Senate Floor

Good morning. California State Senate will come to order. Secretary, please recall the roll.

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

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

And we bring ourselves into God's presence. The following poem by Rumi is dedicated to those who sometimes get tired of being patient. Pay close attention to your mean thoughts. That sourness may be a blessing, as an overcast day brings rain on the roses and relief to dry soil. Don't look so sourly on your sourness. It may be that it's carrying what you most deeply need and want. What seems to be keeping you from joy may be what leads you to joy.

Don't call it a dead branch. Call it the live, moist root. Don't always be waiting to see what's behind it. That wait and see poisons your spirit. Reach for it. Hold your meanness to your chest as a healing root and be through with waiting. Creator of all that is, help us to know today that your deepest desires are being accomplished in and through us. Amen.

Senate colleagues, repeat after me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, members, we're going to begin with privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports of committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Moving next to motions, resolutions, and notices. Senator Wahab, what purpose you rise?

Thank you. I request to move SB 466, item number six to the inactive file.

That will be the order of the day. The clerk will note. Thank you. Any other motions, resolutions and notices? All right. We're going to move next to the consideration of the daily file. We're going to generally go in order today, Members, there'll be some variation of that throughout the day, but we are going to begin today with file item number four. File item number four. Senator Alvarado-Gil is ready. The clerk would please read.

Senate Bill 739 by Senator Alvarado-Gil. An act relating to school accountability.

Senator Alvarado-Gil, the floor is yours.

Thank you, President. SB 739 would extend the current terms of charter schools by one year to accommodate the gap in students data caused by the Pandemic. Under this Bill, charter schools would remain accountable through ongoing authorizer oversight and participation in the state's broader accountability system. Furthermore, this Bill represents the art of compromise and has bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Is there any discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Would the Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll call].

Measure passes 28 to zero. Members, we're going to next move to file item number 10. This is SB 6116 by Senator Gonzalez. Excuse me. All right. Pardon me. Let's remain in file order there. We'll move to file item number five. This is SB 847 by Senator Dahle. He's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 847 by Senator Dahle, an act relating to vehicles.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. Maybe you could gavel this giant woodpecker over here behind me on the wall. I rise to present SB 847. California is a very diverse state. We traditionally make every effort to ensure the diversity is respected and accommodated. In the north state and other parts of California, there are a large population of folks who wear turbans or patkas as part of their religious beliefs. Within those groups, some enjoy riding motorcycles.

This is where the conflicts exist between their religious freedoms and the California law. Currently, no helmet on the market exists that will accommodate a turban or patka being worn underneath. Many states have exempted adults over 21 from wearing helmets while riding motorcycles. Several other states do not require helmets at all. SB 847 would simply exempt Californians who wear a turban or padka for religious reasons from wearing a helmet while operating or riding a motorcycle. This is not without precedence.

Our own U. S. Military allows the wearing of turbines and packages instead of wearing head covers. Even Canada law exempts those who practice the Sikh religion from wearing a safety helmet. California is well known for the strict laws to protect people from themselves, even when it's their choice. My hope is that this body will consider protecting the freedoms we hold dear regarding our diverse religions in this state. With that, I ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Discussion or debate? Senator Gonzalez?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President and Members. I certainly respect my colleague from Bieber. This went through Transportation Committee. I couldn't in good faith support this because I believe traffic safety and upholding that the issue of folks that could fall off of their motorcycle and get a severe head injury I think would supersede religious freedoms. And so, although I understand that we did some research in the Transportation Committee, Canada does allow some exemptions, but it's very few and far between.

And no other state, from my knowledge, has also provided an exemption for individuals who wear turbans. There are some innovations out there, but they're only for bicycles, not motorcycles. So with know we've worked on this, we've talked about this at length. It's a very interesting discussion. I'm glad it's in front of us today. But I cannot in good faith support this and I will be voting No today. So thank you.

Senator Allen. You're recognized.

Yeah Members. I voted for this in Committee and I think there was a number of us who wanted to give the author an opportunity to keep working on it. It doesn't seem like any amendments have been taken, so I think I'm laying off now. There are some opportunities for moving forward given some of the technologies that are out there, but I think we ought to focus on those technologies for safer riding rather than just a blanket exemption.

I was hoping that by the time it got to the floor, this would have been worked out. It doesn't appear that it has, and I'll be laying off.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Mr. President. So as a former public safety official that actually went on motorcycle accidents and understand the mechanics of what happens out there, the population represented by this particular Bill is not significant in relation to the population of people that get in motorcycle accidents in the first place. And also, when you narrow that down even further into people who actually are involved in a motorcycle accident and the trauma is from head trauma, it narrows it down even more.

If somebody chooses to jump on a motorcycle, they're already at risk. And this isn't going to put them any more at risk or less at risk than they would ordinarily be. And we cannot control that. My own mother died in a motorcycle accident and she was wearing a helmet, and the helmet had nothing to do with why she died. So I think there's a point at which we start trying to do more than necessary for people to make decisions on their own behalf.

And when you're talking about religious exemptions, we do that all the time. We do that with land zoning, we do that with this, and we can do that with this also. This is very important to the community that is affected by this, and it is their responsibility and it's their risk. And so I'm not sure why we feel the need to continue to impose something that is against their religion, which is to take that off when we don't have anything to replace it anyway.

So for that reason, I am going to support this even as a public safety person that understands the risks and dangers of these type of accidents and how you can get some head injuries from them. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Next up, I have Senator Cortese, followed by Senator Caballero and then Senator Wiener. Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of SB 847. We did have a robust discussion in Committee.

And since that time, I've checked in with the author multiple times to try to determine what his commitment was and is going forward to try to keep working out administrative procedures to make sure there's no fraud, make sure things are verified, make sure perhaps there's a DMV process involved, just like there is for so many things that are required when you take on the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. That said, I'm supporting the Bill, though, primarily because I consider myself a First Amendment purist.

Hopefully, I live up to that. But I think if I'm going to live up to it today, I need to allow whatever possible efforts might occur during the remaining legislative process here to protect these First Amendment rights and give the author a chance to find that ground before cutting off that opportunity. Because we heard testimony in Committee directly from members of the community that would be protected in terms of their rights, who basically said they would rather die than take off their religious headwear.

That's a strong religious commitment. But it convinced me that this isn't any kind of a ruse or a ploy. It really is about forcing a Proposition on people that we don't like to see forced on anybody in this country.

And since the legislative session continues, if we get this off the floor today, I think the author has an opportunity in good faith, which he has promised, to try to find that ground where we protect these First Amendment rights without compromising the integrity of public safety or the Department of Motor Vehicles administrative programs that exist. And with that, I urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Cortese. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I also rise in support, and I rise because I think it's important to understand that for members of the Sikh community, this is a religious observance. This is a tradition that goes back thousands of years, and this body in the past has done far more for absolutely no reason at all. We have basically allowed people to jaywalk, despite the fact that it's illegal and it's dangerous and you could get hurt crossing the street here.

We have also allowed bicyclists I don't know whether it ever got signed, but bicyclists to not have to stop for traffic signals, for stop signs, again for the convenience of the bicyclists, who kind of don't follow the rules anyway. This, on the other hand, is entirely different because this is part of a religious observance. These are grown adults making the decision as to whether they want to get on a motorcycle, as was articulated, a very dangerous act in itself.

And for that reason, I'm going to be supporting the Bill today.

Senator Wiener, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate where the author is coming from and the supporters. I know this is coming from a good place, but unfortunately, I will not be able to support this Bill today. I think when it comes to religious exemptions, especially around things like health and safety and civil rights laws and other really critical public policies, we have to be extremely cautious.

When the Legislature, I think it was 30 years ago, enacted the helmet requirement for motorcycles, I know that was hugely controversial, and I'm sure it continues to be controversial today, but this was a significant health and safety measure. It's not a minor thing. And when someone has a head injury because of a motorcycle accident, because they're not wearing a helmet, it affects them and their family and their children. It affects the entire community. It affects the health care system.

And so that's why we made that decision. And I think we should be very cautious in exempting people from important health, safety or civil rights or other important policies in terms of exempting them. So I will not be supporting it today.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. I have Senator Grove followed by Senator Min. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of SB 847. I represent a large Sikh, Hindu, East Asian community, not only in my district, but I have a lot of friends that are in this religion throughout the state. And I can tell you that the headgear, the turban, is called a dastar, and it's one of the five religious symbols carried and worn by baptized Sikhs. And it's on their body most all times, especially in public.

Being asked to remove it is a sincere insult to their faith and what they believe. And it's a symbol they really do believe that it's a symbol of holiness and of spiritual power. Each turban, or dastar, depending on the color, has a different significance in the Sikh community. And I think that stepping on religious freedoms and religious faith like this body, it hurts my heart. That is done on several occasions through different religions.

This is just something that should be considered to allow the Sikhs, a very small population in our communities, to be able to honor the god they serve and not have to have their head gear removed again, it's an insult. And it is considered a spiritual power and purity issue with the Sikh community. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove, Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. I appreciate the robust debate. I was not planning on speaking on this Bill. I also represent a vibrant Sikh community. I also represent a lot of folks that like to ride motorcycles. That being said, I want to echo the comments of my colleagues from San Francisco and from Santa Monica. This is not a law that's targeted at the Sikh community. It's a law of general applicability. It was enacted for reasons of public safety.

And there's lots of examples of laws like this that apply, again, neutrally to all religions, but which may have the impact of affecting some religions that have certain beliefs. There are people out there who genuinely believe they should not work with or eat with women. But we have laws that say you can't discriminate in the workplace in that regard. We have people who are out there who believe that they shouldn't have to treat certain types of patients or deliver certain types of medical care.

And yet we have laws that are of general applicability that requires doctors to do that. I'd say that this law that we have in place is meant to improve safety. And unfortunately, while I would love more Sikhs to be able to enjoy riding motorcycles, they are not immune to head injuries. And while they may be a small community, they're still vulnerable to the same accidents that we all are. So I'm not going to be able to vote for this Bill today.

I look forward to the technologies that are described in the description here of turbine sized helmets or turbine like helmets so that more Wicks can be able to enjoy motorcycling. But I just think this is a problematic Bill.

Thank you, Senator Min. Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Mr. President. I also wasn't planning on speaking today, but I also have a very large Sikh community in my district. I have the first temple in the U.S., in my district. And we have quite a few motorcycle groups, motorcycle groups in my district. And I hadn't even kind of thought but they generally don't wear helmets. They wear turbans. And so kind of asking them to break the law.

And I just think because we have passed laws that says everybody must have insurance, everybody should have health care insurance, we provided for all of that. That to me, this is not analogous to somebody treating somebody else with disrespect because of their religion. This is somebody saying, I want to make this personal decision for myself or my own religion. And I am a Libertarian enough to support that.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Seeing no further. Senator Umberg.

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

Would the author take a question?

Absolutely.

All right. Please proceed.

I am not familiar with the Sikh religion. Does the religion require the riding of motorcycles?

Not that I'm aware of.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. Is there any further conversation, questions, debate, discussion? All right. Seeing none. Senator Dahle, you may close.

Well, thank you to all the Members who spoke. I think this is probably the most controversial Bill I've ever brought forward. I want to thank the chair of transportation who did work with me to get this Bill. To this point, there is no technology available for a helmet that is out there. We did the research on that. There is some work in the area of small children for bicycles, but there isn't anything for actually, motorcycles. So that's number one.

Number two, we reached out to the California highway patrol law enforcement folks, and basically they have just been giving warnings. They're not citing them. They've been giving warnings. I don't know. There probably has been a ticket somewhere. But for the most part, because of their faith, these are people who don't drink.

There's a lot of other things in their religion that requires them to be really safe with their and I actually inherited this area of Senator Nielsen's, which is the deferred area and have the largest Sikh community in the nation, quite frankly. Yuba City in that part of the district learned about this as I am now representing them. So brought it forth. I'd love to get the Bill out. I know there's some work to do.

We looked at areas where we can actually put something on their driver's license that would allow us to identify that they are Sikh of that religion so that we don't have everybody using this as an exemption who just doesn't want to wear a helmet, but really they do not take their turban off. In fact, when they came into the building to lobby, some of them had swords as well. And they were allowed to come in this building with a sword.

And I have a photo in my office with somebody with a sword on their side. So we do allow them to even come in the building with something that we don't allow anybody else to come in the building with. So I will commit to you that I will continue to work on this Bill. I know there's a lot of areas, but I'd like to get the Bill out into the Assembly where we can have more time. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dahle all debate having ceased. Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

Senate Bill 616 by Senator Gonzalez, an act relating to employment.

Senator Gonzalez, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members, I rise today to present SB 616, which will increase paid sick leave and expand the current safety net for all workers. In 2014, California led the nation in establishing the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, which requires employers to provide three paid sick days to all employees for diagnosis, care, treatment of an existing health condition, preventative care for theirselves or family members, or victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic and other widespread outbreaks like RSB and what we've been encountering, we know that three paid sick days is just not enough. Research has found that during the pandemic, the emergency paid leave policy prevented the spread of approximately 400 new COVID cases. And unfortunately, as we know, those benefits were only temporary.

616 will address this problem by increasing the amount of paid sick leave that employers are required to provide to employees from three to seven days, while also providing railroad workers seven unpaid sick days. Without adequate paid sick days, workers are forced to go work, to work sick in order to provide for their families or stay at home without pay. And this can cost families, as we know in California, a great deal.

