Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Members, a quorum is present. Would the Members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise? We will be led in prayer this morning by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, after which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

God of our ordinary days and nights, god of extraordinary times, together we pray guide our discerning and our deciding attune our hearts to the murmurings of both peace and of disquiet, so that, aware of risk and of promise, we move trustfully into the future uncloud our ayes to know what we need to leave what to seek and what to hold for the journey that we might find our feet on the right track walking the merciful path led by your unerring spirit. Amen.

Members, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag. United States of America.

Privileges of the Floor there are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed red. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed red. Reports of Committee will be deemed red and amendments adopted. Under Motions, resolutions and notices, the following bills are referred to the Committee on Rules, file number 38, SB 332, and file item number 39, SB 335. This is the time for motions, resolutions, and notices.

If you would like to move something to or from the inactive file or return a Bill to the Assembly for further action or to remove from consent, this is your opportunity. You see anybody saying no one available? We will move on to consideration of the daily file. We'll take up second reading. File items one through nine. Secretary, please read.

Assembly Bill 1167 with amendments 1628, with amendments AB 816. Assembly Bill 1572, 297, 424, 1474, 658, 531.

Moving on to Governor's appointment, file item number eleven. Senator Laird floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam President. File. Item eleven is the confirmation of the following water quality control board appointments Sean Yang to the Central Valley Regional Board Dr. Amy Horn to the Lahontan. Regional Board and Sabrina Ashjian and Dr. Michael Mendez to the Los Angeles Regional Board. These appointments were approved by the Rules Committee on August 16 and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Ochoa Bogh

Aye 33. No. Six. The appointment is confirmed. Moving on to file item number 20. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

File.

Item 20 is the confirmation of Dr. Andrew Gunther for reappointment to the Water Quality Control Board, the San Francisco Bay region. He was first appointed in 2020. He's the board's representative on the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, BCDC. He previously served as Executive Coordinator for the Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Consortium. He was approved by the Rules Committee on August 23. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero aye. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzales aye. Grove no. Hurtado aye. Jones no. Laird aye. Limon aye. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min. Newman Aye. Nguyen no. Niello no. Ochoa Bogh aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto no. skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Weiner aye. Wilk aye.

Please call the absent Member.

Min aye.

Ayes 33. No seven. The appointment is confirmed. Members, we're going to go back to Privileges of the Floor. Members, please join us in a warm welcome to US Congressman Robert Garcia, who is on the floor today. Welcome to the state Senate. We're proud to have you join us. And if Members would like to take a picture, now would be the appropriate time.

Members, continuing under privileges of the floor, on behalf of Senator Menjivar, we would like to welcome Ken Kraft, who's the CEO and founder of Hope the Mission, and Rowan Vansleve, President of Hope the Mission, who rode their bikes up from the San Fernando Valley to raise awareness around homelessness. Please give them a warm California Senate welcome. Thank you so much for joining us here today.

Members, we're going to go back to motions, resolutions, and notices to pick up individuals who have an item they'd like to take up. Senator Niello?

Yes. Please move AB 490 Vince Fong off of the inactive file.

Without objection. Senator Weiner. Thank you. Madam President, at the request of the author, please move AB 440, which is file item 443 to the inactive file, without objection. Members, we're ready to move on to Assembly third reading. And the first item that we'd like to take up is file item number 60, please. This is Senator Skinner. She is ready.

Mr. Secretary, please read Assembly Bill 496 by Assemblymember Friedman and accolading to public health.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Madam President. Members, pleased to present AB 496 by Assemblymember Friedman. This helps prohibit the sale of certain of cosmetics that have certain highly toxic chemicals, and all of these are now we have substitutes for and alternative products are available, which is why this Bill so far has bipartisan support and zero no votes. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote on this very important health protection measure.

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

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

I wilk I please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Atkins. Jones, Seyarto

Ayes 37, no zero, measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 63, Senator Min. He is prepared.

Please read Assembly Bill 265 by Assemblymember Ting enaccolading to public postsecondary education.

Senator Min, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President. AB 264 permits but doesn't mandate community colleges districts to celebrate Lunar New Year if they choose to, by allowing them to replace either Lincoln's birthday or Washington's birthday with a Lunar New Year holiday. Lunar New Year is one of the most widely observed holidays in the world, with API communities typically celebrating this in the second or third New Moon following the winter solstice. This holiday celebrates the beginning of spring and is a chance to wish everyone prosperity in the coming year.

Allowing the recognition of Lunar New Year would help uplift Asian American students, especially during this time when we've seen a spike in Anti Asian hate incidents. This particular Bill would also promote cultural understanding, encourage acceptance, and create opportunities for communities to learn about each other. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Allen aye. Atkins. Grove aye. Jones. Niello. Ochoa Bogh. Seyarto. Wilk.

Ayes 34, no zero, the measure passes. Moving on to file item number 64. Senator Laird is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 261 by Assemblymember Kalra in accolading to state government.

Senator Laird, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm presenting AB 261 on behalf of Assemblymember Kalra. It would establish the California Golden Chanterelle as the official state mushroom their support on both sides. I ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item. Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Eggman aye.

Ayes 39. No zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 65. Senator Rubio. She is prepared please read

Assembly Bill 933 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry and acquisition to privileged communications.

Senator Rubio, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I am proud to present AB 933 by Assembly speaker Pro Tem Aguiar-Curry and Assemblymember Ward. This important Bill will protect survivors of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination. When they step up and speak out against their abuser, we must allow them to speak up without fear. An act of sexual assault is committed every 68 seconds.

AB 933 will protect those survivors by clarifying that claims made in good faith against their abusers are a form of protected speech. AB 933 also expands protections to include cybersexual bullying to protect students and our young folks who far too often experience this form of sexual abuse. A sexual assault happens to people of every gender identity, every age, every sexual orientation. It could be any of us, colleagues.

By exposing these predators, we can prevent them from reoffending and keep our families, our neighbors and the public safe. This Bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Very good. Please call the roll. If there's no discussion or debate, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins, Grove, Nguyen, Niello.

Ayes 31. Noes five. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 79. Senator Nguyen. She is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 298 by Assemblymember Mathis and accolading to the State Capitol.

Senator Nguyen

Thank you. Thank you. Madam President, on behalf of Assemblyman Mathis, this Bill support AB 298, which authorizes the construction and maintenance of a bell American flag in the state Capitol building to serve as a monument to the blind veterans of California, United States, I respectfully ask for your support.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call saying none? Ayes 39. No. Zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 81. Senator Newman is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 398 by Assemblymember Pellerin and acclimating to voting.

Senator Newman.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to present AB 398 on behalf of Assemblymember Pellerin, which will improve the process for issuing replacement votes by mail in California. In California, under current law, an elections official can only issue a replacement vote by mail ballot if the voter provides a statement under penalty of perjury that they have lost, failed to receive, or destroyed their original ballot.

This signature requirement delays the process for voters to obtain replacement ballots as election officials are barred from issuing a replacement ballot until they have received the statement to be provided under penalty repurgy by the voter. The current requirement is also effectively redundant as counties are able to track vote by mail ballot returns to ensure that voters are not voting twice with replacement ballots.

AB 398 would remove the requirement for a voter to submit a request for a replacement ballot with a wet signature under penalty perjury, and would instead provide a voter to provide an elections visual with specified personal identifying information as part of validating such a request. As part of that change, voters will also be able to submit the request for a replacement ballot online or over the phone, and election staff will be able to immediately act upon that request. In doing so, AB 398 will make the replacement ballot process more efficient for both voters and election staff. This Bill has opposition on behalf of Assemblymember Pellerin and I respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil. Atkins. McGuire aye.

Ayes 30. Noes eight. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 90. Senator Umberg. He is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1355 by Assemblymember Valencia and accolading to employment.

Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Yes. I urge an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this Bill? I think we need a little bit more than that, but let's check. It is AB 1355 by Assemblymember Valencia.

Thank you, Ms. President. Members, this Bill authorized until January 1, 2029 employers to provide information to their employees regarding the earned income tax credit and the unemployment insurance program via email to an email account of the employees choosing Urge and aye vote now.

Is there any discussion or debate any discussion or debate on this item seeing none. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call saying none? Ayes 39, no zero. The measure is adopted.

Actually, is there any objection to adding Senator Atkins to the last roll call? Seeing no objection, ayes 40, no zero. The measure passes.

Senator Alvarado-Gil, on this particular Bill, could you check, double check on on your vote? Here it is, file item number 90. Okay, very good. Members, we're doing some work here. If you could just give us a couple of minutes, we'll get right back with you. And the next Bill up will be file item number 93.

All right, Members, we're going to go back to the file. We're still on Assembly third reading and we're going to take a file item number 93. Senator Wahab is prepared, please read.

Assembly Bill 819 by Assemblymember Bryan and accolading to crimes.

Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I'm proud to present AB 8119 on behalf of Majority Leader Bryan. A Bill that ensures civil accountability for fair evasion, but reduces criminalization of riders simply for being poor. Studies in LA and other cities consistently show that the criminalization of poor writers targets black and brown communities at a disproportionate rate. Today, people who evade the fair can be charged up to $400 in fines, be charged with a misdemeanor, spend up to 90 days in jail, or all of the above.

The use of these civic and criminal enforcement tools have a wide variation of usage, where communities of color are sentenced to jail time while other poor riders get citations. To put the costs of the 90-day incarceration in perspective, the taxpayer money we used to incarcerate someone for 90 days could have paid for 37 years worth of unlimited rides in LA or over 5,000 rides in the Bay Area. Skipping the fare requires accountability.

