passes file number 219, SB 734. Clerk will read

Senate Bill 734 by Senator Rubio in accolade taxation to take effect immediately Tax levy.

Assemblymember Pacheco, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. Today I rise to present SB 734, an important Bill that will bring tax relief to low-income tenants who live in government-owned housing. This Bill has received bipartisan support in the Assembly and Senate and has no no votes. We have an affordable housing crisis across California, and it will take multiple solutions working together to solve this crisis.

One solution is supporting public housing projects owned by government entities that can offer housing units at affordable rents to low-income tenants. California cannot afford to go backwards on the progress we've made to reduce homelessness. SB 734 would codify the longstanding legal opinion of the Board of Equalization and make it clear that state law exempts these low-income tenants from paying property taxes.

As California continues to confront an affordable housing shortage, SB 734 will ensure that public housing projects can continue to be part of the solution in addressing California's housing crisis. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Pacheco.Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Aye 62. No zero. Moving back to file number 156, SB 327. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 327 by Senator Laird accolade in a public retirement systems and making an appropriation therefore.

Assemblymember McKinnor, you are recognized.

Madam Speaker and members, I rise today to present SB 327 on behalf of Senator Laird, a bill sponsored by CalSTRS, which will shorten the time frame CalSTRS members may back due their service retirement benefits up to 270 calendar days, nine months prior to when CalSTRS receives the application. SB 327 moves CalSTRS closer to parity with CalPERS while still providing greater flexibility and backdating than most other systems. This bill also shields CalSTRS members from undetended consequences affecting tax liability and eligibility for other income-based non-CalSTRS benefits that can arise from significantly backdating lump sum payments. SB 327 protects CalSTRS members from the perception that the payout of large lump sums conflicts with CalSTRS's proposed and potential criticism from defined benefit pensions plan opponents. Amendments taken in senate gives CalSTRS members the ability to backdate nine months rather than six months, and bring the California Teachers Association, CTA, into a support position. This bill has received no opposition in both houses, no no votes and there is support on both sides. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no discussion nor debate, clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk, close the roll. Aye, 63. No, zero. Measure passes. Moving on to file number 246, SB 54. Clerk will read. The senate bill 54 by Senator Skinner and others can accolading in the professions and vocations. Assembly Member Bryan. You are recognized. Thank you.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, I rise to present SB 54 on behalf of Senator Skinner. Venture capital investment is the lifeblood for those who choose to use their entrepreneurial skill to start up or build up a new business or enterprise. But if you're a woman or a black-led startup, these investments simply don't come your way. Regardless of your expertise, regardless of your track record, regardless of the viability of your business plan. PitchBook, the data source for capital markets, found that female startups received only 2.3% of all venture capital invested in 2020. It's terrible. What's more terrible is that percentage dropped to 1.7% in 2022. Startups founded by black individuals received only 2.6% of venture capital funding. Latino, Latina, Latinx startups received just 0.6%. California has led the nation in addressing pay equity. We did so last year simply by requiring transparency when we passed pay transparency and pay equity. Requiring employers to report pay data for all categories of workers and making it publicly available. SB 54 is modeled on the same principle. It simply asks venture capital firms to report on the diversity of their investments. That data, keeping each firm anonymous, would then be made publicly available. Such transparency will help California's innovation, its innovative economy become more equitable and more representative of all Californians. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Seeing no discussion nor debate, clerk will open the roll.

All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Ayes, 45. Nos, 13. Measure passes. Moving to file number 251, SB 88. Clerk will read.

A senate bill 88 by Senator Skinner and others in accolading to people transportation.

Assembly McCarty. You are recognized. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of Senator Skinner, I present this measure dealing with home to school transportation. California lags in this issue, but thankfully, with the last two years in the state budget, we allocate nearly $700 million to change it. This bill helps ensure that we have adequate safety for those kids utilizing LEA-funded school transportation. This measure ensures that school districts that pay for such transportation ensure that we have safety measures regarding whether it's a school bus or alternative means to transport kids to and from school. These safety standards aren't for family picking up their students, only for rides that are paid for and arranged by a local LEA. The senator's office worked diligently with our Education Chair the last few weeks. I want to note that the education management groups removed their opposition the past few days. Therefore, respectfully ask for your aye vote this morning. Thank you.

Seeing no discussion or debate. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 46, no 15 measure passes. Moving on to file number 268, SB 345. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 345 by Senator Skinner and others an act relating to Healthcare services.

Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized.

Well, good morning, Madam Speaker and Members. Today I rise to present Senate Bill 345 on behalf of Senator Skinner. As other states continue to criminalize abortion and care for transgender youth, the legal attacks on the rights of women and transgender people have increased. But particularly the legal attacks on our health care providers who provide abortion, contraceptive, contraception, and gender affirming care. SB 345 is in response to those attacks.

Specifically, SB 345 strengthens California's legal protections for our healthcare providers who provide reproductive care, including medication, abortion, and gender affirming care, regardless of their patient's location. SB 345 ensures that California will not assist in any way with an out of state prosecution or civil case against a patient receiving legally protected health care or against a provider or pharmacy who is providing this care.

SB 345 prohibits Bell agents or bounty hunters from arresting any person in California for receiving reproductive health care or gender affirming care that is legal in California. The protections in SB 345 are exactly why SB 345 is supported by every major medical licensing board in California, including the California Medical Board, the Board of Registered Nursing, the State Board of Pharmacy, the Physician's Assistant Board, and Osteopathic Medical Board of California. These healthcare providers deserve legal protections for their essential work.

Supporters and sponsors include Equality California, NARAL California, Black Women for Wellness, Valor California, and literally hundreds of organizations, cities, and others in support of abortion rights and gender affirming care. SB 345 cements California's position as the safe haven for reproductive justice and the leader in legal protections for abortion and gender affirming care.

As a mother of a trans son, a young adult ready to venture out in the world, given the negative action that has been taken by other states, I want to protect him and others. If they were to move or temporarily relocate to a state, SB 345 would legally protect their doctor and the California pharmacy they use for continuing to provide that care. On behalf of women and transgender people, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no discussion nor debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk close the roll. Ayes 49, nos 13. Measure passes. File number 269, SB 348. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 348 by Senator Skinner and others, an act relating to pupil meals.

Assembly Member Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Today, I am presenting SB 348 on behalf of Senator Skinner, who has been really busy this morning. In 2021, California created the first in the nation universal school Meal Program, which gives every public school student two free meals each day. While this program is a massive step towards ending child hunger, we need to ensure that the food served is healthy and nutritious. Children's consumption of added sugar and salt has increased dramatically, with 67% of the calories children eat now coming from ultra-processed.

Foods with high levels of sugar and salt have been shown to cause a variety of negative health outcomes. School meals are the primary source of nutrition for many children, and for some, school meals are the only food they eat all day. SB 348 ensures all kids in California schools are being served healthy food and maximizes participation in the new Federal Summer Childhood Nutrition Program to reduce summer hunger. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no discussion or debate, Clerk will open the roll.

All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, Clerk close the roll aye 61. No zero, measure passes. Moving to file number 319, SB 731. Clerk will read Senate Bill 731 by Senator Ashby and others in accolades of employment. Assemblymember Kalra. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to present Senate Bill 731, the Return to Office Employee Notification Act on behalf of Senator Ashby. This Bill requires employers to provide remote employees with at least 30 days notice before requiring them to report to work in person. While remote work has given employees more flexibility, working parents and people with disabilities are particularly impacted by the shift to in person employment. Working parents need adequate time to arrange childcare restructure, school schedules, and find alternative transportation options.

SB 731 also requires that employers inform their workers about their right to request disability accommodations, ensuring that employers work in good faith with our disabled workforce. This Bill is supported by disability rights. California has bipartisan support and no listed opposition. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no discussion or debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll. Aye 53, no zero, measure passes. Clerk will read Senate Bill 773 by Senator Glacier and accolade to CalWorks. Assemblymember Jackson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members, today I rise to present SB 773 on behalf of Senator Glazer. The CalWorks Homeless Assistance Program provides both temporary shelter and permanent housing assistance for CalWorks families. The program only allows a CalWorks family to qualify for permanent housing assistance if their rent does not exceed 80% of their income. With current rents in California so high, it is difficult for families to qualify, and unfortunately, programs utilization is low.

To help make this funding more accessible to cowboys families, this Bill would require counties to consider additional sources of income towards the 80% income threshold requirement. This Bill would also require the California Department of Social Services to regularly collect statewide data to determine the number of applicants to the Cal Works Homeless Assistance Program, whether the applicants are accepted or denied the applicants income level, and reason for denial, so we can learn more about how to support Cal Works families.

This Bill has no opposition and has received no no votes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no discussion or debate Clerk will open the roll all those vote desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll ayes 59 no zero measure passes. Moving back on the file on file number 120 SB 38 Clerk will read the Senate Bill 38 by Senator Laird in accolade, energy Assemblymember Addis. You are recognized.

Madam Speaker and Members, I rise to present Senate Bill 38 by Senator Laird Senate Bill 38 will require battery storage facilities to develop an emergency response and evacuation plan. As California transitions to a zero carbon future and increases the volume of renewable energy, including solar and wind energy, the ability to store this energy is crucial. As a result, the development of battery storage facilities throughout the state has increased, and it is vital these facilities are equipped with emergency response and evacuation plans.

Senate Bill 38 will ensure battery storage facilities have a plan in place to ensure the safety of nearby residents, neighboring properties, first responders, and the environment. This Bill has received bipartisan support and has no opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no discussion or debate Clerk will open the roll all those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote Clerk makes is a roll ayes 52 no zero measure passes.

Members, file number 2224. Senate Bill 765. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 765 by Senator Portantino and others in accolade and the teachers.

Assemblymember Addis, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. Senate Bill 765 will draw from previous Executive orders that seek to solve this issue by raising the Calstar's compensation cap on retirees earnings, streamlines the 180-day waiting period for retired educators to return to assist LEAs or local education agencies, and requires an LEA to provide documentation for their need as well as the eligibility of a retired Member before they may begin their service. California is facing a devastating teacher shortage, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation.

According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, there are over 10,000 teacher vacancies across California during the 21-22 school year. There are not enough individuals entering the teaching profession to counteract the number of teachers leaving the workforce. This Bill is one of the few, if not the only, tool we, the Legislature, have to address the unprecedented educational staffing shortages. Right now, teachers are essential to our society because they prepare our youth for their futures.

