Senate Floor

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

Members, a quorum is present. Would the Members and our guests be on 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 our flag.

Let us pray today. In the words of the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore this is my prayer to you, my Lord. Strike. Strike at the root of penuri in my heart. Give me strength lightly to bear my joys and sorrows. Give me the strength to make my love fruitful in service. Give me the strength never to disown the poor or bend my knees before insolent might.

Give me the strength to raise my mind above daily trifles and give me the strength to surrender my strength to your will with love. Amen.

Members, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Place your hand over your heart and join in. I pledge allegiance to the flag.

All right, Members, the best is yet to come. Can I have everyone's attention? I wanted to give everybody a sense of the day. First, we want to continue the great progress that we all have been making this week. Thanks to all your good work and the work of our staff. Our plan this morning is to begin our plan this morning is to begin with Assembly bills that are here on our floor.

And if we make good progress there and good progress is made in the Assembly on our bills, we're going to go to concurrence measures later in the day. We're going to break for lunch. We have a couple of Committee hearings to be done during the lunch hour. The same goes for dinner. We're going to break for dinner. We have a number of committees that are set to meet at that time as well. And that is our schedule.

So we are going to begin with 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. We're going to move next to motions, resolutions and notices. Does any Member want to be recognized for motions or resolutions or notices? Okay, well, we're going to this is the last chance, Members.

All right, we're going to take a pregnant pause here. All right. The Senate is going to go into recess for just about three minutes.

All right? We're going to once again return to motions, resolutions and notices. Does any Member want to be recognized in this section? If not, we're going to keep moving. Okay, we're going to move to consideration of the daily file. We'll begin with second readings. The Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 96, 389, 1228, 1291, 1373. ACA 1, 13.

All right, we're going to step aside unfinished business and come back to it later. Without objection, we're going to move to the Senate third reading file. Members, I'm going to give you a heads up of the bills that we're going to be considering here this morning. We're going to begin with file item 66, followed by 71, 83 and 87 if you're following along. So we're going to begin with file item 66. This is Assembly Bill 682 by Assembly Member Mathis. Senator Limon is presenting. Clerk please read.

Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 682, by Assembly Member Mathis, an act relating to water.

Senator Limon, the floor is yours.

Thank you, President and Members. I rise today to present Assembly Bill 682 on behalf of Assembly member Mathis. AB 682 will require the State Water Resources Control Board to update its online search tool for funding applications to include information that is needed to process the application, the date it is needed by, and the cause of delays in this process. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

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

On a vote of 39 to zero, the measurepasses. We're going to move next to file item 71. File item 71. Members, this is Assembly Bill 56 by Assembly Member Lackey. Senator Ochoa Bogh is going to present. Clerk, please read. Assembly Bill 56, by Assembly Member Lackey, an act relating to victims compensation and making an appropriation therefore. Senator Ochoa Bogh, the floor is yours.

Assembly Bill 56, by Assembly Member Lackey, an act relating to victims compensation and making an appropriation therefore.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 56, which expands eligibility for victims compensation to survivors of violent crimes in order to cover costs associated with emotional injuries. This compensation will make therapies and other forms of care more accessible to victim survivors who often struggle with psychological injuries like post-traumatic stress disorder. Providing survivors with compensation for pain and suffering will allow them to focus on their recovery without worrying about how to pay for the necessary treatments. AB 56 received no no vote and passed the Assembly 72 to zero. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any discussion or debate? This measure is eligible for an unanimous roll call. Any objections to using an unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes, 39. No, zero. The measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 71, followed by file item 83 and 84. Excuse me. 71. We'll go to file item 83.

Assembly Bill 37 by Assembly Member Bonta an act related to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Senator Wiener, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present AB 37 on behalf of Assembly Member Bonta. AB 37 is in response to the alarming increase in political violence and death threats directed towards elected officials and candidates for office. Just this past April, we were evacuated from this building due to a credible threat involving a shooter at large. AB 37 protects candidates, elected officials, their families and staff by authoring personal security as a campaign expense and expending who's eligible for security.

The measure also removes the $5,000 lifetime cap on security expenses using campaign funds which has not been adjusted for inflation for 30 years. Finally, AB 37 adds a special carve out which allows for candidates or elected officials to retain their security after the end of their campaign or at the end of their term in office if there is continuing threat that has been verified by law enforcement. The author worked closely with the FPPC to ensure all security expenses and reimbursements are reported and made available to the public. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Any discussion or debate discussion or debate. Seeing none. This is a 27 vote Bill. Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado Gil. Aye. Gabriel. Dahle. McGuire. Aye. Seyarto No.

On a vote of 35 to three, the measure passes.

Moving on now, Members, to file item 84, AB 280, being presented by Senator Durazo today. Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 280 by Assembly Member Holden, an act relating to segregated confinement.

Thank you. Go ahead, please, Senator.

Thank you, Madam President.

Oh! Excuse me. No. He was premature. Please, go ahead, Senator.

Thank you. Colleagues, years of research continue to confirm that solitary confinement causes deep psychological and physical harm, but its use remains common in jails, prisons and detention facilities across California. AB 280, the California Mandela Act, defines what constitutes solitary confinement and sets much needed limits on its use, based on the United Nations Mandela Rules and modern scientific consensus recognizing that prolonged solitary confinement is akin to torture.

The Mandela Act limits the use of solitary confinement to 15 consecutive days and no more than 45 days within a 180-day period. This bill also prohibits the use of solitary confinement to our vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and those with serious mental and physical disabilities, because people who need specialized care should not be locked up in a room the size of a parking space and without access to the services they need.

Prior to 2015, thousands of incarcerated individuals were routinely warehoused in cramped, windowless cells for nearly 24 hours a day, often for years on end. Pelican Bay State Prison, alone, held over 500 individuals in solitary cells for over a decade. A class action lawsuit filed on behalf of incarcerated people led to a massive reduction of people subjected to prolonged solitary confinement, from well over 10,000 to approximately 3000 people, today, but without any spike in violence in California's prisons.

I want to take a moment to be very clear what the California Mandala Act does and does not do. This bill does set a defined limit on how long an individual can be subjected to prolonged isolation without human contact and confined inside of a cell. It does not eliminate the ability of a facility to hold someone in an individual cell, either because they need protection or because they may pose a threat to others.

And finally, this bill provides distinct alternatives to 23-hour lockdowns, which only serve to perpetuate cycles of violence and cruelty. Reforming solitary confinement in California is long overdue, and the Mandela Act brings our state in line with others, like Colorado and Connecticut, as well as the international community. Assembly Member Holden continues to work with the Administration and CDCR on proposed changes to solitary confinement practices and appreciates their dedication to this issue. Colleagues, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Assembly Bill 280.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Dahle, for what reason do you rise?

Good morning, Madam President. Members, I have amendments at the desk.

Thank you. The Clerk will read.

Amendments by Senator Dahle. Set one.

Go ahead, Senator.

Thank you.

And again, this is non-debatable.

The amendments will ensure fentanyl dealers are held accountable selling lethal drugs by requiring the courts to advise individuals convicted of felony sells and manufacturing related to offenses that subsequent offenses could result in the change of voluntary manslaughter or murder. In California, the statistics surrounding fentanyl are both staggering and heartbreaking. In 2021 alone, fentanyl claimed the lives of more than 5700 Californians. Behind each of those numbers is a story and a life cut short.

Between 2019 and 2021, fentanyl overdose and poisoning deaths among young people aged 14 to 18 were more than tripled. In 2022, the Drug Enforcement Agency Administration seized over 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder and more than 50 million counterfeit fentanyl-laced prescription pills. Nearly 500 Californians are dying every month from fentanyl. In 2022, 28,765 pounds of fentanyl was seized in California, enough to kill the entire population of North America twice. Fentanyl poisoning is the leading cause of death for young adults in the US, surpassing suicide, gun violence, and car accidents.

More must be done to deter the sale and trafficking of these deadly drugs. Just last week, the Governor announced that he was sending more National Guard troops to our border to stop smuggling, doubling them, which is only 20 more than what we had there, so 40 people at the border. Last month, Placer County DA had the fortitude to change a drug dealer with murder -- charge a drug dealer with murder, and he was convicted for seven years.

Members, these amendments at the desk are the exact same amendments that the Senator from Yucaipa and the Senator from Santa Ana, better known as Alexandria's Laws -- we had 18 bipartisan co authors on that piece of legislation -- this is the exact same amendments. If you vote yes to table this, you're voting against your co-author of Alexandria's Laws. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on these amendments.

Thank you. Senator McGuire?

Thank you so much, Madam President. This is an issue that is dear to everyone's heart in this chamber, an issue that all of us care deeply about, are working on. Would respectfully ask to lay the amendments on the table. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Senator Mcguire is asking for an aye vote on laying the amendments on the table. This is non-debatable. Senator Dahle is asking for a no vote. Clerk will call the roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Atkins. Aye. Becker. Blakespear. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Caballero. 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. 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. Wilk. No.

Call the absent Members.

Becker. Aye. Caballero. Weiner. Aye.

31-8. The motion carries. The amendments are laid on the table. Now returning to the bill in chief. Any other Members wishing to be recognized on this bill? Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, last year we had a very similar bill to this on our floor, and I voted against it. But it wasn't because I didn't share the concern that the author has rightfully raised in the measure, but I committed myself after that vote to do a couple things.

The first thing is is that I asked for a meeting with the director of the Department of Corrections to go through what I thought were very legitimate concerns about who was being put in solitary confinement -- or in the prison jargon, segregated confinement, I think, is the term. And I expressed to the director the fact that it's an issue that I'm very concerned about. And does he have the data to show who's going into those spaces? How they're treated? What's the reason? How long they had to stay there? Et cetera, to better understand whether our prison system was acting responsibly.

And he indicated that he didn't have anything to provide to me at that moment, but that he would get back to me. I never got anything back from him -- any data, any facts about who was being put in segregated confinement. The second thing that I committed to doing was I asked to go visit Folsom Prison. And in the fall of last year, my staff and I went to Folsom Prison to see the conditions in which inmates were being held, both in the broader population and in segregated confinement. And the second thing that I asked to do was I asked to meet with the prison council. These are the elected members, prisoners elected by their fellow prisoners to be the leadership of the prison council at Folsom Prison.

And so both things were provided to me. I sat down with, I believe it was four members of the prison council. I want to note that there were corrections officials in the room, so it wasn't just me. So I know there's a pressure and a bias that comes out of that circumstance. And I talked with them about segregated confinement and whether or not they thought it was a proper thing, or that they thought that the folks that were being put in it were being done in a proper way. And I also asked each of them why they were there, what they were in for, and all of them went through and talked about the crimes that they had committed, and they were very, very serious crimes, including murder.

And each one of them, when they were given the opportunity to talk about segregated confinement, they all said the same thing. They said that it's necessary if you're going to keep the prison safe, that the folks that are going in there are there because they have done something to create an unsafe condition. They were sent there because they were engaged in violence in the institution that put all of them at risk, all of their lives at risk.

Each one of them said the same thing. After that visit, I asked to go to solitary confinement to see the conditions in which they were living in. And, you know, a prison cell is not a cushy place to begin with. And the biggest difference that I saw in the cells that were in solitary confinement, or segregated confinement, were basically the same size, but they weren't double bunks. You were just in there by yourself.

There was screening on the bars because you had to be protected in a more serious way from those who were confined there. And they asked me to pick any of the folks that were behind those bars to talk with them alone, privately. And I did. There were, I don't know, 20 or 30 on the row.

I picked each one, and I talked to the person that was in there, asked them what they were in there for, how long they were there for, whether they thought that their situation deserved the punishment that they engaged in. And each one of them told me their story. None of them complained about it. I know they weren't happy about it. And this is a private conversation.

And after I finished the conversation, I would step away, talk to prison officials to see whether they had told me the truth about the reason they were there. And sometimes they pushed the examples, made it a little milder than it sounded on the surface. Okay, so what did that tell me to do? It told me that we have a serious issue in solitary confinement still, in my view, they're kept in their cells too long, et cetera. So what did I do about it?

I introduced a bill last year -- excuse me -- this year, to try to deal with the problems that were raised in this bill that we're hearing today. And what did the bill do? It created a step-down program to encourage and incentivize inmates to take steps to be released from segregated housing. It prohibited the use of gang affiliation as a justification for placing inmates in isolation. It required standards to alleviate the conditions of segregated confinement, including regular and meaningful social contact, health care, access to sunlight. And the second thing that I asked for in this bill was the data that we all rely upon to make good judgments about our prison conditions. I asked for the rehabilitation programs made available to inmates.

What type of placements similar to solitary confinement, including lockdown and quarantine, were being used, the staffing ratios, the number of times individuals were kept in solitary confinement for the year, total times they had been in solitary, whether they had been examined for mental health, and on and on -- data that could allow us to make good judgments. That bill was heard in our Public Safety Committee this year and defeated. That's all it did. Created rehabilitation step-down options and data, and it was defeated.

So getting back to the bill in question, if we're going to make these judgments about setting an arbitrary limit on how long people can be in solitary, shouldn't it be based on some facts, some information about the abuses that are alleged to have occurred? And I don't doubt that they have occurred. And if we're going to put an arbitrary limit on how long you can be in segregated confinement, what are we doing for the broader prison population?