SB 616 will grant working families across the state increased security to take care of themselves and their loved ones, which is all what we want. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 616.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Discussion or debate, Members? Discussion or debate? Seeing? None. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

The measure is out. 27 to 9. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 11. This is SB 779 by Senator Stern. He is prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 779 by Senator Stern and acquiring to clinics.

Senator Stern, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, community clinics are integral to our state's healthcare delivery system and the success of our Medical expansion efforts. But the pandemic, in its aftermath brought into sharp focus the workforce crises that are faced, as well as the access issues that still remain. As we negotiate a broader package around the future medical, I'm particularly proud of the Senate's position in protecting our progress in this regard, which would actually double down on the progress we're making with community clinics.

I also think we need important data to make sure we're having good outcomes in terms of quality for patients and that the workforce itself has a pathway to success. This is tough work. It equires cultural fluency and high degree of skill, but we know it's also underpaid often, and that hours are all over the place, that it's hard to get consistency. So this bill is really an effort to put some of that critical quality and workforce data in place.

We've taken significant amendments in the Health Committee, and just yesterday, we still met with some of the outstanding opposition from community clinics in my district to talk them through what they see as maybe burdensome. Maybe they're writing down certain information on an HR form right now about the languages you speak, and they need to type it into the computer or have a database that has that new sort of information cell in it. I think we can work through those outstanding implementation issues, and I'm committed to that.

And so, with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Stern. Discussion or debate, members. Discussion or debate? Senator Wiener?

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support. I want to thank the author for including sexual orientation and gender identity in this health data bill. We have a very bad history in this State of not collecting health data on the LGBTQ community, and it is extremely harmful. The California Department of Public Health, per a recent audit, has completely failed in collecting this data. And so I think it's fantastic that it's in this bill. And I want to thank the author.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Senator Stern. You may close.

Thank you. This bill, at its core, just puts the kind of clinic data on par with, say, what we're requiring in hospital settings or other licensed healthcare settings. We don't think it's going to be too onerous. We're committed to making this work. We know community clinic work is sacred and tough and out in the trenches, and we want to empower that. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All debate having ceased. Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Measures out 26 to 8. We're going to move to file item number 12. This is SB 829 by Senator Wilk. He's prepared secretary, please read

Senate Bill 829 by Senator Wilk and an act related to ticket sellers.

Thank you, Mr. President. You're doing a fine job this morning. Yesterday we had a very robust discussion on the secondary ticket selling market. And today I present to you SB 829, which will take a step toward reforming the primary ticket-selling market. Over a decade ago, Congress approved a merger between Ticketmaster and Live Nation, and they now hold nearly 90% of the live entertainment market. According to the Billboard Top 100, 86% of the country's biggest tours were ticketed by Ticketmaster.

Live Nation dangles their impressive artist roster to venues in exchange for signing an exclusive contract. This ensures venues have few other options for partners and keeps Live Nation perpetually in control of the market. Ticketmaster's market power allows him to make unrealistic deals with venues and artists by offering major financial bonuses for longer exclusive contracts. The bonuses are so large that no other primary ticket seller is able to compete.

Ultimately, Live Nation and Ticketmaster pass the cost on of these bonuses down to consumers through excessive fees and dynamic pricing. SB 829 will prohibit exclusivity contracts and contracts between a primary ticket seller and an entertainment venue in the State of California. SB 829 is based on a legislative proposal currently going through the New York Legislature. Ticketmaster, Live Nation has already signed a stipulated agreement with the government of Ireland to end this heinous practice.

Although these are private businesses and it isn't ideal to be involved with their contract, I believe it is our job as legislators to ensure our constituents are protected from blatant market manipulation. I recently completed a survey in my district about folks' experience purchasing tickets through Ticketmaster. There are many different stories, but one that really struck out to me was Jose. Jose's family of five planning to go on a vacation this summer and they wanted to do the Wild West, Arizona, Utah, Nevada.

And one of the things the kids were really excited about is they were going to go to professional rodeo. So Jose gets on to buy the tickets. They're $69 apiece times five, a lot of money, but this is a once in a lifetime experience for his kids. So he goes to pull the trigger to buy the tickets and then boom, it comes up $20 a ticket for a handling fee. That was just too much for Jose to commit to and now the kids are not going to professional rodeo.

As our constituents face high costs of living already, folks have to pinch every penny to be able to provide their families with memories. And even then, they might not be able to go, depending on the fees Ticketmasters decide to dump on consumers that day. I am absolutely pro-business, but I'm not pro-monopoly. The primary ticket seller market has failed consumers over and over again.

And our constituents are left with two options, not attending a show they desperately want to see, or paying hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands, to be honest with you, or have to move to the reseller platforms. By supporting SB 829, we can lower ticket prices by opening the live entertainment market up to more competition. More competition will eventually foster innovation that can lead to the enhanced ticket-buying experience for fans from all walks of life. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Wilk. Any further discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing none. Secretary please call the roll Allen.

[Roll Call]

Secretary please call the absent Members.

Caballero aye.

The measure is out, 40 to zero. Congratulations, Senator Wilk. We're going to move on to file item number 13. This is SB 830 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. She has prepared, secretary please read.

Senate Bill 830 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, an act relating to public works.

Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Good morning, colleagues. I rise to present SB 830, which would extend prevailing wage on public works projects to offsite sheet metal fabricators performing work for those projects. Traditionally, fabrication of custom sheet metal ducts for heating, ventilation and air conditioning took place at the job site. Advances in fabrication tools and practices now allow fabrication of custom sheet ducts offsite with increased safety and efficiency.

Unfortunately, court rulings have determined that offsite custom fabrication of metal is not subject to prevailing wage, even though the same work would be performed at the job site. This has created an incentive for contractors to evade a prevailing wage by constructing significant portions of their projects outside of the local area, using low-paid workers that don't have the same protections. SB 830 would follow the lead of other states that have specified offsite

custom fabrication of sheet metal for HVAC Systems is itself a public work and requires prevailing wage. This ensures that our workers prevailing wage is protected here in the state of California. We want to make sure that off-site fabrication is used to the benefit, the efficiency and safety of public work projects, but not to judge prevailing wage and to ensure that our residents are able to be paid fairly and not be undermined. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Discussion or debate? Discussion or debate? Seeing no microphones up. Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

The measure is approved 30 to nine. Congratulations, Senator. We're going to move to next to file item number 14. This is SB 873 by Senator Bradford. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 873 by Senator Bradford an act related to prescription drugs.

Senator Bradford, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. 873 will ensure that patients are better able to afford their medications by simply reforming the state's prescription drug rebate system to directly benefit the patient themselves. Currently, when a patient pays for drugs at the pharmacy counter, the amount they pay is based on the full price of the drug. Even if their health insurer or other pharmacy benefit managers are paying a lower amount, they negotiate it with the manufacturer.

SB 873 requires 90% of the negotiated rebates to be passed on to the patients at the pharmacy counter immediately, helping Californians better afford their medications. In 2021, the State of West Virginia began passing on 100% of the negotiated rebates to patients at the counter. And we've seen national health insurers and their PBMs start to offer rebates to their patients as well. This measure will lower prescription drug costs and add much needed transparency to our health insurance system.

And it simply helps those folks we care most about our constituents afford their drugs. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

That measure is out 28 to two. Members, we're going to move to file item number 16. This is SB 811 by Senator Jones. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 811 by Senator Jones. In accolade to teacher credentialing.

Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, as we all know, California is facing a massive teacher shortage right now. I believe an easy part of the solution is for qualified teachers who are educated and credentialed in other states to be able to move swiftly into a teaching role in California. SB 811 gives California. Another option to simplify teachers moving into the state by joining the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact. Which California will be one of the charter Members.

This Bill will help the California education system fill its many vacant positions and help the educators who wish to come teach here quickly and smoothly receive their appropriate credentialing. Members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Jones, is there any Member that wishes to speak on this issue? Seeing none, this measure is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call? There is an objection. Secretary please call the roll.

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

Secretary please call the absent Members.

Durazo. Gonzalez. Laird. Min. Padilla.

Thank you.

The measure is passed 34 to one. Members, we're going to move to file item number 18. This is SB 248 by Senator Newman. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 248 by Senator Newman. In acquaintance to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise. Present SB 248, which would require candidates running for office in California to submit to the Secretary of State in addition to the other filings already required to qualify a candidacy. A simple summary of their prior work experience, educational, attainment, and any military service, thereby creating a legal framework for holding candidates responsible for lying about their qualifications upon penalty of disqualification or other penalties.

As you may have surmised, the inspiration for this Bill arose out of the seemingly constantly unfolding drama about New York congressman and professional fabulous George Santos, who lied his way into office and now finds himself facing 13 counts of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and submission of false statements.

Interestingly, if George Santos had employed any of those magnificent lies in the service of an application for a position private industry, or included that information on an application for a loan, he could have expected to be summarily fired in the first instance and possibly prosecuted in the second. Running for election is, at its most basic level, another version of applying for a job, one where the hiring decision is made by a majority of the voters in a particular jurisdiction.

In California, as in New York State, and in so many other parts of the country, there is actually very little in the way of safeguards or recourse that might hold a George Santos like candidate accountable. If they succeed in romancing their voters on the basis of misrepresentations of their qualifications that may later be found out to be false.

SB 248 will close this gaping hole in accountability bear, requiring all candidates to attest under penalty of disqualification and subsequent removal, as well as possible criminal prosecution as a misdemeanor offense under the Political Reform Act, that the information being provided is accurate and true to the best of their knowledge.

With public trust in politics already at all time lows, SB 248 will provide voters with the assurance of appropriate and effective recourse, while still allowing for the full exercise of candidates First Amendment rights if and when it turns out that a candidate has achieved election by running on demonstrably falsified credentials. Because this Bill falls under the Political Reform Act, it requires a two thirds vote. I am respectfully asking for your I vote today.

Thank you. Senator Newman, does any Senator wish to speak on this issue? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Secretary please call the absent Members.

Ochoa Bogh aye. Wiener aye. Wilk.

That measure has achieved the two thirds vote. It passes out of our Senate 33 to six Members. We're going to next move to file item number 19. File item 19. This is SB 267 by our good Senator Eggman. She's ready. Secretary please read the Bill.

Senate Bill 267 by Senator Eggman in accolade to housing.

Senator Eggman, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. SB 267 is a Bill most of you voted on last year. We had a little trouble in the Assembly, so we're back this year with a Bill that's even better and I think continues to address the issues that we were addressing last year, providing a little bit of dignity to people and helping get folks into housing.

So as you may or may not know right now, when we go out housing vouchers, either through veterans or mental health or Section Eight, different kinds of things, we give out vouchers. And then that person has to go out and find a place to live. Generally, within a certain amount of time, they cannot find a place to live. Then they lose that voucher and they go back to the back of the line. Most of the folks on vouchers have had some hard times in life.

That's why we give them vouchers. So current law says you use your voucher and then the landlord can ask you for a credit report. Now, chances are, as I said last year, I have very good credit and I have been blessed in my life, and I live in a constant state of gratitude that my life has worked out. So I have very good credit. I'm not applying for a housing voucher. So we need to acknowledge that people have had difficulties in life.

We have decided that they've had difficulties and want to give them some help. We should also then make sure that there's a path for them to actually get the housing. Right now, when people get a housing vouchers, the voucher pays about 70%. They're responsible for that other 30%. All this Bill says is that landlord may still ask them for the credit report, but in addition, that person can say, I have other means of verification that I can pay that other 30% of the rent.

That might be a VA check, that might be their other form of income, could be a pay stub. We have worked with the Apartment Association to make sure that other income is verifiable. And with that, this just allows people a path to be able to get into housing, acknowledges that they've had some credit issues, and don't hold that against them for the rest of their life. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. I see Senator Dahle, followed by Senator Blakespear. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I supported the Bill last year. I think this year it's a better Bill. We talk a lot about folks who are having a tough time in their life. And if you're on a voucher system, obviously you're having a tough time.

And so, for those reasons, and many others, and the people who are in Section Eight housing or renting to these folks know the circumstances they're in, this will give us an opportunity to be able to help those folks actually get into housing. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Blakespear?

Yes. Thank you. May I have permission to ask the author a question?

The author? Take a yes, please.

So, in your public testimony just now, what you said is that this gives another option for landlords to offer a way to prove that the tenant could pay. But my reading of the Bill is that it prohibits a landlord from actually asking for a credit score unless they've already offered alternative means of proving that they can pay. And to me, this shifts the burden of responsibility.

And for the mom-and-pop landlords who may not have the sophistication to know that they have to have offered this when they don't offer it, that opens them up to the threat of litigation. And so, unless I've misunderstood it, I support the concept that you describe verbally, but the writing of this, to me, doesn't seem to accomplish that. And so unless I hear something differently, I just wanted to express that I would be interested in seeing it written in the way you express verbally. So I'll leave that as a question to you because I do see those as fundamentally very different in terms of where the legal responsibility lies.

Okay, yes, I appreciate that the intent, and I will go back and verify that. But it is you offer somebody applies for a place, you offer it, you ask for the credit report and everything, and they say, I don't have that, but I have another form of income that would be able to make that payment. Okay.

Senator Blakespear, on your time, anything further?

Thank you.

All right, Members, is there any further discussion on this item? Further discussion seeing none. Senator Eggman. You may close.