And it is time that California starts to invest in our teachers. It is the most critical investment we can make and one that our students deserve. Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Seeing no discussion or debate, Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll. Aye 60. No zero, measure passes. Majority Leader Bryan, you are recognized. Members, without objection, we will return to motions and resolutions to allow the majority leader to make a motion. Mr. Majority Leader. You are recognized.

Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to suspend joint rule 62 A. The file notice waiver to allow the elections committee to hear AB 969 Pellerin tomorrow, Thursday, September 7, at 09:00 A.m., in room 444.

Clerk will note. Thank you, Members, for your patience today, this morning. We have more work to do. Today, after caucus, we are going to break the Democrats and the Republican caucuses. We will reconvene back here at 01:30 P.m. Thank you for your patience. And we'll get some more work done this afternoon. Thank you. We will recess under call. That'd be good call. It means that number one.

Without objection, we're returning to motions and resolutions for Majority Leader Bryan's Motion. Majority Leader. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam. Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 69 to allow Assemblymember Ward to take up late amendments on item 79, SB 341 Becker the technical amendments need to be adopted to facilitate subsequent chaptering out amendments without objection.

Such shall be the order. Members, we are moving to file number 64 HR. 57. Clerk will read.

House resolution 57 by Assemblymember Haney and others relative to Transgender History Month.

Assemblymember Haney, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members, I rise today to ask this body to make California the first state in the nation to declare August as Transgender History Month. I live in San Francisco's Tenderloin district, which has been home to transgender people since the early 18 hundreds. We know this because we have the letters of trans women describing their lives, living and working in the neighborhood. In 2017, San Francisco declared a small part of the Tenderloin as the transgender Cultural District.

That's important because it is the only place in the world that has been legally designated as of historic importance to the transgender community. Now, don't think for a second that's because trans people aren't an important part of world history everywhere. Trans people have always existed in every era and in every culture. They have existed as long as there has been the written word. There has been a record of trans people. Ancient Egypt and the Romans, China. Native Americans.

The history of transgender people is there, if you look for it here in California. The first record of trans people dates back to 1775, when a Spanish soldier encountered native people near presentday San Diego, who he described as those Indian men and women who, both here and farther inland, observed in the dress, clothing, and character of women. They are called joyas, and they are held in great esteem. The Gold Rush in California created an environment where transgender people could thrive.

We are lucky to know that the history of stagecoach driver Charlie Parkhurst, a transgender man who ran stagecoach routes from Stockton to San Jose, and whose life story was celebrated in the popular television show Death Valley Days, hosted by our former Governor and President, Ronald Reagan. The 1959 Cooper Donuts riot in Los Angeles and the 1966 Compton's Cafeteria riot in San Francisco were the first LGBT civil rights uprisings in the country. And they were led by trans people years before. The Stonewall riot in New York.

The month of August when the Compton's Cafeteria riots took place, is now celebrated by the trans community as a turning point in transgender civil rights. I want to say that if you are first hearing about California's transgender history, it's not your fault. It's not your fault that we were never taught about gender non conforming people growing up.

It is the fault of historians and politicians who came before us that chose to erase the lives of trans people from their own history rather than faced with a narrative that did not conform with their own. We can disagree on a lot of issues, but what we can't disagree on is the existence of trans people. We can't disagree on the humanity of trans people. I mean, even if you don't like it, trans people are our coworkers, our neighbors, and our family members.

I'm proud to be a member of this Legislature that has been a voice of humanity and truth against the anti-trans movement currently sweeping our country. California has become a sanctuary state for the transgender community as they are facing unprecedented levels of attacks in state legislatures, city councils, and school boards across the country.

Right now, one of the most damaging talking points you hear from those who are anti-trans is the idea that trans people are somehow new, that being transgender is somehow a modern innovation or invention. As a representative of the transgender district, I've seen over and over the resilience of this community, the amazing contributions that trans people have made to our country and our state.

Two years ago, the transgender district led by trans history activist Jupiter Peraza, who's with us today, worked to create the nation's first Trans History Month in San Francisco. And earlier this year, they approached me to ask if this Legislature would vote to make California the first state in the country to recognize Transgender History Month. I believe that Californians are strongest in our defense against this agenda to erase trans people, their identity, their history is to tell the truth.

To tell the truth about trans people and to lift up the history of transgender Californians who left their mark on our great state and made it stronger and more inclusive for all of us. Please join me in voting to name August, the first statewide Transgender History Month in the nation and continue our work to protect and support all of our residents and their identity and their well being. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Haney. Assemblymember Zbur, you are recognized.

Madam speaker, Members, I rise in strong support of HR 57 and want to thank my colleague from San Francisco for bringing this important and historic resolution that would result in August being designated as Transgender History Month in the state of California. Transgender people are all around us. There are family Members, and I have trans-members in my family. They are coworkers, they are our neighbors. And as my colleague mentioned, they were at the forefront of the LGBTQ civil rights movement.

A lot of us focus on Stonewall as the genesis of our civil rights movement. There were trans people who were leading that movement. But even before that, right here in the state of California, the Compton Cafeteria riots occurred before that, and that was really a protest that was led by Members of the transgender community. And LGBTQ people, but primarily transgender people who really had faced violence and discrimination and continue to face that violence and discrimination today.

And as we've seen an uptick in that violence and targeting our transgender neighbors and our transgender kids in our schools, I think it's particularly important and appropriate that we stand with the transgender community that we designate the month of August as Transgender History Month. It's important for people to learn about the community, because learning, as we know about our community, results in acceptance, because transgender people are like everyone else. They go to work every day, they go to home every night and sleep in their beds.

They have families, they have loved ones, they love other people. And this is just a really important resolution, and I strongly urge your aye vote and again want to thank my colleague from San Francisco for bringing it today.

Thank you. Assemblymember Zubr. Assemblymember Wilson, you are recognized.

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker and Members. I am happy to rise and speak in support of HR 57, which recognizes Transgender History Awareness Month. Thank you to my colleague from San Francisco for bringing this important resolution forward. It is important to realize the history of transgender people to help push back against the rise in hate crimes and violence against the transgender community, as it was stated, it is commonly and inaccurately noted that this community is somehow new to human history.

Transgender people have existed throughout our history, and we should not erase the many contributions made by this community. In particular, as chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, I'd like to bring up the contributions made by black transgender women, particularly surrounded the Compton's Cafeteria riot of 1966, which was just noted by my colleague from West Hollywood. This riot that was given in August, such significance to the trans this particular riot, which happened in August, has such significance to the transgender community.

And while this event was a turning point, as it was the first large-scale act of resistance against harassment from police, it should also be emphasized that this has followed by further acts of resistance such as Sir Lady Java, a black performer who filed the first anti-trans employment discrimination lawsuit in the country in 1969 when she protested her firing from the Red Fox nightclub, leading ultimately to the overturning of many anti-drug ordinances.

And while there are many contributions and important dates in history between then and now, I think we can all continue to recognize the environment we are in today and to realize the importance of resolutions like this that push back against the eraser of history amongst vulnerable communities. I think about my own son that during his coming of age, there wasn't the same concerted level of attacks towards the trans community as there is today.

So he was happy to live a normal life, reaping the benefits of all the hard work that happened before him. Now, with the level of attacks. He's out front and he's learning more about his community's history every single day. It is important that we, as the legislative body, ensure that we know that trans youth know that the contributions of the transgender community cannot be erased. Their history is our history. I respectfully ask for your support of HR 57.

Seeing no further discussion or debate. Assemblymember Haney, would you like to close?

I want to thank both of my colleagues and to all of you for all you have done to make sure that we act on our commitment to support all of our residents, including our transgender residents, and all of the policies that you've passed. This body has been on the forefront of protecting our transgender residents. And this will be another important, historic step that we take as a body and as a state. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Haney. Clerk will open the roll. This is for co-authors. Members, this is for co-authors. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. This is for co-authors. Clerk can close the roll. 56 co-authors will have a voice vote for the amendment for the resolution. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose seeing none, the resolution is adopted.

On behalf of Assemblymember Haney, please welcome his guests in the gallery in honor of Transgender History Month. They are Honey Mahogany, Gabby Burgos, Jupiter Pareza, Brianna McCree, and Carlo Gomez Ortega. All of. And to all the other guests that are up in the gallery, welcome to the California State Assembly. Sorry, you're out of order.

All right, Members, we are going to take up a set of amendments. We're going to go through these real quick, so I really need to hear those ayes. Starting with item number 79, SB 341. The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 341 with amendments by Assemblymember Ward.

Assemblymember Ward. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to present Technical Amendments. SB 341 need to be adopted to facilitate subsequent chaptering out amendments. Respectfully request your aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item without objection, we will take a voice vote. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the measure passes, the Bill goes out to print. Moving on to item number 98, SB 90. The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 90 with amendments by Assemblymember Weber.

Assemblymember Weber, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I rise to present amendment to Senate Bill 90, the Insulin Affordability Act, on behalf of Senator Weiner. The amendments are technical and assistance from the Department of Justice, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, without objection, we will go ahead and take a voice vote on this. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the measure passes. This goes out to print. Moving on to item number 107, SB 704.

The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 704 with amendments by Assemblymember Pellerin.

Assemblymember Pellerin, you may open.

Thank you. I have amendments today for SB 704 by Min. They are technical and clarifying amendments to remove outdated oil and gas policies and add policies promoting offshore wind energy deployment. There's no opposition. I ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Opposed, the ayes have it, the measure passes. This is back to print. Moving on to item number 123 SB 890.

The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 890 with amendments by Assemblymember Irwin.

Assemblymember Irwin, you may open.

Thank you. SB 890 is a Senate and Governance Finance Committee's annual property tax omnibus Bill which updates references in property tax law to reflect the enactment of SB 53 Nine, which implemented Proposition 19. The amendments make two additional technical changes specifically to address an incorrect cross reference and make a grammatical change. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, we'll go ahead and take a voice of votes. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the measure passes. Back to print. We are moving on to item number 133, SB 67.

The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 67 with amendments by Assemblymember Waldron.

Assemblymember Waldron, you may open. Thank you.