This Bill preserves that civic accountability while saving taxpayers limited resources that can be used to address the root economic conditions that lead to fair evasion in the first place. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil no. Archuleta aye. Blakespear. Grove. Hurtado. Limon aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye.

Ayes 29. Noes eight. The measure is adopted. Members are going to move on to file item number 112. Senator Roth is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1070 by Assemblymember Low and accolading to healing arts.

Senator Roth, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. The Bill lifts the current supervision requirement of a four-to-one ratio to an eight-to-one ratio for physician assistance in-home evaluations to address workforce shortages and increased care.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call saying none? Ayes 40, no zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 114. Senator Hurtado is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1294 by Assembly Member Boerner an act relating to alcoholic beverages.

Senator Hurtado, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, I rise to present AB 1294 which would create an advertising exception from the state's Tide House restrictions specifically for Surf Ranch located in Lamore, California. The exception would permit specified alcohol manufacturers to advertise their products at Surf Ranch and provide an important source of revenue to the venue. The exception will provide an important source of revenue to sustain Surf Ranch's operations, grow the tourism economy in a remote part of the state, and promote surfing in the official state sport. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call saying none? ayes 40, no, zero. The measure is adopted. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 115. Senator Laird is prepared.

Please read.

Assembly Bill 1020 by Assemblymember Grayson. An act related to county employees retirement.

Senator Laird, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This bill seeks to fix inconsistencies that govern disability retirements for public safety employees. There's support on both sides. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes 40, noes, zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 117. Senator Alvarado-Gil is ready.

Please read.

Assembly Bill 355 by Assembly Member Alanis and act relating to firearms.

Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you. Madam President, I rise to present Member Alanis AB 355. It's a sensible approach to correcting an oversight in current law by allowing peace officer cadets that enrolled in basic training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training or post or other certified training to use a tactical rifle while engaged in firearms training and supervised by a firearms instructor. Current law exempts law enforcement from restrictions on possession of assault weapons. However, those exemptions apply only to sworn peace officers, not cadets enrolled in the post training.

This has caused logistical issues with getting cadets adequately trained and certified during the academy in preparation for entry into the field training program. Also, safety issues. While cadets are required to train with handguns during the post academy under existing law they are technically prohibited from going through the same training with tactical rifles. However, post appropriately requires proficiency in the use of these firearms.

So to resolve this conflict, some agencies have opted to graduate cadets without completing that tactical rifle training, sending them back to receive the rest of their firearms training as sworn officers. This process delays and unnecessarily complicates cadet training and their entry into agency's staffing ranks. So let me be clear. This Bill does not allow cadets to use or possess an assault rifle anywhere but in the supervision of instructors during their field training.

In fact, the bill's author negotiated in good faith with Brady campaign to clarify that loaned assault rifles cannot leave the premises of the training facility and narrowing the measure to limit the agency's eligibility under this Bill. By making this technical change, we can ensure that cadets are properly trained in tactical assault rifles before they graduate, ensuring their safety. I ask for an aye vote on this.

Members, is there any discussion or debate? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call saying none? ayes 40, no. Zero. The measure is adopted. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 120. Senator Ashby. She is ready.

Please read.

Assembly Bill 1052 by Assembly Member McCarty, an act relating to transportation.

Senator Ashby, the floor is yours.

Thank you, madam President. I rise to present AB 1052 on behalf of Assembly Member McCarty related to Sac RT voting. This is a district specific Bill giving Sacramento Regional Transit the flexibility to have a ballot measure that covers only a portion of its service area. The Bill does not change the voting threshold required to pass any taxes that Fund transit services in the regional transit district. I urge an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil no. Min aye.

Ayes 31. Nos 9. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item 124. Senator Wahab is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 722 by Assemblymember Bonta. An act relating to health authorities.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I rise today to present AB 722 on behalf of Assemblymember Bonta. Currently, the Alameda health system is not allowed to contract out services provided by unionized physicians without evidence that doing so will be more cost-effective and more efficient. This requirement will sunset on January 1, 2024. AB 722 extends the sunset date to January 1, 2035. This bill is a district-specific bill that has had unanimous bipartisan support and no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Assemblymember Bonta.

Is there any discussion or debate? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil. No. Caballero. Grove. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Ochoa Bogh.

Caballero aye.

Ayes 36, Nos three. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 126. Senator Smallwood- Cuevas. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1679 by Assembly Member Santiago an act relating to taxation.

Senator Smallwood. Cuevas. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise on behalf of Assemblymember Santiago to present Assembly Bill 1679. AB 1679 would authorize the county of Los Angeles to impose a transactions and use tax up to .05%, that, if approved by the county voters, would be exempted from the 2% combined rate limitations in state law. The Bill requires that all revenue generated by the tax be dedicated to the services for people experiencing homelessness, homelessness prevention, and providing affordable housing in our county.

AB 1679 is supported by the county of Los Angeles and over 20 nonprofits, community based organizations, affordable housing developers, and homeless service providers, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil no. Archuleta? Grove no. Rubio aye.

Aye 30, Nos Nine. The measure is adopted. Senator Glazer, file item number 129. He is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 267 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan an act relating to fire protection.

Senator Glazer, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Assembly Bill 267 by Assembly Member Bauer- Kahan updates state codes regarding tent manufacturing standards to remove a dangerous chemical treatment. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. ayes 40, no. Zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 131. Senator Newman. He is prepared.

Please read.

Assembly Bill 508 by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. An act relating to probation.

Senator Newman, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today on behalf of Assemblymember Petrie-Norris to present AB 508 which would expand probation time limits from one year to a maximum term of up to five years for environmental criminal cases, thereby giving the justice system a sufficient interval to more fully protect the health and safety of the local community and the environment. On behalf of Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, I respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes 40, noes zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 132, Senator Dodd. He is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 604 by Assembly Member Lee an act relating to mobile homes.

Senator Dodd, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam President, colleagues, AB 604 is a follow up Bill to which was signed last legislative session. This Bill limits the amount of mobile home park management can charge as an Administration fee for water on top of what mobile home residents pay for the water they actually use. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil no. Becker. Dahle no. Grove no. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Seyarto no.

Ayes 30. No. Seven. The measure is adopted. Members, we're going to go to Senate third reading and we're going to take up file item number 51. Senator Wahab is ready. Please read. Hold on. Please read.

Senate Joint Resolution 7 by Senator Wahab relative to a federal constitutional convention.

The floor is yours, Senator.

Thank you. Since the early 90s, California enacted laws cutting its gun death in half. A recent report from Attorney General Bonta's office stated that if the firearm mortality rate in the rest of the United States had matched California between 2013 and 2022, there would have been nearly 140,000 fewer firearm deaths nationwide in that decade alone. Clearly, California has been leading on how to reduce gun deaths, but all of our work, and, frankly, our lives, is now at risk.

The 2022 Supreme Court decision in the Brune case not only limits our ability to enact reasonable restrictions on public carry of firearms, but the decision also impacts our ability to enforce and maintain existing gun laws. The US is seeing an average of one mass killing a week, and they have become so commonplace that the media barely covers it anymore. To that end, I believe the balance provided by the four common-sense regulations in this resolution.

Number one, raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. Two, mandating universal background checks. Three, instituting a reasonable waiting period. And four, barring civilian purchase of assault weapons, weapons of war our nation's founders never foresaw. Recent polls show that the majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including gun owners, support these regulations. The idea before us is no different than the effort to get drugs off the streets, which we all support.

And over 50% of this state Legislature has signed on to coauthor SJR 7. The resolution calls for a limited constitutional convention to enact these regulations in the US. Constitution and has been carefully drafted to be nullified should the scope of the convention go beyond the specified measures. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children under the age of 18, and I personally support the second amendment and an individual's right to bear arms.

But if the Supreme Court is going to dramatically expand the right to buy, own, and carry firearms, we deserve basic safeguards to protect us against the violence they can cause. We must extend common sense firearms regulations across this country in order to continue delivering on that promise. We need to go further than thoughts and prayers. And I want to thank Governor Newsom for being a man of action with the courage to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. I respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Members, is there any discussion or debate? Senator Jones.

Thank you, Madam President, members. I'm really kind of split on this resolution for a number of reasons. I think, as anybody who is a constitutional scholar, I hope is paying attention to this process, because I think it really is truly interesting to see how this moves on from here.

One of the things I'm concerned about in this resolution in particular is when it references Article V and the state's calling for a convention, and maybe the author can address this in the close is the Article V does not allow or prescribe for any kind of restrictions on the content of the constitutional convention.

So once a constitutional convention is called if two-thirds of the states agree to this in the first place, which I think would be difficult in today's American politics, given where 27 of the other states are on the second amendment and some of the rights that they're trying to enshrine more completely for American citizens in those states.

But once the constitution is called, if there is one, and we all convene, and the Legislature appoints whatever delegates we would appoint from California to go to that convention, what's to say out of that convention other things don't come up, including some kind of tax reform across the entire country, term limits on Congress and the US Senate, which I certainly wouldn't support, but that would come up as a conversation, I think, and multiple other subjects could come up.

So I'm going to vote no on the resolution today, but I truly am intrigued about how this is going to proceed from here, and I would hope there would be some more discussion on this and some thoughts from my colleagues across the aisle on it as well. And with that, I'll be voting no. But look forward to continued conversation on this.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll make this short and sweet. I will be opposing this measure today because in our efforts to address gun violence, all we have actually done is address gun control for law abiding citizens. We have a lot of gun laws on our books and we don't really enforce any of them. We don't want to put people in jail. Therefore, we're not going to hold people accountable that break our laws.