If you were a warden in a prison today, that's your job, and your job is to keep people safe, do you feel an arbitrary limit, no matter what that person did in prison, is the right way for you to handle that responsibility? Let me add one final argument to the issue at hand today. We have a governor, of my party, of our state, who I believe shares the same values that are represented by the author, certainly the floor manager, certainly many of you, and certainly me.

The values of treating people right, even if they're accused of a serious crime or convicted of a serious crime -- that there are basic human rights that everyone deserves to have even when they are in prison, and that our work should be about rehabilitation and restorative justice.

We have a governor who has those same values as all of us, and he is the governor who is in charge of our prison system today, that many of the provisions of this bill, or other things that you think should happen in our prisons, are reforms that he could implement today. Now, he vetoed this bill, similar bill, last year. And I'm not so sure he has done the action steps that I would have liked to see to make sure our prisons are safe and humane.

But I also know that we, as a Senate, have the ability to hold the Administration accountable to these issues. We have the ability to hold hearings every week to ask for the data, the facts, on who's in solitary, for what reason, how long, and whether or not we're treating them responsibly. We have that ability today. So the question that I would ask to you is, should we pass a bill -- as well meaning as it is --

As well meaning as it is -- that sets us an arbitrary limit that doesn't take into account the conditions in the prisons? And for me, unfortunately, it's a judgment that, no, I don't think that's the responsible thing to do, even though I share the values represented by the author in this bill about treating people well, even when they have been convicted of a serious crime. And so that's why today, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill.

Thank you very much. Now we will go to your twin, Senator Allen.

Well, thank you, Madam President. Unlike my bowtie-d colleague, I did vote for the bill last year, because I did share the core concerns about the overuse of solitary confinement in the prisons. As was mentioned, the bill was vetoed. There was an informative -- more informative than usual -- veto message. And I agree that the response has been perhaps inadequate, of late, but it is my understanding that the CDCR is coming out with new regulations very soon and there's going to be a whole process associated with it.

So quite frankly, I don't see what the play is here. We passed the bill last year. We sent it up to the Governor. It was vetoed. And I was happy to support it. But now it just seems like the deal has not been struck with the Administration. In the end of the day, the Governor's got to make the decision as to whether this policy moves forward or not, unless there's serious appetite for an override. So it just feels as though this is a flush that's happening right now. And I don't understand the strategy. And I say this after having spoken to many people involved in this bill. And I just wanted to express my concerns as I don't understand the play here.

Thank you. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I wasn't going to originally speak on this particular bill. I am a co-author, and as chair of Public Safety, I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. Our job as policymakers are really to really tackle the issues that we see and make a positive impact in our communities. The reality is that, although some consider this arbitrary numbers, we, again, make policy and therefore we are to set some limitations and some safeguards.

This is to prohibit a facility from holding an individual in segregated confinement for roughly 15 days, or no more than 45 days, in 180-day period. The tool is utilized to separate individuals that could create harm. But it's not just our prisons. We're talking about detention facilities as well. We are also talking about making sure that there are safeguards for people who are under the age of 25 and pregnant persons or anything like that. And individuals that have potentially a mental or physical disability.

They are prohibited. These are safeguards for this particular tool. Solitary confinement is a tool, but it's not the only tool to protect individuals that are in these facilities. At the end of the day, this is a human rights bill, right? We have continuously talked about how our prison system is supposed to be utilized for rehabilitation. Now, if you take a look at when people put their children in time-out because they did something wrong. Is it indefinite?

No, it's for five minutes, 10 minutes, maybe 30 minutes, an hour. Some other form of punishment is utilized. The bills that were brought forward to Public Safety did not have any limitation of this particular tool. In fact, the information that, based on last year's bill till now, still, there is no timeline to limit this type of particular tool. At the end of the day, there is significant mental health concerns for those individuals that are further isolated and further demonized. And again, this is not just for our prison system. So, I really just want to highlight this as a human rights bill. This is something that needs to happen. We continue to push the boundary and set safeguards as policymakers. And so, I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Madam President. So I want to speak on this bill a little bit. I totally agree with my colleague from Orinda on this. There is a need to humanize our system. But this particular issue is just a small part of a prison system that's failing because we don't put what we need to put into it to make it better.

Our facilities -- we could do all the rules we want, but if our facilities are going to be lacking, like they are, they're not going to be able to do their job. If we want to rehabilitate people, we can't expect them to go into a broom closet with five or six people to learn. We have not invested the money that we need. Instead, we're closing prisons down, because we've decided what we should have is no prison at all and just give them all to the county.

That's not a prison system. That's not a rehabilitation system that's going to work. And just one more thing on the rehabilitation versus punishment. I'm sorry, but there is punishment involved in this. There are lots of people. And I went and I talked to them, too. I went to San Quentin. I went to Folsom. I had my tours with them, also. And I saw the conditions, and I talked to the prisoners.

And in fact, one of them, I actually kind of knew, because of where I used to work. And so we kind of hit it off. The warden was a little bit taken aback, but he was telling me his story. And he was one of those folks that was in confinement. And I'm not going to relay it because I don't want anybody to know about it for his sake. But the bottom line is, they have a purpose for what they do in the prisons.

If they had better facilities, they could do their job better. But if we're going to close down the facilities that are new and leave the facilities that are old up, and we're going to make one rehabilitation unit, that's not going to get it done. It's not helping the prison down at Stockton, the women's prison down there. We need a bigger approach to our incarceration system so that we have a great rehabilitation part of it.

But we also have to understand there are people, people like the guy that's going to go up for probation, or for parole, in just a little another month that strangled a three year old that I knew and stuffed her in a closet. No, that guy doesn't get out. He doesn't need to get out. He should never get out. There is a timeline for him. So we need a bigger perspective on what we're going to do about our incarceration and rehabilitation system.

We need to give our CDCR folks the tools they need to do the job, so that they don't have suicide rates like they have. So I'm going to be opposing this bill, because I want to see a bigger approach. And we need to be able to give the wardens their ability to do the job, according to the conditions that they have that we don't see from Sacramento. So therefore, I'm going to be voting no on this.

It doesn't mean I don't care about the prison facilities and it doesn't mean I don't want us to have a good rehabilitation -- I want that as much as any of my colleagues want it -- we want a good rehabilitation program for people who stray off into the wrong direction. But just taking it one little thing at a time and then telling people, "Look what we did for justice," isn't getting it done. We need to do justice for everybody, including the victims. So I appreciate your comments from my colleague over in Orinda, and I will be joining him in opposing this measure.

Thank you very much. That women's prison is in Corcoran. Senator Skinner. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I rise in support of AB 280. This is not the same bill as we voted on last year or that the Governor vetoed. There's a number of varying provisions. So it is not the same bill. Additionally, to the points that we -- a couple of key ones -- this does not eliminate our correction facilities, whether county or state or other, from utilizing the tool of segregated or solitary confinement. It does not eliminate it. It does put limits on it.

And in doing so, it acts similarly to a number of other states, such as New York, Washington, the other ones are New Jersey, Colorado and a number of others. So this does not put California at odds with a practice that, clearly, those other states also have incarcerated individuals that can be a danger to the other population. This just puts reasonable limits on a very, very human-damaging form of isolation. And has been already referenced: there are numerous citations around the type of damage that this type of confinement creates on a person, a human, on both their physical and mental health.

And given that our real, clear objective for our carceral facilities, now, is rehabilitation, meaning that the majority of our population -- not all, but the majority -- will return home at some day, whether if they are in county facility or state -- they will return home. And so, we want them in the best possible shape when they return home, so they can thrive and contribute to our communities and not be criminalistic or have exacerbated mental health problems. That is not in any of our interests. So we should also look at this bill from the point of view of public safety. That it benefits our public safety.

Now, additionally, to the comment that our Governor vetoed last year's bill, certainly our Governor has the right, on any bill that comes to his desk, to veto it. However, we also, as the Legislature, not only have the right, but we have the responsibility to communicate policy that we think is appropriate. Even if we know that at any point in time that our Governor may not, at that moment, fully agree, it is still our responsibility and right to communicate what we think is appropriate policy.

That is our role. And this, I believe, is appropriate policy. And then finally, to these questions about budgets and other things of our state prison facilities. The closures that we have been experiencing are due to the fact that we have a much lower population of incarcerated individuals. And in fact, now, we, the State of California and our taxpayers, are paying for more than 10,000 empty beds.

And I think that most taxpayers would want us to use our money very wisely and to make sure that it is being directed to the type of prison facilities that really give us the ability to have the folks who are housed in them exposed and provided with every possible rehabilitative program, so that when they do return home, for those that will, that our public safety is put first and prioritized, and they are in the type of mental and physical shape to be able to participate in that public safety. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam President, for indulging this conversation. It is very important, and I want to just make a couple of points that haven't not been made yet. As somebody who represents two state prisons, Folsom and High Desert and CCC up in Lassen, and was a county supervisor for 16 years in that county, where we have a prison population there, not only the families there. If you've done a tour and if you've actually dug into this, as some comments have been talked about today, there are gangs inside of our prisons, and there's crime inside of the prisons that is perpetuated on the populations there.

And solitary confinement is a tool to manage the prison and keep that from getting escalated out. And so, when you start talking about legislating the time, we need to go to the professionals. I would actually support the study bill, if we could ever get one, to the floor and onto the Governor, to where you can actually work with the correctional officers and the people who are, every day, inside these institutions trying to manage and actually rehabilitate people, which we are doing a horrible job of rehabilitating people. And to the part about the 10,000 open beds, that's true -- because we have decriminalized crime. Those 10,000 beds are not full of people who are committing crimes.

They're out on our streets committing crimes, as crime has been decriminalized by this Legislature. And that's the reason we see crime rising, even though you'll say the numbers don't, it's because we don't call it crime anymore. We have SB 14 coming forward, which is going to make a felony for rape and child sex trafficking. That's because it was decriminalized. That's why we have SB 14. So, Members, I'm going to vote no on this bill.

We need to do a better job of actually going to the prisons and understanding what's happening there before we start legislating ways to change our policies. We've seen that be legislated, and we've seen crime go up on our streets, and Californians are suffering from high crime and smash-and-grabs and you name it, and they're sick and tired of it. We need to do our job here and actually get educated to do the right thing. For those reasons, I will not be supporting this legislation.

Thank you. Senator Stern.

Thank you, Madam President. I was not planning to rise and speak, but I guess the debate has confused me. There are a couple of things, I think, that we're actually agreeing on, strangely, here, that solitary confinement is necessary in some circumstances and it's torture in other circumstances. We're also agreeing that we all care about the best interest and the well being of our inmates and that we all agree on rehabilitation, which is actually a comforting thread and feels like, maybe, potential for progress.

And perhaps that's where a lot of the new resources are going to go in these places of progress -- what we're seeing popping up right outside Men's Central Jail in the heart of LA County, behavioral health locked facility, to actually address these mental health crises -- not having it be a suicide center in the middle of LA, because it's such a dark place. I don't think anyone here, that I've heard, sort of rhetoric aside, is saying anything different than that.

I also think that this bill, the provisions in here, need to become law very quickly. The kinds of changes that the Assembly Member brought forward that we voted on, but have been refined since that bill's passage, have to do with preventions of those sort of inhumane and truly unconstitutional circumstances. Cruel and unusual in those circumstances: when you're not getting access to basic services, treatment, basic needs, clothing, food, bedding. Those are now required under this bill. You have to be checked on every 15 minutes.

You have to have mental health professionals notify, in writing, 12 hours of placing an individual in segregated confinement. So those provisions, I feel like, are at the essence of this bill. And yet this hard cap of 15 days is sitting out there that doesn't have a precondition, doesn't have an exemption for the well being of the inmate. And that lack of priority makes this bill not worthy of being law yet. And therefore, I don't think we should be moving this bill yet.

I want to change that. Because I truly believe we need to put the well being of these inmates and of the prison itself and everybody's safety at the center of the bill. And the provisions I read to you are at the center. I don't believe that 15-day cap is -- actually from talking to the author and talking to the advocates -- everyone admits that there needs to be flexibility in this framework some way. It doesn't have that right now. I don't want to hold off this bill. I wish we had been able to wait, and I still think it should become law, and I think it will become law, but I'm not going to be supporting today.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other Senators wishing to be recognized. Senator Durazo, you may close.

Thank you very much. Someone mentioned -- one of my colleagues mentioned that they wanted to know what the play was. And I thought about it. Because, am I missing something here? I don't base my decision on what policy to support or not support based on the play. We have a responsibility to understand what the policy is that will be helping or hurting Californians.

The Nelson Mandela rules are a standard set by the United Nations for the minimum treatment of incarcerated people in the world. On solitary confinement, the Mandela rules state that: a period of solitary confinement for more than 15 days is torture and should be outlawed. Colleagues, this is the international standard that we should follow. It's not something that doesn't -- that standard doesn't lack scientific evidence or information about the way people are treated throughout the world. And that's what we should be using as our guidance.

We just went through a pandemic. And people across the community were really hurting, partly because of the lack of social interaction. Protecting people's humanity is an important part -- and connecting people with each other is an important part -- of our well being. This is not about not having solitary confinement as a tool. But I hope that everybody agrees that it's not the answer to a long term -- it's not the long term solution. What's really important here is that it's a short term.