Thank you very much. And thank you for all the Members who spoke on this. We'll continue to look at things. If there is something else we need to tweak, we're open to that. Again, we've worked in a cohort with the Apartment Association this year, in addition to housing advocates. We think this draws a good line to be able to protect landlords and make sure that we give people a fair shot to prove that they can pay that 30%. I ask for your aye vote.

All debate having ceased. Secretary please call the roll.

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

The measure carries 3123 Members. We're going to pass on file item 20. We're going to move to file item 21. This is SB 291 by Senator Newman. The Secretary would please read

Senate Bill 291 by Senator Newman in accolade to pupil rights.

Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present SB 291, which will ensure that all California students from kindergarten through 6th grade can enjoy access to at least 30 minutes of recess or other unstructured activities with other students each school day. Educators and child psychologists have long agreed that play represents a critical input for positive child and youth development.

Office is the only time during the school day where students can learn and practice social and emotional skills, as well as be physically active, connect with friends, and take a break from the structure of the classroom. As California finally emerges from the pandemic and its impacts, we are seeing some of the lingering effects on children's social emotional development manifest in the form of behavioral disruptions, which have become increasingly prevalent in classrooms across our state.

Last year, Children Now's 2022 California Children's Report Card gave California a deep plus in addressing the dramatic uptick in young people's mental health needs. While schools can partially handle these emergent needs through individual interventions like counseling, they are often equally well served by pursuing a healing agenda through unstructured play. This Bill has had no opposition and is supported by the American Heart Association, the California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, and Shape Up San Francisco. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

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

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

Please call the Members.

Dahle aye. Druzazo aye. Jones. McGuire aye. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh aye. Seyarto. Skinner aye.

That measures out 37 to zero. We're going to move next to file item 22. This is SB 296 by Senator Dodd. Secretary, please read Senate Bill 296 by Senator Dodd and acquiring to business. Senator Dodd, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, SB 296 pertains to alerting a consumer when purchasing a new vehicle that contains in vehicle cameras and what rights they have to control what cameras record. SB 296 would place restrictions on the retention and transfer of video recordings while still permitting important driver safety information to be analyzed and used for traffic safety purposes. And the recent amendments address car dealers' concerns. We created a more effective process in notifying the buyers of an in-vehicle camera. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. Members, anybody wish to be recognized on this matter? Seeing none. Secretary please call the roll.

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

Secretary please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil aye. Durazo. Niello. Ochoa Bogh. Rubio aye. Seyarto. Wilk.

That measure carries 36 to zero. We're going to continue with Senator Dodd. This is file item number 23, SB 328. Senator Dodd is ready. Please. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 328 by Senator Dodd enact relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974. Senator Dodd.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise today to present SB 328. SB 328 addresses a hole in our current campaign finance system that allows unlimited donations for local offices like school boards, community college boards, county boards of education, and special districts. The bipartisan Bill sets contribution limits for those local government agencies as the same as a legislative candidate. Simply put, you shouldn't need more money than a state Senator to run for that local office. Establishing these limits puts local elections on an even playing field and will help restore the public trust. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. Any Member wish to be recognized on this matter? Seeing no further discussion, secretary please call the roll.

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

Secretary please call the absent Members.

Dahle, Grove. Nguyen no. Ochoa Bogh aye

Measure carries 33 to five. Moving on to file item 24. This is Senate Bill 345 by Senator Skinner. Secretary please read

Senate Bill 345 by Senator Skinner. In accolade to healthcare services.

Senator Skinner.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Members, I don't need to remind us, but we are increasingly seeing aggressive attacks with new laws on the legal rights of women and trans people regarding essential healthcare decisions. Decisions that we have until recently respected to be left as personal and between the person and their healthcare professional. SB 345 strengthens California's legal protections for our healthcare providers who provide or dispense reproductive care, like medication, abortion, or gender-affirming care, regardless of their patient's location SB 345.

Additionally, adds protections for those who are in California that another state is trying to prosecute for health care that is legal in California. SB 345, I'm very proud to relay, is supported by the California Medical Board, who voted in favor of it just recently. The Board of Registered Nursing, the California Nurse-Midwives Association, Equality California, the Future of Abortion Council, including Black Women for Wellness, and many other organizations.

And I mentioned the future of Abortion Council, SB 345 further cements California's position as the safe haven for reproductive justice and the state leader in legal protections for women and trans people as they seek abortion, contraception, reproductive services, and gender-affirming care. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Skinner, is there any further discussion on this matter? Seeing none. Secretary please call the roll.

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

That measure carries 32 to eight. Going to move to file item number 25. This is SB 349 by Senator Roth. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 349 by Senator Roth in acquisition to criminal procedure. Senator Roth.

Thank you, Mr. President. This Bill clarifies that a certificate of restoration of mental competence for a defendant in one case shall apply to any pending case against the criminal defendant at the time the defendant was restored to competence. This simple clarification adopts the 2011 California Court of Appeal decision in People versus Avila, which expressly rejected the contention that a defendant may be competent to stand trial in two cases and yet incompetent in a third. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Any further discussion on this item? This is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Any objections to using a unanimous roll call? Seeing none, the measure carries up. Excuse me. Aye see an objection. Secretary 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 aye. Hurtado aye. Jones aye. Laird aye. Limon aye. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas no Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

Secretary please call the absent Members.

Caballero aye. Gonzalez.

that measure carries 3821. Members, we're going to move now to file item 68. This is a change in our regular scheduled agenda. File item 68 is SB 525 by Senator Durazo secretary, please read

Senate Bill 525 by Senator Durazo in accolade to employment. Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present SB 525, which will establish a $25 per hour minimum wage for our healthcare workers. Healthcare workers are essential at every point in our healthcare system. Remember, they sanitize operating rooms to make sure they are safe for surgeries. They make sure patients in the hospitals have healthy food. Their work helps people with kidney disease access life saving dialysis treatment. Their work also helps people with Low incomes have trusted community Members to help them navigate healthcare in our community clinics.

Raising the minimum wage for healthcare workers in the state is critical in order to help retain staff. California is facing a patient care crisis partly because we do not have enough healthcare workers to care for our population. Unfortunately, many have left the profession after facing trauma and dangerous working conditions throughout the pandemic and at the same time struggling with Low pay. The impacts of the staffing crisis are being felt by healthcare workers and those that they care for.

We have heard from healthcare workers such as medical assistants and clerical workers who are making less than $25 per hour. They're struggling to make ends meet, like just pay the rent or pay for gas. They've had two or three jobs and they do not have the time to take care of themselves while they are taking care of their patients. During the pandemic, everyone acknowledged the extraordinary courage of our healthcare workers. We praised them and prayed for them. Many lost their lives to save us.

Now that the worst of the pandemic is over, it is time to acknowledge the sacrifices of our healthcare workers, especially those that make $32,000 a year. Do we all know what that would be like? We should ask the CEO of a nonprofit health system that made $15 million or one who made 9.6 million. Colleagues, I know that distressed hospitals need our help, and I share with the same concerns.

In fact, we supported already $150,000,000 for a distressed hospital loan to start just to start giving that help. We are also in conversations regarding the MCO tax to provide funding to hospitals and looking to raise the reimbursement rates for Medikel. This Bill is not intended to solve the entire set of issues within the healthcare delivery system. That's part of a broader conversation. But so far, colleagues, the conversation has not included the words essential worker.

The healthcare workforce is not even mentioned in the plea for financial help. We help distressed hospitals, but we don't deny livable wages to the people who change and launder the dirty bed sheets, the people who mop up the floors in the ER room. The bottom line is that hospitals, clinics, and any similar medical facilities cannot run their day-to-day operations without addressing the needs of their workforce.

I know it's hard to hear about hospital closures prior to my election, a major hospital in my district was closed. That's the last thing anybody wants in our communities. But let's remember factually, most hospitals are not distressed. Most health facilities are actually able to afford this. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation Health News analysis of state data revealed that despite increased labor costs and inflation, many California hospitals have been profitable in recent years.

Health economists also say that some of California's 368 General hospitals are in crisis and that relief should be given to those that can show that they are in need. That is why we need to strike the right balance in raising wages and addressing the issues for distressed facilities that need relief. The conversations will not end here.

I plan to continue to work with all the stakeholders to ensure we are doing what is right for the workers, for the patients, and for our healthcare system and pass a Bill that makes sense. We've already made several amendments to the Bill in the Senate. We are phasing in the implementation final 25 by June of 2025. 1st second, for covered healthcare employment, where the compensation of the employee is on a salary basis.

The employee shall earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than 150% of the minimum wage changed from two times. And we change wage inflation to lesser instead of greater. I'm asking for your support today so that I can address the following issues. Distressed hospitals that truly cannot afford those who are operating within thin margins or are located in rural areas. Two, the particular needs of clinics, and three, the timing and the implementation of the increase.

I'm asking for your support to get the opportunity to work these pieces out as the Bill makes its way through the Assembly. And then we'll have to come back to the Senate on concurrence. I've spent my whole life fighting to raise wages for working Californians, from housekeepers to janitors, construction workers, teachers and nurses. Poverty wages hurt everyone. We're simply asking to let healthcare workers make $52,000 a year. That means they still qualify for subsidized Low income housing.

If we want a strong healthcare system, if we want health equity, we must include healthcare workers and allow them a wage that allows them to live in the communities that they serve. I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Aye see five microphones up. We're going to start with Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, followed by Senator Gonzalez, Wahab, Min, and Becker. Senator.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. And we know that when workers do well, our communities do well. And I am a proud co sponsor of this Bill because our communities are not financially well. And we need to make sure that our workers, and particularly essential workers, have a living wage. I am a co author and strong supporter of SB 525, which will make California the first in the nation, lead the way in establishing a $25 per hour minimum wage for all healthcare workers.

It is long past time to value the role of healthcare workers and the patient care that they offer. And more importantly, make sure that sectors that are led by women earn a living and fair wage in our communities. We are losing too many talented, trained, diverse, and compassionate healthcare workers because they just can't afford to pay their rent or their bills because of these low wages. And we know medical facilities are struggling to recruit and train employees.

We hear that in BNP and every Committee, vacancy after vacancies after vacancy, many clinics, hospitals, and healthcare facilities are competing with other sectors like retail and food service, just to make sure that our in, hospitality for, entry-level, hourly paid workers in these sectors are competing with our essential healthcare workers. This is why hospitals and other healthcare facilities need to invest in their workforce in order to ensure that services are not cut and that access to care is not impacted.

We can't have a healthcare system without the most important resource, its workers. Higher wages means healthcare workers would be able to support their families, take care of themselves, and take care of us patients who need their care. I want to thank the Senator from Los Angeles, Senator Durazo, for bringing this measure forward. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. President and Members, I too rise in strong support and as a proud co-author of SB 525. And I thank my colleague from Los Angeles for continuing to fight for our most vulnerable, but very essential workforce. And this SB 525 raises the healthcare wages to $25 an hour. As we know back home in Southeast Los Angeles and in Long Beach specifically in the Huntington Park Cudahy area.

I did a little search online and I went on, indeed, and I went on Glassdoor, and I looked at what the thoughts were from our workforce that are working with our most vulnerable residents in Southeast Los Angeles. For Huntington Park Community Hospital. The first thing they said is, the nurses are great, they're fantastic. Everyone works really hard. But time and time again, they constantly said the pay is bad. It's not enough for everything.

They want you to do good to get your foot in the hospital industry, gain experience, but that is all. The pay is no good. The average salary at Huntington Park Community Hospital is $34,000 a year. And this is in the fourth largest economy in California, where people, as mentioned by my good colleague, cannot make ends meet.

People taking care of our family Members in our communities that are most vulnerable and need the most standardization of care and need better care oftentimes, and in my community, mostly Latino community, these are folks that speak Spanish. What a value. These are folks that speak Khmer in Long Beach. What a value. And they're still getting paid $35,000 a year. And so for me, it's a disservice when we can't sit here and actually take it upon ourselves to say yes to this Bill because it's so important. We know they're frontline heroes, but everything else that they do on top of that. So with that, I strongly urge and aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I have. Next up, Senator Wahab, followed by Senator Min, Becker. Menjivar. Senator Wahab.

Thank you, President and colleagues. In the early days of COVID-19 pandemic, it became very, very clear just how indispensable healthcare workers are to our society as a whole. But I also just want to highlight how quickly people forget the fact that they are surrounded by illness and death and disease and so forth, and oftentimes are dealing with people in their most troublesome time.

According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator in Alameda County, the appropriate living wage for a single parent raising one child is $48.15 per hour. For Santa Clara County. It's $53.03 per hour. So a $25 minimum wage for healthcare workers seems to be, at the very least, what we can do. I respect the concerns that this may set an uncomfortable benchmark for the registered nurses whose wages are more aligned with the living wage.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. Senator Min.

But at the same time, we didn't see people's wages falling when the minimum wage was increased to $15 an hour. And I don't want to leave anybody behind, especially those that are actually doing very difficult work in very difficult situations. So for these reasons, I will be voting. I and I again thank the Senator from La.

Thank you, Mr President and colleagues. I support the intent of this Bill. We all talked about essential workers during the pandemic, and yet we know that in all of our communities, there are essential workers that struggle to get by that don't make a living wage, that don't get the salaries that we know they deserve. But this is a Bill that is very troubling in a lot of ways. For me, it's so broad in scope, it's broad geographically.

I have deep concerns that this Bill may end up causing healthcare facilities to exit the state, to go out of business at a time when we need that coverage. We're trying to talk about universal healthcare access. These are important priorities for many of us. And I worry about this Bill in a lot of ways. I'm not sure that the right wage for LA County is the same as for Kern County.