And instead, we're going to make more laws so that we can tell people that we're doing something about violence that is related to guns specifically. And yet we're not. We're not doing anything. So when we start passing laws in California and start enforcing those laws against the people, then you'll see the people that are actually perpetrating these crimes. Then we'll see a reduction in gun violence.

We may see an increase in violence not using guns because people are still violent out there, but we need to hold those people accountable too. So until we start holding people accountable, then I am not prepared to pass any more gun laws. We did try to steer some money into enforcement of gun laws against known prohibited persons, 25 million, and that got put back into a program that is ineffective. So today I will be opposing this.

I would like to see us start enforcing the laws that we have so that law abiding citizens can continue to protect themselves against people who have the guns and aren't going to give them up because we're not going to enforce the laws we have against them. Thank you.

Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Madam President. This measure was very carefully constructed to deal with the concern about the calling of a Constitutional convention. And while nothing we construct can ever be can we ever guarantee legally, as we are seeing from court actions recently, it is constructed as narrowly and carefully as can be done.

Additionally, what we are facing, and as my colleague from Hayward who presented this, we are seeing that Americans across the country want to help prevent gun violence and believe in these really reasonable measures that do not interfere with the Second Amendment. And yet we are finding states ability to enact such measures are being thwarted. And so we need this. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Senator Ashby.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to my colleague who brought this forward. In order for our country to make real progress on gun violence, California must bravely lead from the front. Our kids are growing up in a world where active shooter drills are routine, where architects must consider designing schools in ways that students and teachers have places to hide. We have to do better. I urge an aye vote.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam President. I spoke about this in committee, and I wasn't planning on speaking today. But I do feel the need just to articulate why I'm not going to be supporting this resolution today. And I want to thank the author and thank the Governor for their leadership on gun safety. Governor Newsom has for many, many years, been a staunch proponent in the forefront of smart gun safety measures.

And he has used his platform to never let the public to help, never let the public forget about the massacres that are happening almost every day in this country. And so I am deeply appreciative for the governor's leadership. I support every single policy listed in this resolution, every single gun safety policy I support. I have voted for many of them in committee and on the floor numerous times. I have a 0% rating from the NRA, which I am proud of.

My concern is that we cannot have any assurance that calling for Constitutional Convention will lead to a limited Constitutional Convention. I think that the language that was amended into the bill is about as strong as you can get, and I very much appreciate that, but I'm just not comfortable supporting the resolution for those reasons and I just wanted to be on the record so people don't misinterpret my vote. Thank you.

Senator Alvarado-Gil.

I want to speak to thoughts and prayers because I think far too often I hear us discounting thoughts and prayers and even within my own party and was taken back by that quote in today's presentation. For me, thoughts and prayers has been a phrase that helps to evoke empathy, understanding, and healing. And I believe that when we start making bills or law that governs the way we think or the way we practice our beliefs, thoughts and prayers, we cross into a line.

And I feel that it's egregious to cite thoughts and prayers when we're talking about gun violence because we know that in this country and around the world, we have an increase in gun violence, but we also know that there is a decrease in enforcing the laws. So I would challenge us as we take our vote today to yes, trust in our thoughts, in that self reflection and study, meditation and connection that we have.

Trust in the prayers, in whatever our God is to us, whatever our higher being is. Because certainly if our higher being is ourselves, then we fall short. So thoughts and prayers and enforcing our laws. Thoughts and prayers and healing as a community.

But to eject humanity from thoughts and prayers and focus solely on gun violence is to take away the grief, the experiences, the steps of those who have lost due to gun violence, who have lost due to our inability to enact legislation to protect our community and our inability to enforce laws that already exist.

So I offer my thoughts and prayers to all the victims, communities, families, first responders who have been impacted by gun violence and ask that we heal as one human race and as one community. Thank you.

Is there any further discussion or debate? Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam President. I wasn't going to rise and speak on this piece of legislation, but I find it ironic. Again this year, it's the second time. I believe that my colleague from San Francisco and I are on the same page, which is really interesting. So I appreciate his comments in understanding the Constitutional Convention. If this passes, and it does get successfully passed by Congress, and Congress does call a Constitutional Convention, this could open up Pandora's box on the Constitution.

The reason why it's never done in the past is because there can't be an agreement with all 50 states on how to proceed. Can this Constitutional Convention be excluded strictly to addressing the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms? And a lot of people talk about the Second Amendment. It's not for hunting and it's not for all the things that we argue or debate on this floor. It's to protect us as individual citizens against a tyrannical government, basically, that could possibly come down the line.

I know I went down a little rabbit hole there, but the bottom line is that can you isolate a Constitutional Convention with 50 states, equal representation from every state to only take up this one subject matter? There could be issues on the right to life, on the right to marry, on taxes, like my colleague said, on the minority leader. I just think it opens up a big box.

And I think the way the states are aligned now, it could be in favor of a more right leaning mechanism. But I don't think it's worth taking the chance on. And I agree with my colleague from San Francisco on why this bill should not be supported today.

Other discussion or debate on this item? Senator Durazo.

Yes, I stand in support of this bill, and primarily because I do think it's worth the risk. It's worth taking the risk of what could possibly be taken up or not at that convention. First of all, that would take some time to get there. But most importantly is we need a way to debate this. And I know the overwhelming majority of people in this country say enough is enough with the violence that we face through guns in our communities.

Some communities face it much more than other communities, but I know my community does. And I'm willing to take the chance of whatever the logistics are to have that convention, to have the debate, that's the most important thing, and to hold electors accountable for what is going on in this country. The shameful status of so many guns and so much violence is on us. It's on everyone who's elect in this country. We have to do more about it. I support the bill. Thank you very much.

Any further, Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Madam President and members. Mass shootings are an American problem. Other countries that have strong gun safety laws regulate handguns far more strict than we do, don't have the proliferation of weapons that we do. They don't have mass shootings like we do in our country. So it's hard to argue with the uniqueness of our situation. Americans in all of our states face the threat of gun violence.

Those states that have relaxed gun laws have more incidents of gun violence than those states that have stricter gun regulations. The data is clear. It works. And so what is the argument that many fall back on when they don't want to lead or take common sense gun control measures in those states? They hide behind the Second Amendment.

Well, I support the Second Amendment, but I also support the ability for states to modernize their regulations, to modernize their approach to guns versus the approach that was taken by our founding fathers. And so that's why this measure is important. Let's take a modern 2023 look at this issue. Let's take a modern look at a situation that we have created through our lack of fundamental leadership on this issue and let's lead and let's make a difference. And I applaud the Governor, the author, and the others for bringing this forward so we can lead on this important US-specific self-inflicted wound and heal our country.

Senator Min.

Thank you, Madam President. I also didn't intend to speak on this Bill. But hearing the debate, I felt compelled to stand up and represent my district. In my time, in my three years in the California State Senate, we've experienced mass shootings in some of the safest cities and some of the safest places in the country. A shooting in a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods. A drive by shooting on the 55 in Orange. A shooting in an office park in the city of Orange. Recently, the shooting at Cook's Corner in the canyon.

There is no place in America, no place in my district that is safe from the specter of gun violence. This is not just a little problem. It is, as been alluded to before, a national problem. It's a public health epidemic. And I understand the concerns raised by my colleague from San Francisco, but I have to answer to my constituents and tell them we are doing something about this problem.

That we are, with all respect, taking more than just thoughts and prayers for this, that we're trying to take action. And so I'm going to support this bill today. I would urge us all to think about what we can do because we have unique power in this body to try to legislate. And we're doing this in the face of a Supreme Court, a judiciary that is taking a radical view of the Second Amendment, one that is not grounded in text or precedent. We have to fight with the tools we have. And unfortunately, I do think some kind of constitutional change is necessary given what the courts are doing. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Stern.

Thank you, Madam President. I was not going to rise, but have to, hearing the Senator from the south of me talk about his incidents. We had twelve kids get killed in the country music bar that the Republican Simi Valley Thousand Oaks conservative part of my district that I represent to try to bring healing through an issue like a shooting for people who are diametrically opposed to one another to go out to Saugus. It's the same challenge that Senator from Santa Clarita and I went through.

There's a presumption here that there will never be space for there to be bipartisan agreement on changing how we deal with guns in this country. And that's what I don't want to indulge. I'm not willing to concede that yet. Going through borderline and just trying to search your soul on this stuff, really trying to search your soul sitting at funerals by yourself and not in a picture and not on a speech and not in a format like this, just being with people who have lost.

I swore there was space, and it's so, so hard to find that space. But I'm supporting this bill because I'm okay with making that space as a country. And it's not only that I'm not afraid of the risk. Why can't we have that kind of conversation? Why is that presumed to be impossible? And not just here, but on other things, too. I know the approaches of enmity, and that's what gets the likes and that's what pumps this conversation up. But I pray for and I hope we legislate for a space where we can lay down our arms. And that's why I'm supporting this resolution.

Other discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Senator Wahab, you may conclude.

Thank you. Some of the commentary that was raised I just want to read for members of the public in this particular resolution from line 31 to roughly about 36, with permission to read.

Permission granted.

Thank you. That this application is for a limited constitutional convention and does not grant Congress the authority to call a constitutional convention for any purpose other than those set forth herein and that this application shall be void if ever used at any stage to consider any constitutional amendments on subjects other than those specified herein. And I want to be very clear that in the language of this particular resolution, we have considered the fact that, as some people refer to it, a runway constitutional convention.