Madam Speaker and Members, I rise to present amendments to SB 67 by Senator Seyarto. These amendments simply extend from 72 hours to 120 hours, the time that the coroner or medical examiner has to report an overdose death. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your support on these amendments. And the Bill go back out to print and back on file.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote. Without objection, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it that Bill is back to print. Moving on to item number one 40, SB 234.

The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 234 with amendments by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.

Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. You may open.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I rise today to present amendments to SB 234 on behalf of Senator Portantino. The amendments are technical in nature, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, without objection, we will take a voice vote. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Thank you. Opposed? Seeing none, the measure passes back on prints. Moving on to item number 153, SB 311.

Senate Bill 311 with amendments by Assemblymember Wood.

The Clerk will read

Dr. Wood, you may open.

Thank you. Madam speaker, these amendments incorporate technical assistance from the Department of Healthcare Services. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on the amendments.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the measure passes, the amendments are adopted. Moving on to and it's back out to print. Moving on. We're going to pass and retain item 159, SB 350. Moving on to item number 168, SB 416. The Clerk will read.

The Senate Bill 416 with amendments by Assemblymember Friedman.

Assemblymember Friedman, you may open.

Thank you. Ms. Speaker and Members, I rise on behalf of Senator Laird to present amendments to SB 416. The amendments remove rainwater management requirements, provide off ramp for state agencies to meet the conditions of the Bill, and accurately define the term major renovations. There is no opposition to these amendments. Thank you for your time. And I request that the amendments be adopted. They'll go back out on print and place back on the file.

Thank you. Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the amendments are adopted, and we are back on file. Item number 173, SB 43.

The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 433 with amendments by Assemblymember McKinnor.

Madam Speaker, I rise to present amendments by Senator Cortese. Current law allows classified employees in K-12 districts. Five days to request an appeal hearing after a disciplinary decision. The amendments increase this to 30 days to match the process for K-12 teachers. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Assemblymember McKinnor, you may open.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item without objection, we will take a voice vote. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Amendments are adopted and we are back on file. Moving on to item number 192, SB 548.

The Clerk will read.

The Senate Bill 548 with amendments by Assemblymember Joe Patterson.

Assemblymember Joe Patterson. You may open.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I'm here to present amendments to SB 548 by Senator Niello. The amendments are mostly technical and I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item without objection, we will take a voice vote. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Oppose. The ayes have it. The amendments are adopted. We are back on file. Moving on to item number 211, SB 671. The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 671 with amendments by Assemblymember Rubio.

Assemblymember Rubio, you may open.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to present amendments to SB 671 on behalf of Senator Portantino. These reinstate language regarding appeals heard by the Board of Education. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item without objection, we will take a voice vote. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendments are adopted. We are back on file. Moving on to file.

Item number 253, SB 97. The Clerk will read.

The Senate Bill 97 with amendments by Assemblymember Holden.

Assemblymember Holden, you may open.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, today I rise to present technical amendments to SB 97 on behalf of Senator Wiener. Following discussions with the Judicial Council, the amendments removed the word plea from the new evidence definition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote. All those in favor, indicate by seeing aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Amendments are adopted. We're back on fire. We're going to move back to file. Item number 159, SB 350.

The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 350 by Senator Ashby an act relating to people attendance.

Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, you may open.

Good afternoon. Madam Speaker, today I rise to present floor amendments for SB 350 on behalf of Senator Ashby. These amendments clarify the author's intent and address chaptering out issues. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, we'll go ahead and take a voice votes. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Amendments are adopted ahead and back on file.

Members, please return to your seats. Please return to the floor. Members, without objection, we will return to motions and resolution to allow Majority Leader to make a motion. Mr. Majority Leader. You are recognized.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to suspend Joint Rule 62 A, the file notice requirement to allow the Appropriations Committee to hear SB 35 Umburg and SB 799 Portantino tomorrow, Thursday, September 7 at 09:30 A.M. in Swing Space, room 1100, without objection.

Such shall be the order.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to suspend Assembly rule 69 D, the one day waiting period, to allow Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry to take up item 65 ACA 1.

Seconded by Assembly Member Hart. this procedural motion is not debatable. The majority leader is asking for an aye vote.

We object.

The Clerk will open the roll. Members, this takes 41 votes. All those vote who desire to vote. Mr. Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote. Mr. Flora is asking for a no vote. The majority leader is asking for an aye vote. Mr. Flora is asking for a no vote. The majority leader is asking for an aye vote. Mr. Flora is asking for a no vote. All Members vote to desire to vote. All Members vote who desire to vote. The Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 50, no 16. The motion carry the roll is suspended. Members, we will now go to item number 65, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.

The Clerk will read.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry and others, an act relating to local finance.

Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. You may open.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I rise to present ACA One, a legislative initiative which will simply ask the voters, the state's voters, if they would lower the necessary vote threshold for local affordable housing and infrastructure projects from two thirds to a 55% supermajority. This is the same vote threshold approved by California voters for local school construction bonds.

This measure will permit Members, let me repeat permit local governments who have lost critical tools like redevelopment, to place before local voters a local measure to address the numerous public infrastructure challenges cities, counties and special districts are facing today. State and federal funds alone will never be able to Fund every local infrastructure priority.

The current system actually forces local governments to come to the state for bonds and taxes paid for every taxpayer around the state, paid by every taxpayer around the state, rather than a community which chooses to make investments on their own. We are asking our communities to take responsibility for building new, affordable and supportive housing, provide for public safety, and reduce the number of unhoused people on the street on top of new and increasing infrastructure needs caused by decades of neglect.

More importantly, we know that voters want fiscal accountability. They want transparency. They want oversight. ACA One provides even more accountability measures than previous versions. The initiative requires a specific expenditure plan, a Citizens Commission to oversee expenditures, and an annual performance and fiscal audits. It also prohibits local General administrative costs from being paid for by ACA One initiatives. And coming out of Appropriations Committee last week.

Members, we added a series of measures a cap on administrative expenses at 5%, a financial training requirement for Members of the Citizens Committee, a Bureau of State audits review of local audits, a review that all proceeds be spent serving the community, approving the local measure and a requirement that all funds be committed to the projects and the local initiative before another ACA. One initiative can be proposed by local to local voters. Members, ACA One is about local investment. It's about local jobs. It's about local control.

But don't buy the false choice that we can somehow provide for our community's infrastructure needs and meet the housing crisis and shelter the unhoused and provide for public safety for free.

It is simply disingenuous to say you support solutions to these problems, but oppose state taxes and bonds, oppose developer fees, oppose upland citizens initiatives that can approve the same types of projects at 50% with no accountability measures, and oppose General taxes at 50% with no list of expenditures, no limits on administrative costs, and no audits or citizens oversight. No to everything. No to everything. It's not a public policy position. It's just not. I ask for your aye vote.

Assembly Member Bennett, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the Members of this Assembly one question. When should one person's no vote count to counteract two people's yes vote? And I would offer in America, that should only happen in the rarest of circumstances to protect the minority from the majority, to protect the minority's right to free speech or their freedom of religion. But should that happen if 65% of the people in a community want to finance public housing or affordable housing for the workforce people in their community?

If 65% of the people want to finance that with a bond like we do with our houses and a mortgage? Why should 35% of the people be able to counter that for something that is simply a community decision to be made out there? Please, I encourage everyone to vote aye on this particular measure. And let's let the citizens of California make the final decision about when one vote should be allowed to counter two votes. Thank you very much.

Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized.

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker and Members. I rise as a proud co author of ACA One. I came to the Assembly single, focused on quality of life. And one aspect of that for me, just from my background in housing, was housing production. We have an issue. We have a housing crisis in this great state of ours, and a big portion of that is related to production. We can't have housing production without infrastructure. And this is what ACA One allows for.

It allows local communities to determine whether they want to tax themselves or put a bond for themselves so that they can Fund infrastructure which will in turn produce housing. It is essential to let our local communities determine their own future by voting aye on this ACA and giving it to the voters, to society.

Thank you, Assembly Member Addis, you may open. I'm sorry. You are recognized.

Members, I rise as a co author, a former City Council Member, and a strong supporter of ACA One. ACA One will allow us to give local governments the tools they need to maintain local control, to create local investment, and to create local jobs. We are witnessing over and over again that a two thirds supermajority threshold is too high to make local initiatives attainable in our districts, thereby leaving local solutions on the table.

ACA One provides a valuable tool to our local government partners to help them decide how best to serve their communities, leveling the playing field for our cities, for our counties, and for our special districts. So, Members, I respectfully ask for your Ivote.

Assemblymember Haney. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I also rise as a proud co author and former Member of a Board of Supervisors in the city and county of San Francisco. I think if there's one thing that we would all agree on here, whether moderate, progressive, Republican, Democrat, it's that this Legislature is not going to be able to solve every single problem in our state. We're not going to be able to fund every single need that our residents are facing.

We're not going to be able to ourselves, fix every problem that needs to be fixed. And for that reason, we have to give the tools to people across the state to be able to confront those challenges themselves. We're going to do our part. We're going to fund housing. We're going to fund infrastructure. We're going to fund climate response. But we also have to make sure that people in local communities have the ability, through the democratic process, to do that themselves.

We have asked our state and actually required our state to build over a million units of affordable housing over the next eight years. We've said that we need everyone to step up on infrastructure. We're facing wildfires and unprecedented climate challenges. In order for that to happen, we need to make sure that the democratic process can work.

And if at the local level you're going to require 66.6% just to pass a measure, 63% of people say they want to Fund infrastructure projects, and we say, no, that's not enough. It is untenable that we're going to be able to meet the challenges that we're facing, particularly on housing and climate. And so this might be, in many ways, one of the most important things that we do and the most democratic thing we do give the power to the people to confront their problems and challenges. And with that. I hope that we can stand together in this and thank my colleague from Winters and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Assembly Member Juan Carrillo. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I rise today in strong support of ACA One and as someone who has dedicated the majority of my professional life to serving in local governments for nearly two decades. I work as a City planner in different cities within our great state. My experience working directly with local governments has provided me with a unique perspective on inner workings of community development and the critical role that funding plays in shaping our cities and towns.