I worry about the broad scope to some of the community health clinics in my district that are, I know are struggling to get by. I know the author, though, is being focused on trying to make this Bill better. We've had extensive conversations. I wish we had more time to see how this Bill evolves, but that's not the way this body works. We have to vote today. And in conversation with the author. I know she's trying to make this Bill better.

She's committed to me that she's going to take a look at regionalization of this, looking at how to maybe carve out distressed hospitals, maybe narrow perhaps or definitely narrowing the scope of the Bill to make sure that some of these nonprofit clinics and others that maybe don't belong under the rubric are excluded. I'm still following this debate.

I have not decided at this moment how I'm going to vote, but I know that the author is committed to trying to make this Bill better and I look forward to hearing her comments and others as we move forward.

Thank you. Senator Min, Senator Becker.

Thank you. Our hospitals clearly are struggling. I've been in a lot of debates, not debates, discussions about hospitals that are closing and leaving this area, where areas are left without hospitals. And I think this Bill clearly does have issues. If this Bill comes back in its current form, if it makes it through and comes back on concurrence, I would not vote for it in its current form.

But I do want to I'm considering, I do want us to consider keeping workers at the table by moving this Bill forward. Why do I say that? There is a lot of money in the healthcare system. Just one insurance company, just one healthcare insurance company nationally in 2021 had $69 billion in gross profits, $79 billion in gross profits. In 2022, that same just one healthcare company had over $20 billion in net profits after expenses in both of those years.

Currently, we're considering MCO tax that would raise, I think, around $19 billion. And that money is needed by the hospitals. Clearly, we have to raise medical rates, clearly so that money is needed. But my point is, there's a lot of money in the system.

And I know that when my father was in the hospital with brain cancer that I was extremely grateful, not just to the doctors and the nurses, but to the workers, mostly workers of color that were transporting him, that were keeping him safe while moving around the hospital or between hospitals. The ones that were sanitizing the hospital and keeping it safe for everyone.

So while we figure out how to fix our healthcare system more broadly, and we fix it here in this state and in this country, I want us to consider keeping workers at the table while we have those discussions. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Becker. Next up, I have Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I rise as a tweener on this Bill. And I was looking at through my hat as Chair of sub-three, and I agree with the comments from the Senator from Silicon Valley, where I will be voting this Bill to allow the Senator, the author of this Bill, to continue to bring those players to the table to talk about this and moving forward.

Because in sub-three, we did take action on the MCO tax, but there's still much more negotiation to happen on the MCO tax where we don't have the exact answer of every single dollar and how it's going to be allocated to the hospitals. Yes, we did vote on sun money going to hospitals to help with their ER, to help with the inpatient psych. But there is a section there for workforce issues that hasn't been completely hashed out.

I also have been talking a lot with the author and the sponsors of this Bill to talk about my concerns, because I don't want to address one injustice by creating another injustice. I agree with everything that's been said by Senators from Long Beach and so forth, that, yes, these are individuals that need a livable wages, but also these are community clinics that serve the same individuals that don't have the livable wages. This isn't an entity. Most of them are Medi-Cal. Serve Medi-Cal patients.

So their funding comes from how much we reimburse. We're doing a landmark reimbursement through the MCO tax. But that's just going to make some community clinics and some hospitals whole. It's not even going to give them an upper hand. I have a lot of concerns on this, but I trust that the author is going to continue to do her due diligence and continue having these conversations.

I ask that we allow her to have those conversations, to be able to address this in a manner that will make us feel more comfortable. Again, I agree with the Senator, with Silicon Valley. If this Bill were to come back to us in the same form, I wouldn't be able to support it. I'm giving the author the faith that she will continue to have these conversations. I'm asking my colleagues to give her the same respect, if you will, to move these conversations going.

Again, none of us want to have another hospital closed down, Community Clinics closed down. And I know, should the author come back with something that it's more digestible, we can vote on that. But again, asking respectfully that we give her the room to continue having those conversations. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar, I see four additional microphones up. Next up will be Senator Padilla, followed by Senator Caballero, Cortese, and Dahle. Senator Padilla, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Mr. President and colleagues. I want to thank my distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from Los Angeles, for bringing the Bill forward. And I certainly completely understand the motivation, the intent, and the desire to address what is a very, very complex matter.

I think all of you know my commitment to addressing wage standards in this body and to really having a sober conversation around what working poverty looks like, not to mention dealing with the unique circumstances, service value and demands of those that are critical workers in the healthcare industry. I was prepared, Mr. President, to stay off this Bill today, but in light of the author's explicit comments here on the floor, particularly with respect to community clinics and distressed hospital systems, I'm happy to help it move.

Given your assurances that there will be additional amendments taken in the other house, I will just say this. I represent an incredibly diverse district that is coastal and urban and dense and wealthy, where many of the healthcare workers either make, certainly nursing and the support services in those systems make or exceed the standards proposed in your legislation.

I also know that many of those same folks in those portions of my district can barely afford, even at that, to live comfortably or productively anywhere near where they work and serve all of us in critical circumstances. I also represent an area in my district that is rural and exploited and has at least two systems that are on the verge of bankruptcy. And if, in fact, that were to occur, the very people who would be stranded, where practitioners are deserting.

The geographic service territory, where the systems of delivery are barely solvent, are often people of color underinsured uninsured and migrant and immigrant workers. And I know to my distinguished colleague from La that those are folks that are always centered in your area of focus. And so I have both scenarios occurring in my district, and it's probably representative of much of what we're seeing throughout the State of California.

And so I think where we are at this juncture is, rather than staying off, I'll help move the Bill. But I do appreciate the Senator being very explicit about the desire to address community clinics and distress systems in those very unique circumstances, because we don't want to have the worst of possible unintended consequences. Here where we strand folks who are already distressed with even a more dire situation and inability to access the care that they so desperately need. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator Padilla, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is a difficult issue for me to get up and speak about. I started off the year with a hospital closing in my district that has devastated the County of Madeira. There is no hospital in the county anymore, and people have to travel 30 to 40 miles in order to access healthcare services. The doctors are leaving the community. They no longer work there. Why would they live there? The nurses the same thing.

When you have a hospital closed, it's difficult to have the community believe that it's going to open up again. And this hospital has closed and filed for bankruptcy. I have another hospital. I was just reading their staff report to their board indicating that they will be filing or asking for permission to file for bankruptcy in San Bernardino County. Again, the only hospital in San Bernardino County is at the point that they will close. So this issue has been really close to my heart since January.

Everything that people said about the workers is absolutely true. And I agree that we have to do more for the workers, but timing is everything. And the challenge we have today is we have put $150,000,000 in this year's budget to be able to help distressed hospitals. But if you think that's enough, I got a bridge I can sell you. It's going to go like that because there are five other hospitals that are at the brink of closing as well.

Those of you that I have invited to meet on a regular basis with all of the healthcare providers know that it's in your community, and they haven't been named, because the minute you name a hospital at risk of closing, people start looking for other jobs. It's what happened in Madera.

The minute they gave the notice that they would run out of money in 60 days, which is required by law, people left and the hospital closed right after Christmas because there was no way people were going to stick around if the hospital didn't have resources. So here's the challenge.

We're trying to come up with a long-term strategy and have been at a Bill that was made a two-year Bill in approach, and I get that it was made a two-year Bill because the Governor had a proposal which he revised in May. And that proposal is the MCO Tax that would provide relief for hospitals, but also provide a whole bunch of other opportunities to improve our healthcare system.

You have to go to the table in order to make sure that that MCO Tax includes what's important in our communities. And the challenge right now is we've got to get that done. Otherwise, the hospitals in my districts do not recover. And the hospital of those of you who were part of the meetings that we had will not have resources and you can expect to get the same notices out. Do I believe the author is a good author? Absolutely.

Do I believe that it's important for our healthcare system to have employees that earn a good salary? Yes. But right now, for me, the number one priority is ensuring that we can have resources in a budget that is very strained.

In order for us to be able to keep these hospitals open, providing service to the very people who we know we need to I was going to say profess, but we know we need to take care of people who are on medical and who desperately need medical services.

So I'm going to be laying off the Bill today, not because I don't support workers, not because I don't think it's important that they get an increase, but because they need to be at the table as we're talking about long term solutions. And it's important that we make sure that these hospitals can remain open and send a message to the Administration that we're not piling a lot of cost on hospitals at the point that many of them are going to be closing.

So I won't be supporting the Bill. I'm not asking you not to. I'm just telling you that it's a difficult position to be in. But this has been my number one priority this entire year. I made a promise to the people of Madera and I'm going to keep that promise. And I can't put any additional costs on a hospital that's already closed.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. Next up, I have Senator Cortese, followed by Senator Dahle and Senator Seyarto. Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I do rise in support of SB 525 with some reservations. I'll be brief because I don't want to pile on to the long list of items that the author will be working on if it gets off the floor today and has promised to work on when she made such a broad statement that she would work with all stakeholders.

One of those stakeholders that we know about because of prior hearings that occurred in the Senate is the universe of registered nurses that are out there. I know the author has attempted to work something out in terms of an amendment. I also know that folks in the other House, if this Bill gets off the floor today, are poised to continue working on that issue.

And I think I raise it only because I think the issues are legitimate in those areas where the wage actually is higher than that set forth in the Bill. Folks do not want that used against them in classification studies and comparables and other things that come along. But again, I know the authors committed to working on that, as are folks in the hearing process to come in the Assembly.

I would also say I wasn't intending to say this, but I'm not particularly persuaded with the bankruptcy issue. I think if the former Senator from Fremont was still here, who is an expert in that area, would probably say that if you were going to prioritize anything in a bankruptcy, it's always going to be wages. And I don't think that it's wages that are causing those problems to exist.

But on the other hand, that the first priority in any bankruptcy proceedings should be protecting the workers in those entities as folks look forward to resolving those issues. I think it's in all of our interests to make sure that there's no bankruptcies in the first place and just turn that into a moot issue. But with that Mr. President. Thank you. And I would urge and aye vote so that the author can continue working on the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Next up, I have Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I want to take just a moment as somebody who represents 15 counties and many hospitals, all different kinds of hospitals, nonprofits district hospitals, for-profit, private, and part of the working group and have been working on hospital issues for a long time. And I know the author is very dedicated to wages, and that's important. And when we see in and out paying $21 an hour and we see healthcare workers getting less than that, I'm frustrated.

I think that's wrong because that's a profession where you have to have a skill different than nothing against folks who work at those places, but building hamburgers is different than cleaning somebody's room or giving them a shot or taking care of their needs for health. But with that, I want to say also somebody who was here during the last MCO tax and voted for that tax and negotiated within Governor Brown. This is a holistic problem. This isn't just a wage problem.

We have seismic regulations that the Legislature put on our hospitals. We have specialty hospitals, Kaiser, for example, who got a no-bid special deal for them through this Legislature. The Governor did it on his own to start with and ratified it, and they behested $30 million. The Governor behested $30 million. Think about that. That's a lot of money. That could have went to what, wages? But no, it's a special deal for them. They're whole.

But those district hospitals and those small hospitals are not whole. We have to look at this. Holistic there is a trailer Bill coming through. We're going to see an MCO tax. And what are we going to see? So far, what we have seen is that some of that money is going to go to healthcare. When you're losing $0.24 or $0.26 on every dollar you spend through MediCal and Medicaid, you can't run a business like that. That's what is happening.

That is why some hospitals are going to be devastated, because you cannot lose money. Other hospitals have the ability to cost shift. Many don't. And I agree. There are hospitals that are making a lot of money paying their CEOs exorbitant amounts when their healthcare workers are making less. That's wrong. But we need to look at this. Holistically we need to do the right thing with the MCO tax.

We need to take the money that the health plans are going to pay and put it all into health care, not 50% of it, and then put the rest of it in the General Fund, which is basically what the option is right now. Let's be true. If we're going to do health care, let's do health care.

Let's put the money that the plans are dedicated to put in through the MCO all in there, so we can afford to raise the rates and we can hold those accountable that are taking advantage of the Legislature and the Governor picking winners and losers. We will not fix this until we do the right thing. Holistically and that is do an MCO tax. Give those hospitals that have not done their seismic some relief.

Because if you're promised $50 an hour and you don't have a job, you still have $0. That's what happened in Madeira. You can be promised 100% of everything, but if you have no job, it does not matter, and your community is going to suffer from that. I will not be supporting the Bill today until we look holistically at our healthcare system and why it's broken. And the Legislature need to stop picking winners and losers and making advantages for some hospitals versus others.

I've been through this for a long time. Our hospitals in the rural areas are basically a glorified emergency room. If you're in Modoc County, you have to go 150 miles to have a child today. Now, 61% of the hospitals that I have in my district is wages is their 61% is what their cost is.

If we up this every single hospital in my district, whether you're a nonprofit, whether you're a district hospital, has contacted me and says this Bill will devastate them so I can't support this today. We need to holistically look at our healthcare system and not make hospitals that are making a lot of money more rich. We need to balance it out and do an MCO tax that actually works, where we can have docs and specialty services in our communities. And for those reasons, I will not support this Bill.

Thank you. Next up is Senator Seyarto, followed by Senators Newman and Laird.