We have narrowed the scope. We have made sure that we are tackling those four issues and ensuring that the United States of America finally take a little bit more action. Oftentimes we need to exercise courage and take the step forward. And I want to highlight a couple of comments here, too, is that when we talk about victims, and I've said this before, we are not just talking about those individuals whose lives were taken. We are not talking about just those individuals who were wounded.

We are also talking about the loved ones who remain. Those are the victims. And every single victim would like further action. They would like their loved one to return to them. And at the same time, that will never happen. And so, as a person who is also a victim of gun violence my father was murdered via gun violence. There is no way he will come back. So we must go further than thoughts and prayers. We must actually act and not just say words to show empathy. Our actions speak louder than words. And that is why this resolution is important to the United States of America. So thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent members one more time, please.

Allen. Eggman. Newman. Roth. Umberg. Wiener. No.

Ayes 24, noes eleven. The resolution is adopted. Members, we're going to go back to the Assembly third reading. File item 136. Senator Roth is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 791 by Assembly Member Ramos an act relating to bail.

Senator Roth, the floor is yours.

Madam President, this Bill amends current bail provisions to prevent defendants who are facing life without parole or death from receiving post conviction bail.

Members, is there any discussion or debate in this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. ayes 40, no. Zero. The measure is adopted. Member will move on to file item number 139. Senator Rubio? She is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 917 by Assembly Member Ortega. An act relating to insurance.

Senator Rubio, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Today I rise as a proud co author to AB 9117 by Assembly Member Ortega. This Bill will remove the sunset of the California Low cost Auto Insurance program. AB 917 will permanently remove the sunset date to ensure that Low income Californians continue to have quality auto insurance. That again, many Low incomes usually forego. So today I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Members, is there any discussion or debate any discussion or debate saying none. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. ayes 40. No. Zero. The measures adopted. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 140. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. She is prepared.

Please read Assembly Bill 1023 by Assembly Member Papan an act relating to school security.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Ms. President. This past February, LA Unified had approximately 2000 student assessment records posted on the Dark Web as a result of a cyberattack. The posted records also included an unspecified numbers of driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers. All of our school districts maintain sensitive medical, financial, and personal data on staff and students and their families. And we are seeing an increasing amount of cyberattacks on all of our public infrastructure in our educational system.

AB 1023 is a simple but critical measure that will require the California Cybersecurity Integration Center, known as Cal CSIC, to coordinate cyber threat information sharing with school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, and allow them to become informed and prepared for cyberattacks. This measure also adds a representative from the CDE to the CalCSIC. Equipping school districts and county offices of education with tools to support and better defend against cyberattacks is critical for our school safety.

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

Is there any discussion or debate? No. aye vote any discussion or debate. Members, I want to remind you to please take your conversations in the back because it's getting a little bit noisy up here. Seeing no discussion or debate, is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? This is eligible. Any objection saying none, ayes, 40, no, zero. The measure is adopted. So you got some aye votes there, which is a good thing. Moving on to file item number 147, Senator Rubio is prepared.

Please read Assembly Bill 1578 by Assembly Member Valencia an act relating to insurance.

Senator Rubio, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, today I rise to present to AB 1578 by Assembly Member of Valencia. This Bill passed out a Senate Insurance Committee with a unanimous vote. AB 1578 aligns the requirements for email and printed documents on insurance agents and agencies send correspondence. I respectfully ask for your vote. This has no opposition. Thank you.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes, 40, no, zero. The measure passes. We're going to move on to file item 150. Senator Limon is prepared.

Please read.

Assembly Bill 1061 by Assembly Member Rendon an act relating to electricity.

Senator Limon, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. AB 1061 requires that any resources in the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve Program, which is mandated by the Department of Water and Resources, be subject to cap and trade and have their greenhouse gas emissions reported to the Air Resource Board. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate? Any discussion or debate saying none. Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil no. Grove no. Ochoa Bogh. Stern aye.

Ayes 31. Nos, eight. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item 153. Senator Wilk. He is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 70 by Assembly Member Rodriguez, an act relating to emergency response.

Senator Wilk, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Here we go. I rise to present AB 70 on behalf of Assembly Member Rodriguez. This Bill would ensure our bystanders are better equipped to respond to life threatening blood loss. Specifically, this Bill would require certain public and private buildings that undergo renovations or modifications with costs that exceed $100,000, to install and maintain six trauma kits on their premises in order to treat people in the need of emergency medical care during a traumatic emergency event.

This Bill is an expansion of AB 2260 from last year, which required the placement of trauma kits in similar new construction. By having trauma kits more readily available for empowered bystanders in public spaces, we can provide EMS personnel with more time to arrive at the scene to save victims lives. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to utilizing the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. ayes 40. No. Zero. The measure is adopted. Members are going to move on to file item 159. Senator Min is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1116 by Assembly Member Grayson an act relating to financial institutions.

Senator Min, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm pleased to present AB 1116 by Assemblyman Grayson, which would update and modernize California's money transmission law. AB 1116 updates this with select provisions from the Model Law created by the Conference of State Banking Supervisors to harmonize our laws with common standards and definitions the States can use to create consistency across money transmission programs. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Cortese aye. Eggman aye.

Ayes. 40. No. Zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 160. Senator Umberg is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 957 by Assembly Member Wilson an act relating to family law.

Wait. Little pause.

You little pause on that Bill, Senator Umberg, if you don't mind. We'll just skip right over that and move on to file item 173 Senator Seyarto is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1361 by Assembly Member Hoover an act relating to taxation.

Senator Seyarto, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, I rise to present AB 1361 on behalf of Assembly Member Hoover AB 1361 simply streamlines the home buying process for our 100% permanent and totally disabled veterans by allowing them to apply for their real estate tax exemption after going under contract on a home, but before taking ownership. This Bill has received no opposition and is supported by a number of veterans groups and counter assessors. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none, ayes 40, no, zero. The measure is adopted Members, we're going to move on to file item number 178 Senator Glazer is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1762 by Assembly Member Pellerin. An act relating to elections.

Senator Glazer, the floor is yours.

Thank you, madam President, Members, this is the Assembly Elections Committee omnibus Bill containing minor changes to the elections code, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? Any discussion or debate Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none ayes 40 no zero measure is adopted I don't think it works that way. Moving on to file item 182 Senator Skinner is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1765 by committee on revenue and taxation an act relating to taxation.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and Members, this is the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee's Bill with two taxpayer friendly proposals and a couple of technical modifications. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This item is also eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none, ayes 40, no zero. The measure is adopted Members, we're going to go on to file item number 188 Senator Blakespear is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 42 by Assembly Member Ramos an act relating to housing.

Senator Blakespear, the floor is yours.

Thank you. President and colleagues, I rise today to present AB 42 on behalf of Assemblymember Ramos, which exempts a temporary sleeping cabin with less than 250 sqft from having to install fire sprinklers. This effort will allow us to provide more temporary housing to serve the unhoused population. This Bill has unanimous support and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Any discussion or debate? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none, ayes 40, no, zero the measure is adopted. Moving on to file item 199. Senator Eggman is prepared. 191. I'm sorry, Senator Eggman is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 782 by Assemblymember McKinnor and acquisition to healing arts.

Senator Eggman, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. AB 782. Just clarifies that adding flavor to a medication is not compounding. As Mary Poppins taught us, just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. I ask for your aye vote, Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm not going to sing. I just want to just thank the author for this Bill. Because as a mom with two children, ten and twelve, I know my children benefit from flavoring medication in the past and to this day sometimes they do ask for those as well. So I just ask for an aye vote.

Any other discussion or debate? Senator Eggman, anything you'd like to add to this?

Well, I ask for your aye vote.

Very good. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. I think we all have kids who don't want to take their medicine. So ayes 40. No, zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item 193. Senator Umberg is prepared. Please read.

Thank you, Madam President, colleagues, hold on. We need to read it first.

Assembly Bill 893 by Assemblymember Papan. An act relating to rental passenger vehicles.

Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Ms. Madam President and colleagues. Peer-to-peer rental platforms are a new avenue for individuals to rent their private vehicles to consumers. In other words, there are platforms where you can take your vehicle and you can rent it to others. Oftentimes that vehicle may be parked at the airport for others to pick up.

What this Bill does? simply says that to the extent that those platforms are using airport facilities, that they need to be able to share in the cost and the charges the consumer facility charges to the extent that they're proportional. I urge an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate. Senator Jones.

Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for the author. If he would agree to accept.

Will you accept a question?

I'd be happy to accept a question from Senator Jones.

Thank you, Senator. Would this Bill allow for the imposition of fees by an airport that are not proportionate to the peer-to-peer car-sharing entities that use of the facilities? Madam President? Sure. So what this Bill does? It authorizes airports to charge consumer facility charges to personal vehicle-sharing programs such as Toro. And this is the only specific authorization for fees in the Bill? CFCs known as customer facility charges.

They are proportionate as to other fees. The law regarding the required proportionality of any other fee is unaffected by this Bill. Thank you, Senator and Madam President, I'm not quite to the point of supporting this Bill yet. I'm going to be laying off today. I appreciate the answer, but I still think there's some clarity that's required to fully support this Bill.

Senator Dodd?

Yes. I'm following the line from my colleague from San Diego, and I think there's some issues there that I hope that the bill's author will look into for some amendments. With that said, I will support this today in hopes that this could become a better Bill.

Any other discussion or debate, Senator Roth.