It's used when necessary, 17 hours a day without contact. If we're talking about rehabilitation, we have to have these kinds of rules. Smash-and-grab has nothing to do with the rules on the use of solitary confinement. This has to do with whether or not it's appropriate, it's fair, and it's a humane policy to have in our state. And I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you very much. The Clerk will call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Archuleta. Aye. Caballero. Eggman. Jones. Min. Newman. Roth. Rubio. Stern. Umberg.

The Senator moves the call.

Members, we're going to continue with Assembly third reading. Next up is file item 87. This is Assembly Bill 1536 by Assemblymember Carrillo. Senator Durazo looks prepared. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 1536 by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo and accolade to Public Social Services.

Senator Durazo, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. AB 1536 seeks to expand the currently existing cash assistance program for immigrants, cappy to allow access to the program regardless of immigration status. California is home to approximately 17,000 undocumented seniors, 65 and over. Of these seniors, 7,000 do not have a job or not in the labor force. And 2200 are at or below poverty level. But think about this. Over 700,000 undocumented immigrants have lived and worked here for over 20 years.

California has made historic investments in expanding food assistance benefits and unlocking medical for undocumented seniors. But we have fallen short in doing the same for the cash assistance program for immigrants. Currently, this life-saving program is only limited to qualified immigrants which excludes our larger undocumented population. These are the very benefits that they have often paid into over the course of their work in our state. Colleagues, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Durazo, any discussion or debate on this matter? Discussion or debate? Seeing none, the Clerk please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle. 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.

Please call the absent Members.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Caballero. Dahle. Grove. Nguyen. Niello. Wilk.

On a vote of 32 to 2, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 89. Senator Laird, before we read it, I think Senator Laird has a request.

Mr. President, I request that this file item 89 AB 147 be moved to the inactive file at the request of the author.

The desk will note we'll move next to file item 91. This is Assembly Bill 318 by Assemblymember Addis. Senator Laird is prepared. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 318 by Assemblymember Addis in accolades into mobile homes.

Senator Laird, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. AB 318 extends the deadline for the Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Program by three years rather than let it expire at the end of the year. The Bill extends the deadline for a program that provides much needed protections to mobile home residents by extending the sunset or following the original intent of the Bill to be able to evaluate the program after five years. And the three year extension from 2024 to 2027 would allow this, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer. Gonzales aye. Grove no. Hurtado. Jones no. Laird aye. Limon aye. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min 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.

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil. Caballero. Glazer aye. Hurtado. Ochoa Bogh. Wilk no.

On a vote of 29 to 6, the measure carries. Members, we're going to move next to file item 131, followed by file item 142. 131 is Assembly Bill 352 by Assemblymember Bauer-Khan. Senator Atkins is prepared. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 352 by Assemblymember Bauer-Khan and acclimating to health information.

Senator Atkins, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I'm proud to present AB 352 on behalf of Assemblymember Bauer-Khan. We've all benefited from the ability of our healthcare providers to share our health records in order to better coordinate our care. However, in this post-Dobbs world, we've discovered some disadvantages to that. While we did incredible work last year to protect abortion access, there are troubling gaps that remain in regard to health records.

Specifically, physicians in anti-choice states can access details of abortion care, reproductive services, and gender-affirming care, even if it's unrelated to the patient's current health care needs. And this creates the risk that out-of-state providers will report patients to authorities, thus endangering patients and providers. The last thing we want is for patients to face a tradeoff between criminalization and medical care.

AB 352 requires the segregation of information on gender-affirming care, sexual health, and abortion care in health information exchanges, and in other health systems to prevent the information from being automatically shared. Outside of California. AB 352 also limits the electronic sharing of health information related to abortion care services within California. A simple guardrail of patient consent will give patients the security and autonomy that they deserve. And finally, AB 352 contains double jointing amendments to prevent chaptering out provisions of SB 3 or 582. Excuse me, 582 by our own Senator Becker. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Atkins. Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. 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 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 aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Caballero. Grove no. Nguyen no. Ochoa Bogh no.

On a vote of 32 to 7, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 142, followed by file item 92. 142 is Assembly Bill 268 by Assemblymember Weber. Senator Atkins is ready. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 268 by Assemblymember Weber and accolade to the Board of State and Community Corrections.

Senator Atkins, the floor is yours.

Thank you again, Mr. President, Senators, I'm here to present AB 268 on behalf of Assemblymember Dr. Weber, which seeks to address the deficiencies in California's local detention facilities raised by the California State Auditor's Office and raised a standard of care standards of care for incarcerated people. In 2021, the California State Auditor's Office investigated the San Diego County Sheriff's Department and discovered 185 individuals in their custody died from 2006 through 2020. More deaths per average daily populations than any other large county in our state.

Additionally, with the recent DOJ investigation into Riverside County Jails for the deeply concerning allegations relating to conditions of confinement, excessive force, and other misconduct, the need for this Bill is urgent. The 2022 state audit findings confirm the already extensive public record documenting the tragic loss of lives, systemic failures, and inadequacy of oversight. The Auditor noted that given the annual number of incarcerated individuals, deaths in county jails across the state increased from 2006 to 2020.

Improving the statewide standards is essential to ensuring the health and safety of individuals in custody in all counties. AB 268 codifies numerous recommendations to improve the health and safety of incarcerated individuals in all detention facilities outlined in the Auditor's Office. AB 268 will further require BSCC to develop and adopt regulations that align with best practices related to performing intake, health evaluations, and safety checks requiring ongoing correctional staff training.

This Bill also adds two additional Members to the board, a licensed healthcare provider and a mental or behavioral health provider. The need to add these two Members is critical, as their expertise and knowledge can help guide the Board to establish practices that prioritize an individual's mental and physical health. Each would bring their own unique and separate experience to the Board, which is currently lacking professional medical opinion. There's a crisis of incarcerated people dying behind bars.

A jail sentence cannot remain a de facto death sentence for our communities. The people in custody are someone's mother, our father, son, or our sister. AB 268 will bring about the necessary accountability and ensure that the recommendations laid out by the State Auditor are implemented to reduce suicide and ensure that those in custody are in safe and humane conditions. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Atkins. Any discussion or debate on this measure? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen. Aye. Albro De gill, Archuleta. I. Ashby. I. Atkins. I. Becker. I. Blake Spear. I. Bradford. I caballero cortezzi. I dally. No. Dodd? I. Dorazo Aye. I. Eggman? I. Glazer? I. Gonzalez? I grove. Bertado I. Jones. No Laird. I. Limon. I. Maguire. I. Menjivar. I. Min Newman. I Wynn Milo. Ochobo Padilla. I Forntino. I. Roth. I. Rubio. I SEATO. No Skinner. Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzales aye. Grove. Hurtado. Jones no. Laird aye. Limon aye. Mcguire aye Menjivar aye. Min. Newman aye. Nguyen. Niello Ochoa Bogh. Padilla aye. Portaninto aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto no. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wilk.

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil. Caballero. Grove. Min. Nguyen. Niello. Ochoa Bogh. Wilk.

On a vote of 29 to three, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 92. This is Assembly Bill 1594 by Assemblymember Garcia. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 1594 by Assemblymember Garcia and accolade into vehicles.

Senator Bradford, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. AB 1594 by Assemblyman Garcia just narrowly tailors and addresses emerging response and energy and water reliability for public utilities who are transitioning to 100% zero emission vehicles. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Bradford. Senator Newman. Excuse me. Senator Becker and Senator Newman.

Thank you. I want to thank the author's office for working diligently with our office as well as with CARB on technical assistance to keep moving this legislation in the right direction. I very much understand the author's intent on taking on this tough task. However, I will unfortunately need to abstain today given its precedent and that concern that we've not provided CARB with sufficient discretion over the determination of certain definitions.

The advanced clean fleet is one of California's two most important regulations moving the state to get its net zero emissions in its transportation emissions, which currently make up about 50% of all emissions in the state. The regulation provides alternatives for high priority fleets and allows for a full exemption from the regulation if the technology for that heavy duty vehicle is not there.

While I do anticipate there will be many more legislative requests for exemptions to the advanced clean fleet rule next year, I believe any legislative change to the advanced clean fleet rule must do a couple of things. One, address a specific need that is not addressed by existing exemptions, be narrowly tailored to address that issue, and should align with ACF definitions and regulatory structures. Finally, must allow for CARB the discretion to change pathways if the exemption approves to be too broad.

So I just want to say again, I appreciate the author's leadership on this issue and I know he is a great climate champion on all issues, including transportation. I respectfully lay off this Bill today.

Thank you, Senator Becker. We'll next go to the Senator from Fullerton, Senator Newman, followed by Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. I actually agree with everything my colleague just said. I'd also add that the progress toward the advanced clean fleet and some of the other decarbonization initiatives are going to have to include some pragmatic allowances to get from here to there in a smart way. And I would say in this case, this is a common sense element that should give public utilities the opportunity to continue adding service while over time meeting these goals. And I urge an aye vote.

We're going to turn next to the Senator from Bieber, Senator Dahle followed by Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members. I'm actually a co-author on this Bill. This is a common sense Bill that will allow places like Lake Tahoe, where we had 30 ft of snow, 30 ft of snow, and if we're going to transition to electric vehicles and you have a fire truck or a snow plow or a bucket truck to help try to keep the power on, it doesn't work. And that's what this Bill is about.

It's common sense approach to doing everything we can to get to ZEBS and electrification and decarbonizing. But at the same time, there are services that are rural and remote that don't have the same opportunities that you do in the urbanized areas. So for those reasons, I'm a co author of this Bill, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, next turn to the Senator from the great City of Long Beach, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President. And it is one of the best cities, of course. Thank you. I, too, want to stand up and actually express my I won't be opposing, I will be staying off the Bill. But I know in speaking with the author and the good floor manager here in Committee's past that we do still have issues with this.

I do agree with my colleague from Silicon Valley that this does set a precedent for the exemption of certain industries to be able to be exempted from this Bill. And so I don't think that it's the best thing to do at this point. I know that we have a lot of work to do in the zero emission space, but we want to make sure that it's actually being used for emergency purposes.

And there are already numerous exemptions one time and long term, for utility vehicles, including during emergency events. The issue is that utilities sometimes are claiming that 100% of their vehicles are for emergency purposes, but that may not be the case. So there's a lot of questions here to that. For that, I'll be laying off. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, the Clerk, please call the roll.

Excuse me.

Sorry.

That's okay.

It's going to defer. All right. Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Becker no. Blakespear. Caballero. Gonzales. grove aye. Menjivar. Min aye. Portantino.

Just a moment, please. Clerk, please call the role one more time.

Becker. Blakespear. Caballero. Gonzales. Menjivar. Portantino aye.

On a vote of 34 to 1, the measure carries. We're going to move next to file item 94, followed by 95 and 96. File item 94 is by Assemblymember Ting AB 600. Senator Bradford, are you prepared? We'll pass temporarily. We'll move on to file item 95. 95 is Assembly Bill 1148 by Assemblymember Bonta. Senator Ashby is prepared. Please. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 1148. By Assemblymember Bonta in accolade to child support.

Senator Ashby.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to present AB 1148, the Stable Parents Stable Children Act on behalf of Assemblywoman Bonta. AB 1148 brings crucial reform to the child support system and alleviates financial strains for formerly incarcerated parents and their families. Under existing law, formerly incarcerated parents are required to begin paying back child support 30 days after returning home from prison or jail.

If parents are unable to pay, they face punitive consequences such as suspension of their driver's license, inability to obtain a passport, and increased interest on the amount of child support that they owe. Studies show it takes formerly incarcerated people at least six months to find employment. Current law sets people up for failure. 30 days does not recognize the many barriers that people reentering into society, particularly the difficulty in finding stable employment need in a state that claims to prioritize rehabilitation.

We are failing parents and their children by only allowing them one month before child support payments are due. 1148 gives formerly incarcerated parents the agency to gain financial stability upon reentry before they are required to begin child support payments and prevents them from failing. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Ashby, any discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Please. Clerk, please call the role. Hold on a moment, please. All right, let's pause that. I see a microphone on the floor. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you. I'd like to speak to this Bill. As the Chair of the Human Services Committee that heard this Bill, I want to continue to express my concern. I did not vote for this Bill in Committee. And as Chair, I did give the freedom to my colleagues to be able to either support or oppose. And I stand by that decision.

What I don't stand by is us as a body making decisions to take away from children, take away resources, take away hope from children who need it most. It is devastating for a child when a parent is incarcerated. Bottom line, that's not negotiable. But even more devastating is it when that child is left to see their family broken and not have that food on the table, or that warm coat to go to school or even the school supplies to be able to learn.

For me, child support is a bridge for that child. When their parent is absent, it's an alternative to the custodial parent working two, three jobs to maintain their family and their home. Here in California, this is a situation where I would agree that the child support system is broken, but to further devastate a safety net for children and custodial parents by rewarding an offending parent that made a decision. However, we have a judgment about that decision, made a decision that caused them to be incarcerated.

We are further promoting and awarding that person's behavior because when they're incarcerated, they're not working or contributing to the care of their child, right? The custodial parent is left oftentimes to care for that child and others. So why are we making decisions to alleviate the burden from an offending parent rather than the burden from a custodial parent? Why are we legislating the future of a child who, through no fault of their own, has a parent that's incarcerated?