Senator, thank you. Mr. President and colleagues. We have a problem with our healthcare system right now, and it's rather evident, I think all of my colleagues have all brought it up. One of those problems is that a lot of our hospitals are struggling under the crushing regulations that are costing them more and more money. Seismic retrofits for hospitals that actually are outside of pretty much seismic zones are being forced to spend a lot of money in doing that and they're in the middle of that.

We just passed a Bill just earlier today that's going to require healthcare workers in those hospitals that we classify as healthcare workers are actually administrative workers. They're going to have to do more reporting and they're going to have to hire more people to be able to do that. But it's not just the big hospitals that are being hurt by these crushing regulations. I have a clinic that is in my district that serves about 1500 special needs children every week.

And they've taken on the burden of serving the medical population, which is the only way for a lot of these parents, of these kids to afford to be able to have the kind of therapy that they offer at this clinic. They also have to have a lot of support staff. And that's really what we're talking about when we're talking about the lower wage earners, is the support staff because the skilled physicians are like phlebotomists.

And yes, they get paid on the lower scale of the upper wages. There are more middle wage to lower wage, but they're still up in the $40 to $50,000 a year range. Respiratory techs, they get between $70 to $150,000. Then you get the nurses, the PAs, and all of those. And those are all skilled positions. And what we're talking about here is $25 an hour for anybody that is attached to a hospital, anywhere that works.

And the reason that they're available to work is because there are lots of people that have the same abilities to fill those positions. And that's how the market works. If there are a lot of workers available for one or two positions, you wind up not paying. They don't get paid as well. But if we add this cost to what's going on with our hospitals now, we are going to have a bigger problem with our hospitals.

And I've watched this happen before trauma centers, they were going to be the next best thing. And what happened was, and I got to experience this myself, the crushing weight of treating people that were going to trauma centers that wound up being not insured and not having insurance started collapsing. The hospitals that were taking on the burden of having a trauma center, Robert F. Kennedy Hospital closed. Daniel Freeman Hospital closed.

And the other hospitals around it that were doing well and we were talking about that earlier, the hospitals are doing there are some hospitals are doing great. Well, those hospitals aren't doing as great as they were. And in fact, there's hospitals down in Southern California you would never think are in trouble, but they're in trouble. Sometimes our generosity and compassion exceeds our ability to pay and serve.

And until we get that balance, we cannot keep adding generosity and compassion into the mix, because otherwise, we're not going to have any jobs. We're not going to have any service. And when you're talking about medical care, that's huge. If you start collapsing hospitals, those dominoes fall quickly, and it's hard to fix. So as what my colleague from Bieber was saying earlier, we need to fix the system first. We need to stabilize the income.

We need to stabilize the finances of these hospitals before we start adding more things like $8 billion into the mix that will just cause them to collapse even faster. So, folks, I implore us to wait on this Bill until we've fixed the hospital system so that it is not in danger of collapsing, because I guarantee you, when one hospital goes, the hospital next to it has to take on those burdens.

It will close, and then exponentially, this spreads, and we wind up with a lack of service for everyone. So that I ask you to vote no on this Bill today and look for ways to improve our hospital system before we add burdens to the hospital system. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I actually hadn't planned on speaking, but I want to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Madera, Senator from Bieber, the Senator from Murrieta. This is a Bipartisan concern, and I think the.

Concerned and they've articulated well, is valid. I respect and admire the author more than most in this body, and I appreciate exactly what she's trying to do. And I agree with one of the premises. Income inequality is a huge problem for California in every sector. But if, to my comments points, if we try to address it only with this sector, we run the risk of a host of unattended consequences.

And so my hope is that if and when this Bill comes back to this House in an amended fashion, that we'll have addressed some of those concerns. But for the time being, I'm going to have to stay off this Bill today, even while I'll acknowledge the problem she's trying to solve is real. It's important. But the how is as important as the why. And I think we should consider that. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Newman. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. President. This debate has been illuminating for the fact that people have been talking at a high level about what we all support, and yet there's some real specifics underlying this that are going to make or break the situation. And I think the dilemma that we always have as legislators is that we have bills that are one size fits all, and yet a lot of the institutions or facts underlying it are different.

And there was one statement made earlier comparing, well, the wages in Los Angeles County are different than another county. And yet if you look at some of the institutions we're talking about within Los Angeles County, they're very different within the county and depending on who served and what their mix of payments is. And last year, we had a proposal that blew up to link this very minimum wage to assistance for hospitals.

And I think that was a model that was not a bad model and one that might in some ways need to be considered here. And if we're going to look exactly with regard to hospitals, what makes them in trouble, it's a mix of things. It's the mix of payees they have. If they have an overwhelming number of public payees, they don't get the reimbursement at a level to cover costs. It's rural rates.

For some, the federal medical rates at the rural level are lower than the urban areas. I know in my home County of Santa Cruz, we had the rural rates even though we had all these people that commuted to Silicon Valley jobs. And 10 or 15 years ago, we had to fight and fight. And now we're having that fight for Watsonville. And it will have it in other places. And that requires support to balance the budget and make it work.

And that's why we had the real animated debate and approved $150,000,000. And yet last year, everybody that was here last year helped me save a hospital. And it was Watsonville. 82% Latino, even a higher percent of reduced and free school lunches among the kids there. And the problem was a hedge Fund had been running it. They hadn't renegotiated the rates, they had an overwhelming number of public payees, and they declared bankruptcy. And the bankruptcy isn't the issue itself. It's what leads to the bankruptcy.

And so what happened is we did a Bill here in 19 days to create a public hospital district. That district was days old when the bankruptcy court accepted the bid. And then we had six months to raise $65 million, which we did. And the key thing is 425 million of it came from the state. So if you look at the $150 million that we allocated, it took $25 million to save one hospital.

If we look at a list of stressed ones, it tells you why what we did is not going to be adequate to the need. And the key thing is, once the hospital changed hands and was protected and in public ownership, they renegotiated their provider contracts. So Kaiser pays more, Blue Cross pays more in a way that that helps the mix. And that has moved that hospital on the road to sustainability. Last October, they had their first profitable month in six years.

And so now the MCO Tax has come up regularly in this debate. And if you look at the specific proposal that has come from the Governor, it's to increase it and it would add over $19 billion and 60% would go to increase medical rates. 60% of that over $11 billion. And when the MCO Tax was done before, it just buttressed the program. It didn't flat out raise the rates.

And then the controversial part that was mentioned earlier is that there is 8 billion that would go to the General Fund, but that's specifically to Prop up the current medical program at a time when there's an over $30 billion budget problem. It's not like it goes to the General Fund. It's making sure that we uphold the medical system that we have. So it's upholding it, it's adding to the rates.

And we will have to do it by June 30, because if we do it by June 30, we get this quarter back to April 1. And so there is a real deadline for us to do it. That deadline does not match with this Bill. And I think I have come to the conclusion that we have to give the author a chance to work. We have to see what the MCO Tax is and we have to match it.

And we have to ask the question, is the MCO Tax going to be eaten up by some things or is it a step ahead and can we still address these issues? Now, I was going to ask the author a question about whether or not she would explicitly commit to continue to work on the hospital issue. And she answered it in her opening statement. That satisfies me. But I think that we really have to make sure that we do it.

And we have to make sure that the MCO Tax isn't then a step back in the rural areas to make sure that hospitals are protected because the one that Senator from Merced mentioned will be heading my way in the next redistricting. They just voted to head into bankruptcy and all this reflects on it. This is a genuine issue.

This isn't about all hospitals because the interesting thing about the diversity of my Senate district is I have some of the highest cost of living for housing places in the United States and the hospital in that area essentially complies with this Bill already because they can't recruit people. I also have some of the most rural, lower-income places and that is where the issue is, is making sure that we are not adding to the problem of keeping the medical care going in those places.

And so the amendments, interestingly, that were taken to sort of delay this or not delay it, but implement it on different dates actually matches up with the implementation of the MCO Tax. But I still think it needs to be called out. And in the negotiations, there might well be a specific carve out for stressed hospitals in the MCO Tax that may well address this. We will not know that before the end of the debate on this Bill.

So I think that with the author pledging to address this, with us identifying that as an issue, with us looking at the MCO Tax and other things as something that might do it, we have a chance to make this work. But it is too early and it does not synchronize up with our votes now.

So I'm going to vote for this Bill to see if we can address those issues and in the time when we adopt the MCO Tax before June 30 and the Senator addresses these issues. Once we know what that actually means, it might not be enough. We might still have to do specific things for stressed hospitals. But I think as last year, where there was a deal that blew up of a minimum wage and then support for hospitals, we have that option this year.

And this Bill forces that option in a way that we might actually be able to have something that works that out. So I ask for your aye vote and we'll be voting for this Bill.

Thank you, Senator Laird. I have Senator Grove followed by Senator Skinner. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I have to applaud the author. I hear your heart and your passion. I feel like I have that same thing for my second chancers. People of Color that work in the oil industry that I try to fight and protect not only for the employees, but because we can't live in the State of California without the oil industry.

And I think that the author shares the same heart, not for the subject matter, but the same heart where she advocates on a daily basis from her heart and advocates for employee rights and increased wages in the state. But I also think that there has to be balance with the previous subject in my district and also with this subject matter.

And I so empathize with my colleague's comments and my colleague from Madera and Salinas because I've never had to go back to my constituents like my colleague from Bieber and my colleague from Madeira and look them in the eye. And say, yeah, I'm really sorry that I couldn't save the only hospital care that you have in this area and that you will have to travel 90 miles. That may very well come true.

If this deal isn't done for the MCO tax and for the financially distressed hospital bills, people in my community will have to drive 1 hour and 52 minutes to have a baby to deal with stroke care, heart attack care, and people are going to die if that happens. That's all there is to it. So I would like to line my comments with my colleague from Madeira, who has worked very, very hard on a Bill on the financially distressed hospitals.

The hypocrisy of this whole thing is that the hospitals who are employ providers, I mean, surgeons, doctors, anybody who provides services to the underserved or hospital people seeking hospital care in our communities, they can't operate in a backyard, they can't operate in somebody's office space, they have to operate in a hospital.

And if these hospitals don't exist, then the providers will leave the area to think that you can just do an audit and see what goes on and watch these hospitals fail and then try to go back and piece it all back together. The employees, the providers, everybody's gone. And so I don't think that hospitals that close or get in a position where they can't be saved can be restored after the catastrophic event has already happened.

I think about the MCO tax, the plans, the healthcares came to the table. Healthcare plans came to the table and know, we did the MCO tax before it went into the General Fund. That's something we're not really interested in. But if we could address the root cause, the root cause of the financial distress that we have for our providers and our hospitals and those that provide health care to our constituents, if we could address that, they're willing to come to the table and help.

So I want to thank the plans for that. We all know that there's a problem. The biggest problem that we face is that we pass policy in this building, medical for all, health care for all. And all of that sounds really good. But when you're not providing health care because there's no access to care, because doctors and providers are not treating those individuals, it's not health care for all waiting six months, eight months or a year to get treatment for something is not healthcare.

Having your hospital shut down is not healthcare. It's the provider reimbursement rates that are really the catastrophic issue. We passed legislation since I've been here in the Senate just the last four years, almost five years since I've been here. I've seen countless pieces of legislation go through this building that increases the cost of doing business as a healthcare provider and a hospital. Some people have mentioned seismic, some people know nurse ratios, things like that, nurse to patient ratios.

So all these bills that go through this building create an increased cost for our hospitals and our providers. It is very frustrating. With the MCO tax, and I know it's something that's been addressed here. It's not particularly the Bill before us, but when you look at the MCO tax, the information that I received was the deal was to provide increased medical reimbursement rates for codes that would allow our hospitals and our providers to have some type of increased revenue to be able to operate their facilities.

Because, like my colleague from Madera and my colleague sitting in front of me that now just moved to Bakersfield, that is also in the Central Valley, we have a high proportion of Medi Cal recipients. So, like Kuvia Delta, it's no secret that they're next on the chopping block to lose that hospital, which is a level two trauma center, 670 beds. And if that goes down, Fresno will go down. There's no doubt it'll be a domino effect. They're down to less than, I believe, 40 days cash.

And this Bill would increase the cost of them doing business to the point where, I mean, they can't even meet their payments now, and they're applying for the catastrophic loan that was just voted on and given, and the Governor has signed, which I applaud the Governor and Dr. Ghaly and the Administration for putting that together. My colleague from Madera, but it was $150,000,000.

And like my colleague, the former Secretary of Natural Resources, said, it's not a lot of money when you think about how many hospitals are going to access that. I want you to think about something. This is about budget priorities. Our hospitals had to beg, plead, borrow and steal to get us, basically, in an analogy, to get $150,000,000 that they could borrow at a Low interest or no interest loan and then pay back over a period of time.

We dole out 250,000,000 here, 500 million here, 200 million there, Yada, Yada Yada to all these other entities. And we're talking about our health care system that isn't being sustained either by the reimbursement rates. And like my colleague from Bieber said, every time that you treat somebody, I'll reverse it. If you invest a dollar, every dollar that you invest as a business owner, whether you're in any type of industry whatsoever, and you get $0.70 back, it's a pathway to bankruptcy.

More patients you treat, the more money you lose. So this Bill grieves me, I applaud the author for her passion and commitment to the labor industry. But this Bill creates nothing but another problem that our hospitals and our providers would have to deal with. Nobody's even talked about the fact that once the minimum wage for the hospitals goes up, salaried employees have to have double the minimum wage, which increases everybody's pay in the hospital.