I have witnessed firsthand the struggles of families trying to secure affordable housing and I've seen our infrastructure deteriorate due to limited resources. The proposal, as I've seen it, addresses the very issues that have kept me up at night during my years as a city planner. It recognizes the importance of empowering local governments to take meaningful action and provides a mechanism for voters to make decisions that will directly impact their own communities.

As someone who has seen the diverse needs and challenges of our cities, large and small, I can attest to the fact that there is no one size fits all solution. ACA One acknowledges this reality by allowing local governments to tailor their responses to their unique needs of their communities. The flexibility is invaluable in addressing the complex housing and infrastructure issues that vary from place to place. Moreover, the proposal's commitment to accountability aligns perfectly with the principles I upheld throughout my career.

It ensures that funds raised through these measures are utilized efficiently and effectively, fulfilling the promises made to voters. In essence, ACA One is not just a policy proposal. To me, it is a testament to the belief that local communities like the ones I had the privilege of working with, should have the autonomy and resources needed to create thriving, sustainable and inclusive environments for their residents. Perhaps more importantly, ACA One puts a decision making power in the hands of the people.

By requiring voters approval for these measures, we ensure that our constituents have a say in how their communities develop. I want to thank Speaker Pro Tem Aguiar-Curry for bringing this measure forward and I ask for your vote. Thank you.

Assembly Member Ward. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I wanted to rise also. Like many of you coming from local government, having served on our city council, I want to applaud and thank our colleague from Winters for leading on this effort for multiple sessions now, because from coming from local government, we have been trying to answer the call of our constituents, which is to do more to provide that critical infrastructure and that housing.

And I had those own experiences where we tried to put forward a bond which got the support of the majority of the voters. In fact, we got to 57%, which is pretty great. And I'm proud of San Diego voters, but it wasn't enough under the current systems. And of course, we heard much testimony from other local officials. Now that would get upwards of 65% of that vote.

To our colleague from Ventura's point, how can two people's yes vote, not two people's yes vote be supplanted by one person's no vote? There's an inherent undemocratic imbalance here. And the good news is that we already have precedent that's been adopted by the voters in the year 2000 for school facilities. We believe that 55% for bonds is an appropriate level of support that would be able to move that question forward.

So we're asking that we actually answer our constituents calls by helping local governments who want to step up and who want to do more to be able to provide for their local electorates with the critical infrastructure and housing that they so desperately need. Let's send this to the voters. And I respectfully request as a co author, your support on ACA One.

Assembly Member Hart, you are recognized.

I rise today as a co author and strong supporter of ACA One. Our local governments face tremendous challenging invest challenges, investing in infrastructure, addressing climate change, and building housing that's needed by all the residents of California. ACA One is an important tool that local governments need to help improve the quality of life for our constituents and to boost our economies. This measure does not change the voting threshold or raise taxes.

ACA One simply allows the voters to decide if this financing tool should be available in 2016. In San Luis Bispo County, the regional transportation sales tax measure failed with 66.3% of the vote. How is that right? I urge your support for ACA One.

Assembly Member Vince Fong. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I rise in strong opposition to ACA. One. Let me be the voice for California taxpayers. This constitutional amendment debases the protections taxpayers are guaranteed by Proposition 13. Make no mistake about it, this Bill makes it easier to pass and raise taxes in California.

The two thirds requirement has been in the California Constitution since 1879, the same year the state constitution was ratified. Proposition 13 has been a line in the sand protecting families and homeowners against tax increases. This threshold has been upheld three times: the ratification of the state constitution, proposition 13 in 1978, and again in 1996 with Proposition 218.

One of the first things the founders of this state did was guarantee a higher vote threshold to protect against excessive debt, a debt that is borne by property owners in this state. Affordability in California is crumbling. We hear it every single day from our constituents. And this measure would kick the chair out from under families that are already on their last leg. Members, I urge a no vote.

Assembly Member. Dixon, you recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Members, I too rise in opposition to ACA one. As we've just heard, ACA one erodes key taxpayer safeguards, protecting taxpayers for over 40 years through the enactment of Prop 13. The effects of enacting ACA One will further chip away at the property tax protections that our state has enshrined since 1978.

The Orange County Register editorial board published an editorial on July 16 saying, AC One would make it easy, quote, make it easier for local governments to take more of your money. And that's exactly right. When I hear people speak about Members speak about two thirds vote, there's a reason two thirds vote is to keep the government from taking too much of your money. We forget what happens when you tax businesses, when you tax property owners through the increase in their property taxes.

Who pays for that? Business doesn't pay that. Who pays for that? The consumer pays for those costs of doing business. The cost of doing business imposed on because of higher property taxes. The consumer pays for that. So we're just loading up more and more and more onto the backs of people who cannot afford it and are leaving the state in numbers and for small business as well. So their property landlord to a small business owner, a restaurant, a shoe store, a hair salon is going to pay higher rent.

Now, we all say we need affordable housing. I too have my local government hat on, and my job as a City council person for eight years was to protect our local citizens. If they want to be taxed higher, there should be a higher tax threshold of two thirds vote that's been enshrined in our country, in our state for decades. And it should be harder to tax people. Otherwise, it's just willy, willy, willy nilly.

The real fundamental, the elephant in the room on affordable housing, as we all know, is CEQA, just by passing a bond measure is not going to magically appear new housing. CEQA is--there are developments throughout this state that housing developments, affordable housing developments that are waiting to be ratified or settled through court lawsuits.

There's one up north, Los Angeles County, that has 25,000 affordable homes that have been pending approval and challenges through sequa for 20 years. That is the real problem, ladies and gentlemen.

It truly is. Why are we ignoring sequa? And we could build more affordable housing in every community by stripping away the ecosystem that relies on CEQA challenges in the courts through lawsuits and nonprofit organizations that are forever challenging development. Let's get CEQA cleared up and we can start building homes.

Let's not put it on the backs of our taxpayers. Let the people decide. I absolutely agree. But let's require a two third supermajority vote. That's how our system has always worked. I don't know why it's so easy to tax other people's money. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Thank you very much.

Assembly Member Papan. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to be a proud co author of this Bill for two reasons. Number one is it provides a tool to local government. When I was a council Member in the largest city in my district, I can't tell you how many times a state came at local government with a stick, build more housing. Well, first of all, cities don't build. But one thing they can do is they can provide the infrastructure that's necessary to build.

This Bill allows the tool for us to make infrastructure easier to build. So number one is it gives us a tool. A lot of times, we had things where we had our hands tied behind our back. The tool is necessary. The second reason why I support this Bill is because it's democracy at its finest. It should be, with due respect to our Republican colleagues, it should be that a majority, a simple majority, can decide on our infrastructure because we all share in that infrastructure.

So I firmly believe we all got to pay for it, but we're all going to benefit from it. So those are the two reasons that I really do. As a former local steward and somebody that's now at the state, I believe in this Bill because the infrastructure has been necessary. The state always came at us with a stick. Let's give local government the tools that it needs.

Assembly Member Wendy Carillo, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. I rise as a proud co author in strong support of ACA One. I think local control is the best way to move forward with building and housing that's much needed. I want to just bring it back to people. The latest homelessness count in LA County showed that the Latino community is actually the most unhoused population, with an increase up to 44% of the community being unhoused.

Meaning our community is being displaced by the lack of affordable housing, the lack of senior housing, the lack of market rate housing, the lack of mixed use housing, the lack of veteran housing, the lack of senior housing. In an effort for us to be able to relieve ourselves of this crisis, we must turn it back to the voters. And I have overwhelmingly heard voters say housing is a human right.

So the only way that we move that forward is by ensuring that our local cities have the ability to build and create and ensure that our residents and our communities have access to the resources necessary to build. In addition, the largest and overrepresented community of unhoused residents are black Californians.

We cannot continue to say that we believe that housing is a human right when at the same time, we stop local cities from being able to access the majority of the voters who say build and build affordable housing as soon as possible, I respectfully request an aye vote on ACA One. Thank you.

Assemblymember Jim Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The voters, the people have already spoken on this kind of threshold over and over and over again. So let's put to rest this whole notion that we're doing the people of California some kind of a favor. Also, we have heard it said that somehow having a two thirds threshold is having no protection for the minorities because of the majority folks.

That's exactly what the threshold does when you give power to the government to reach into your pocketbook and you do it with a bare majority, or what we're looking at here, what it does is it denies the ability of the small group whose pockets are getting reached into. And there is a reason why this has been popular and why efforts to repeal or change Proposition 13.

I want to also say something about the nature of local government. I came from local government, mayor of Fresno for eight years and we dealt with a lot of two thirds majority. We have Measure C, which is a terrific transportation tax, and it's been approved over and over again. And we are the fifth largest city in the state of California and we don't have the traffic that these other big cities have because we're a self help county.

So don't tell me that you can't get the people's work done if you're asking them to vote two thirds, what does that do? It requires then government to demonstrate the overwhelming popularity of an idea for which they would like to have a tax. And that's why the two thirds is a threshold that says the people don't just by a mere slim majority think this is a good idea. They think it's a good idea overwhelmingly.

And that's why I think it has been a popular threshold and should not be tampered with. So if we're concerned about governments ability to do the kinds of things that they want to do by continually reducing the threshold, who's going to bring the next Bill to reduce that threshold of 45%? I mean, I'm being a little bit facetious here, but the voters have spoken over and over. And here is sort of this backdoor around behind the scenes effort at attacking Proposition 13.

Make no mistake about it, you're touching the third rail in California. There will be a political price to pay here. Because the people have understood that there is an insatiable appetite for taxing and spending, and they have righteously set the standard high in order for those of us who would. Like to see a taxation, have to reach a very large threshold because that means we got to work real hard to demonstrate it's the right thing to do, to have protections, to have oversight, to take that taxation and trustworthy in its use.

And so I don't think this is particularly a good idea. I think you're touching a third rail that I think has political ramifications here. And I think that you're fooling yourself if you think you're somehow protecting a minority here from taxation. 50 seconds on the clock. Again, the point being, if you're going to reach into the bank accounts of Californians, don't do it with a mere 51%. That sounds kind of nice. No, there's a reason why we put the threshold high. We put the threshold high to protect people against the tyranny of a few.

Assembly Member Gipson, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and Members. I rise today as the principal co and strong support of ACA One, which has been brought before us today by my colleague from Winters. I want to thank my colleagues, my colleague from Winters for bringing AC One before us. Simply proposed to level the playing field so that local government, where I come from, I served almost nearly ten years on the Carson City Council. It provides a viable financial financing tool to address community needs.