How are we to support the healing of a family when it is broken by criminal convictions? How are we to support the healing of that child in some of the most tender years of their development? By removing food from their table? By removing coats from their closet? By taking away their ability to learn in school with just the basic materials? This is a story that happens in every single one of your districts.

And I know every single person in this room knows somebody who had to be a custodial parent, a single parent, regardless of incarceration. And I will tell you as a parent who was there and who stood in the lines of loaves and fishes and took food that people would not buy on the shelves as a custodial parent that had to make the decisions of how to keep my kids warm in the winter and decide between paying that PG&E Bill or getting them that coat.

Or perhaps just praying that that coat lasts one more season. Right? Or having to eat that fear when my children would come back from school and they'd lose a coat or a backpack and I just could see the dollars in my head. How was I going to replace this need and show my kids that it's going to be okay?

To that birthday party that I was able to put together with Little Caesar's pizza for my son and that knock on the door of the beg coming to repossess my car? Because I've been there, and many of you have as well. But this isn't about creating pity. It's about empathy for those who stick it out, those who work day and night to make sure that their kids are okay, not for those that make a choice to not be in that child's life.

So this is one of those pieces of legislation that, man, I wish I could have done more as a Policy Chair. And that is why I am here on the floor right now to implore you to look at the consequence of your decision on this vote, because I sure am, and I urge you to vote no. We will not reward the choice of convicted criminals against the future and hope of children. Thank you.

Any further discussion or debate? See none. Senator Ashby. You may close.

When I was 25 years old, I was a single mom. I was on food stamps, I lived in low-income housing, and I used subsidized child care. And I worried about all these same things. Many of them happened to me. I also worked for the Sacramento County Public Defender's office at the time. I was in my last year of law school when I got the call that said that my son's dad was going to be remanded to custody for not paying me child support.

I appeared on his behalf as a public defender and begged the judge not to put him in jail. Let me tell you why. I needed the money. I needed the help. But more than that, I didn't want my son's dad in jail because he couldn't pay me child support. I knew that when he could, he would, and he would find a way. And I also knew that he could not send any money from behind bars. I urgent. aye vote.

All debate having ceased. Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members one more time.

Blakespear. Caballero. Dahle no. Glazer. Grove no. Limon. aye. Ochoa Bogh. Roth aye. Wilk.

On a vote of 28 to seven, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 94. This is Assembly Bill 600 by Assemblymember Ting. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 600. By Assemblymember Ting in accolades into criminal procedure.

Senator Bradford, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. AB 600 by Assembly Member Ting addresses the remaining procedural and technical issues with the re-sentencing process, expands judicial authority, and provides clarity for courts when applying the law. The second luck sentencing and the opportunity to address the mass incarceration efforts of the past by granting three entities the District Attorney, the Board of Parole Hearings, and the Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the authority to refer people back to court for a second look at their sentencing.

Assemblyman Ting authored AB 1540 in 2001, which addressed many of the procedural issues and resulted in a safe release of incarcerated people in the last year. However, there are still some implementation barriers identified and ways for the state to can improve the current process. This Bill gives you that clarity I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Bradford, any discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk, please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil no. Archuleta. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzales aye. Grove no. Hurtado no. 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. Rubio. Seyarto no. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk no.

Please call the absent Members.

Archuleta aye. Caballero. Ochoa Bogh no. Roth. Rubio aye.

On a vote of 38, 28 to 10, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 96 and 97, both presented by Floor Manager Senator Cortesi. He's prepared. Clerk, please read. This is file item 96.

Clerk, please read Assembly Bill 859 by Assemblymember Gallagher, an accolading to fishing game.

Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

All right, thank you. Mr. President and colleagues. I write to present AB 859, which clarifies and protects the public's right to use navigable waters for hunting and fishing, ensuring that Californians can continue to enjoy our state's natural resources. Despite AG opinions stating that hunting is an integral part of the constitutional right of navigation, hunters and boats are still sometimes cited for trespassing when they're out on floodwaters.

While judges have dismissed these types of trespassing charges, citing the information and conclusion in those state AG opinions, the legal process up to that point can still incur significant financial and other costs on the accused and on the court system.

AB 859 will simply provide clarity to law enforcement personnel and DAs who may be unaware of the AG opinions by codifying the right of the public to use navigable waters for hunting, fishing and other public purposes as guaranteed under Section Four, article 10 of the California Constitution. AB 859 is consistent with California's 30 by 30 pathways to foster active outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, by securing access to lands, rivers and coastal waters.

It also does not expand protections for hunting beyond what is provided in the AG opinions. And hunting on waterways may still be restricted per regulation by the California Fishing Game Commission. Despite this Bill, AB 859 has received no votes thus far and has no opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator from San Jose has placed this measure in the Senatorial waters. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none.

This is eligible for a unanimous roll call. There are any objections to using a unanimous roll call? Seeing none ayes 39 no, zero. The measure passes. We'll move next to file item 97. This is Assembly Bill 1699 by Assemblymember McCarty. Clerk would you please read.

Assembly Bill 1699 by Assemblymember McCarty in accolades to classified employees.

Senator from San Jose. Floor is yours.

All right. Thank you again, Mr. President and colleagues. Try to be concise. I rise to present AB 1699, which will prioritize existing classified staff at school districts and community colleges when new positions open up. California school district and community college workforce is in crisis. There's not only a teacher shortage, but custodial, food service, and classroom aid positions, as we know, are all hard to fill. Right now, these jobs are split to be part-time positions.

Some employees don't receive proper benefits and enough hours when that happens to make ends meet. There is not a shortage of qualified workers who can fill these positions, but a lack of benefits to incentivize recruitment and retention. A lot of these employees can make more money and receive more benefits working private sector outside of school districts. Classified employees are the backbones of our schools. We must ensure that they have access to health insurance and retirement benefits in order to sustain themselves by hiring workers in house.

This will help school districts and community colleges fill vacancies quickly with dedicated staff. Since these employees are already in the system, they don't have to undergo the lengthy background check process required at schools. This Bill has been narrowed significantly to get it where it is today. The author's offices work hard to address the opposition's concerns by removing the training requirement, exempting management positions and any employees who've had disciplinary issues would be disallowed the privilege in this Bill, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Any discussion or debate on this matter? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Becker. aye. Blakespear. Caballero. Dodd. Durazo aye. Jones no. Limon. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Ochoa Bogh no. Rubio aye. Umberg aye.

On a vote of 25 to 10 to measure passes, we're going to move next to file item 98. This is Assembly Bill 469 by Assemblymember Fong. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 469 by Assemblymember Vince Fong and accolading to public records.

Senator from Orange County. Senator, Umberg floor is yours.

Thank you. Mr. President and colleagues, AB 469 deals with an issue where a California Public Records Act request is denied and establishes an ombudsman who can review the denial and request and serve as an independent referee to decide if the state agency has legitimate grounds for denial. I urge an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this matter? Seeing none.

This is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Any objection to using an unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes 39. No zero.

The measure carries. The measures pass. Excuse me. We're going to move next to file item 103. This is AB 443 by Assemblymember Jackson. Senator Bradford, are you prepared? He is. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 443 by Assemblymember Jackson in accolades to peace officers.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mr. President. AB 443 seeks to address systemic problematic issues of biased conduct by law enforcement. This Bill stems from a 2022 state auditors report which showed explicit examples and evidence of on the job officer bias. AB 443 simply adopts both the otter's suggestion and will require the Post Commission to establish the definition of biased conduct and provide guidance examining bias on social media pages of officers applicants.

Just this week, we saw the bias of a Seattle police officer who jokingly laughed about hitting a young student crossing the street and said, zero, she's of little value. She was only 26 years of age. Just write a check for $11,000. Her life was pretty much meaningless. So we need to eliminate this bias. This is what this Bill does. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Any discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer. Gonzalez aye. Grove no. Hurtado. Jones no. Laird aye. Limon aye. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye Min. Newman. 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. Caballero. Dahle no. Glazer aye. Hurtado no. Min. Newman aye.

On a vote of 28 to nine, the measure passes. Members, we're going to move back to we're going to lift the call. Lift the call on item file item 84. This is Assembly Bill 280. We're going to lift the call on file item 84. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen. Caballero. Eggman aye. Min. Newman. Roth. Rubio. Stern aye. Umberg. Jones no.

On a vote of 21 to 12, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 104. This is Assembly Bill 652 by Assemblymember Lee. Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 652 by Assemblymember Lee in accolade to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Senator Laird, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Assembly Bill 652 requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to establish an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to integrate environmental justice concepts into the DPR activities. It'll create a public institutionalized process to meaningfully include equity at DPR. It's formally supported by more than 100 environmental justice, public health, environmental community, farm, and labor organizations. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this matter discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzales aye. Grove no. Hurtado no. 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.

This is called the absent Members

Allen aye. Alvarado Gil no. Archuleta aye. Blakespear aye.

On a vote of 29 to 10 to measure passes, we're going to move next to file item 105, followed by file item 107 and 108. 105 is Assembly Bill 678 by Assemblymember Alvarez. The Senator is prepared.

Clerk please read Assembly Bill 678 by Assemblymember Alvarez in accolade to Energy.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you. In 2018, the Legislature authorized PUC to consider adopting biomethane procurement targets or goals for utility companies. Recognizing the importance of biomethane can play in the state's zero net emission goals. This Bill helps level the playing field, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this legislation. Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gila ye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle aye. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez. Grove aye. Hurtado. Joens aye. Laird aye. Limon. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min. Newman aye. Nguyen. 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 no.

Please call the absent Members.

Caballero. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Limon aye. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Seyarto. Wilk no to aye.

On a vote of 33 to zero, the measure passes. And I move next to file item 107. This is Assembly Bill 1418. By Assemblymember McKinnor. Senator Laird is prepared. If the Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 1418 by Assemblymember McKinnor in Accolading to Tenancy.

Senator from Santa Cruz, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. AB 1418 would prohibit a local government from enforcing or implementing an ordinance that would impose a penalty to a resident or landlord due to contact with a law enforcement agency. Their support on both sides. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objections? See no objections.

Ayes 39 no zero. The measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 108. This is Assembly Bill 353 by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. Senator Ochoa Bogh. Are you prepared? She is.

Clerk, please read Assembly Bill 353 by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer in accolade to corrections.

Senator from Yucaipa, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 353, which ensures that incarcerated individuals in CDCR facilities have access to regular showers. It also requires that whenever showers are denied, a notice must be given to inmates and the decision approved by the facility manager. This Bill has no opposition and passed the Assembly 80 to zero. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? This is also eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objections?

Seeing none. Ayes 39 no, zero. The measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 109. This is Assembly Bill 1526 from the Committee on Natural Resources. Senator Allen's prepared. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 1526 by Committee on Natural Resources and Acclimating to Public Resources.

Senator Allen.

Members, this is the Assembly Natural Resources Committee's omnibus Bill. It makes some non-controversial cleanup, technical clarifying, changes to public resources, code relating to cow recycle, CalGEM, and the State Board of Forestry. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this matter? Discussion or debate. It's eligible for unanimous roll. Calling objections? Seeing none. Ayes 39, no zero. The measure passes. Members, we're going to take an opportunity for Committee announcements. Then we're going to adjourn for lunch and committees for a few minutes.

Committee announcements will begin with Pro Tem Atkins.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Rules Committee will meet in room 112 downstairs in the next five minutes. And it's Executive session only.

Okay. I see a microphone up from Senator Umberg thank you.

Yes.

Mr. President.

Judiciary Committee will meet in room 113 in five minutes to consider very important Bill SB 35 by Umberg.

Thank you, thank you Senator. Members, we're going to break for 30 minutes. We're going to break for 30 minutes. We would ask that you not go back to your offices. Remain here in the Capitol building. We've done a lot of progress so far this morning, and we look forward to our work this afternoon. So 30 minutes from now, we're in recess.

We're going to begin this afternoon with file item 99, followed by file item 110. Folks can follow along here. File item 99 is Assembly Bill 1633 by Assemblymember Ting. The Clerk would please read Assembly Bill 1633 by Assemblymember Ting in accolading to housing. Senator from San Francisco. Senator Wiener, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Colleagues. AB 1633 is a good government measure that strengthens the Housing Accountability Act, which is one of our core housing laws in California, to ensure that redundant environmental review does not stall the development of housing in key geographies. Over the past several years, the Legislature, under the leadership of the Senator from Berkeley, has strengthened the Housing Accountability Act.

And in response, some cities have resorted to far fetched arguments to deny valid SQL clearances in order to stymie the Housing Accountability Act. And one famous example is in my community in San Francisco, the 469 Stevenson Street project, which made national news. This is a 495 unit project, including 73 below market rate projects and 45 off site, below market rate homes on a parking lot right by a BART station.

The Stevenson Street project completed an environmental impact report that was certified by the San Francisco Planning Commission. And despite this thorough review, our county Board of Supervisors pulled the project's clearance and required further environmental review. The Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed that decision, and the long and the short of it is it creates a permanent sequa loop that prevents state housing law from being enforced.

AB 1633 creates a remedy for critical projects that are unfairly denied approval based on unwarranted and endless sequel review, and ensures that they do not enter that endless cycle. Under AB 1633, local agencies must make timely decisions to approve or disapprove an eligible project SQL clearance. In cases where the local agency decides to require further environmental review or denies environmental clearance, the decision must be substantiated by evidence in the administrative record as established by SQL. To be clear, this does not reduce SQL review.