One hospital that is financially distressed, a small hospital in East Kern, anticipates that if this Bill passes, it will be another $10 million a year added to their payment structure that they'd be required to make. And the bottom line is that that hospital, if it closes 1 hour and 52 minutes to the next hospital and they are in a position right now where they're limiting services, they're having Board Meetings to limit additional services, and they have applied for this loan program.

But to them and to the other hospitals that I've referenced, they feel like it's a Band Aid because it's going to get them through the next few months. But then they have a seismic Bill due. And so there's these issues that are being placed on our hospitals and our providers, like this Bill, that continue to increase the cost.

And we have not addressed the issue for medical reimbursement rates, especially for those in high proportionate medical recipient areas, like in the Central Valley, where almost 70% of the people that we serve are on medical and they don't get the proper reimbursement rates to be able to treat individuals so respectfully, ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove, Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President. So sometimes when we have bills like this, I don't necessarily raise my mic because I think or assume that many of us have already made up our minds and the floor discussion is really not going to affect that. However, I raise my mic on this Bill because I feel like our floor discussion should have us think about why we've taken a position on a Bill.

I've had some very important hospitals close in my district and greatly, these were the hospitals that served our lowest income people and they closed a lot because they could not function with the medical reimbursement rate. However, I've also had some new hospitals open and those hospitals have done their best to avoid serving our lowest income people. And if you look at the trend in hospitals, they are being built in our wealthiest areas.

So it is not just a flat out equation that the math doesn't work for hospitals. It is what we have to look at. And I just want to backing up the Senate's Democratic budget is clear that the MCO task needs, tax needs to prioritize increasing the reimbursement rate for our primary care providers so that we can address this. And it is something I have fought for in every year that I've been budget chair, including back in the Assembly.

And I know that all of us will continue to fight for it. But I want to separate this issue of those rates, which are certainly hurting some of our hospitals. But I want to raise that most of our hospitals are nonprofits. They get a great benefit from that nonprofit status. But when you look at their Executive pay, and I'm going to raise this because when we look at Executive pay across all industries, what have we seen?

Since the late 70s, the c suite pay has gone up over 1000% 1000%. Whereas since that same period, regular workers pay has gone up 18%. So now let's look specifically at hospitals. And I think even though you're a nonprofit hospital, there's something like we have to keep up with the Joneses. We have to be like all the other industries and keep raising our c suite pay regardless of whether it meets our bottom line.

So the total compensation for hospital executives, nonprofit hospital executives, rose 93% from 2005 to 2015, 93%. Whereas the average hospital worker, their pay 8%. 8%. So didn't matter what our rates were, what we reimbursed, those nonprofit hospital CEOs still got a 93% average increase in 2018. Bernard Tyson, the CEO of Kaiser, our largest nonprofit hospital system in not only California, but he's the largest hospital system in California. He was the highest-paid nonprofit CEO in the US. At 18 million a year.

So what we've seen is that total compensation for hospital executives just in the last 20 year, 2021 to 22, rose from minimum of 5% and upwards of 10. So I think we need to separate the pay of the average worker from our concerns about the overall hospital's bottom line and what's happening. Yes, we need hospitals in California, especially in those non wealthiest areas, but we need to demand better of our hospitals, and their workers deserve a reasonable pay.

And as the author quoted, this pay would only bring it up to some 53,000 for that worker, which they would still qualify for benefits, which we must pay out of our state funds. So with that, I ask for an aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Senator Skinner, any further discussion on this matter? Had 15 speakers. Thank you for the thoughtful debate, Senator Durazo, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I truly appreciate all of your comments. They're very important to me in order to move forward and make the kinds of changes in this Bill that will be needed. We've talked a lot, and I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do something about the distressed hospitals, the ones that truly need our financial help. And I strongly support that. And I will do my best to address that issue as we move forward, if you give me the opportunity to move forward.

I want to make sure that as we talk about the distressed hospitals, we talk about the distressed workers, the distressed workers who are not making it, the distressed workers who also deserve the opportunity to live in a decent way and raise their kids in a decent way. So we're talking about I didn't start this Bill out. I didn't introduce this Bill to address distressed hospitals. There are other bills to address that and they should and we should be supportive.

We should be supportive of a Bill that helps distressed hospitals. That's not what I started out with in this Bill. This Bill is about the distressed workers. Of course, the other issue comes up. I understand the connection that's being made, but this Bill won't solve all of the issues in our healthcare system. It's much bigger and much more complicated. So I'm trying to address the issue of distressed workers to get away from it being a false choice. One of my colleagues mentioned the environmental issues.

Certain industries, sometimes we get put into the position of you either choose a clean environment or you choose good labor standards. We don't have to face our issues that way. We have to face our issues in a way that incorporates them and makes a holistic approach, as someone said. So I hope we don't vote based on it's either one or the other. It can't be one or the other. It's got to be both.

So I ask again for your support so that we can address the issues on distressed hospitals. Truly, the ones who cannot afford the ones who have those thin margins are located in rural areas that are having problems. The particular needs of clinics and the timing and implementation of this wage increase with all of that. I truly appreciate all of your comments taking notes, and I will do my best if you allow me to move this forward to the next House. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo, all debate having ceased, the secretary, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil no. Archuleta no. Ashby. Blakespear. Bradford aye. Caballero. Dodd no. Eggman. Hurtado aye. Min. Newman. Ochoa Bogh no. Roth. Rubio. Umberg.

Thank you. Senator Durazo moves a call. Members. Great. Members, thank you for your diligence this morning, doing the work of the people here in the Senate. We're going to break for a 45-minute lunch. All Members are requested to stay here in the Capitol Building. Please do not leave the building or return to your offices. The Senate will reconvene promptly at 01:20 p.m.. Thank you. Members, we're in recess.

Good afternoon, everyone. The Senate is reconvening. We're back in session. Before we continue with the Daily File, I want to note that we have an honored guest here in the Senate. Former Senator Ray Haynes is here in the building. Welcome, sir. Welcome back. Welcome back. All right, Members, we are going to move to file item 26. File item 26. This is SB 362 by Senator Becker. He is prepared, if the Secretary would please read the Bill.

Senate Bill 362 by Senator Becker enact relating to data brokers.

Senator Becker, the floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I rise to present SB 362, the California Delete Act. This Bill will allow Californians to get control of their personal information. It's a first-in-the-nation Bill allowing and creating a one-stop shop for Californians to go and delete their information from data brokers. In his 2019 commencement address, Tim Cook said, Mr. President, permission to read without objection.

He said, if we accept as normal and unavoidable that everything in our lives can be aggregated and sold, then we lose so much more than data. We lose the freedom to be human. He later called for, quote, giving users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily, and online once and for all. So if even the CEO of the biggest tech company knows that we have a big issue with data brokers, I think that is telling us all something.

So what is this data that they have? The data they have is all purchases that you make, precise geolocation medical history. They can do a full medical profile and all this is available to purchase via credit card. If a person visits a reproductive health center, that information is available. And that's why Planned Parenthood is supportive of this Bill. This bills upon the right to delete that we have under the California Consumer Privacy Act.

The issue is, right now you have to go to 450 different data brokers and you don't know what information they have. It's not required to say what kind of information they collect. And then you have to go to each 450 sites and delete your information and figure it out that time. This is a one-stop shop. It will allow Californians to regain control of their personal information. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Becker, is there a discussion or debate on this matter? Any Senator wishing to be recognized on this Bill seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil. Dahle no. Durazo. Hurtado aye. Niello no. Alvarado-Gil aye. Durazo.

The measure passes 32 to eight. Next up, Members, we're going to go to file item 27. But before we do that, as I know you can hear, we do have some extra noise out there in our world. So I want to encourage everyone to speak loudly into their microphones so we can help all of us on the hearing side of things. So we will endure. We'll get through this, and we appreciate everyone's understanding and patience. All right, we're going to move to file item 27.

Alright, we're gonna move to file item 27, this is SB 377 by Senator Skinner. The Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 377 by Senator Skinner and accolading to firearms.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Mr. President, Members. Recently, the Federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau sent a circular to California's public safety agencies alerting them to what they expressed was an alarming increase in law enforcement officers selling off-roster or illegal firearms for their personal gain. In other words, for a profit. Right now, we have existing law that allows law enforcement officers to buy what otherwise no one else in California is allowed to buy: these illegal firearms.

But it was always considered that the reason was for particular law enforcement and public safety purposes, not that we would have law enforcement officials purchasing or acquiring these illegal firearms and then, in effect, selling them and violating, in effect, getting past our laws. So, SB 377 addresses the Federal ATF's concern by closing the loophole that allows our law enforcement to purchase these otherwise illegal firearms.

And secondly, it allows California's Department of Justice to inspect firearms dealers for compliance with our firearms law, because sometimes it was that those were sold to dealers, and it allows them to inspect local law enforcement agencies to make sure that this is not happening within those departments. Now, let me be clear. This Bill, SB 377, does not prevent or interfere with the agency, the Department--the law enforcement department's--ability to purchase these off roster firearms for the department's use.

So that is something that is still retained. It is only individual law enforcement officials from being able to buy these. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. Speaking on the Bill, Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I rise in support of this Bill today, and I think it's really important to recognize all the many ways that we are trying to make gun ownership safer. So this is a Bill that goes toward that goal, and I appreciate the author for introducing it. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear. Any more discussion on this Bill? Seeing none. Senator Skinner, You may close.

I ask for your aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Ashby? Aye. Becker? Aye. Hurtado? Newman? Roth?

Measure passes 27 to 8. Moving on to file item 28, this is SB 418 by Senator Padilla. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 418 by Senator Padilla and accolading to state government.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present SB 418, which would create the Prison Redevelopment Commission in California and direct such Commission to provide California with a detailed strategy to convert closed prisons and local assets that are responsive to the needs and conditions of local communities. Over the last decade, the Legislature and the voters have enacted appropriate sweeping sentencing reforms. As a result, the state's prison population has declined, and we no longer need much of this infrastructure.

The state's in the process of closing several prisons, including Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in my district. Many are located in rural communities which rely on prisons to power their economies and healthcare systems. Closing prisons in these communities can have far reaching consequences for the economic and physical health of these communities.

Such a Commission with economic, health, real estate, and other experts excuse me, as well as community stakeholders, can be tasked to find new and creative ways to repurpose vacant and often blighted correctional facilities no longer used. SB 418 will ensure that communities affected by these closures can repurpose these sites and mitigate the negative impact on their local economies and give them a voice. The Bill has had no 'no' votes, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. I have Senator Grove and then Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. In the interest of time, I'll be very brief. I'd just like to thank the author for bringing forth SB 418. It is very beneficial, specifically for those of us in our communities where we have prisons and prison closures and the economic devastating impact it has on our communities.

And this is a Bill that will allow us to be able to use that for the beneficial use of the community and maybe hopefully replace some of the jobs and the economic loss that is gone because of the closure of these facilities. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Senator Dahle?

I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I've experienced this in my own communities. I represent High Desert in Lassen CCC Folsom in my district. And there were a lot of promises made to these communities when the prisons were cited there and to honor those commitments when they shut down and what they could be purposed for is very crucial to those communities. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. All debate seemingly done. Senator Padilla, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues and ask for an aye vote.

Very good. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

Nguyen? Seyarto?

Measure passes 38 to 0. Moving on to file item 29, this is SB 440 by Senator Skinner. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 440 by Senator Skinner. An act relating to local government.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Mr. President, Members. I think, as we all know, one of the biggest obstacles to getting the housing that is more affordable, whether for Low income people or for what they call missing middle, for our workforce, for teachers, for nurses, for everybody that's in a kind of typical household income in our state, that kind of housing needs some level of public subsidy. And of course, we achieve some of that through things like our local government's density, bonuses, impact fees, various things.

But we can't rely alone on market rate housing to achieve this issue of getting us housing that is more affordable. So what this Bill does, SB 440, is it empowers local governments who choose, who want to work together, whether it's a county in a few cities, some cities, a number of cities, who want to work together to cooperate, to get mechanisms to finance housing, to acquire land, and to basically add to the needed housing. It allows them to create regional housing finance authorities.

Now, when you hear that word financing, I want to be clear this does not override any local control, any financing mechanism such a regional Housing Finance Authority would have to pursue. They would still have to follow whatever the local rules and the state law, voter approval at whatever voter threshold. This just ridiculous stops the need for what's your point? The local governments to have to come to us for one off legislation to allow them to pursue such a thing.

And right now, interestingly, when I was working with different stakeholders to put together this Bill, I was thinking that our more urban areas or job center areas were going to be the ones who would most jump to it. But I'm finding now that it's our rural areas that are coming forward and saying, this is exactly what we need.

So, for example, the local governments in the Tahoe region have said, this is exactly what we need, because all of our ski industry, our hotel industry, they don't have any workers. And they don't have workers now because they can't live here. And we need to help them get housing. So we need this. So, anyway, as I mentioned, it does not override local control. It just gives the enabling for those local governments who want to come together to form regional housing finance authorities. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. Any debate on this matter? Members, anyone wishes to speak on this matter? Seeing none. Secretary please call the roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Ashby. Aye. Atkins. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dahle. No. Dodd. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Eggman. Aye. Glazer. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grove. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Stern. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Wiener. Aye. Wilk. No.

Secretary please call the absent Members one last time.

Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Grove. No. Roth.