Thank you, Madam President. We heard this Bill in business and professions and the issue before us there was Turo contended it was not a normal car rental service and therefore the customer facility charges that are normally charged to rental companies for the use of shuttles to the rental car facilities, rental car desks, separate rental car buildings where you go to rent the car that these charges should not be applied to Turo.

And Turo proposed, and that was the only issue that was presented to the Business and professions committee who heard this very specific issue. And we concluded as a committee that, in fact, those charges should not be applied to Turo except as insofar as Turo utilizes the particular facilities at the particular airport in question. The larger issue is whether other fees, such as concession fees and other fees that may or may not be charged by commercial airports to businesses that operate on those airports should be proportional.

My personal opinion is generally if they can be proportioned, they should be. But that was not the issue presented before the committee and therefore we could not amend the Bill beyond the issues that were considered and voted on by the Members of committees that heard the Bill. I've suggested to the particular company and those that support it that perhaps another Bill is in order to specifically address other fees, such as concession fees, which probably are proportional because they typically are based on revenue.

So the more you make, the more you pay up to a limit. But perhaps there's another Bill that needs to be considered. But it obviously can't be considered this year because we are where we are. There's one other point that I want to make. I understand that the FAA regulations and other federal rules require that fees be proportional and that fees be reasonable. So there's that element that comes into play here as well.

So the Bill in question, I'd urge your support because it does provide some protection to Turo. There perhaps is another Bill forthcoming for those of you who will be here next year to hear that. Thank you, Madam President.

Any further discussion or debate? No discussion or debate, Senato Umberg, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam President. I associate myself with my comments with the comments of my colleague from Riverside. The customer facility charges and the other fees are separate and distinct. This Bill simply deals with the CFCs, not the fees. If that's something that we wish to consider, we could do so next year. Urge and aye vote.

Please call the roll. Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero aye. Cortese aye. Dahle aye. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer. Gonzales aye. Grove. Hurtado aye. Jones. Laird. Limon aye. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stermn aye. Uberg, Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

I please call the absent Members?

Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Becker? Aye. Glazer, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wahab? Aye.

Aye. 35 no, zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 25. Senator Dodd. He is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 854 by Assemblymember Ramos, an accolade into tribal gaming and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Dodd, the floor is yours.

Madam President, Members, AB 854 ratifies the new tribal-state compact between the state of California and the Reading Rancheria. Consistent with recent compacts, this compact includes labor visions, allow workers to unionize, and require the tribe to share revenues with neighboring jurisdictions to mitigate the impacts of gaming on those communities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the role.

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

Aye 38 no zero on the urgency. Ayes 38 no zero on the measure. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 26. Senator Hurtado. She is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 245 by Assemblymember McKinnor and accolade to high school athletics.

Senator Hurtado, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. SB 245 will amend the Education Code section to include emergency action plan drills to enable the CIF to establish minimum standards and guidelines for membership schools to follow when rehearsing an emergency action plan. This Bill currently has no opposition, has received bipartisan support, and is heavily supported by the NFL and other big sports organizations. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call saying none? Ayes 40, no zero. The measure is adopted. File item number 208. Senator Stern? He is prepared.

Please read Assembly Bill 1697 by Assemblymember Schiavo and accolade into civil law.

Senator Stern, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, with the expansion of telehealth to rural areas, difficulty of hospital visits through the pandemic. A physical signature has become a barrier to care, at worst delaying vital treatment. This will eliminate administrative barriers that patients face by allowing electronic signatures to be used to authorize releases of medical information. Bill has no opposition. Bipartisan and unanimous support. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objection? Seeing none. Ayes 40. No, zero. The measure is adopted. File item number 222. Senator Ochoa Bogh. She is prepared.

Please read Assembly Bill 724 by Assembly Member Vince Fong an act relating to firearms.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, from 2019 to 2020, there was a 43% increase in Asian American buying firearms. Despite this, California's Firearm Safety Certificate, study guide and testing materials are only offered in English and Spanish. Using recent census data and supporting by existing laws that have expanded language access in other areas.

AB 724 would require that the documents necessary to earn a Firearm Safety Certificate are available in traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, and Armenian. By expanding language access, AB 724 supports the inclusion of all Californians, promotes public safety, and furthers understanding of the significance and responsibility attached to gun ownership. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using that, saying none? Ayes, 40, no, zero. The measure is adopted. Just give me a break. Give me a minute means the same thing. Okay, Members, we're going to move on to motions and resolution. Senator?

Thank you, Madam President. I'd ask for reconsideration of AB 1355, file item number 90.

Without objection, that motion is granted. Ayes, 40. No, zero. That motion is granted. So, Members, this is your lucky day. We're going to be taking taking a 30 minutes break for lunch. This means you can leave the floor, but that's it. Please do not go back to your offices. Please stay in the Capitol. We're doing excellent work today. So we need you back in 30 minutes. We are on recess.

Members, we're ready to take up the next Bill. We're going to start off where we left off. If I could get people's attention. Take your conversation off the floor. The next Bill up is file item number 223. Senator Dodd. That's your Bill. He is ready. Please read.

Assembly Bill 965 by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo an act relating to local government.

Senator Dodd, the floor is yours.

Madam President, AB 965 seeks to help broadband permits get processed more efficiently so our constituents can get more quickly benefits from the high speed Internet. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Do we have any objection to the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. ayes 40, no zero. The measure is adopted. Next up is file item number 229. Senator Umberg, he is prepared.

Assembly Bill 34 by Assembly Member Valencia, an act relating to elections.

Please read.

Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and colleagues. AB 34 by Assembly Member Valencia simply creates an independent citizens redistricting commission for the county of Orange. It's modeled after recent legislation that will similarly create an independent redistricting commission that would draw district boundaries for the Board of Supervisors. I urge an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Please call the roll.

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

Now please call the absent Members.

Limon. Nguyen. Grove aye to no.

Ayes 31, nos seven. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 254. Senator Eggman is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 608 by Assembly Member Schiavo, an act relating to MediCal.

Senator Eggman.

Thank you very much. AB 608 allows women who have had a baby to have care, for a year after, with MediCal in the community. I ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes: 40 noes: 0. Measure is adopted. Member, we're going to go back to file item number 160. Senator Umberg. He is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 957 by Assembly Member Wilson an act relating to family law.

Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, Members, this Bill concerns family law and the factors that should be taken into consideration when a court makes a determination as to visitation rights and custody. One thing I think we can all agree upon is enshrined law that the court has to determine what's in the best interests of the child based on certain factors, including, among others, the health, safety and welfare of the child.

And among those factors that the court may and some that the court shall consider are factors in the household, factors as to the child's psychological health and well being. When there's an issue concerning custody, most often the parents resolve that between themselves. Sometimes it has to be resolved by a court. And sometimes, in very rare occasions, there's a child who identifies as transgender who is questioning their gender identity. And among those children, there's a unique situation.

That situation is where they're subjected to all sorts of societal pressure and oppression, to bullying, to all sorts of other issues that would impact the child's health, welfare and development. And so what this Bill does, this Bill says in those rare circumstances those rare circumstances where a child is transgender or is questioning their gender identity, that the court must take that into consideration as well.

I'll read from the Bill permission to read I'll read from the Bill that what the court does in consideration of the many factors that should be viewed should be evaluated in visitation rights or custody, that one of them, in that rare circumstance, is a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity or gender expression. An affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child's overall health and well being.

It is indisputable that those who are transgender in that small community that there's an increase in, for example, reports of psychological abuse. 73% of transgender students report psychological abuse. 39% report physical abuse. 35% of transgender students have attempted suicide 35% of transgender students have attempted suicide in the last year.

So it only stands to reason that when a court is considering the multitude of factors as to where that child's health, welfare, safety, development can best be afforded, that among those factors that the court consider the attitudes and the affirmation of the parents as to that child. And that's all this Bill does. This Bill doesn't take the child away from the parents. This Bill doesn't mandate that someone who, because of religious beliefs, may not be as supportive as others. It simply makes it one of the considerations. I urge you aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item, Senator Grove?

Thank you, Madam President. Question of the author.

Will you accept a question?

Yes.

Thank you, Senator. Umberg, I appreciate it. Permission to read granted directly from the Bill. Under subsection one A, it says the health and safety of a welfare of a child. B, as used in this paragraph, the health and safety of the welfare of a child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent's affirmation of a child's gender identity, gender expression affirmation. It includes a range of things unique to that child but in every case must promote the child's overall health and well being.

So my question after reading that section of the Bill is that's section A, section Two A is a history of abuse by a parent of a child. Section B is the prerequisite considering allegations of abuse. Section three is what I believe it is, is abuse against another person and a habitual illegal drug abuse. All of those aforementioned items are heavily weighted by a judge to say if there's a custody battle that cannot be disputed.

If your spouse is a habitual drug user or has an abuse history, then the judge weights heavily in the person who is not that person. But having this language about Affirmation listed as item one A, does that supersede all the other things that are listed in the Safety welfare Code or is it just going to be considered as one of the five?

It does not supersede.

And it creates no weighted Affirmation, no weighted authority, I guess no weighted decision?

The Bill doesn't weight those factors and it's up to the individual judge as to how to judge. For example, you mentioned illegal drug abuse. If a parent occasionally smokes Marijuana, it's far different than whether a parent has a fentanyl addiction. Far different. And so, yes, we are relying upon the judge to be able to use her or his discretion to determine how significant that factor is.