It will also reduce the voter threshold from, as we said, two thirds from a supermajority to a majority of 55% approval by local General obligations. This measure will enable local government to address local concerns without waiting on federal and state funds or initiatives to do so. Local government and the voters will benefit from this particular ACA. And I've heard many of us on this floor talk about where we come from in terms of local government, border supervisors and things of that nature.

When this body before we got here, took away remember this took away redevelopment. It devastated all of our communities. It devastated all of our communities. And now we're trying to fight our way back. We're absolutely trying to fight our way back because we've seen the disenfranchisement when it comes down to redevelopment, being stripped away by this body. And now we talk about local control. And they were giving local control back because they have their hand on the pulse of our communities, because they're there.

Our local officials, city council Members, school board Members, county board and supervisors, they see it every single day. And so this measure before us today, and if I heard the rhetoric, this measure goes before the voters. The voters would do what they did when they put a two thirds vote on the ballot and voted and said, this is what we want.

All we're saying with this ACA is putting it back to the voters and making sure that local control have its voice, its right in our community. Also understand this. We have a housing crisis in this state, if you had not noticed. People are struggling here in California, which is a very expensive place to live. And all of also, we all know that, right?

We have to make sure that there is ability so people can call a dwelling their place of home because there's no place like home. And it's our responsibility and obligation to one to making sure that local control is back at the local level so they can make decisions. So I strongly ask for an aye vote on ACA One.

Assembly Member Mathis, you're recognized.

Thank you. Madam speaker. Members, let's get real. You all want to talk about housing crisis and in the same sentence, you're talking about taxing people out of their houses. Let's be real about what this is. We have a massive inflation issue in this state and in this country. It's bringing the cost of everything up. Making it easier to pass a tax is not going to help that. It's not going to help reduce the cost of living, which is the problem.

Talked about this a couple of weeks ago. People are literally killing themselves because they can't afford it. People are moving out of this state because they cannot afford it. We've lost a congressional seat because of know Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. We're in a budget deficit. Y'all run out of other people's money because the people left.

And now you got to tax those that are left here to cover the programs that you want to spend on. Let's be real about it. If we are ever going to take care of the people that you all claim you want to take care of, you want to take care of the housing crisis, you want to take care of everything else, lower that cost. We have measures in front of us on energy, on housing, on environmental concerns, on health care, on insurance, on public safety.

All of these costs stack up. What are we doing as a body to lower that cost? So when people that are starting out going to college and they're sitting at the table trying to figure out their bills, how are we helping that person? How are we helping out those families, the single moms, the single dads, the grandparents raising grandkids who are trying to get their bills paid, how does this help them? Another tax that doesn't help. Vote no.

Assembly Member Berman, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and colleagues. A lot has been said and it's hard to begin on where to kind of respond. But one thing that was said in today's debate was that voters have voted on this over and over and over again. I've been voting for 25 years. I've never voted on this. The last time it was voted on was 1996. I was 16 years old. Before that, it was 1978. So if you were born in 1960 or before, you got to vote on that.

But there are two generations of voters since then. There's a generation of voters since 1978 who have not had or since 1996 who have not had their voice heard on this issue. And it was kind of facetiously said maybe we should lower it to 45%, meaning that 45% of voters would dictate to 55% of voters. But the way it is now, 34% of voters dictate to 66%. So it's not facetious. It's the reality. The reality is that a super minority.

Of voters dictate to a supermajority of voters. Now, this still maintains a supermajority of voters. It still maintains a 55% threshold for communities to Fund projects, affordable housing, libraries, other projects that they want to improve their community still a supermajority. And there are numerous things that have been added with historic accountability measures to protect voters and keep local governments fiscally responsible and accountable to their communities.

But what we want to do here is allow the last generation of voters to have their voice heard, to let me have my voice heard on this issue. We're putting this to the voters. That's why I'm proud to be a joint author of ACA One, and I strongly encourage everybody to vote aye on ACA One today. Thank you.

Assembly Member Wicks, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. I rise as a proud joint author, and I want to commend my colleague from Winters for her tenacity in driving this issue every year since I've been in the Legislature. Last weekend, I went into the backyard, and my six year old was having an election, and she had all her little lovies lined up, and it was a vote. And I talked to her about majority rule and the idea that whoever got the most votes won.

She had two candidates, and she was going through and putting one in each camp. I think Mrs. Sparkles, the unicorn kitty, won ultimately with, like, a six-five vote, and she understood the concept of majority rule, and yet here we are debating its validity on the floor of this body. And if my six year old can understand that if a majority of the people want something, then that democracy shall have it, how come we can't?

And I didn't have the heart to tell her that we're debating this in the floor of the Assembly right now. And I didn't have the heart to tell her that last cycle in the city of Berkeley, which I represent, a $650,000,000 bond was on the ballot, and it won 59%. But yet it failed. So that means $650,000,000 that would go to affordable housing in my community. A community that wants it, 59% of the people want it, will not exist. How is that fair?

How is that a democracy? And to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, one my colleague from Orange County, I look forward to working with you on CEQA reform. We can work on that together. Sign me up. That's an issue we have to confront. I'm with you, but it goes beyond that. Our local communities need these funds. Our cities are asking for this.

Sometimes you don't see me on the same side of the League of Cities, but I am proud to stand with the League of Cities today to support this measure. And I bet for most of you, your cities have submitted letters of support because they want the tools to be successful. Labor leaders, YIMBY, League of Cities--it's a diverse coalition of the willing here trying to solve this problem. We know that we need more resources.

To my colleague from Bakersfield, let me be very perfectly clear: This has nothing to do with Prop 13. Absolutely nothing to do with Prop 13. What this measure does. If we pass it today and goes to the Senate and passes there, it will go on the ballot for voters to decide if they support the idea of reducing the threshold from two thirds not to a, quote, mere majority, as our colleague from Fresno said, but actually a 55% threshold which matches our school bonds.

So that's what we're talking about here. It's fair. It's democratic. If my six year old can understand this concept, I ask that you stand with her today so that we can have the housing and the infrastructure and support our fire and police and our water management and support this measure. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. Would you like to close?

Members, this is a legislative initiative that will simply ask the state's voters if they would lower the necessary vote threshold for local affordable housing and infrastructure projects from two thirds to 55%. That's what we're asking. It goes to the voters. Hopefully, we'll have them in the fall and let the voters decide.

As I said before, the problem with my opponent's position is that they offered the false premise that you can create housing without water, without utilities and roads, that you can house homeless with no public investment, that you can improve public safety without police and fire stations. I happen to believe that the best way to solve these problems is through a local process between local officials and their constituents who are the best suited to know what's most needed in their neighborhoods.

What I ask today is to give California voters a chance to weigh in. What I ask today is simply to give our state's local officials to choose whether they can even want to propose such a local initiative to their voters. Members, I simply ask for your aye vote.

Members, this is a 54 vote. The Clerk will open the roll. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. This is a 54 vote.

Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry moves the call. We're going to go ahead and move to item number 247, SB 58 The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 58 by Senator Wiener and others in accolading the controlled substances.

Assemblymember Wilson, you may open.

Well, good evening, Madam Speaker and Members. I rise today to present Senate Bill 58 on behalf of Senator Weiner, which will, on January 1, 2025, remove criminal penalties for the possession and personal use only of limited amounts of three naturally occurring psychedelic substances for people 21 years or older. SB 58 also convenes a workgroup led by the HHS Agency to work on recommendations for a framework that would govern a possible future therapeutic program in California.

SB 58 is a much narrower version than the previous iteration of this Bill. It has now been fully vetted in seven policy committees over the course of three years and enjoys bipartisan support. The Bill no longer includes synthetic substances or analogues and includes strict quantity limits to ensure that these naturally occurring substances are for personal use only. Let me be clear no other criminal provisions are changed in this Bill.

Recent amendments delay implementation until after the HSS Working Group completes their work, remove transfer provisions, and reduce the quantity limits. Narrow the list of substances and clarify that this Bill does not include any synthetic analogs. The substances listed in this Bill are non-addictive, are useful for treating other substance use disorders, and a range of difficult-to-treat mental health conditions. They have a high safety profile and have been used in their naturally occurring forms for millennia on this continent.

California is not breaking new ground by passing this Bill. Many other countries, several states, and a growing list of municipalities all over the country have moved in this direction. SB 58 is sponsored by Heroic Hearts Project, a veteran service organization that works with combat veterans to ensure they have effective access to mental health treatment. This piece is extremely important to me, as I've witnessed firsthand the damaging effects of PTSD have had on our military families.

And many of you have heard the stories from even our current Assembly Members who've served in combat on the floor. And veterans deserve every single option available to them to ensure they can thrive mentally and successfully re-engage the communities they have sacrificed to serve. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Assemblymember Lowenthal, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. Today I'm very pleased to rise in support of SB 58, a Bill that will help Californians who are suffering with mental health issues such as PTSD, by decriminalizing the possession for personal use of specified psychedelic substances such as psilocybin. Members, as a principal co author of this Bill, the most important thing I want to say is how proud I am of those of you who are thinking creatively and clearly and listening to what the public wants.

I specifically want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as this is truly a bipartisan effort to give relief to our heroes. It's not easy to do this. And why is that? Psilocybin is a schedule one drug. Do we know what a Schedule One drug is? A Schedule One drug is a drug that's determined to have no medical or therapeutic benefits, but the scientific community is telling us otherwise. There's growing scientific evidence that psilocybin has tremendous therapeutic benefits.

Clinical research at leading universities such as Johns Hopkins, NYU, UCLA indicate therapeutic use for psychedelic drugs in treating complex mental health issues such as PTSD, treatment resistant depression, and addiction. Who's telling us to support this Bill? Our heroes. Our heroes are telling us to support this Bill. Those who are protecting us, those who are our front lines of defense, those who are going into buildings on fire, those who are suffering the most.

And as we as a chamber address issues of mental health, suicide prevention, and otherwise, are we listening to our heroes? We talk about supporting our troops. Are we supporting our troops? Perception on this issue is changing fast. Colorado and Oregon, of course, have already decriminalized, but cities in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, Washington, DC have taken those steps. And internationally, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain have all decriminalized, and many, many more are in process today.