It simply provides a timeline. You have the same review, and if they're going to reject it under SQA, they have to have substantial evidence. Per amendments in the Environmental Quality Committee, the Bill covers projects in urbanized areas with minimum densities, has to be above 15 units per acre, and it must either be within a half mile of transit or surrounded by urban uses. In other words, infill or near certain public amenities. The Bill also establishes guardrails to protect local governments from baseless lawsuits.

AB 1633 allows a court to waive court fees if the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to require more environmental review. This is a balanced Bill to solve a real problem, to make sure that state housing law actually has meaning, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The Senator from San Francisco has opened the discussion on this measure I see a microphone up from the Senator from Long Beach. Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President. And Members. And I unfortunately, have to lay off of this Bill with dialogue with the author as well as the floor manager. I just wanted to briefly explain why I'll be laying off, but I certainly appreciate the efforts, but I think more should have been done to talk to some of our environmental justice organizations that have felt that they've been overburdened by these types of bills.

So, in my opinion, it sets a bit of a precedent about the recovery of attorneys fees that could discourage necessary lawsuits under CEQA. I certainly remain concerned, and I look forward to working with the author and floor manager moving forward, if this Bill is to move forward today or if not, to continue working with them to ensure that we have our own communities along with us. And I know that I feel confident that both of them will do that. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator from Long Beach. Any further discussion or debate, seeing no other microphones up, Senator Weiner, you may close.

Thank you very much. And a lot of respect for the Senator from Long Beach. Just to be clear, this is only about housing. Only in urbanized areas near transit infill. It's not about sprawl housing. It's not about oil or industrial uses. This is about infill or transit oriented housing that we so desperately need.

And honestly, in places like San Francisco, where our Board of Supervisors continues to abuse CEQA as a way of stopping state housing law from actually applying this Bill, corrects that gap, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All debate having ceased, if the Clerk could please call the roll.

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

Clerk, please call the roll one more time.

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

Members, we're going to move next to file item 110. This is Assembly Bill 505 by Assemblymember Ting. The floor manager is Senator Skinner. I believe she's prepared. She is. The Clerk would please read

Assembly Bill 505 by Assemblymember Ting in accolading to juveniles

Senator from Berkeley, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Mr. President, Members pleased to represent AB 505, which expands some existing responsibilities of the Ombudsperson and the Subcommittee that were established when the Legislature established the Office of Youth and Community Restoration. It also strengthens safety measures for our foster youth that are in the justice system. So AB 505 follows up. As I mentioned on we, the Legislature established the Office of Youth and Community Restoration in the 2020 Budget Act.

And with that, we prioritized the placement of youth who are in the justice system in community based settings. Now, specifically, AB 505 has three key components. It ensures that the Ombuds person has the same unrestricted access to the youth that our current statute provides for the foster care Ombudsperson, and that requires 48 hours notice to whatever facility the youth is housed in, and then the Ombuds person can have access.

It also requires the Subcommittee that was established in the original law to meet two times per year. Our former law had it only once every three years. And it designates this Bill, the chief probation officer, as chair of that Subcommittee, but also allows for a Co-Chair, which some counties already do. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Senator Skinner is open the discussion on this matter. Any discussion or debate. Senator Dahle.

Thank you. Mr. President, Members, I rise in opposition to this Bill, AB 505. As a county supervisor, I have been hearing from the 15 counties that I represent today that we're dumping more and more on the counties without the ability for them to be able to actually process. And this Bill actually is going to make it worse. I just want to say I've had personal calls from the probation departments in Butte, Siskiyou, Shasta, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, and Lassen counties to oppose this Bill.

And so for those reasons, I want to stand with the county supervisors and the probation departments that are trying to implement these laws that are passed here in California. We're just mirroring them down in more and more regulations to actually actually be able to serve the constituencies that they're supposed to serve. So for those reasons, I respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 505.

Thank you. We'll go next. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I just want to talk about oversight. As Chair of Public Safety, one of the things is we also need to see what is exactly going on in our facilities, especially with the most vulnerable populations being youth. This just literally requires at least an annual inspection of juvenile camps, ranches, and other facility for youth. I think that one of the things that we have concern about is the fact that not all youth know their rights, even if they are informed.

They need additional attention, additional guidance. And we also need to be able to I'm going to be honest with you. Police are police. That is one of the big things that we need to set safeguards around is to make sure that when we are talking about the amount of money, the amount of attention going into these facilities, some of the concerns around what's happening in these facilities, whether we're talking about rapes, whether we're talking about abuse, whether we're talking about anything like that, this is a mechanism to, again have that safeguard in place and just some oversight.

And I do believe some oversight is needed when we're talking about our youth and our most vulnerable community members. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Grove, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Question of the author.

Will the author take a question? The floor manager. Take a floor manager?

Yes, I will.

Okay, thank you. Permission to read the question?

Without objection.

Okay. For example, some of the minor issues that the opposition has, for example, is that they would be specifically defined to include for review or openness transparency, documents, papers, memoranda, logs, reports, letters, calendar, schedules, notes, filings, drawings, electronic contact, including, but not limited to videos, photographs, blogs, video, blogs, instant text messages, email, and other items. And as it's written, the opposition is predation that some of this stuff could be privileged and confidential information.

So isn't the intent to exposed privileged and confidential information in some of these excuse me, some of these site visits? Some of these site visits obviously, we need to make sure that these site visits protect our youth. I really hate the reimbursement.

There's a question there. I'm going to pause you pause or manage the opportunity. Now, Senator Skinner, if you'd like to answer the question, if you will.

Yes, please do. So. I think that the references were based on the Bill before it was amended in the Senate Public Safety Committee in June, and that while the Bill was in the possession of the Senate Public Safety Committee, the author amended it to revert some of those provisions back the provisions you were referencing to Current Law, so that personally identifiable info for any child could be redacted from any documents given to OICR.

And there remain strong mandates as far as confidentiality for any info that is able to be gotten under existing law. And organizations such as the alliance for Children's Rights and others who are sponsors of the Bill are very strong champions of ensuring privacy and confidentiality.

Senator Skinner, thank you for your response. We'll go back to Senator Grove. Anything further?

No, I appreciate the answer to the question. Thank you, Madam Floor Jockey.

Senator Seyarto.

Whatever.

Thank you, Mr. President. On this matter, in budget sub three, we dealt with a little bit of the budget for this transfer of our youth into county facilities. So we don't really need to send somebody to inspect. I can tell you what it is. They're overcrowded and they don't have enough resources to properly serve the kids that are being transferred in the time frame that they're being transferred.

So this is another one of these state imposed problems, and now we're going to go and put pressure on them to fix a problem that they don't have the money for, they don't have the human resources for, and they don't have the facilities for. So we need to take a step back when we're doing processes like this.

If we are truly interested in helping these kids and ensuring their safety by not doing something like that in the first place and having a better plan if we're going to shut down state facilities and transfer them all and dump them on the counties and have the counties trying to fund these in an appropriate manner.

So, yeah, I kind of struggle with this because I feel like, yes, we need to protect them, but at the same time, we're the ones causing not we individually, but we as a state are the ones causing the problem in the first place. Therefore, I'm going to be laying off this Bill or voting no until we recognize what the real problem is with our system and address that, because nobody had any inkling to actually address this when it was brought up earlier this year.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Any further discussion or debate? Senator Durazo?

I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's just the basics about giving the Ombudsperson unrestricted access to the youth is a fundamental issue that we should be addressing, and it frankly mirrors the foster care Ombuds person's access. We have to ensure that youth have access to help, whether it's due to sexual abuse or mistreatments or complaints, they should feel safe and heard. Requiring a county planning Subcommittee to meet twice a year is very reasonable versus once every three years to discuss the county plans.

So I think this has been a very thoughtful and very comprehensive process, and it's also been taken up in the Budget sub 5 that I Chair. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator. I want to call on next, the Senator from the San Fernando Valley. Senator Menjivar

Thank you, Mr. President. This year, as Chair of Budget sub-three, we held an oversight panel on OICR. It was during also the time that in my county, specifically in my district, where I hold a juvenile detention center, had the highest rates of employees not showing up to work. We're talking about staffing. The staffing was there, but they were not showing up to work. LA County came under fire, even more so this year, even though they've been under fire for the past couple years.

In terms of how our youth are being treated in these centers, I am glad to know that at least LA County is addressing it. But throughout this whole time, the problem was that the Ombudsperson did not have enough jurisdiction or power to address the issues that were happening. For example, in LA County, I am very supportive of this Bill hearing and seeing the stories that have been coming out of LA County. And without this additional support and elevation of this role, we're going to continue having those kind of stories across our state respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any other Senator wishing to be heard on this matter? Seeing none. Senator Skinner. You may close.

I appreciate this good floor discussion and I think this is not only an important Bill, but a furtherance of the good work that the Legislature did and the Governor obviously signed in the budget Bill of 2020. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

All debate having ceased with the Clerk, please call the roll. Allen aye. Alvarado-gil no. Archuleta. Ashby. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd. Durazo aye. Eggman. Glazer. Gonzalez aye. Grove. Hurtado no. Jones no. Laird. Limon aye. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman. Nguyen no. Niello no. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth. Rubio aye. Seyarto no. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk no.

Aye. Blakespear. Caballero. Dodd. Eggman. Glazer. Grove. Laird. Newman. Ochoa Bogh. Roth aye. Umberg.

A vote of 21 to eight. The measure passes. Members, we're going to move next to file item 111. 111 is AB 1167 by Assemblymember Carrillo. Senator Laird is prepared to manage this measure. The Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 1167 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo in accolading to oil and gas.

Senator from Santa Cruz, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. AB 1167 is known as the Orphan Well Prevention Act. It would help stop the proliferation of orphan wells in our communities and protect taxpayers from being left to foot the Bill. An editorial from the LA Times in June highlighted the problem and also highlighted a recent report by Carbon Tracker about the future cost of orphan wells. And that editorial identified this Bill as a solution.

So the question is whether backup bonds by the state will be sufficient, and they appear, based on the evidence, to be insufficient. So there's an incoming tide of idle wells on the way in every part of the state, accompanied by risky transfers of those wells to many to smaller operators. This legislation is about taking action now to interrupt that trend before the taxpayers might be on the hook for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

This will accomplish this by requiring that anytime a well is sold, the purchaser puts up as bond security the actual cost of plugging and abandoning the well. And it's essential we take action to limit this financial risk to the state, represented by a growing pool of orphan wells that someone is going to have to pay to clean up at some point. This Bill addresses the question of who that someone should not be the California taxpayers. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Laird has opened the discussion on this matter. I see microphones up from Senator Newman and Senator Grove. Senator Grove, you want to begin? Okay.

Thank you, Mr. President. Based on the floor manager's comments, he said that an editorial board did a study and found that this Bill is the solution. I believe that's a direct quote. I can pretty much guarantee you that nobody on that editorial board ever worked a rig or worked in an oil field or overworked a rig or owns oil wells or I mean that's just a wild guess, but I think I'm pretty safe on making that assumption.

The Department of Finance said it the best, the absolute best. The Department of Finance is opposed to this Bill and makes an excellent argument. That why you should all oppose AB 1167. Permission to read Mr. President, without objection, the Department of Finance says this Bill may not address the problem as it intends to solve and could actually have unintended consequences of increasing the number of orphan wells in the State of California.

If you read the language in that Bill, it says that if you are a producer and you produce less than 15 barrels a day in a previous year time frame, then you would have to have additional bond funding for someone to come in and purchase those wells. So if you're successful and your wells are producing 300 barrels and so on and so forth, you get the big guys. They come in and they buy your well.

But if you have a well that's not doing very well and it's not working out very well, it only produces 15 barrels a day or less, it's going to be very difficult for somebody to come in and buy that for you. Specifically, they're called stripper wells if that makes sense. Specifically, I'm going to buy these stripper wells from you just to rework them and get them up and running to a more higher production.

It's going to be hard to get somebody to come in and buy that. So if you have no incentive to shut down those wells for cost-benefit and you have no incentive and there's no way you're going to get somebody to come in and have to rework and bond those wells that produce this Low number of barrels per day, it's going to increase the number of orphan and abandoned wells or orphan wells that the State of California is going to have to address.

The floor manager know we have to address this because the wells that will be abandoned will be on the taxpayer. This Bill will force more wells to be abandoned and have unintended consequences. When you look at unintended consequences because people run legislation on oil that they don't understand, it's just like 1137 and I know that's going to be a tough one to but I'll tie it back into this spell. So I am talking on the subject matter of this spell.

The only person in the entire State of California that did any EIR report on 1137 and the output of wells and the air input of wells is Lorelei Oviatt from my district, who the Governor himself reveres as one of the most wonderful people that understands how to permit solar, more solar than any other place in the state. They've permitted same with wind and has a keen sense of making sure that we permit wells the way they should be to reduce mitigation and carbon.

It's 210ft and arbitrarily. There was a Bill, 1137 that pulled 3200ft out of thin air and basically said that's the mitigation, the only person ever did a study on it, did a complete EIR, has 210ft with the mitigation cost. And if you do electric plump, it's 600ft for diesel, it's not 3200ft.