Thank you. On my own time, respectfully ask for a no vote on this particular piece of legislation. I understand that there are studies that show that kids going through gender expression or gender identity issues are caught up in a turmoil. But I think that allowing a judge to determine and using that subsection first, even though the author says that it's not weighted and the definition of habitual drug or controlled illegal substance is someone who has a habitual continued abuse of alcohol or prescribed controlled substances.

I mean, it's not just a casual marijuana user, it's somebody who has a habitual drug use. The fear is that if that is weighted first, the health and safety of the child being weighted on the fact that that affirming parent. What if that Affirming parent is the habitual drug user or the person who has restraining orders or the abuse? Is that really the right place for that child if the judge has to weight in favor of the affirming parent?

There's horrible things that happen when it comes to custody battles. I'm sure we all have known someone that has been in the middle of a custody battle. Children are used in order to garner stuff on both sides of the custody battle. And I really do think that if that added to the way the Bill is written and added it to this health and safety code of a child and listing it as a number one and pushing everything down, it'll be the interpretation of the judge or it's the interpretation of the language that says that, because it doesn't say it's not that that would be the number one reason for awarding a child custody to the Affirming parent, regardless of the other five issues that are very drastically affecting children's lives in this piece of legislation. So respectfully ask for a no vote until those things can be fixed.

Senator Allen.

Well want to just rise to make a point. I served Judiciary Committee. We had the chance to hear the Bill. There was quite a discussion. I know there continues to be some folks who are concerned about whether this factor is going to be prioritized over all the others. And I do want to kind of state that it was very clear to me that the way that it's been characterized by the chair is what the Bill does.

If you give me permission to read, I want to just think that our analysis makes it very explicit. On page three of our Bill analysis, it says the Bill simply clarifies that family courts, when making determinations about a child's best interest in a custody of visitation proceeding, must consider as one factor comprising the health, safety and welfare of the child, a parent's Affirmation.

So it doesn't elevate that factor over others, but it includes that factor into the penumbra, the series of factors that the court is considering. And that was a clear understanding made in the judiciary discussion and the judiciary analysis and now in our floor analysis. And it's certainly with that understanding, I'm very happy to support the Bill today.

Further discussion or debate. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Madam President. When my wife and I decided to have kids, we knew that for 18 years she and I would be co parents. In raising these kids, we would be responsible for their well being. And when we disagreed, we would talk about it and we would figure it out as a family. As my kids grew older, they would have input into what happened or what's going on or what those dynamics are.

And when they turned 18, those dynamics changed a little because now we're giving them input into their decisions, and it's their decisions about their own lives. With our input before that, that was our responsibility. We knew it and we accepted it. And at no time did we contemplate that when we had a disagreement. We are going to go to the state Legislature to poke their noes into our family business.

There are instances, as were mentioned before, and I've been through the process where they go into your home and they ask the questions and they question each kid individually. Is this happening in your house? Is there alcohol abuse going on? And they didn't call it abuse because we were kind of young. Those are very different questions than the one being contemplated here and the one being contemplated here. In the midst of a nasty custody battle, people are going to just check the box. Yes.

There's no guarantee that that parent is going to be abiding by what this says. At some point, we have to realize when it's not our job to do the parents job for them instead of them and push them aside. And that's where this pushback comes from: out in the General public. I think our good friend from San Francisco was talking about this the other day.

And if we would just let parents be parents and then intervene for extreme problems like excessive drug abuse or child abuse, where there's physical harm being done. But there's also people want to talk about the mental aspect of it. Well, the mental aspect of it is so important for parents to be involved with counselors to try to go through a process that they're going to go through as a family already.

Putting this inserting this into the mix is going to pit one parent against the other and make things worse. And that is my fear. There is nothing that the Legislature can offer a family, especially when we're dealing with this issue, that is going to make things better for them, whether they hide the issue from the parents or they decide for the parents, hey, you're adequate, you're not. Because you have certain religious beliefs that don't align with what we think your child needs.

That is not a reason to deny custody or co-custody of a child. So for those reasons, I will be voting no. And I hope my colleagues understand that this isn't about transgenderism. This is about the family unit. This is about parents. This is about parents being responsible till those kids are 18 years old and then they're still responsible for providing input. We cannot replace parents with legislators, especially when legislators have never been parents. We should not be legislating for parents who understand what that means to them. So I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this, and I'll respect your votes. Thank you.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I first of all, want to really thank our colleague from Solano County, Assemblymember Wilson, who is the author of this Bill and who has several children and has a lot of credibility in this arena. And she has done Yeoman's work here. And I just want to publicly thank her for her work and her leadership. You know, fundamentally, this is about the health and safety of these children. That's what is at the heart of this.

That's what matters the most, that these children be safe. And we need to be clear that this Bill only has relevance when we are already in a not so great situation. There's been some rhetoric around this that this is going to be the government coming into people's homes and taking their kids away. This is about a situation where the court is already involved because there's a divorce and because the divorcing couple has not been able to agree to a custody arrangement.

And so the government has been called in and the court is already involved. And we know that custody battles are never pretty, they are never pleasant, they are always contentious, and they get very ugly with parents fighting each other. And the court has to be involved, and the county is involved in doing an assessment. And they look at every element of people's lives a wide range, and it's uncomfortable and it's intrusive.

But that's a system we have and have had for a long time, and that's what's already in play long before this Bill was even a thought in anyone's head. And so the government's already involved in making those decisions. We also need to be clear that this is about, not having the court get involved after a child has been beaten and had their arm broken or after they've been kicked out, after something horrible has happened to them.

This is about trying to make sure that something terrible does not happen to them. And that is part of what custody disputes and adjudications are about, trying to get ahead of it and not having to come up and clean up after the child has already been injured. It's about the safety of the children. That's what this Bill is about. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Permission to ask a question.

Will you take a question?

Sure.

Thank you. Senator, in the Bill, is there a provision for an age limit or an age range in these decisions?

The Bill doesn't specify an age range. However, I believe the law provides, and this is dangerous territory where I start to speculate, but that the custody issues only pertain to a child up to age 18, I'm not absolutely certain, but I think that's the law.

Okay, so would it be fair to say one more question. Would it be fair to say then this would pertain to ages zero to 18?

Well, in a custody issue, any child that is the product of the union of the two persons appearing before the court then becomes basically subject to the order of the court, and the parents become subject to the order of the court. So, yes, that's correct.

Thank you. So for me, this is a Bill that I've been processing for quite some time. I also have a lot of respect for the author and have seen myself as an advocate for all kids, regardless of their gender identity. This Bill I struggle with because I want to lean towards the science, not the politics of this issue.

And when I depend on science, I look at the American Academy of Pediatrics and I question when does a child have that ability, that cognitive ability to understand gender identity, whether they identify as one or the other or none? And there is science that states that it is between that two to three year mark and sometimes up to six or seven, depending on socialization, depending on upbringing, certainly nature and nurture. So I'm struggling with this because I also have been in very ugly family court battles.

I think that is some of the most inhumane procedures to bring children into is family custody battles and to add one more weapon for parents to separate their child from what is safe and loving and comforting for them, which is the family unit. I want to support this Bill, but I feel it's missing that it's missing the science and is heavily weighing on the politics.

So although I would like to be able to move forward with this Bill, I'm going to be refraining with the caveat that I will continue to be a champion for all kids. However, in this particular instance, I need to look at the science. Thank you.

Further discussion or debate? Further discussion or debate? Senator Eggman?

Thank you very much, Madam President. I think I would just like to make the point that this should not be about politics at all. This should be about children and family's safety and well being. Seems to be pretty simple. I mean, we have the family court system we've had to establish because of issues that come up that need a judge attorneys to be able to adjudicate what's in the best interest of the child.

I don't know if people are aware, but in 1966 we passed laws in the United States and in California that said you could not abuse your animals. You could not abuse your animals because it was assumed that if you owned them, they were your animals, that you could treat them any way you like. That was in 1966. It wasn't until 1974 that we decided that parents couldn't do the same to their children that they could not do into their animals. That we decided in 1966.

But we didn't decide to protect children into 1974. And since that time, we've had an evolution of laws that continue to evolve around what families look like. There was one time I could not have adopted. I've adopted my child one time. Laws prevented me from that. Family laws prevented me from having the right to be a parent. So this should not be about politics. It should be about the evolution of our laws and our understanding our evolution of our understanding of human beings and family units.

And again, these are people in the court system who have conflicts. This is saying this is one more aspect that a judge needs to consider when deciding what is in the best interest of a child. I ask for your aye vote.

Further discussion or debate? Further discussion or debate? Senator Ashby?

Yeah. I too serve on the Judiciary Committee and have the opportunity to have robust dialogue on this. And I just want to speak to the issue that I think moved me the most, and that is this: there is nothing in the law that says that in order something listed, number one is more important than something listed number 2345. So that's just placed in this ordinance now to be considered. What we know scientifically is that trans kids commit suicide at a very high rate. That's the science.

The science is that kids who are going through a divorce situation with their parents do best when they are supported by a parent with whatever's going on in their life. And so for me, the issue here is the kids, and what do we do that best cares for those kids. And when a judge, in totality, looks. At everything having to do with taking care of that child, if that child is trans, one of the issues they will consider is which parent is affirming and therefore providing the most loving support to that child in this moment in their life. And I urge an aye vote.

Further discussion or debate. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam President. I wasn't going to speak on this Bill but I just wanted to throw out one thing that it is obviously very difficult issue for parents in that situation and our courts do need to step in but some of the medications that are provided for affirming gender are permanent for a long time. We're still learning a lot more about the medications and I think that needs to be weighed in as well on this piece of legislation. Just want to throw those out as we've been hearing the testimony today.

Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam President. I actually wasn't going to speak but we as parents, we love our children unconditionally and I've made a comment in the past about when we talked about fentanyl, et cetera. None of us ever want to see our children go before us. That's the last thing any parents would want to see.

Going through a divorce preceeding is probably the most devastating part of any child any family's life. By complicating it and not really looking at the merit of the situation and helping the child, because we also talk about in our society that we want children to have both parents, a mom and a dad. And when they do, they grow up to be exceptional children and when they don't, that's when the disadvantage to these children are.

Point of order.

If we could speak of this Bill, we're not talking about the best situation that has to be between a man and a woman for a child to grow up. So I like if she could speak to the Bill.

So noted. You may proceed.

Thank you. Actually, let me correct that as long as there's two parents in helping a child, I think it's always the best. And we've talked about that in our society and that we want to make sure that during a court proceeding and I've watched this from families and friends, neighbors who's going through divorce, it's the worst time.

And if we start complicating it and not really talked about the health welfare of the child and allowing the judge to be very specific, knowing what they can and cannot do, that would be best for the child. Because if not, you're going to eliminate one parent, potentially both, from being able to be part of that child's or children's life until they reach 18. And no parent want to do that in any situation especially when they have to now fight for custody and visitation time.

I see it. You can see devastation when a parent loses visitation rights or gets half time and not full time and the complication between holidays. I've seen it all. And I think, though, I'm going to not support this Bill because I think you're complicating something that is not specifically on talking about, say we talked about the drug use of parents, potentially abuse of children. Those things should be in law and should keep individuals who should not be parenting away from children.

This Bill is not going to do that. It's going to complicate the process and are going to deny a parent or both parents from being able to see and raise their children. I ask for a no vote.

Further discussion or debate? Further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator, Umberg, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam President. Let me start with the last comment, then work my way through several others. First off, this Bill doesn't take any child away from the parents. Let me make that very, very clear. In terms of complicating the issue, here's what I think: experience teaches us about parents and parents that are going through a divorce and dealing with custody issues is that by providing guideposts, it gives the parents some guidelines as to how to structure custody.

Because clearly the best situation is where parents agree between themselves as to what's best for the child so that they know the court's going to consider things like the financial circumstances, even distance from school. Court's going to consider whether or not a child, in that rare circumstance where the child is trans whether one parent is more supportive than the other or whether one parent is not supportive at all.

Because we as a state, and I think we still agree in this body that the welfare of the child, the health, safety and welfare of the child is paramount. In fact, that's the law and that's why it's the law. Now, as we sort of parse through this legislation, this public policy that we're making, there's no mention of medication and there's no requirement that the court, for example, assess whether someone is being medicated, wants medication. None of that is within the parameters of the Bill.

We're making legislative history right now. This conversation makes legislative history. And so I agree with my colleagues who say there's no precedence among the various factors to be considered. And oh, by the way, there are many factors that still may be considered that are not listed. And so as we're making legislative history, I want to make it absolutely clear that the order in which these items are listed in the Bill doesn't denote any sort of precedent.

Number one, my colleague from Marietta I agree with my colleague from Marietta that it's best for parents to agree as to custody and visitation. Absolutely. Absolutely. But in that event, when they can't agree and the court is required to step in and albeit imperfect, a judge does not live with that family, albeit imperfect. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to create a situation that is not complicated, but a situation where a court can assess certain factors.

And one of the factors is when a child is trans as to the health, welfare, and safety of that child. And in terms of the science, I think the science is actually quite clear. The science is quite clear that trans young people. I mentioned a few statistics before, but let me underline a couple. By the way, 27% of transgender students report feeling unsafe going to and from school. 35% report being bullied at school. And that doesn't surprise any of us. That doesn't surprise any of us.

And so the fact that the court, among other factors, considers the psychological health and well being of a child is clearly an important public policy statement for us to make and to embody into the list of factors that a court must consider. I wish all parents were perfect. One of our colleagues just pointed out, I think 1,800 children are killed by their parents every year. I wish all parents were perfect, but they're not. And sometimes a court does need to step in. This, again, does not require a child to be taken away from a parent. It simply provides a guideline for a court to consider. Urge an aye vote.

Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Bradford aye. Hurtado.

Ayes. 30. Nos nine. The measure passes. Moving on to file item 185. Senator Padilla is ready. Please read.

Senator Padilla, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm happy to rise, today, on behalf of Assembly Member Ward to present AB 223, the Transgender Youth Privacy Act. AB 223 requires public records related to the petition for a change of gender and sex identifier be kept confidential. As you know, California law already provides this opportunity to persons to change their vital records to match their gender identity.

The petition, however, and the resulting paperwork are, as of today, a matter of public record -- discoverable with a simple internet search. In some cases, this only becomes known to an individual when a third party, such as a classmate, discovers this information, and outs them to their peers. Being outed is an extremely traumatic event for any individual, especially for individuals under the age of 18 when this leads, many times, to bullying and online harassment.

According to the Trevor Project, transgender and nonbinary youth are twice as likely to experience depressive symptoms, seriously consider suicide, attempt suicide, compared to their cisgender LGBTQ peers. This is ultimately a bill about the safety and privacy of our transgender youth. This bill makes no changes to the actual petition process and existing statute to make name or gender change processes. It does not change parental or familiar access during the process that is laid out in current law. It simply ensures that any resulting paperwork remain private, to protect the LGBTQ youth from being outed before they are ready to tell people how they identify. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam President. Question of the author.

Will you accept the question? He will.

For the record, I just would like to know whether or not an order for the child to have their -- to change their gender or their name legally -- do they need both parents permission in order to do that? Or one parent, in order to be able to do that?

Yes, Madam President. To my distinguished colleague, the answer is yes. The existing petition statute requires, particularly in the case of a minor petitioner, that one parent may be assigned to that petition. In the event that your parent is deceased or unavailable, otherwise, legal guardian or other near relative, including grandparents, or a guardian appointed by the court, in specific circumstances.

Thank you.

Other discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. You may conclude.

President, respectfully request an aye vote.

Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Bradford. Aye. Dahle. Nguyen. No. Ochoa Bogh.

Ayes: 32, noes: 6. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 196, Senator Menjivar is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1432 by Assembly Member Wendy Carillo, an act relating to health care coverage.

Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Senators, bodily autonomy and integrity are under attack throughout the United States. We've all heard about the bans on abortion, gender affirming care, similar to the last two bills we heard, and these attacks are only getting worse. Abortion is outright banned in 13 states, with another 12 states limiting access between six and 22 weeks. As of March of this year, 30 states have either restricted gender affirming care or considering laws that do.

Nine states have enacted legislative bans on gender affirming care for youth and young adults. Several proposed bans would limit access for youth, up to age 26. The Missouri Attorney General issued an emergency order restricting gender affirming health care for minors and adults. We must make sure that these horrendous laws do not find their way into health insurance coverage of California residents. AB 1432 seeks to eliminate a certain loophole.

Under current law, a health insurance policy or a health plan contract that is issued to a California resident, regardless of the location of the contract or master group policyholder, is subject to all requirements in the California Insurance Code. However, there is presently an exemption for policies issued outside of California to an employer whose principal place of business, the majority of employees are outside of California. If I am, for example, one of three employees, my employer is located in Texas.

Majority of my colleagues are located in Texas. I would not be eligible for health care coverage for reproductive rights or gender affirming care. AB 1432 is seeking to close that loophole. This exception is a major concern, since the US Supreme Court's overturning the five decade old constitutional right for a person to obtain an abortion, there have been a wave of anti-choice legislation across the nation.

We chose these two specific coverage requirements due to the ongoing onslaught of laws and bills in other states attacking bodily autonomy and integrity when it comes to these two specific forms of coverage. AB 1432 is just one step we can take to recognize a person's ability to make decisions about their own body, which is fundamental to the ability of a person to fully enjoy their rights. As a state, we have a duty to protect California residents and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Durazo. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. McGuire. Aye.

Ayes: 32, noes: 8. The measure passes. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 314. Senator Alvarado-Gil is ready.

Assembly Bill 262 by Assembly Member Holden an act relating to children's camps.

Please read.

Senator Alvarado-Gil. The floor is yours...

Thank you Madam President, I rise to present Member Holden's Assembly Bill 262. This is a Bill that lays the groundwork for our children to have safer camp experiences. Like many of you, attending camp was one of my favorite childhood memories. And now, as legislators, our responsibility is to guarantee safeguards that are in place to preserve those cherished camp memories. Unfortunately, there are far too many instances of avoidable camp injuries, abuse, and even deaths of children.

So we must implement safety measures and ensure centralized enforcement is developed in order to protect our kids while they're away at camp. This Bill directs the Department of Social Services to convene stakeholders and practitioners to focus on improved protections for children and recommend appropriate regulations for the child camping industry. This Bill also requires the Department to submit a report to the Legislature with their recommendations and draft preliminary regulations for our consideration. This is the next step in modernizing youth recreation, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Becker aye. Dahle no. Grove no. Nguyen. Niello. Ochoa Bogh aye.

Aye. 33. Nos five. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 322. Senator Blakespear is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 399 by Assembly Member Boerner, an act relating to water.

Senator Blakespear, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you President and colleagues, today I present AB Three 99 on behalf of Assemblymember Boerner. This is a district Bill that is specific only to San Diego County. AB Three Nine Nine modifies, a San Diego specific law dealing with the area's water authority. AB Three Nine Nine came about as a result of a LAFCO proceeding that was pending in San Diego County.