For these reasons, and for many others Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 58.

Assemblymember Essayli, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To my colleagues, I was not originally going to support this Bill in its original form. I believe it called for widespread recreational use of both synthetic and plant based psychedelics. The Bill has been revised to now be limited to three plant based psychedelics. It has some, I think, reasonable safeguards on it. It's got age requirements, it's got limitations to personal use.

And I think the data is clear that while pharmaceuticals certainly have a benefit to some people, it's not having a benefit on all of society. And I think we can say our approach to mental health in the medical community is not working. I think we're worse off now than we were before. And I think that if there's scientific data, which there is, that suggests these could be promising therapeutics, I think that people deserve an opportunity to seek those and hopefully lead to a better society.

So I support this first step. And I want to be clear, this is a first step. The Legislature will be back next year to discuss the safe distribution and use of these plant based treatments. So with that, I will be supporting this Bill today. Thank you.

Seeing no others wishing to speak on this item, Assemblymember Wilson, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from Long Beach and Corona for speaking and bipartisan support on this Bill, and I'd like to show my appreciation to Senator Wiener for his effort over the last three years to get this to this point. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson. The Clerk will open the roll. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. The Clerk will close the roll. ayes 42, noes eleven. That measure passes. Members, we're going to go to item number 134, SB 69. The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 69 by Senator Cortese and others in accolades to environmental quality.

Assemblymember Boerner, you may open.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. On behalf of Senator Cortese, I'm pleased to present SB 69, which would add transparency to the CEQA notification process. Currently, state agencies have an opportunity to shorten the statute of limitation period for sequa projects. To do so, they must submit notices of determination or exemption to the Office of Planning and Research, or OPR. Then OPR must publicly post these notices to the State Clearinghouse website.

For local agencies to benefit from the shortened limitations periods, they must submit these notices to the County Clerk. The County Clerk will then publicly post these notices on their websites. 58 counties posting to 58 different websites can make these notices difficult to track.

SB. 69 will require all public agencies seeking the shortened limitation period to submit these notices to OPR to be posted on the State Clearinghouse website. This way, all notifications and notices can be found in one place. This Bill is sponsored by the California State Council of Laborers and has labor and environmental support. SB. 69 makes sequin notices of determination and exemption more accessible to the public. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing others wishing to speak on this. Item, the Clerk will open the roll. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. The Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 55. No, zero. The measure passes. Members, we're now going to move to item number 82, SB. 712. The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 712 by Senator Portantino in accolade in Tennessee.

Assemblymember Boerner, you may open.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. SB 712 will prevent landlords from prohibiting tenants from owning personal micro-mobility devices or storing them in their dwelling units unless the landlords provide secure, long-term storage for those devices. This Bill requires a tenant to store a micro-mobility device in compliance with the Office of State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin regarding lithium-ion battery safety.

Electric bicycles represent a revolutionary technology that benefits our climate, human health, and mobility. The batteries help break down the barriers to riding for older people and people with mobility issues. Bill is in line with our state's climate, greenhouse gas reduction goals, and VMT goals as well. It is for these reasons that I request your aye vote.

Seeing others wishing to speak on this. Item the Clerk will open the roll. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. All those votes who desire to vote. The Clerk, the Clerk will close the roll. Aye, 61. No. Zero. The measure passes.

Members, we're going to lift the call on item 65, ACA 1. The Clerk will post. The Clerk will close the roll ayes 55 no ten. The resolution is adopted the it Members, without objection, we will have immediate transmittal to Senate on ACA 1.

Members, we're now going to go to item number 66, ACA 13. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 by Assembly Member Ward and others in accolading the voting

Assemblymember Ward. You may open.

Thank you, madam speaker, Members, ACA 13 is introduced. It's a measure that asks one simple question. If a measure is proposed to raise a voter threshold in our constitution to greater than majority, shouldn't the same proportion of voters agree?

Currently, under California law, any ballot measure approved by a majority of voters could selectively require a future measure to pass with a supermajority or more of the vote. So ACA 13, the protect and retain majority vote act, would retain the majority vote requirement for passage of state and local initiatives by requiring any statewide initiatives seeking to increase a threshold to also be approved by the same higher threshold that it's proposing. We introduced legislation to solve problems.

And what we have seen here is a pattern of abuse of our initiative process to use a comparatively lower threshold, to set higher thresholds forever into the future and worse, we know and it's been reported that this tactic has been used for extracting legislative actions by special interests. So the time is right for the Legislature to reflect a protection that's afforded in the Oregon state constitution since 1998 and adopt ACA 13 to send to the voters for their consideration.

The success of these tactics means that in future elections, questions are decided through a veto pattern of a minority, not the will of the majority. And this is inherently undemocratic. This measure has been characterized as eminently sensible and is very basic. Again, if a measure is proposed to raise a vote threshold to greater than a majority, shouldn't the same level of support be shown by the voters?

We often see this issue paired with revenue questions and make no mistake, raising the voter threshold for local governments without the same level of support of voters jeopardizes their ability to deliver essential services, including funding for schools, public safety, homelessness and housing. But it's not just about a revenue question. You all might remember during our summer recess that Ohio issue one attempted to raise thresholds to thwart a question on reproductive rights. Supermajority votes for local housing policies or citing shelters for homeless individuals have been floated.

Really, any subject could come up. So this measure will protect in our constitution and retain the majority vote for these important questions. It also provides clarity for the rights of local governments to submit an advisory vote to the voters subject to a majority vote to provide feedback on their priorities as they see fit. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote on ACA 13.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ward. Assembly member Pellerin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members. And in adopting the initiative process, in 1911, California voters reserved for the people the right to propose and enact laws through the approval of a majority of the votes cast on a measure. The majority vote requirement is a fundamental part of the initiative process. Unfortunately, some initiative measures have sought to weaken the people's power to enact laws by requiring certain initiatives to receive a supermajority vote to pass.

A simple majority vote at 1.0 in time should not be able to strip a future majority of voters of their ability to enact policies through the initiative process. ACA 13 protects majority rule by ensuring that an initiative measure must comply with any increased supermajority vote requirement that it seeks to impose. And importantly, ACA 13 will become law only if a majority of the California voters approve it.

So I ask for your aye vote to allow California voters to decide whether to protect and retain the majority vote requirement that is the hallmark of the state's initiative process. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Vince Fong, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to ACA 13. Members, direct democracy is a fundamental part of our state, our history and our Constitution. Just because one doesn't like an idea doesn't justify changing the rules. Californians are fed up with the high cost of living in the state, driven by taxes and fees imposed on them from every level of government.

And this Legislature just made it easier to do that, to raise taxes and impose that on Californians and ignoring the will of the people, they've said enough, not only with their voting, but with their feet, leaving in droves to states that are more affordable and safer. Proposition 13 has long been a stronghold for property owners. As I've said before, protecting middle and working class families and homeowners against tax increases.

By requiring taxes to be passed by two thirds votes, the very threshold that we allow and impose on ourselves, ACA 13 strips the power of the people. It blatantly makes it more difficult for taxpayers to protect themselves against tax increases. To add salts to the wound. ACA 13 makes it easier for the government to impose higher taxes. Under this measure, citizen initiated constitutional amendments to protect taxpayers would require a higher vote threshold to pass than any other constitutional amendment.

This is unprecedented and would have prevented Prop 13 from ever becoming law in the first place. This Bill is a direct attack on something an idea like Prop 13. This measure tells taxpayers that their rights are inferior to the whims of the government. The same government that is spending beyond its means and now wants to make it easier to increase taxes or change the rules. Members, you guys have already spent the money. Every single proposal that is imposed taxes.

You've already spent it all before even asking the voters to decide. Proposition 13 and taxpayer protections need to be are sacred and need to be protected. The rights of taxpayers need to be heard, not ignored. I urge you, no vote.

Assemblymember Berman. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and colleagues. At its core, ACA 13 is really simple, and I want to put it into a different kind of couple of contexts because I know we have a lot of diverse colleagues who have diverse backgrounds and interests. So maybe some of my more rural colleagues, farming colleagues, will understand what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Or maybe my colleagues who like sports will understand that if you want to change the rules of the game, you should play by the rules that you're trying to change. That's all that this does. All that ACA 13 does is say, if you want to increase a voter threshold in the future, it should pass by that same voter threshold that you're trying to increase. Isn't that a logical policy to have from a fairness standpoint? Isn't that a fair policy to have?

But the people that are opposed to this are opposed because they're worried that it's going to make it harder to do what this Bill does, to do what this constitutional amendment does. People who are opposed to this want to increase the voter threshold in the future, but they don't want to play by those same rules. They don't want to have to achieve that same voter threshold that they're trying to lock in for things that they don't like.

And I don't know about you all, but for me, that really strikes a chord around fairness, around walking the talk, around doing as you do, not just as you say. And so that's what ACA 13 is trying to accomplish. It's really just saying that if you want to change the rules, you have to play by those rules. It's a very simple concept we all can understand in this body. Proud to be a principal co author of ACA 13 strongly suggest your aye vote today. Thank you.

Assemblymember Davies, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, Members, I unfortunately rise today in opposition to ACA 13. I've heard loud and clear from my constituents that they view this measure as an attack on Proposition 13. ACA 13 violates the letter and the spirit of Prop 13 by making it easier for state and local governments to raise our taxes. Our state already leads the nation in unaffordability due to the high cost of living. This is in large part due to the high taxes we pay at our local level.

I've met with supporters who say this measure is about protecting the ballot initiative process, but that is simply not the case. If we truly want to have reform, let's start with reforming how and why special interests can continuously put identical measures on the ballot that fail each and every time.

Furthermore, this smacks of a power grab by the Legislature by taking away a fundamental and often used tool for voters looking to better control the cost of living and higher taxes is for these reasons I can't support ACA 13, and I ask for a no vote.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Members, I rise in support of ACA 13. And I want to start by being really clear that the misinformation that is out there about this being an attack on Prop 13 is exactly that it's misinformation. I have stood before my constituents year after year and committed to them that I will protect our seniors to stay in their homes. And I know that's a value that most, if not all of us on this floor share.

The largest growing population of homeless individuals in California is our seniors. And so all of us want to keep them housed and will protect their ability to stay in their houses using Prop 13 despite the fact that the cost has gone up. And that would be a problem. And so this has nothing to do with that. What this is is a question of, as my colleague from Palo Alto said, a question of fairness.