The measure carries 30 to eight. All right, we're moving on to file item number 30. This is Senate Bill 441 by Senator Bradford. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 441 by Senator Bradford. An act relating to criminal procedure.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 441 requires prosecutors to provide the defense with all the relevant information available to them prior to the preliminary hearing in a felony case. This measure requires prosecutors to simply turn over the listed evidence that is already in their possession. Once the District Attorney has submitted charges, they only need to provide the evidence that was used in filing of the case.

By promoting full disclosure of this key information, SB 441, I should say, will ensure our criminal justice process is more efficient and effective, eliminating long and costly legal motions, over disclosure of evidence, and reducing the risk of wrongful arrests and convictions. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Any discussion on this matter? Any discussion? Seeing none. Secretary please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members one last time.

Alvarado-Gil. Dahle. Dodd. Grove. No. Hurtado. Nguyen. No. Niello. Aye. Roth. No. Rubio. Aye.

The Bill passes, 31 to 4. We're moving on now to file item 31. This is Senate Bill 445 by Senator Portantino. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 445 by Senator Portantino and accolading to special education.

Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. SB 445 seeks to have parents receive IEPs in their native language. It will help kids succeed. It will let parents know what their issues are, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Discussion on this matter. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the author for this Bill. As having a child that I had to go through the IEP process, and I consider myself a sophisticated consumer. It's a very difficult and emotional process. I can't even begin to fathom what that would look like, having it in the second language. Furthermore, this speeds up the process us, because right now, a school district could lollygag.

And as a parent, you may not even get that report till the next academic year, which sets your child even further behind. So this is a great educational reform. Once again, I want to thank the author for his commitment to student success. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate? Senator Portantino, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, Secretary, please call the role. Oh, excuse me. This is eligible for unanimous roll call.

Any objections to using a unanimous roll call? Any objection? Seeing none. Ayes 40. Noes zero. The measure measure carries. All right, we're moving on to file item 32. This is Senate Bill 478 by Senator Dodd. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 478 by Senator Dodd and accolading to unfair business practices.

Senator Dodd, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President, Members. I'm pleased to present SB 478, a Bill sponsored by the Attorney General and the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition that seeks to combat the deceptive practice in which a seller advertises at artificially low price to attract a customer before springing the additional unavoidable charges later in that buying process.

Simply put, SB 478 makes it unlawful under Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to advertise a price for a good or service that does not include all required charges other than taxes and fees imposed by a government on that transaction. We've all felt the pain of hidden fees, from the avoidable resort fee at your hotel to the outrageous fees that are added to concert tickets just before you check out. These fees hide the true price and manipulate consumers into overspending.

The issue of hidden fees or junk fees has garnered national attention, with President Biden calling on Congress to take action on deceptive price advertising. Hidden fees cost consumers billions of dollars each year and hurt families at a time where they can at least afford it. Lastly, as the Bill moves forward, I'll continue to engage with stakeholders in good faith to address existing state or federal transparency laws or consider additional classifications to the Bill while upholding important consumer protections. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. Any discussion and debate on this measure? Seeing no microphones up. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Aye. Ashby? Aye. Dahle? Grove? Nguyen? Niello? No. Ochoa Bogh? Wilk?

Measure passes, 31 to 3. Members, we're going to move on to file item 32. This is SB 478 by Senator Dodd. Excuse me, 33 by Senator Dodd. 495 by Senator Dodd. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 495 by Senator Dodd and accolading to alcoholic beverages.

Thank you, Mr. President, Members. SB 495 seeks to do two major things. The first, to expand on cocktails to go by adding bars to those provisions, removing the meal requirement, and allowing delivery of cocktails directly to consumer's door. Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Members, any discussion on this item? It is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Any objections to using a unanimous roll call? I see some. So with that, seeing no further debate, the secretary please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Cortese? Gonzalez? Min? Niello? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? No. Wiener?

Measure passes 34 to 2. Going to move on to file item 34. This is Senate Bill 499 by Senator Menjivar. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 499 by Senator Menjivar and accolading to educational facilities.

Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I'm rising to present SB 499 to address the extreme heat that our children, K through 12, are being exposed to at school campuses. It's to address the issue of hot ground surfaces that is impacting the health and safety of our students. This Bill is looking to require schools to put together an extreme action plan that is specific to their surroundings. This Bill is not prescriptive.

It is mindful of the different regional areas that we have in the State of California. It is asking the Department of Education to put together a template, a guide, if you will, to help these schools put together this extreme action plan. It's asking and requiring Department of Social Services to identify a liaison that will be trained in these efforts to help guide them after committees. After the both committees. I did take an amendment very mindful want this to be successful.

The implementation part, which originally was for them to implement it two years after the plan was said to be done, was to implement it upon appropriations. Again being mindful of it being successful. There are, at the same time, bills going on in the other House bills here with my colleagues who are looking to elevate the need to address extreme heat. Just two weeks ago, the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation identified five action plans that we legislators can take to address this issue.

And my Bill is specifically action number one and action number three within this new recent report. Also, I remind you, the governor's 2022 extreme heat action plan that was released in April is calling for us to support climate smart planning and heat vulnerable schools. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any Member wishing to speak on this matter? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil. Dahle. Durazo. Aye. Grove. Nguyen.

Thank you. Measure passes 32 to four. We lead on to file item number 35. This is SB 532 by Senator Wiener. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 532 by Senator Wiener. An act relating to elections.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much. Mr. President. Colleagues, Senate Bill 532 helps to address an issue that was created by a few laws that this Legislature passed in 2015 and 2017 that require, with respect to bonds and taxes on the local ballot, that various financial pieces of financial information would have to be included within the 75 word ballot label. That has proven incredibly hard, particularly with respect to bonds and tiered taxes.

At times, there might not even be enough words to describe the measure and to provide the required financial information. SB 532, as amended in the Elections Committee, will still require that financial information to be included in the 75 word ballot or in the ballot question, but will not count that financial information towards the 75 words.

So the information will all still be there, but it'll provide more flexibility so that the ballot question can adequately describe the tax or bond in an accurate way and also provide the financial information. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Wiener. Any Member wishes to discuss this Bill? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call[.

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

Measure passes 34 to three. We're going to move on now to file item 36. This is SB 541 by Senator Menjivar. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 541 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to sexual health.

Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. I have a crunchy Bill for you today, SB 541. But it's a really important bill. Our youth right now make up majority of our STI cases here in the State of California and nationwide. We're seeing HPV being the leading STI, with youth again at the helm of these cases. So SB 541 is looking to address that.

In the State of California, there are certain school districts that are really already participating in what's called CAP programs, the Condom Accessibility Programs, where it allows access to high school individuals to obtain condoms. What we're seeing right now, even though there is no state law, individuals who want to practice safe sex are being turned away for not being 18 years old, for not producing an ID, which is, again, not a law in the State of California.

The SB 541 is looking to ensure that we do not ask for an ID when individuals look to purchase condoms. What's happening? It's not deterring individuals from practicing sex. It's actually pushing them to practice unsafe sex. SB 541 will call for high schools, all high schools to provide condoms. Provide two locations of posting of where these be accessible to them. SB F541 is being led by youth because we're seeing again that the rates have increased.

The CDC just came out with their most recent annual report, which came out about two months ago, and this is at the front of an issue that's addressing our youth. SB 501 is looking to close the health parity here, address this health inequity, and with your support, we'll ensure that we're encouraging safe practices among youth who are already sexually active by making condoms accessible. And it's a key piece of a larger statewide strategy.

Additionally, this is also creating a no wrong door for HPV vaccines to allow family packed centers to ensure that they provide HPV vaccines for those who are 12 to 18 years old. A reminder the State of California, you have to be 12 years old to make your own decision related to STIs. This is not changing that. This is just allowing them to not have a wrong door. With that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar, any discussion on this matter? Any discussion Members? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

On a vote of 31 to eight, that so-called crunchy matter measure passes. All right, we're going to move ahead to file item 37. 37 Members. This is SB 567 by Senator Durazo. She's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 567 by Senator Durazo an act relating to tenancy.

Senator Durazo, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President.

SB 567 simply ensures that the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 is enforceable. The Bill before you today is a product of careful negotiations with the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and reflects our mutual agreement on amendments. The Bill has been significantly narrowed since introduction, makes no change to the existing statewide limit on rent increases. What remains are provisions to ensure that the critical tenant protections negotiated in 2019 are enforceable.

It ensures tenants can adequately enforce their rights while also allowing state and local government within whose jurisdiction the rental unit is located to bring actions for injunctive relief. The measure also establishes reasonable requirements to ensure that the landlord seeking to evict a tenant for no fault is doing so in good faith and following the rules. Colleagues, we are all feeling the impact of the homeless crisis in our districts.

We know that more and more people are becoming unhoused at an accelerated rate, and we are unable to provide shelter. The number of Californians experiencing homelessness has grown enormously. To address this crisis, part of what we have to do is stop the flow of families and people into homelessness. That is why it is so important that our statewide tenant protections are enforceable. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo, I see a microphone up for Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members, I rise in opposition of SB 567 and would ask for a No vote. A little over four years ago, this Legislature passed AB 1482, which became law which required owners at that point in time to serve a 30 or 60 day notice to terminate a tenancy with no cause. This Bill will change that law a little bit and then now will require property owners to give a very specific reason for terminating a tenancy.

And they must provide in proof in some cases for that termination. So, Senate Bill 567 will affect small owners mostly, and many of them will never be able to move into their own homes, nor will they be able to move into a family member's home. And with the four month notice required before selling their home, many homeowners will have a hard time selling their homes or their buildings. It is important to note that this Bill will affect small rental property owners the most.

Owners with large buildings typically don't take their buildings off the market, nor do they need to move a tenant out in order to move one into the units. This Bill goes a little bit too far, and I would ask for a no vote on SB 567.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I actually just do want to appreciate the Senator from La for bringing this forward. We talk about housing often, and I will say and I've said this to many Members already, that housing and homelessness is the number one issue of the majority of cities. We see a rising homeless crisis. We also see that the individuals that are being evicted from their homes are actually seniors. Our largest growing homeless population are seniors. It is expected to have tripled by the time of 2030.

These are our grandparents, our parents, and much more. This does not touch the Ellis act. Number one. Number two is the fact that, yes, we talk about a Bill that was passed four years ago. That Bill didn't go far enough. That's the honest truth. That is why we are still seeing the rising and growing homeless crisis. We are still seeing rents skyrocket. We are seeing people leave the state because housing is unaffordable. We need to keep people housed for longer periods of time.

It is cheaper, more fiscally responsible, and from a human perspective, more responsible to ensure that people are housed for longer periods of time. This Bill does that. And again, I do ask for an Aye vote. I do support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. I have Senator, Umberg and then Senator Min. Senator Umberg.

Thank you, colleagues. Mr. President, I did not support 1482, which was the Assembly Member Chu Bill that this Bill seeks to enforce. I do support this Bill. I do support this Bill because our colleague from Los Angeles did work diligently and in good faith to limit the Bill, dramatically. Limits the Bill in terms of eliminating the provision that reduces the rent control maximum from 10% to 5%, the immediate vesting of tenant rights, and a number of other ways.

Also, it's important to note that small landlords are not included in the Bill, nor in the original Bill. There are issues as I said, I'm going to support the Bill. There are issues that still need to be discussed, still need to be addressed. And let me just outline those issues, and then, with permission of the Chair, a question to the author concerning those three issues. Let me outline those three issues briefly.

Number one, currently, the Bill says for an owner to terminate a tenancy to allow a family member, as defined, to move into that unit, that the owner is defined as an individual with 51% ownership. It's been brought to my attention that that's not always the case. So, for example, an inherited property, there may be three owners if three siblings, for example, inherit the property. And thus there would not be an individual owner with 51% ownership.

One suggestion is to make it a collective, basically a collective amount, seeking or obtaining the majority of 51% in order to affect that right, that termination. Another issue is in terms of rehabilitation. When there's been a unit that, for example, has some sort of issue, plumbing issue, electrical issue, that requires the tenant to leave for 30 consecutive days. That right. Now, the law is written, requires a permit, perhaps permit is not required.

The proof is in the pudding if the actual rehabilitation has been done, and that needs to be addressed. And then thirdly is that there may be an error with respect to whether or not a unit taken off the market can ever be put back on the market, and that needs to be addressed. All those things are not infirmities that should prevent us from supporting the Bill today.

But they're all issues that I'm going to ask the author as to whether you've examined those issues and willing to continue to work on those issues as this Bill moves to the Assembly.

Senator Durazo, would you take a question?

Yes.

Okay. I think the question has been asked, and we'll give you the opportunity to answer it now.

Okay. I want to follow the rules here. Yes, and I thank the Senator for all the work that you put into this. It was a lot, a lot of work, enormous number of hours. And after we reached that agreement and those amendments, you raised these issues as you just described. I've started to look into those issues, and I will continue to look at those issues in the next house.

All right. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I urge an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Umberg. I have Senator. No. Anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? Anyone else before we close the debate? All right. See? No microphones up. Senator Durazo, you may close.

I ask for your Aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. ALl debate having ceased. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

Senator Durazo moves a call. We're going to move on to file item 38. File item 38. This is Senate Bill 584 by Senator Limon.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 584 by Senator Limon an act relating to housing and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Limon.

Thank you, President and colleagues. In addition to all that California has done to address the housing crisis, it's important that we also consider a model in which the government plays a greater role in building and rehabilitating affordable housing projects that are publicly owned and financed. I've heard repeatedly from my local government for years that they need an ongoing funding source to meet our housing goals, especially for affordable housing. This Bill creates a statewide assessment on short-term rentals.