That same piece of legislation that had unintended consequences for people losing value of their homes, people calling it a taking that you wouldn't be able to sell your home because now you're in environmentally safely sensitive position and your house value would go down. And you talk about these wells being in low socioeconomic disadvantaged communities and now their house is worth hardly nothing because that Bill passed. Thank God there's a referendum that's going to probably, hopefully change that. It's unintended consequences.

This Bill has severe unintended consequences on what really is going to happen. If you want to increase the number of orphan wells in the State of California, increase them. Have people that have small wells, and I'm not talking about the big guys that produce 2040,000 barrels a day. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about small producers that use this just like their job. Like Mr. Cahood has nine wells. It's provided for his family, put his kids through school.

It's his job and his son's job to go take care of these wells. If you want to put all those small independent owners out of business when they can't afford the bond and if the bond is even available, if you look at what CalGEM says, CalGEM says that it's going to increasing an ever increasing market that is not available for oil and gas operators. This Bill could increase the problem to not allow them to be bonded.

If you want to increase orphan wells in the State of California based on the Department of Finance's comments and CalGEMs comments, whose responsibility is to permit these wells and to permit extraction and also permit orphan and abandoned wells, I ask for a no vote. This Bill has severe unintended consequences and that's just a fact.

Thank you, Senator. Next up is Senator Newman, followed by Senator Min. Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I was wise to defer to my colleague from Bakersfield, so I just want to align my comments with hers. I have the same concerns about unintended consequences. The motivation here is nothing but positive, but we should be concerned I think the Department of Finances letter of opposition is worth considering. I'll be staying off the Bill.

Senator Min.

Men or women? Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. President, as chair of the Natural Resources Committee, we heard this Bill, and at the time it passed out, I did express my concerns. I think there are legitimate concerns about bonding capacity available for these particular wells. That being said, in thinking about this some more, while I recognize that the Bill is imperfect, the status quo is, I think, far worse.

And what we're talking about is potentially billions of dollars in liability to taxpayers in the status quo. The unfortunate fact is that CalGEM has not exercised the authority, has not used the tools that it has under the Bill that was passed by my colleague from Santa Barbara to my left here. They have not used that authority in the years since 2020, except where we as the Legislature have forced them to do that.

I understand that we do have this concern, but I do want to just lay out a few facts that were described by the Los Angeles Times editorial board quoting Frac Tracker. 78% of oil wells are exit sales. That is to say, they are sales from companies that are seeking to leave the State of California entirely. 60% of these sales go from large oil companies to small guys, not vice versa, as is often claimed. It's going the other way.

These are sales from major oil producers to smaller ones. And 98% of the sales are these stripper wells that were described by my colleague on the other side of the aisle. AB 1167 has been narrowed since we heard it. I know the author has worked very hard to try to make this Bill better, and at this point, it applies to wells that are not producing enough oil to generate the funds to pay for their cleanup.

It also allows for companies to put up either an indemnity bond or assets. But I'll just point out that business as usual is going to leave us and our taxpayers and our constituents with a huge Bill to pay going forward. And so I think bonding is important. Trying to get oil companies to put up the money to cover the costs of decommissioning these wells is going to be important. So I will be supporting the Bill today. I respectfully request your aye vote as well.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Eggman.

Thank you very much, Mr. President and Members. I also want to align my remarks with my good colleague from the area of Bakersfield. Well, I drive an electric car. I'm a big supporter of doing all we can to replace our carbon economy. I do think this has incredibly unintended consequences, especially as pointed out to us by the Department of Finance. And we're going to leave the smaller folks really stuck. As a daughter of a small business owner, I would respectfully ask for us not to support this Bill today.

Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wasn't intending to speak, but I want to bring up something that hasn't been talked about. I sit on sub two and that's where we do all the resource monies that go through the resources for California and CalGEM. Let's talk about CalGEM for a minute. We in the past four budget cycles have, by the way, the oil producers pay into CalGEM, which funds the people that actually regulate them.

And over the last couple of years we have increased those positions 5100 and they haven't been able to fill those positions. They're not really doing the job, but they're taking the money. At the end of the day, if you talk about the taxpayers on the hook, the taxpayers aren't on the hook for orphan wells. That's a fact. They're not. The actual company is paying to a fund. So let's talk about that. So what are we doing here? We're really penalizing the small independent person.

It's just like the family farms getting screwed by the big time farmers because they can compete. That's what's happening with this Bill. The small independent farmer or oil producer has a couple of wells, is not going to be able to bond and this is a way to put them out of business as well. And let me tell you something. We're going to be using oil for a long time. The estimates are well past 2050 because we're going to have to have it.

So for those reasons, I want to stand with a little guy who's getting hammered. The taxpayer is not going to be on the hook. They already pay into a fund for all these orphan wells, which we are not CalGEM actually isn't getting to and doing the work they're supposed to do because they haven't filled the positions and we keep creating more positions without filling them, and getting the job done. So for those reasons, I'm going to stand with the small oil producers and I'm going to vote no against this Bill and you should too.

Thank you. Senator, any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Laird, you may offer the final closing comments.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I appreciate the debate and I appreciate even more the ability to set some of this right because first, it was not the LA Times that did the report. It was carbon tracker and it was LA Times that commented on the report. There is a fund. I know. I was in charge of the agency that administered it. It is woefully inadequate. There is not enough money.

We had an orphan well, that was in I can't even remember some monumental cost in the hundreds of millions when I was Resources Secretary and the Fund couldn't cover it. So while there is a Fund, it is really inadequate. And we're talking about as much as 10 or 15 or $20 billion over the life of. Some of these orphan wells that are going to fall on the taxpayers if there isn't a way to cover the cost.

And when you look at the Department of Finance and what they said, one of the things they said was that CalGEM, the agency, can go after the former operators. Well, that has proved woefully unsuccessful. They're generally out of business. Some are out of state in ways that that is not an effective way of cost recovery for the taxpayers. And there has been talk about big or small thus far. The statistics show that a majority of those transactions are from bigger owners to smaller owners.

That is, in fact, the direction that it is happening right now. And there was concern about duplication. This Bill was narrowed so that the Bill that was done roughly five years ago is clearly for above whatever it is, 15 barrels a day as opposed to under. So it is narrowed. There is no duplication. So the thing about it is that we have to figure out a way that this does not devolve to the taxpayers for things that pay for costs that they did not incur. So that's what this Bill does. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Laird. We have a Member off the floor, so we're going to go through the role just one time and then it's going to be put on call. So all debate having ceased, the Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Senator from Sacramento. You're recognized.

Senator Laird moves the call numbers. We're going to go next to file item 112. This is Assembly Bill 574 by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. I don't see the floor manager at her desk. I do see her. Okay. Clerk, please read the Bill.

Assembly Bill 574 by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer in accolade to firearms.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Rise to present AB. 574 on behalf of Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. AB 574 promotes gun safety by requiring gun owners to confirm that all of their registered firearms are in their possession at the time of a new gun purchase. In California alone, 71,000 guns have been reported lost or stolen since 2010. This is a public safety issue, as many firearms are not reported missing or stolen until they have been used in a crime.

As such, AB 574 creates a process that ensures gun owners locate their guns before buying a new one beginning in 2025, and ensures responsible gun ownership and community safety by guaranteeing individuals regularly check that weapons in their inventory are not lost or stolen. AB 574 has garnered bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Assembly Bill 371 by Assembly Member Assemblymember Garcia and accolading to housing.

Thank you, Senator. Any discussion or debate on this measure? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. This measure is eligible for unanimous roll call. Just kidding. Make sure you guys are not sleeping over there. The Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Jones.

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

Senator Ashby moves a call. We're going to move next to file item 113. This is Assembly Bill 371 by Assemblymember Garcia. Senator Jones is prepared. Clerk, please read

And Members. I have a support support Bill here from Assemblymember Garcia. AB 371 would allow the Department of. Housing and Community Development to waive barriers. Faced by our state's tribes when accessing. Critical funding for housing. There is no opposition, and this Bill has received unanimous support throughout the committees and the Assembly Floor. Please vote aye.

Thank you, Senator Jones. Well, read any discussion or debate on this matter. This measure is eligible for a unanimous roll call. No, I'm not joking. This is not because we have a Member off the floor, so we're going to have to call the roll and the Clerk would properly do so.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzales aye. Grove aye. Hurtado aye. Jones aye. Laird aye, Limon aye. McGuire. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth. Rubio aye. Skinner. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umber aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye. We do have a full house so we're going to call the roll one more time on this. Atkins. Caballero. McGuire aye. Roth aye. Skinner aye.

On a vote of 38 to zero, the measure passes.

We're going to move next to file item 114. This is Assembly Bill 1469 by Assemblymember Kalra. Senator Becker is the floor manager. If the Clerk would please read

Assembly Bill 1469. By Assemblymember Kalra in accolade to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Senator Becker

This Bill amends the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act to expand its purposes and allow certain resource abuse for outreach, counseling, transitional housing, or other services for unsheltered people living on public lands and along waterways within Santa Clara County. This Bill is no opposition of bipartisan support and may have been eligible for unanimous roll call. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle aye. Dodd aye. Durazo. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez aye. Grove. Hurtado. Jones. 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. Stern aye. Umberg aye, Weiner aye. Wilk aye.

Thank you, Senator Becker, discussion or debate on this matter? Seeing no microphones up, if the Clerk would please call the roll.

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Caballero. Durazo. Hurtado. Grove aye. Jones aye. Rubio aye.

One more time, please. Call the roll. One last time, please.

Atkins, Caballero, Dorazo aye.

A vote of 38 to zero. The measure passes. We're going to take a brief pause, please, Members. Thank you.

Members, thank you for your patience. We're going to lift calls on two items that we have previously cast votes on. These are items 111 and 112. We'll begin with 111. If the Clerk will open the roll. File item 111.

Archuleta, Blakespear. Bradford. Caballero. Dodd. Glazer. Mcguire aye. Newman. Roth. Rubio. Skinner aye. Umberg.

Senator Laird moves the call. We're going to move next to filight and 112. Clerk would open the roll, please?

Caballero. Cortese. Hurtado. Menjivar aye. Nguyen no. Roth. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye.

On a vote of 27 to nine, that measure passes. Going to lift the call on file item 99. The Clerk would please open the roll and file item 99.

Allen. Atkins. Bradford. Caballero. Cortese. Dahle aye. Durazo aye. Gonzalez. Durazo aye to no. Hurtado. Jones aye. Laird. Limon. Menjivar. Min aye to no. Newman. Padilla. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Stern. Umberg. Wahab aye.

Who answered? Members, just a moment, please. Senator Wahab, can you repeat your vote, please? Not voting. Clerk please continue with the please.

Wilk no.

Senator Wiener moves the call. Members, we're going to return to motions and resolutions. Motions and resolutions. Remember, that wants to be recognized under motions and resolutions. Without objection, pursuant to Joint Rule 33.1, joint Rule 61 A 13 will be suspended to allow the Assembly Bill 1017 to be amended after the deadline. This request has been approved by the Rules Committee. Members without objection, the Senate rules will be suspended as they relate to Senate Bills 294 and 312 and Assembly Bills 459 491 761 and 1275.

I want to recognize the majority leader. Floor is yours. Can't hear you. We need your microphone on. Senator Mcguire.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Members, I move to suspend the Senate rules as they relate to Senate Bill 637 and Assembly Bill 602 would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I see a microphone up to Senator Jones. Thank you. Mr. President, I object to the motion. Ask for a roll call vote and a no vote, please.

So Senator Mcguire is asking for an aye vote. Senator Jones is asking for a no vote if the Clerk would call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvardo-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd. 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 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.

Clerk could call the roll one more time.

Atkins. Caballero. Dodd aye. Rubio.

On a vote of 29 to eight, the motion is adopted for on motions and resolutions. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the request of the author, please place file item 86, AB 1147 on the inactive file.

Thank you. Senator. The Clerk will note other microphones up for motions and resolutions. Going once, going twice okay. All right, Members, we're going to move back to Senate to file 115. File item 115. This is Assembly Bill 1484. By Assembly, Member Zabur. The floor manager is prepared. If the Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 1484 by Assembly Member of Zbur, an act relating to public employment.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise on behalf of Assembly Members of Ber to present AB 1484, a Bill that strengthens the rights of temporary workers. AB 1484 allows a union representing permanent workers to request that temporary workers performing similar work be included in the same bargaining unit temporary workers, by allowing them to participate. Cities and counties have grown increasingly reliant on temporary workers.

And instead of creating permanent positions, which has led to a large community of workers who do not receive retirement, disability or health insurance, we want to make sure that we are respecting the rights of all of those workers. And in addition to incorporating feedback from the Administration, previous amendments help to remove opposition from the Association of California Healthcare Districts and the California Association of Public Hospitals. So please join me in asking for an aye vote.

Discussion or debate on this matter. Discussion or debate? Members, seeing no microphones up, if the Clerk would please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil no. Archuleta aye. Ashby. Atkins. Becker. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd no. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer. Gonzalez aye. Grove no. 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 roll one more time.

Allen. Ashby. Atkins Becker aye. Gabriel. Glazer no. Rubio aye.

On a vote of 25 to 11 that measure passes, we're going to move back to motions and resolutions. Want to recognize Senator Roth. Senator Roth under motions and resolutions, sir.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the request of the author, please move file item number 67, AB 832 and file item number 88, AB 382 to the inactive file.