The San Diego LAFCO recently authorized two small water districts to pull out of the San Diego Water Authority, which provides water for our entire county. Many in San Diego oppose the defection of these two water districts. Due to the increased water rates, the departure would cause. The problem is the rest of the San Diego region. Roughly 3.4 million people will have to absorb an estimated 190,000,000 in increased rates to accommodate this move.

This process has illuminated a significant defect in the laws governing the water district in San Diego County because it allows any district to autonomously defect from the regional water authority with no input from the entire impacted region. This Bill is supported by a wide spectrum of local and statewide interests from the California Labor Federation to the California Chamber of Commerce, as well as the city and county of San Diego and many other impacted cities.

I respectfully urge your aye vote for this district Bill to ensure that all water ratepayers in San Diego have a voice when organizational changes will have a significant financial impact. Thank you.

Is there any discussion or debate? Discussion or debate. Senator Glazer.

Thank you. Madam President, Members, with respect to the author, city and county of San Diego and the floor manager, this is not a district Bill. And I know that Members could look at this and say, hey, this just affects a water district in San Diego, the San Diego area. Therefore, it doesn't affect me. And I have to tell you that you'd be seriously wrong in that regard. What's happening here is the rules that have been set up for how a water district disengages have been followed.

LAFCO considered the matter and said it was okay. They're now subject to an election of those who want to separate, of their voters to decide. That's the rules. That's the rules that all of our water districts follow when they join. They understand if they want to detach. Here's the consequences here's the process.

And what's happening in this particular water district is that because of the impact of their withdrawal, the city and county of San Diego say, we want to change the rules and we want not a vote of the local folks involved in the water district that wants to separate. We want a vote of everybody, which means that that water district is massively outvoted. So this is not a district issue.

This is a precedent that's being set that this Legislature and by the way, this is a gut and amend Bill, has not gone through the normal process that we're going to allow them to change the rules in the middle of the game. And I don't think that's a good precedent that should be set. One final thing, which is that the urgency clause was removed from this Bill.

And so on one hand, you say to yourself, okay, they're going to allow themselves to go ahead with an election this fall, and it really won't affect that situation. But if there's a challenge to that election and it's postponed, then this Bill is very relevant, very relevant to the consequences of these two water districts that have just followed the rules that were set up when they joined.

So with respect to the author, I don't think this is a precedent that's healthy for the Legislature to engage in. And accordingly, I won't be supporting the Bill today.

Other discussion or debate, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very familiar with this. I wasn't at first, and I was actually agreeable to the author's request to maybe support this Bill. However, after looking into it, I found what my colleague found, that this is going to change LAFCO process, it's going to set a precedent for changing that LAFCO process. These two small districts actually border my district.

They are rural communities that are not benefiting from what they thought was going to be a bigger water plan, while the other districts who are farther down don't have the benefit of being able to go to a different district or get their water from elsewhere. These two small rural areas do, and they can get better water rates in doing so. When LAFCO goes through that process I'm sure many of you have been through a LAFCO process. I've been through three of them.

They seriously look at the implications from the financial part of this and analyze those. And there is an exit fee for communities to leave or for them to absorb. If you're absorbing a community, say a parks district from the county, they figure out what those fees were, what should go to what agency, and they pay them back. So there is a number, there is a cost that is factored into this departure.

And I understand what the bigger picture is for the authority is they don't want to lose Members. And one of their arguments was, well, this is going to make other people think about losing. Well, they can't because they're not anywhere near water. These two districts are the only ones that can be affected by this. So the farther I looked into this, the more I could see the issues that my colleague was talking about with LAFCO.

When those two individual communities lose their voice to an overall community that's told, hey, your rates are going to go up, well, you know what? They'll never be able to exit. You shouldn't go into one of the cogs in government and then be forced to stay in it forever.

If you find it's not giving you what you need as a community, then it's time for you to consider other options. This particular Bill does not allow small communities to do that. It forces them to stay into something that they thought was going to be different for them. They'll pay the exit fee. I remember it was a pretty good amount. They'll absorb their portion of that bond. That's what that 100 and 9190 million dollars was. But they'll move on. And after their analysis, they found that their communities would be better off not belonging to this authority. And so this is something that I came around to opposing, and I asked for your no vote. Thank you.

Other discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none, you may conclude.

Thank you. I have just two points I'd like to make in conclusion in respect to the arguments that have been made by my colleagues. One is that this Bill is a San Diego specific Bill. We make the decision at any future point whether we as a Legislature want to extend something to be precedent setting for other organizations. So, as written, this Bill is San Diego specific.

And the second point that I'd like to make is that these two water districts were part of the San Diego County Water Authority when the San Diego County Water Authority entered into long term contracts for water reliability. So making the decision to invest in desalination plants and other, a desalination plant and other supply oriented infrastructure commitments was something that they were part of and that they stood to benefit from.

So the idea that two water districts and the residents within them because they are geographically placed close to a different water district that's in a different county in Riverside, that those two should be able to escape the responsibilities that they entered into by a vote of only them really doesn't seem fair.

So what this Bill fundamentally does is it requires that everybody in the county who's served by the San Diego County Water Authority would vote on their detachment instead of letting them decide on their own whether they are going to walk away from the commitments that they were part of when the San Diego County Water Authority decided to invest in water reliability, So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby. Becker aye. Caballero no. Dodd. Eggman Limon. Menjivar aye. Min. Newman. Portantino. Roth. Rubio. Stern. Wahab aye.

Senator Blakespear moves the call. Members are going to move on to file item number 332. Senator Durazo. She is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 567 by Assembly Member Ting an act relating to criminal records.

Senator Durazo, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, this Bill AB 56, seven on behalf of Assemblymember Ting allows for automated relief for misdemeanors and infractions and also allows an individual who has completed their sentence to request confirmation from the Department of Justice that relief was granted SB 731, my Bill from last year. Now law allows automated relief for individuals convicted of certain felonies.

Unfortunately, there is a gap in the current law where, unlike the felonies infractions and misdemeanors for some people who have completed their sentences are not eligible for automated relief. This fills in the gap and allows for automated relief for these individuals. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Please call the roll. Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call saying none? Ayes, 40, noes zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 344. Senator Menjivar. She is ready.

Please read.

Assembly Bill 767 by Assembly Member Gibson, an act relating to community paramedicine.

Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, today I'm rising to present Assembly Member Gibson's AB 767, which will continue to authorize local emergency medical service agencies to develop programs that provide community paramedicine services. It's received bipartisan support in both houses and has zero no votes. It is a thoughtful, balanced approach that gives local agencies flexibility, while ensuring a high standard of core care is met in every program. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Aye. Atkins. Blakespear. Dahle. Jones. Min. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Niello. Aye. Skinner. Aye. Stern. Aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Dahle. Jones.

Ayes: 38. Noes: 0. The measure is adopted.

All right, Members, we're going to pick up with file item number 346, Senator Cortese. He is ready. Please read.

Assembly Bill 811 by Assembly Member Mike Fong, an act relating to community colleges.

Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Senators, current regulations prohibit a community college student from retaking a course if a student has already received a passing grade. These regulations were implemented in 2012, due to the budget constraints. AB 811 will allow students to retake a course one more time, in certain subject areas such as arts, humanities and foreign languages, for enrichment or for skill building purposes. The bill is sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of the author, Mike Fong.

Is there any discussion or debate, Members? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Grove. McGuire. Aye. Grove. Newman. Niello. No. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab.

Senator Cortese moves the call. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 348. Senator Wahab is ready. Please read.

Assembly Bill 881 by Assembly Member Ting, an act relating to jury duty.

Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Members, I rise to present AB 881 on behalf of Assembly Member Ting. The bill is a pilot program, in San Francisco and four other counties chosen by the Judicial Council, that increases jury pay for criminal cases to $100 for low to moderate income Californians. California requires employers to provide time off for employees summoned to jury duty, but does not require to pay them. Jurors earn nothing on their first day, and only $15, each day, after.

Many low-income families can't afford to forfeit time off work, so they claim of a hardship and are excused from service. Consequently, jury pools are composed of people who can afford to serve and are not reflective of the demographics. This bill is directly modeled off of Assembly Member Ting's original bill, AB 1452, in 2021, which created the same pilot program in San Francisco to increase diversity in juries. The result of the pilot to date have been successful -- with 63 percent of people identified as people of color. 81% of people said they wouldn't have been able to participate without financial assistance from the pilot. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Discussion or debate? Is there any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Members, we're going to go through the roll one time, and then we're going to put these on call. One time. Please call the roll.

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

Senator Wahab moves the call. Moving on to file item number 385. Senator Menjivar is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1487 by Assembly Member Santiago, an act relating to public health.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President, colleagues, I'm rising for AB 1487 on behalf of Assembly Member Santiago, which would establish the first ever Fund of transgender...apologize, which would establish the transgender gender nonconforming and intersex reentry Fund. This Fund, upon appropriation, would provide grants to reentry programs that would address the challenges TGI people face upon being released from incarceration. As neighboring states propose laws that would limit transgender people's rights, or restraining laws to protect the TGI community.

Community based reentry services that catered to the specific needs of TGI people are scarce and necessary to prevent recidivism, support reintegration into society, and prevent harm on the basis of TGI status. California is a leader in inclusive policies therefore, it is vital that we provide resources for the TGI community. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate any discussion or debate seeing none, please call the roll A

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

Senator Menjivar moves the call. Moving on to file item number 402. Senator Stern is prepared. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1219 by Assembly Member Berman, an act relating to elections.