SB 584 will provide a budget-proof source of income for more affordable housing that California desperately needs. I've heard from a lot of Members about the Bill, and there's been a lot of discussions as this Bill moves forward and will continue to have as we move this Bill forward. Some of those items include thinking about the value that cities have in potentially receiving some of the fundings. Additionally talking or thinking through the idea of centralized collection mechanism.

And while we've spent the most time talking about the assessment and the fee, we also know that we need to start somewhere and we need to have the opposition at the table in order to move forward to determine what is the right balance as we move forward. I want to thank all the co-authors, the Committee Chairs, Committee Members, and the sponsors who have been important to this critical conversation.

This Bill has been amended throughout the process, and that will continue to happen as more stakeholders come to the table. Whether you're from Baldwin Park, from Riverside, Orange County, San Diego, the Central Valley, we all have a desire to see more affordable housing built. And I'm thankful to all of the colleagues who have engaged in ongoing conversations for a number of weeks on this important Bill. With that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Limon. I see a microphone up from Senator Wiener?

Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be voting for this Bill today to keep the conversation going in the Assembly. I do want to note and the author and I have had various conversations on this Bill because we saw it in Housing Committee and then in Government Finance on which I sit, and then the percentage was put into the Bill. It had been a blank before as conversations continued, and I'm voting for it today.

I'm going to see what the Bill looks like when it comes back on concurrence. As I've expressed to the author, I think the percentage should be a lower number, particularly since we have some local taxes as well. And I'm confident that the author, who I know works extremely hard with stakeholders, will get to a good place on this. And that's why I'm comfortable voting for this today to move it forward.

And I will be looking at the shape of the Bill when it comes back on concurrence. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much, Mr. President and colleagues. I will be opposing this Bill today, and I wish you, I ask you to join me in doing so. Number one, this is simply unfair to people that have Airbnbs. Most of those people are just mom and pop Abnb owners. They may have a house that they're trying to hang on to and use the Airbnb system for that. And on top of the TOT tax of 10 to 12%, this would stack on another 15%.

And then they have to pay their regular taxes on any of the profit margin. And so now they're getting taxed in upwards of 55% to 60% for their efforts in trying to keep a house in their family. The other part of this is that we have done social housing projects before, and they are called exactly that, the projects. And down in L.A., we've had several of those and they've all failed.

So I'm not sure how we're going to move into the same kind of model that we've already seen fail miserably, and I do mean miserably, by having more of the same type, especially if we're going to make them cost more with additional housing costs that are added on for building all of these type of housing. So for those basic reasons, I am opposing this Bill, and I hope you will join me in doing so. Thank you.

Thank you Senator. I have Senator Cortese followed by Senator Grove. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. President. I think we need construction impact mitigation here. Could be a Bill. Apologize for the humor, but I do rise in support of SB 584. But I just wanted to get on the record concerns that I shared with the author, which the author assured me she will continue to be working on, amongst others, in the primary city in my district, the City of San Jose.

Airbnb facilities, especially around bed and breakfast facilities, small former apartment facilities are typically owned by mom and pop ownership, but they are utilized to essentially augment a very limited hotel stock in the city that supports a convention center on a week-to-week basis.

So I'm concerned not to undermine that and also not to undermine those mom and pop operators, which I understand may be an anomaly compared to other places in the state, but it is the third largest city in the State of California and right in the middle of my district. So I'm concerned and I'm hopeful that those kind of issues can be worked out going forward. I would encourage support of the Bill at this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. And thank you for your patience and understanding today with the noise. Appreciate that. Senator Grove.

I would like a thank you for the noise on this side, Sir.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I respectfully rise in opposition, I think, about my colleagues opening remarks when she says we had to do something to bring them and keep them at the table. Well, that's the way you do it in the majority party. You throw out a 15% tax on an industry, an industry is required to come to the table so they're not on the menu.

So throwing out a 15% tax on a small group of constituents that again, small businesses, mom and pop organizations, retirement. People that are using their retirement home or their beach home or whatever it is to subsidize their income in their retirement years, throwing a 15% tax on them is completely unconscionable and respectfully asked for a No vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I actually do support this Bill. I understand it's also very difficult for many people. But I want to highlight when we talk about home ownership, and I've mentioned this before, California home ownership, there's roughly only 18% that actually own homes. Single family homes in particular are owned by larger corporations. It's an actual trend that's going on. These are not mom and pop owners. These are larger corporations that are benefiting from the new technology that's out there.

We do have to kind of control what is going out there. I think that there's a number of policies that are being introduced that we should be supporting because we need to do more on housing as a whole. Again, more and more people are unable to afford because of these types of rentals, because of the fact that the stock is being absorbed by larger corporations that are benefiting and really pushing people to struggle. So I will support this.

And considering the fact that California has the lowest home ownership in the nation, it's about time that we rein things in. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further? I see a microphone for Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to rise in support of this Bill. You heard the author say that it's a work in progress, and I truly believe it is. But here's the reality of the situation is that California is such an attractive tourist spot that there are parts of the state where a large number of organizations, brokers, hedge funds are coming in and buying up single family homes as well as apartments, and they're using them for a tourist industry.

In other words, they are driving up the cost of housing in many of our regions. And they're also out pricing local people who live in the community but can't afford to any longer and who are then forced to travel further and further away. So if we're really going to get a handle on vehicle miles traveled, one of the ways is to be able to make it affordable for people to be able to live and work in the same community. This is one solution.

I support it. I've encouraged the author in ways that we might make it better. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any further discussion or debate? Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Limon. You may close.

Thank you. And Members, this is certainly a Bill that's generated a lot of conversation, but it's needed conversation. And every step of the way, this Bill has taken changes and amendments. And your comments. I've spent a lot of time in the last few weeks talking to so many of you across the state, and we all agree that we need to find a way to build more affordable and workforce housing. That's not the debate here.

The debate is where and how we fund that housing in our state. And while we've passed many laws that change different ordinances that change our ability to move things faster or do something slightly different, we haven't found a mechanism to fund this needed housing. I wish that I was giving you an easier Bill to vote on. I wish that I was ensuring that this is something that didn't feel hard or difficult.

But it turns out that a very difficult issue in the state is generating a difficult conversation. I will continue to work on this to find a way that we can try to do what we aim to accomplish, which is build more affordable housing and find funding for our communities. Again, thank you to every single person from all parts of the state that's had a conversation with me about this Bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

All debate having ceased. Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

At the request of Senator Limon put this matter on call. It's a two thirds vote, Members.

We're going to move now to file item 39. This is Senate Bill 599 by Senator Excuse me. Members, we're going to move to file item 40. This is Senate Bill 638 by Senator Eggman. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 638 by Senator Eggman, an act relating to an act relating to flood protection and climate resiliency programs by providing the funds necessary therefore through an election for the issuance and sale of bonds of the State of California and for the handling and disposition of those funds.

Senator Eggman, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. President and Senators. Today I am presenting SB 368, which is a $6 billion flood protection bond for the Central Valley and some other parts of the state. And I know some of my colleagues will say, but when we had all that extra General Fund money we shouldn't have done all of this now, then, well, the point is that we put some towards it.

But the recent Flood Control Association found that we probably need about 300 billion in the next 20 years to be able to get the full protection that we need. So this will go some ways towards being able to do that. We haven't had a flood bond since 2006 and that was the only one we've ever had. Some people are familiar, some of us voted on a water bond earlier that did not prioritize flooding, though, prioritize other kinds of things.

We've seen in this year, this calendar year, the devastation to economy, to people, to lives, to disruption of our transit hubs as roadways, flood farms, flood and people are out of work. This is dangerous. California can do better. This prioritizes projects in the Central Valley and to fix those levees and those weirs and those bypasses prioritizes the San Joaquin River, which needs a lot of support.

It provides $1.0 billion for projects outside of that to be able to deal with issues like coastal rise and it provides $1.0 billion to work on our dam safety. This is the year to be able to do this. I ask for your Aye vote to let the voters decide if they want to invest in our future.

Thank you, Senator Eggman, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise as a co-author of this bond measure. Let me ask, a year ago during House of Origin deadline, I wasn't here, but how many of you were thinking about floods? About three or four. Well, I was because the fact of the matter is this state, especially the north part of this state, is really in drought with occasional inundations of rain. It consistently happens every between 5 and 10 years. We have continual years of drought and then we're inundated.

And we've seen in particular the last two times, 2017 and this winter the Central Valley, the south end of this county and the Central Valley were particularly a hard hit, whereas previous inundations were further north and those areas are better protected now because of that. And this bond will provide needed funds to shore up our flood control so that when we do go through another few years of drought. Although the forecast is for possible heavy rains this coming winter.

But when we do go through another few years of drought and we forget all about flooding. Well, with this bond, we would have shored ourselves up in some of these high-risk areas. I urge an Aye vote.

Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise as another co-author of this Bill. But when I talked to the author, I did indicate that I thought it was Central Valley centric and that, in fact, there are needs all across the state. And unfortunately, that was demonstrated on the Pajero River, and on the Salinas River, and on Arroyo Grande Creek when the atmospheric river slammed on the Central Coast. And those local governments do not have the ability to protect their own citizens.

It really relies on a bond like this and the state stepping up and leveraging other money. So I strongly support this and just know that if it really gets serious and everybody engages, we will make sure that it applies to the places in the state that all need this. So I appreciate the author for introducing it and proudly support it.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues so I did comment on bonds earlier, and those comments stand. I think there are better ways to fund these very, very important projects. But on this particular one, we're talking about $6 billion. And the problem with our dams and levees, as our good Senator from Santa Cruz pointed out to me in a conversation recently, isn't necessarily getting the money to do it, it's getting through the process to do it.

When it takes 15 years to try to get the permits to replace an existing levee, that's a problem. When it takes 15 to 20 years to replace an existing dam that's in the exact same place, that's a problem. This was pointed out just last week when we were dealing with a potential prison project that was going to get through in two years. And they were saying, they told me the reason it didn't need to go through a CEQA process was because it already exists.

So why would it change anything? So we can do a bond for $6 billion on a very, very important subject, something that we've needed to do for the last 20 to 25 years. Yet if it's going to take another 15 to 20 years and all this is going to do is sit in the bank waiting for the project to come along and be ready to get done, it's not doing us any good.

We might as well just get that part done and then we can just fund the project as we go, along with our existing dollars that we can save on the interest rates, on the interest that we're paying on the total of, if we approved, if our voters approved all of the bonds, it'd be $62 billion worth of bonds this year that we're asking them to approve. So with that, I think there are better ways of funding these.

We have to do something about the process if we want it to work correctly. And I might even jump on board for this particular one, except I know the process for these particular types of projects is not being worked on, and therefore they're not going to be done anytime soon. Just like our lake up in the north part of the state that was supposed to be done in 2024, that's not going to be done for another 15 to 20 years.

So with that, I respectfully ask for a No vote on this. And I hope that we are spurred into when we do have large budget surpluses, that we start looking at these as long term projects and start putting money aside for these so we don't have to bond and we don't have to pay interest and we can actually put those interest rate or the interest money that we're spending into the projects themselves. With that, I respectfully ask for a No vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any further Senators wanting to speak on this issue? Seeing none, Senator Eggman, you may close.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I appreciate the dialogue. This is an important issue. The Central Valley finds itself with less flood protection than the City of New Orleans pre-Katrina. We need to do something. And we wouldn't say if we had a leak in our roof that we should have saved for that before. We would say we'll take out a loan because we need to be able to fix that roof for the public safety, for everybody else.

So with that, this is money well spent. Let's let the voters decide. Do something for the Central Valley. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

All debate having ceased. Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Secretary please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

The measure passes 36 to two. All right, Members, we're going to move on to file item 41. This is SB 640 by Senator Portantino. Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 640 by Senator Portantino, an act relating to the California State University.

Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mr President. And Members, I rise in support of SB 640 Bill that would require business entities that wish to enter into food service or hospitality services service contracts with the CSU and its auxiliaries first be in a labor peace agreement with the appropriate union representation. As the CSU continues to plan hospitality developments contracting through private auxiliaries. These auxiliaries participate in private development and private contracting for food services, hotels, and event centers on behalf of the University.

Such operations can potentially have labor disputes, and we want to make sure that those are minimized so the best interests of our students and our tax dollars are respected. And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Any further debate or discussion on this matter Members? Any further debate? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

The measure passes 28 to 10. All right, Members, you're all young at heart, right? Pretend like you're in an apartment and this is the music next door, right? No big deal. It's all good. All right, thanks for your patience and understanding. We're going to move now to file item 43. This is SB. 710. I don't see Senator Durazo at her desk. Senator Durazo, are you prepared? SB 710?

She is. So, secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 710 by Senator Durazo an act relating to surplus property.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 710 establishes a terminus Regional Planning Committee bringing together a diverse set of stakeholders and study the uses for the state route 710 terminus, adjacent area in Los Angeles and the neighboring City of Alhambra. The Committee will meet quarterly and complete and submit a report to the Legislature by December 1 of 2025.

You've heard me talk about how 70 years ago, under the threat of eminent domain, the State of California displaced families and altered our communities for a freeway expansion. In 2020, the Legislature declared there would be no extension for the 710 and therefore much of this land is no longer needed by the Department and can be put to other uses. This area, the 710 terminus, is unique in that it is at the nexus of several communities and jurisdictions.