The desk will note all right, Members, we're going to move to file item 116. This is AB 58. AB 58 by Assembly Member Kalra.

Senator Cortese is the floor manager. If the Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 58 by Assembly Member, Kalra an act relalting to diversion.

Senator from San Jose, the floor is yours.

All right. Thank you, Mr. President. AB 58 is a simple Bill that would extend the sunset date of the Young Adult deferred entry program until January 1, 2026. That's a program that authorized selected counties, including Alameda, Butte, Nevada, and Santa Clara, my home county, to allow young adults between 18 to 25 years of age who have committed nonviolent felonies to voluntarily enter into the program that will offer age appropriate services in the juvenile system. These programs are working. Evidence shows that they are.

By extending the sunset date by two years, AB 58 allows pilot counties just the pilot counties to continue offering this program to give tay youth the best opportunity to receive age appropriate services. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, any discussion on this measure? Seeing no microphones up, if the Clerk would please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman. Glazer. 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. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk.

Please call the distracted Members one more time.

Atkins. Caballero. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Hurtado. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Wilk no.

On a vote of 29 to eight that measure passes, we're going to move next to file item 117. This is Assembly Bill 785 by Assembly Member Santiago.

Clerk would please read

Assembly Bill 785 by Assembly Member Santiago an act relating to environmental quality

To the distinguished Member from Los Angeles, Senator Durazo, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. AB 785 responds to the homeless emergency in Los Angeles by removing barriers that slow the construction of homeless housing by creating and extending sequa exemptions for publicly funded homeless and affordable housing projects in Los Angeles until 2030. Recent amendments specify that all of the affordable housing produced should be deed restricted and requires a lead agency to ensure that eligible projects meet specified labor standards.

This Bill is sponsored by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, has received unanimous support to date and has no opposition. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you Senator Durazo, any discussion on this measure? Seeing none. The Clerk please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle aye. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez aye. Grove aye. Hurtado aye. Jones aye. Laird aye. Limon. McGuire. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello. 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.

Atkins. Caballero. Limon. Mcguire aye. Niello aye.

On a vote of 37 to zero, that measure passes. Want to thank the good work of our majority leader and his staff. I would note that the next two authors are not at their desk. All right, we're going to move next Members to file item 119. This is Assembly Bill. 1720 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. Senator Skinner is the floor manager. If the Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 1720 by Assembly Member Bauer Cahan an act relating to clinics.

Senator from Berkeley. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, AB 1720 ensures that medical ultrasounds are provided in licensed settings by medical providers. Unlicensed ultrasounds do not use insurance, and they put uninsured patients at disproportionate risk. Unlike other states, ultrasounds in California do not require any specific certification or licensure. So having the ultrasound conducted in the licensed setting and by a medical provider protects our patients. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Skinner, any discussion on this legislation? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd. Durazo aye. Eggman. Glazer aye. Gonzalez aye. Grove no. 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 aye. Seyarto no. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk no.

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins, Caballero. Dodd. Eggman aye. Dodd aye.

Vote of 30 to eight. The measure passes. Senator Becker, are you prepared? Okay, we're going to move to file item 120. This is AB 43 by Assembly Member Holden. Clerk please read.

Assembly Bill 43 by Assembly Member Holden an act relating to greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator Becker.

Thank you. Rise to present AB 43. This is focused on reducing embodied emissions in building materials. Embodied emissions are a measure of greenhouse gas emissions that are released during all the steps to manufacture and transport a product that we buy. The reason we care about this is about 40% of a building's carbon footprint over its whole lifetime comes from the embodied emissions in the materials used to build it. 40%.

Historically, our sustainability efforts have primarily focused on reducing the emissions caused by the energy the building uses. That's only 60% of the total. This is the other 40%. Last year, we passed Assemblymember Holden's Bill 2446, which tasked CARB with creating a program to measure and reduce the embodied emissions of our buildings. This Bill does some cleanup on last year's Bill and authorizes CARB to create an embodied carbon credit trading system which would give builders and material suppliers more flexibility for compliance.

I'm pleased to co author this Bill with Assemblymember Holden, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Becker discussion on this legislation seeing no further discussion, Clerk please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle no. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez aye. Grove no. Hurtado. Jones aye. Laird aye. Limon aye. McGuire. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth. 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. Caballero. Hurtado. Mcguire aye. Roth.

On a vote of 27 to eight, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 121. This is Assembly Bill 1215 by Assembly Member Koreo. Floor manager is prepared. Clerk, please read

Assembly Bill 1215. By Assembly Member Wendy Carillo in accolade into housing.

Senator from Fullerton. Senator Newman, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise on behalf of Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo to present AB 1215, which will reestablish the Pet Assistance With Support program, also known as Paws, to administer and award grants to homeless and domestic violence shelters. The provisions this Bill will also provide food and basic veterinary services for pets and allow a pathway for their permanent housing placement. On behalf of Assemblymember Carrillo, I respectfully.

Ask your Ivo thank you, Senator Newman. Any discussion on this legislation is eligible for unanimous roll call, seeing no objections. ayes 38, no zero. If the measure passes, we're going to move to file item 122. This is Assembly Bill 572 by Assembly Member Haney. Senator Skinner. Are you prepared? Okay.

Clerk please read

Assembly Bill 572 by summon Member Haney and acclimate to common interest developments.

Senator from Berkeley. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, AB 572 caps annual homeowners Association's fee increases at 5% of CPI and with a maximum of 10% for below market rate homeowners. It only applies to developments with governing documents signed after January 1, 2025, and excludes developments with less than 20 units. Most recent amendments have removed CBIA's opposition, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Skinner, open the debate on this legislation. Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

Allen, Aye. Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Aye. Ashby, Aye. Atkins, Becker, Aye. Blakespear, Aye. Bradford, Aye. Caballaro, Cortese, Aye. Dahle, No. Dodd, Aye. Durazo, Aye. Eggman, Aye. Glazer, Aye. Gonzalez, Aye. Grove, No. Hurtado, Aye. Jones, No. Laird, Aye. Limon, 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.

Clerk please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil, Aye. Atkins. Caballero. Limon.

Okay. On a vote of 29 to eight, the measure passes. Members, this is the moment I know you all have been waiting for. We're going to now go to unfinished business so that our Senate bills that have come back from the esteemed Assembly have the opportunity to be heard on our floor. A reminder that it to speak to the amendments that have occurred since they left our House would be the appropriate thing to address in your presentation. So we're going to begin with file item 49 and moving then to file item 24, and then to file item nine. So, 49, 24, nine. So we're going to begin with Senate Bill 616 by the distinguished Senator from Long Beach, Senator Gonzalez. The Clerk, please read.

Senate Bill 616 by Senator Gonzalez and acclimating to employment.

Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President. And Members, Assembly amendments to SB 6116 reduce the number of paid sick days employers are required to provide from seven to five days. Additionally, the amendments delete a section reference impacting railroad workers. This change actually reflects the incredible progress that has already been achieved this year. And I want to thank the rail workers for their work with us on this Bill.

And since the introduction of this Bill in January, railroad workers in California have won historic collective bargaining agreements and include paid sick days and retaliation protections that allow them to use that leave without penalties, which is a major victory for them. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on concurrence in the Assembly amendments.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Any discussion? Seeing no. Microphones up, Clerk, please call the roll.

Allen, Aye. Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Aye. Ashby, Aye. Atkins, Aye. Becker, Aye. Blakespear, Aye. Bradford, Aye. Caballaro, Cortese, Aye. Dahle, No. Dodd, Durazo, Aye. Eggman, Aye. Glazer, Gonzalez, Aye. Grove, No. 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, Rubio, Aye. Seyarto, No. Skinner, Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Aye. Stern, Aye. Umberg, Wahab, Aye. Wiener, Aye. Wilk, No.

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil, No. Dodd. Glazer. Roth.

On a vote of 27 to nine, the Assembly amendments are concurred in. Congratulations, Senator Gonzalez, for getting your Bill to the Governor's desk. We're going to move next to file item 24. This is SB 14 by Senator Grove, the Clerk. Please read.

Senator Bill 14 by Senator Grove an act relating to felonies.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today, colleagues, I rise to present SB 1414, which will classify the sex trafficking of a minor selling a child for sex in the State of California as a strike under the three strikes law. Senate Bill 14 is a bypowder is a measure with 64 coauthors in the Legislature. I'd like to thank my incredible joint authors who have been with me from the very beginning.

And I know we're not supposed to use names, but I'm calling out Senator Rubio and Senator Caballero, who stood by me from the very beginning. I'd also like to thank all of the coauthors and every Senator on this floor that unanimously got this Bill out of the Senate and over to the Assembly. SB 14 is a victims protections measure, and recent amendments that were taken in the Assembly already affirm what's in statute and ensure that victims of human trafficking are protected under the law.

SB 14 will serve to protect future generations by stopping people from engaging in this horrific crime. The Bill received no no votes and miraculously made it back to our House and got off the Assembly floor 80 to zero.

On Monday, SB 14 will send a direct message to those committing this horrific crime of selling our children for sex in the State of California that we will no longer stand by and tolerate this, and you will serve a lengthy prison sentence if you try to perpetrate this crime against our children. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Discussion or debate? I see Senator Rubio, first up.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues today. I also want to just rise and share a few words on this measure. First of all, I want to thank the Senator from Bakersfield for her tenacity. Her and I have been in this fight for about three years making sure that this gets through, and her work clearly now shows we have it on our House. But I want to just kind of state that I keep hearing this Bill being referred to as either a left or a right issue.

And I just want to highlight that this should not have anything to do with politics. This is a human issue. A lot of our children are being taken and sold for sex, and that is just horrific, no matter where you land on any side of the aisle. As a longtime victims advocate, I just want to stress how important it is that we send a message that selling children for sex is not acceptable in the State of California.

And my heart aches every time I hear these stories of victims who tell me personally what they have experienced, the horrific stories. They're sold as young as five years old. So I want us to think about every time you see your daughter, grandson, whoever it is, just think of them going through something like that. And so I think it's long overdue. I think that it is time that we stand with our children. I know that for me, is a personal fight to protect children.

I also know that my colleagues, everyone here on this floor, has fought to protect children. But I think this Bill just sends a message that we stand united when it comes to the safety of our children, and that's in any community. And so I also want to say that to all the victims who've come forward and they've talked to me. They've talked to the author from Bakersfield. They've shared their stories. This is a message to all victims that we're here.

We hear you, we see you, and we want to help you. And I hope that this Bill really is an indication that you are in good hands with this legislative body. And with that, I want to also thank all of our colleagues for working hard to help us get this over the finish line. And with that, I also ask for an Ivo. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Rubio. I have Senators Jones, Alvarado-Gil and Nguyen. Start with Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. President. Permission to read, please. Thank you, Mr. President. From Governor Newsom's Twitter page in response to reporter announcing the 79-0 vote in the Assembly.

"Good to see. Thank you @Robert Rivas CA for your leadership." And I want to say thank you to the speaker as well for his leadership in getting this through the Assembly. But I think prior to that, I want to thank this floor and this body of Senators in the State of California because before it went to the Assembly, it had to pass out of here. And this Bill passed out of the Senate on a 40 to zero vote.

And when it went to the Assembly, there was a large contingent of Senators that backed up Senator Grove on this Bill. And I want to say thank you to every single one of you. And I know that Senator Grove has the grace of one of our previous presidents. What his model was, there's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.

And I know that Senator Grove is happy to share the credit with all of us that had the foresight to lead this issue through the Legislature in the State of California and I hope will be an example for the rest of the country to follow. Thank you. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Jones, Senator Alvarado-Gil, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I want to cherish this very momentous occasion to honor the three women who led on this. My colleague from Merced, my colleague from Baldwin Park and my colleague from Bakersfield. As a freshman Legislator, I constantly look to models on the floor and how we serve here in California not only to understand those shoes that I'm stepping into, but to understand the pitfalls that we've made in the past.

And this Bill truly exemplifies the most brilliant and commemorative piece of legislation that's come across my desk this year. And I just want to thank these wonderful women for leading, for being excellent mentors, and for through sweat, tears and love bringing forward this issue that impacts all of us, regardless of whether we're touched by the issue personally or know of someone.

This is one of those pieces of legislation I wish I never had to vote on because it should have just already been here before I got here, but it hadn't. And my understanding is that my colleague from Bakersfield, in partnership with the women that I adore here on the floor, as my colleagues now, have continued to fight and navigate and negotiate and never give up. So thank you for being that example of magnificence and I look forward to continuing on this journey with all of you. I sincerely urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I have Senator Nguyen and then Senator Ashby. Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today we are sending a message, a message that our children comes first and we will do whatever it takes in California to protect them. As I've mentioned a lot, I have a 10 year old and a 12 year old. I would do anything to protect my two children and I would do anything to protect all children in California. And this is one of the most significant legislation that we get to impact.

This is my 7th year here, one that I would never forget. But we can't do it without everybody here, from Senator Grove, to everybody here, to the Pro TEM, to the speaker. We can't be here without everybody coming together, uniting, because our one goal is to protect these children. Because every day, every second, we lose them. And in our own communities, it's happening across the state.