And what we have seen across this country, and I really want to hit this point, as it relates to reproductive rights, is the tyranny of the minority. There is no question that in state after state, where the question is put before the voters whether they have a right to access abortion and reproductive rights, the majority says, yes, we want reproductive rights. And yet we've seen folks try to take that away by increasing the threshold on voting measures. And that, my friends, is undemocratic.

And so what we're doing here today is saying, as our colleague from Palo Alto said, we all have to play by these rules. A minority cannot force these to be raised. And we've talked about a supermajority, but there's nothing to stop someone from raising a threshold of 90% to pass something. And so that we cannot allow. And that's what this does. But in addition, it puts the question to the voters.

And I trust that the voters will also agree that a simple majority should matter, should mean something, and that if you want to raise the threshold, you should at least be able to meet that threshold. It's not too much to ask. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Assemblymember Essayli. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the bedrocks of California is Proposition 13, where the voters have said in order to raise taxes, you need a two-thirds approval. You need it both in the Legislature here when we consider tax increases and also when you're asking the voters to raise taxes, it requires two-thirds.

Creative lawyers and government bureaucrats have found loopholes in a Prop 13 to undermine what the voters intended for that proposition to be, which was strong protection for taxpayers because there will never be enough taxes to satisfy the appetite of government, ever. And they knew that. So the taxpayers qualified a ballot initiative for next November to plug those loopholes. So that's what ACA 13 is about. It's a trick. It's a gimmick.

It's a gimmick to put a poison pill into the initiative process before the voters get a say on the taxpayer protection plan that's going to be up for a vote in November. So it's a trick. It will be defeated because I think the public is a lot smarter than we give them credit for. But we will defeat this, and we will continue to fight for taxpayers in California because California is so unaffordable.

Our taxes are so high, highest in the nation, highest gas taxes, highest income taxes, property taxes, through the roof, car registration, hundreds of dollars. I just got my registration for $600. It's too much. We have no more money to give, and we're not going to fall for these tricks. So I will oppose this, and I encourage the people of this state to reject ACA 13 if it makes it to the ballot. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Assemblymember mathis you'll recognize. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Members, here we are once again. What's interesting with these debates is that we hear a lot of talk about democracy. I want to remind you all that we live in a constitutional republic that was designed to protect the minority from the majority. We have these rights. So when you guys change thresholds, the minority is protected. We have these rights built in to make sure that when the majority or mega majority that we're dealing with feels a certain way, people are still protected.

You can make up whatever rhetoric you want about changing the rules of the game. But the purpose of this Constitution, the purpose of California, the purpose of what we do, is to protect the minority voters at their core, to make sure that when a majority decides they want to increase things, when the majority decides they want to change things up, there's a protection. Claiming to change the thresholds isn't helping anybody, but those who are wishing to do it. Vote no.

Assemblymember Joe Patterson. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to ACA 13. If ACA 13 was the law in 1978, proposition 13 would not be the law of the land. That would mean that tax increases on our seniors would be at the whim of a majority vote, local government taxes. And so this is an attack on Proposition 13. But not only that, this is an attack on the spirit of people who wanted to rein in taxes at the local level.

And so what we're doing by passing what you will be doing if ACA 13 passes, is taking away future generations ability to rein in government just like they did in 1978 when they wanted to rein in the taxes of what was happening in the state of California. And we might be getting to that point again. The people of California might be in a position where they feel like their taxes are too much and they're overburdened.

And now the proposal here is to take away their ability to rein in taxes. And by the way, Proposition 13, if ACA would not have passed because it received 62% of the vote, just over 62% of the vote. So what you're saying when you vote to support this is Proposition 13 never should have passed? Because that's exactly what we're doing moving forward, if this pass and is approved by the voters. With that, I ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Members, I stand in support of ACA 13. ACA 13 protects the majority vote. ACA will retain the will of the majority of the voters to make their voices heard. ACA 13 will ensure that Californians have a vote, the majority of that vote. And as I heard one of my colleagues mention, California voters are very intelligent and they're going to see through these artificial facts. So I support ACA 13.

Assemblymember Ortega, you are recognized.

Assemblymember Dixon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I too rise in opposition to ACA 13. I just want to comment on the comments that people, speakers, Members have been making regarding the will of the majority to make a change to the California Constitution. This is available to anybody who wants to look, you could just Google, the US. Constitution provides an amendment to the US constitution, or in our case, a state Constitution.

This is the precedent that was established by our Founding Fathers may be proposed with a two thirds vote majority vote in both Houses of Representatives and a constitutional convention. To approve an amendment to the Constitution requires a three quarters vote of all the states. So this is the precedent that you're trying to change.

And these are protections that our Founding Fathers built into our system and to now ratchet it down from two thirds, which is foundational in our system, our constitutional system, and ratchet it down to 55%. It's a continual change. Changing the Constitution is a big deal. It really is a big deal. And now we're trying to confuse the voters by two thirds majority. If both these measures are on the ballot, it will be very confusing to people.

And actually, I think there's a risk because when voters are confused, they just vote no. So I think you're putting the voters in a precarious position. They'll be confused. They're going to vote no regardless. But I think you should not take the chance, but don't upend our own Constitution of the United States. What was foundational for the California Constitution and the way we operate in a democracy?

A two thirds vote to amend the Constitution or make constitutional changes is required and is a precedent and is historical the way we operate in a democracy. Thank you. And I urge your no vote. Thank you.

Assemblymember Bennett. You are recognized.

I rise to make two points. One, in response to my colleague. The Constitution of the United States, because it had a two-thirds vote requirement in it, also required two-thirds of the states to approve it before we approve the Constitution. So they were willing our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, said we should not require a two-thirds vote in the Constitution unless we are willing to get two-thirds of the states to approve it. That's number one.

And number two, the argument being made here is an argument that the majority should be able to permanently block the majority later from doing something without requiring a two-thirds vote of that majority. So we have people wishing that they could use a majority to permanently lock in a two-thirds requirement on the rest of us for the rest of time. That should at least, just like our Founding Fathers, require a two-thirds vote. Thank you very much.

Minority Leader Gallagher, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam speaker and Members, though I appreciate my colleague trying to demsplain to us farm boys, we all know what's really going on here, right? You all are trying to make it easier to raise taxes. It's that simple. You want to make it easier to raise taxes, and you're trying to game the system to get what you want and to stop the voters from being able to protect themselves against you, all right? Against more taxes coming their way. We all know what's going on.

We don't need explanations, and you can't run away with it. It's no coincidence that this is ACA 13. It's a direct attack on Prop 13, and it's trying to undermine those protections that voters want and need. Look, the problem is not revenue. It's not that you guys don't have enough money. It's not that locals don't have enough money. You've overseen some of the biggest budgets in California history. Our locals have seen some of the biggest budgets in California history. It's how you spend it.

And I love you guys talking about homelessness. Oh, we need to do this for homelessness. You've spent $20 billion only to make the problem worse. The problem is not money. The problem is people don't trust you. They don't trust how you spend the money. And that's why they need these protections. You told us all you increased our gas tax. The people on this floor, many of you, were here that night. I was. A lot of wrangling, a lot of arm wrangling getting Democrats to support that.

But we were going to get better roads at it. Do our voters drive on the best roads in the nation? No. But you all taxed them, and now you want to do it more, and you say, oh, it's for infrastructure. We've heard that before. The voters have heard that before. They're not stupid.

So when you all pass this today, realize you are voting to undermine Prop 13 and the voters will know it, that's what you're putting on the ballot is you want to continue to tax them in getting no results. You talk about oversight. Are you kidding me? You haven't even done an audit on the $20 billion you spent on homelessness. You don't even know if the money that you're spending is actually getting the results. Well, we know it's not.

We know it's not because demonstratedly, we have more homeless now. Texas spent $800 a person in the last ten years. You all have spent $10,000 a person. And they've actually reduced homelessness. California has increased it. That's the problem. The voters don't trust you. They don't trust you when you say, oh yeah, just give us some more money, some more revenue. We'll make sure it goes into infrastructure. We'll make sure that we house people. It hasn't happened. And that's why voters want protections.

That's why they want it to be a high threshold when you go to tax them again. And that's why this measure is completely undemocratic. Didn't you all just get done lecturing us about how two thirds is a bad vote threshold, but you want to impose it on the voters when they want to protect themselves against you and against more taxation. It's the utmost of hypocrisy. Stop gaming the system. Let people vote. We're going to have many initiatives on the ballot. Let people vote.

It's a majority vote. And if people vote once again, as they did with Prop 13, as they did with Prop 218, to protect themselves against higher taxation, that's what they want. Respect it and stop trying to undermine and game the system. Vote no on this. Let's have a fair election where our voters can decide all of these initiatives by majority vote, as we always have.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lackey. You are recognized.

Yeah, just respectfully, I'm clearly in opposition to this proposal, and let me tell you a little bit why I feel that way. I believe that Proposition 13, one of the main tenets and protections that it assured all of us here in the state of California, is the encroachment upon power. You see, I represent a district that has a lot of small communities. A lot of small communities. It's quite large geographically, but we have very small voices.

And I believe the two-thirds provision in our national constitution has to do with the fact that small states needed to be recognized, just like small communities need to be recognized. And so that feels like measures like this one are urban muscle flexes. We have more people than you people out in the weeds. So we're going to just do what we want. And it feels pretty lousy everybody.

And so this is a very sacred measure that protects the voice of smaller communities and requires them to weigh in. And that's why it's two-thirds. And not just a simple majority, not just the high population centers, but the people who live in a different kind of environment than many of you, and. Most of you, actually. And so please respect those of us who have smaller voices because we deserve to be part of this democracy as well. And so I cannot support this measure.

Dr. Weber, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate all of the comments today, but a lot of talk about Prop 13, which I think we're voting on ACA 13 today, not Prop 13. So just want to go back to what many of my colleagues have said that this Bill actually does, which is basically states that if you feel that you want to amend the Constitution to require an increase, not a decrease. So let's get that right because some people were talking about going down to 50% plus one.

This focuses on if you want to increase the voter threshold, then you need to have that same number of voters agree with you. It's not removing anyone's ability to vote to have a voice. It's not focusing more on urban areas versus rural areas. It's basically stating if you want to amend the Constitution to increase the vote, then you need to have that same number of voters agree with you. At least the same number of voters agree with you. So let's vote on ACA 13 and not continue the conversation about Prop 13. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Dr. Weber, seeing no others wishing to speak, Assemblymember Ward, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the robust today and a lot of conversation that we've had around this because it's a real head thinker. It's really got a lot of people talking about they should be talking about what this measure actually does. I agree with some of my colleagues that we are talking about proposing a constitutional amendment. Ultimately, the voters decide, but our Constitution is our sacred guiding document.

And so what is in there informs so many other important things. And how we go about changing that, especially when we're talking about future elections, matters because we are seeing this increased threat. But I invite you to read the measure because it's short and I know sometimes we take a lot of information in.

But just center yourself and look right back at that measure because all it does is says that if we are going to raise a vote threshold to greater than a majority, we should achieve the same proportional vote itself. We have seen measures attempted to qualify, they haven't for the ballot, but that would require an 80% threshold of voters.

And so whatever that is, we want to make sure that you're able to get the same level of support of voters because once that's in the Constitution, it is going to be fundamental and will impact so many things down the line. If you read the measure, you would also say, as many other colleagues have mentioned too, that this has nothing to do with Proposition 13. There's a first question that voters, I think, should be able to answer, and that's what this measure does.

What should the threshold for passage be in this situation? This has nothing to do with Prop 13. And I'll give you an example. There's a real life example out there in my city, in our city, the city of San Diego.

We were under the same attack in our city charter about 20 years ago, where special interests came in there and said, we're going to raise so many things up to two-thirds, and they got enough money for signature gatherers, and they put that out there for a vote. Where our city council then, led by now Pro Tem Atkins, had wisely decided that you know what? That's not fair. That's not actually democratic.

We want to make sure that voters have a chance to decide what the thresholds for passage should be. And the majority of voters agreed. I trust the voters to say that we don't trust them. I absolutely do. And that's why I think this question should go before them. So we put this in our city charter, and those special interests have never tried the same tactics again. And so Proposition 13 is still alive and well in the city of San Diego. That's undisputable.

And all these arguments fall flat. And so I ask you again to center yourself on what this does right before you. It's about fairness and it's about making sure that people that try to amend our guiding document, our state constitution, are upholding for themselves the very same thing that they are asking. And absolutely that's critical for us to consider, because unlike so many of those special interests, we all stood here in this chamber and took an oath to support our Constitution.

And I ask if you're going to do so today. They did not have to take that oath. We took that oath. And so I ask that you pass this to the Senate, that we continue this debate and that we ultimately put this measure before the voters, because who's asking for this? Are your cities? Are your counties? Are your special districts? Are your working families? Are the League of Women Voters? Are those that stand up for good government, that stand up for democracy? And I ask that you stand up for ACA 13 today as well, and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ward. Members. This is a 54 vote. The Clerk will open the roll. All those vote to desire to vote. All those vote to desire to vote, all those vote to desire to vote. The Clerk will close the roll. Ayes 56 noes 19. The resolution is adopted without objection, immediate transmittal of ACA 13 to the Senate.

Members, we're moving to adjournments in memory. Members, the quorum call is lifted. Please take your seats. For those that will stay for our adjournment in memory, please give respectful attention to those who were granted prior permission to speak on adjournment in memory. Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I rise to adjourn in the memory of a local legend in California's 73rd Assembly District. Norma Hertzog, the first woman to serve on the city council in Costa Mesa. The first woman to serve as the city's mayor, Norma was a trailblazer in every sense of the word, and she has left a long lasting impact all across our community. Herzog moved to California from Canada in 1951 and became a US. Citizen in 1960.

An educator Hertzog established Costa Mesa's Mesa Verde Preschool and also owned West Bathe Preschool in the city. Norma ran for City Council in 1974 because she wanted the city to offer more social services in her time on the council, the city of Costa Mesa went on to establish dozens of programs to serve residents of all ages. Hertzog spearheaded the move to bring South Coast Rep theater to Costa Mesa, which was followed by the Segerstrom Performing Arts Center.

Today, the city of Costa Mesa is proudly known as the City of the Arts, something that would never have been possible without Norma's vision. Norma also received national attention as the first woman in Southern California to undergo reconstructive breast surgery after her mastectomy. Her story was featured in national publications and National TV, and Norma went on to do speaking engagements and provide counseling for women battling breast cancer.

In 2014, Norma was honored with the Costa Mesa Mayor's Award, and in 2021, I was honored to be part of the unveiling of the Norma Herzog Community Center. Recognizing her lifetime of service to the city, norma passed away on August 21 at the age of 94 at her home in New Jersey. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Norma's family. She has truly been an inspiration, and I know that she will be an inspiration for generations to come. Members, please join me as we adjourn in the memory of Norma Hertzog.

Thank you Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members, today I rise in memory of EEvie Shepard Gibbs Amlin the mother of my high school friend, Pam Keller. Evie was born on October 30, 1944, in San Bernardino to the late Evelyn Nelson Gibbs and William S. Gibbs. Her formative years were spent in Paris, California, with her parents and younger sister, Mary. Evie's love story began with Howard Lynn Rich, her high school sweetheart. They married shortly after their 1962 graduation.

Howard joined the army, and they embarked on their journey together, residing in Ohio, where they welcomed their daughters, Pamela in 1963 and Cindy in 1964. Evie embraced her role as a young mother. The family later returned to California, eventually settling in Fullerton, 1972. Evie was deeply involved in her community. She participated in tennis groups, women's guilds, and tirelessly served as a room mom, Girl Scout leader, and Booster Club volunteer. Evie's creativity knew no bound.

She knitted crocheted, sewed painted, sharing her talents through acts of generosity such as crafting chemo caps for children with cancer and leaving hand-painted rocks around Fullerton. An entrepreneur at heart, Evie co-founded the plant Peddlers, a successful home party business, and later ventured into various enterprises, including a travel agency. In 1983, Evie found love again, marrying Jeff Amlin, embarking on new adventures, including launching the ultrashade eyeglass business. Evie's role as Grammy brought immeasurable joy.

Her unconditional love touched not only her grandchildren but countless others who considered her their cherished Grammy. A woman of surprises, Evie's sparkly eyes, sweet smile, and genuine demeanor endeared her to everyone she met. Her memory is etched in the hearts of her family and friends. Evie passed away on June 26, 2023, in Fullerton, California, after a courageous 18-month battle with pancreatic cancer. She was 78 years old.

She is survived by her husband Jeff, former husband Howard, daughters, grandchildren and great granddaughter, as well as the many friends and families she touched during her life. Please join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to her family and friends for their loss. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, you are recognized.

I rise with great sadness to adjourn in memory of Major Bob Longomba, the administrator and Corpse Officer Pastor at the Salvation Army Kroc Center, who passed away on Friday, August 4, 2023. Major Bob and his wife, Major Joanne came to serve at the Kroc Center in July of 2021 as the Kroc Center services the greater Solano region. In that short time, the majors became beloved by the community for their grace, sensitivity, and kindness towards all they met.

Born in Laos in 1972, Major Bob and his family escaped to Thailand when the government shifted and dangerous conditions emerged. They escaped by boat across the Mekong River. Gunshots were fired at them from the riverbanks. Major Bob told the Daily Republic, my grandpa shot back and they stopped. When they neared the shore, a hand chain helped pull the family to safety. They settled in Nankai refugee camp while waiting for sponsorship. With the sponsorship, his family relocated to the United States of America in Santa Rosa, California.

It was there in Santa Rosa they were introduced to the Salvation Army, who helped them with food, clothing and a sense of belonging. Major Bob would never forget the kindness of the Salvation Army. As he grew up, he remained connected to the Army's programs and church ministry. He eventually entered their seminary and was commissioned and ordained as an Officer pastor in 1995. He had various appointments throughout his 28 years of ministry.

As a single officer, he was appointed to Salvation Army units in Stockton, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Whittier, Santa Fe Springs, and Los Angeles, California. After he married, they had appointments in Santa Maria, California. Happy Valley, Oregon Rancho Palos Verdes, California. And his last appointment in my city, Sassoon City. Major Bob was a warm-hearted and funny soul. He was a man of God, a loving husband and a father of two girls, a leader and a helper in his community, and a friend to everyone he met.

He could make anyone feel appreciated, and he loved getting to know people. Last October, Major Bob was diagnosed with liver cancer. Many in the community did not know it. He never skipped a beat. He maintained his faith with an infectious smile, always knowing that there was no greater calling than to serve his community. With the love and grace of Jesus Christ, Major Bob received his ultimate healing, surrounded by family and friends, sharing scripture and singing praise. A final promotion to glory.

He will be lovingly remembered by his wife of 20 years, Joanne, his daughters, Leah and Alana, father Pawn, sisters Michelle, Shelley, and Lori, and his family and friends. He was preceded in death by his sister Shirley, in 2020 and his mother in April 2023. Please join me in adjourning in the memory of Major Bob and we wish his family prayers and comfort and condolences. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson. Members, please bring the names to the desk to be printed in the Journal. All requests to adjourn in memory will be deemed red and printed in the Journal. Members, please identify Senators to manage your bills on the Senate Floor. Please also take note that this Friday, the Floor Amendment deadline all Floor Amendments must be put across the desk by 05:00 p.m. Tomorrow or upon adjournment, whichever is later, so they can be adopted by Friday's amendment deadline.

Members, the Government Organizational Committee will meet upon adjournment in the swing space in room 1100. The session schedule is as follows Thursday, September 7, Floor Sessions at 10:00 AM. All other items remaining will be passed and retained. All motions shall be continued. Seeing a hearing, no further business. I'm ready to entertain a motion to adjourn Mr. Lackey moves and Mr. Maienschein seconds that the House stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 7. And that would be Muratsuchi. I apologize Thursday, September 7 at 10:00 AM. The quorum call is lifted and the House is adjourned.

Do we have any vote changes? Okay. Vote change. Assemblyman Hoover file 247, SB 58 aye to not voting. Vote change. Assemblymember Hoover Senate Bill 58 aye to not voting. Vote change. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, SB 58 aye to non-vote. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva Senate Bill 58 aye to not voting.