And so I am so proud to stand with you today to put a stamp on one of the biggest legislation that is going to protect our children and tell those who want to sex traffick them that we're not going to allow it to happen in this state. And so I again want to thank everybody for your involvement, for your co authorship. And like the Minority Leader said, we can't do this without it passing here first. And so I really appreciate this big legislation and what we are sending across the State of California. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Last microphone that I see up, Senator Ashby.

Thank you, Mr. President. To the Senator from Bakersfield, amazing work from a tenacious woman. You poured your full heart into this Bill, not just for your own kids and grandkids, but for all of ours. And I just wanted to rise today to say thank you and also to note that our friend, the Senator from Merced, is not here today, but I know because she told me many times how proud she is to be standing with you and Senator Rubio on this Bill.

And the three of you deserve a ton of credit for walking this path together. Thank you to the author and the co authors, the Senate Public Safety Committee and author, thank you for taking amendments too, to make sure that we protect the victims as best that we can moving forward with this legislation. You are an incredible woman and I know this is a big day for you and I just want to thank you for not giving up when it got hard. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no other microphones up, the Senator from Bakersfield, you have the opportunity to close the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. President. Three years ago, I went to a human trafficking awareness symposium, and I listened to Des Perkins tell the story about how she was trafficked at seven years old and how she became a survivor, what she the Destitute portion of her life, and how she became a survivor. And then she came up to me and she said, with my District Attorney, I wish this was a serious felony in the State of California.

And people that are repeat offenders, because they are repeat offenders, would go to prison for a longer period of time. So I brought that idea up here three years ago. It died. We had a brand new public safety chair this year, and I can tell you that I appreciate all of you on this floor, but to our Public safety chair, she championed this Bill for me. She really did a good job.

Every time she met with this Assembly Public safety, she made sure that she championed this Bill on my behalf. So I want to thank her for it. Everybody remembers the photo of the year, right, when my colleague from San Francisco voted for this Bill in public safety, and Politico listed our photo of me hugging him. I just have overwhelming emotion.

There's not a lot of things that my colleague in San Francisco and I agree upon, but we agree that selling children for sex in the State of California is something that needs to be fixed and addressed. Attorney General Bonta agrees as well. So I can tell you that this is just a great day for survivors. I've had a lot of survivors, but four in particular that have been standing by my side from the beginning.

I would hope that if the Governor decides to sign this, that he would allow survivors to come up and be a part of that ceremony. And I want to thank the media. Back in the day, the media used to be in this building all the time, and they used to expose some of the things that happened. And I know all of us, doesn't matter what side of the aisle we're on, have problems sometimes with our Assembly Public Safety Department or Committee.

And I think they pulled back the curtain just a little bit to let people know what was really going on when it came to public safety issues in the Assembly. I thank the media for engaging thousands upon thousands of Californians that engaged in this process. But most of all, I thank all of you, my colleagues, who saw this Bill for what it was, a good public safety Bill to protect our children, and unanimously passed it off the floor.

I ask for your confirmation of this Bill today, concurrence and like I said with the amendments that were taken, they just reaffirm what's already in statute and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All debate having ceased, this measure is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to unanimous roll call? Seeing none ayes 39, noes 0.

Zero. Assembly amendments are concurred in. Congratulations, Senator Grove, for getting her legislation to the governor's desk. Members, we're going to move back to lift the call on file item 111. File item 111. Going to lift that call and ask the Clerk to call the roll again.

Archuleta aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford. Caballero. Dodd. Glazer. Newman. Roth. Rubio. Umberg.

On a vote of 21 to 11, that measure passes. Members, we're going to go back to Assembly third reading. Okay, Assembly third reading. And we're going to begin with file item 118. This is Assembly Bill 518 by Assembly Member Wicks the floor. Floor Manager. Do you want the Bill read or no? No. Okay. We're going to recognize the Senator from Los Angeles.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the request of the author, please move file item 118 AB 518 to the inactive file. Thank you.

The desk will note. We're going to move next to file item 123. This is Assembly Bill 1032 by Assemblymember Pacheco. Floor Manager Assembly Mitten. Excuse me, Senator Umberg is prepared. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 1032 by Assembly Member Pacheco. An act relating to courts.

Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues. AB 1032 modifies the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Relations Act, and what it does is it updates the framework to encourage courts to hire interpreters as employees rather than independent contractors. I urge an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this measure. All right. Seeing no microphones up. We do have members off the floor, so we're going to go through the roll call just one time and then it will go on call. So the Clerk, 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. Aye. Glazer. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grove. No. 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. Aye. Seyarto. No. Skinner. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Wiener. Aye. Wilk. No.

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Caballero. Dodd. Aye.

On a vote of 30 to eight, the measure passes. Excuse me. Moving a call? That's right. Yeah, we're going to move a call on that bill. We have a member off the floor.

Okay, we're going to move to file item 124. This is Assembly Bill 760 by Assemblymember Wilson. Senator Padilla is presenting. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 760 by Assemblymember Wilson and accolading to public post-secondary education.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm here to present AB 760 by Assemblymember Wilson, which would permit, excuse me, California State University and University of California students and faculty to designate their affirm name for official use while at the University, permitting internal records such as class rosters or campus identification cards to reflect an individual's affirm name. The CSU and UC systems can eliminate systemic dead naming of transgender and non binary students and faculty. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Discussion, Members, on this item? Seeing no microphones up. Clerk please call the roll. One time, folks, and then we're going to put it on call.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Ashby. Atkins. Aye. Becker. Blakespear. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Caballero. Cortese. Aye. Dahle. Dodd. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Eggman. Aye. Glazer. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grove. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Min. Newman. Aye. 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 Padilla moves the call. We're going to move next to file item 125. This is Assembly Bill 1340 by Assemblymember Garcia. Senator Newman is prepared. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 1340 by Assemblymember Garcia and accolading to school accountability.

Senator from Fullerton, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise on behalf of Assemblymember Garcia to present AB 1340, which will provide enhanced transparency around the educational outcomes of students with disabilities in order to better ensure that these students are getting the resources that they need. On behalf of Assemblymember Garcia, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Discussion on this legislation? Seeing none. We're going to go through the roll one time and then on call. Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Senator Newman makes a call for this Bill. Put it on call. Next up is 126. File item 126 AB 92 by Assemblymember Connolly. Senator Umberg, to present. Clerk, Please read.

Assembly Bill 92. By Assemblymember Connolly in accolading to crimes.

Senator Umberg.

Thank you. Mr. President, this Bill simply says that if you are prohibited carrying a firearm, you may not purchase body armor urge an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this matter. Discussion or debate seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

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

Senator Umberg moves a call. Next up, Members, file item 127. This is AB 1068 by Assemblymember Valencia.

Clerk, please read Assembly Bill 1068 by Assemblymember Valencia in accolade to the Public Utilities Commission.

Senator from San Diego. Senator Padilla, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present AB 1068 on behalf of Assemblymember Valencia. AB 1068 aims to provide greater accountability and transparency to the California Public Utility Commission's decision-making process by ensuring that all interested stakeholders are able to participate. The Bill accomplishes this by allowing written ex parte communications during the Commission's quiet period when material modifications to proposed decision are made. This measure has bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate on this matter? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. If the Clerk please call the roll.

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

Senator Padilla moves a call. Next up, file item 128. This is Assembly Bill 695 by Assemblymember Pacheco. Senator Umberg is the floor manager.

Clerk, please read Assembly Bill 695 by Assemblymember Pacheco and accolade to juveniles.

Senator from Orange County, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. And others. AB 695 would create the Juvenile Detention Facilities Improvement Grant program. I urge an aye vote.

Discussion or debate? Discussion on this legislation seen none. Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Senator Umberg moves the call. Next up is file item 129. This is Assembly Bill 480 by Assemblymember Ting. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 480 by Assemblymember Ting in accolade into local government.

Back to the Senator from Orange County.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, AB 480, by Assemblymember Ting is a product of harmonization and compromise between Senator Caballero and Assemblymember Ting. Concerning the Surplus Lands Act. What this Bill does is it closes several loopholes, in particular for lands that are leased and lands that are sold at less than market value. It provides certain exemptions, for example, for large site, mixed-use development, and I urge an aye vote.

Any discussion on this legislation? Seeing no microphones up the Clerk, please call the roll

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. 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. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk no.

Senator Umberg moves a call. Next up, file item 130. This is Assembly Bill 812 by Assemblymember Boerner Horvath. Senator Rubio is the floor manager. If the Clerk will please read the Bill.

Assembly Bill 812 by Assemblymember Boerner in accolading to housing. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I'm proud to present AB 812 by Assemblymember Boerner. AB 812 would allow a local government to set aside up to 10% of very low, low, or moderate-income housing for artists when that housing is located within one-half mile of a state or local cultural district. Artists are the lifeblood of our cultural communities. Sadly, cultural arts districts throughout the state have expressed concerns that they struggle to retain artists within their communities.

AB 812 will give local governments the flexibility necessary to set aside affordable units for Low income artists and help prevent further displacement of artists in our cultural districts. This vote has no opposition and passed with unanimous bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, any discussion on this legislation? Seeing none, the Clerk, please call the roll Allen.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez aye. Grove. Hurtado aye. Jones no. Laird aye. Limon aye. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman ye. Nguyen no. Niello no. 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.

Senator Rubio moves a call. Next up is file item 132, AB 934 by Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Clerk, please read the Bill.

Assembly Bill 934 by Assemblymember Muratsuchi in accolading to teacher credentialing Senator from Fullerton. Senator Newman. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise on behalf of Assemblymember Muratsuchi to present AB 934, which will require the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to develop a public awareness campaign to recruit more teachers. The Bill has enjoyed unanimous support. On behalf of Assemblyman Muratsuchi, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, any discussion on this item? Seeing no microphones up the Clerk, please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese. Dahle aye. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez 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. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

Senator Newman moves a call. Next up, file item 133. This is Assembly Bill 1150 by the Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife. Clerk, please read.

Assembly Bill 1150 by Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife in accolading to Parks and Recreation.

Senator from Irvine. Senator Min is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. AB 1150 is the State Parks omnibus Bill. It supports support its technical changes. Please vote aye.

Any discussion on this legislation? Seeing none. Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Senator Min moves a call. Next up is file item 134. This is AB 1048 by Assemblymember Wicks. Senator Wiener is the floor manager, and he seems prepared and enthusiastic. The Clerk please read.

Sure. Assembly Bill 1048 by Assemblymember Wicks and acclimating to healthcare coverage.

Taking a breath, Senator Weiner?

Thank you very much, Mr. President. It's called multitasking. I rise. Present AB 1048 on behalf of Assemblymember Wicks. Regulatory exemptions have allowed dental plans to restrict patient benefits with arbitrary waiting periods, denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and increases in patient premiums without increasing benefits. Several commercial dental plans require a waiting period ranging from three months to 12 months before enrollees can even access full benefits.

These arbitrary timeouts are often imposed on medically necessary services like crowns and root canals, limiting patients ability to access care when needed. Commercial dental plans can also impose exclusions for enrollees who have preexisting dental conditions, which is outrageous. While health plans must undergo a premium rate review, dental plans are excluded from this review process, leading to rising expenditures and out-of-pocket costs for consumers.

A survey from the California Healthcare Foundation found that 38% of Californians have a family Member who skipped dental care last year due to high cost. AB 1048 adds important patient protections to dental coverage, eliminating loopholes that deny coverage and that increase out of pocket cost. It also adds accountability and transparency measures. This Bill helps make clear that oral health care is core health care. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you to the Senator from San Francisco, any discussion on this measure? Any discussion? Seeing none. Clerk please call the roll.

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

Senator Weiner moves a call. Members, a shout-out to all of you for your diligence today. We've been making great progress on our file, and certainly to your staff and to our Senate staff for working so hard to make everything look so effortless. Here on the Floor, we're going to move to file item 135. This is Assembly Bill 620 by Assemblymember Connolly.

Assembly Bill 620 by Assemblymember Connolly in accolading to healthcare coverage.

Senator from Santa Barbara. Senator Limon, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members, AB 620 would require health plans to cover medical nutrition therapy and allow Californians suffering from these disorders to have greater access to nutritional support in addition to medication. By expanding health insurance coverage to medically necessary foods which have proven to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Limon, any discussion on this legislation? Seeing no microphones up, Clerk please call the roll.

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

Senator Limon moves a call. I think for purposes of a motion, recognize Senator Ashby.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the request of the broken hearted author, I regretfully request that file item 136, AB 51 be sent to the inactive file.

The desk will note we're going to move next to file item 137. This is Assembly Bill 529 by Assemblymember Gabriel. Floor manager is prepared.

The Clerk would please read Assembly Bill 529 by Assemblymember Gabriel in accolading to adaptive review.

Senator Blakesphere.

Thank you. President and colleagues, AB 529 incentivizes local jurisdictions to develop underutilized commercial land into affordable housing by including adaptive reuse to the list of pro-housing criteria when granting a pro-housing designation. This Bill has bipartisan support with zero no votes, and I respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you to the Senator from Encinitas. Any discussion on this legislation? Seeing none. If the Clerk could please call the roll.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero. Cortese aye. Dahle aye. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez. 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. Portantino. Roth aye. Rubio aye. seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

The Senator from Encinitas moves the call. Next up, Members, is file item 138. This is Assembly Bill 164 by Assemblymember. Bonta. Clerk would please read.

Assembly Bill 164 by Assembly Member Bonta in accolade into charter schools.