Senate Floor

Madam Secretary. Please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Members, a quorum is present. Would the members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise? We will be led in prayer this morning by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman. After which, please remain standing.

We will be led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag by Senator Laird.

We gather today in God's presence. People walked through my prayers, and I never noticed. Intent on my own affairs. People walked through my prayers, and I saw them: intrusive, disrupting, distracting. Now people walk through my prayers and I include them: caring, giving, blessing. People walk through my prayers and change me.

Sometimes disturbing, demanding, enlarging. People walk through my prayers and embrace me: healing, loving forgiving. People walk through my prayers bearing the Christ, transforming me. Loving god, help us to look deeply into the hearts of those who walk through our prayers, that we may see the beauty of who they are without judgment and without expectation that they be like us. Amen.

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.

Thank you so much. Members, we're going to move on to privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the governor will be deemed read. Members, we have a really busy day today, and either I can spend the day banging the gavel, or we can get to work.

So I'd like to move on with the agenda if that's okay with you. Messages from the assembly will be deemed read. Reports of Committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Motions, resolutions, and notices. Senator Jones? We'll move on to consideration of the daily file. Madam Secretary, please read the second reading file.

Senate Bill 426.

Moving on to the governor's appointments. Item number two. Senator Grove?

Give me 1 second, Madam President. Sorry.

No problem.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, file item two is the confirmation of Joelle Gomez for reappointment to the Commission on Status of Women and Girls. She is the Chief Executive Officer for the Children's Home of Stockton and also serves as a San Joaquin County Commission of Status of Women. She was approved by the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote on May 10. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

[Roll Call]

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

Please call the absent members.

[Roll call]

Aye's 39. No zeros. The appointment is confirmed. Moving on to file item number three. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, file item number three is a confirmation of Robert Shireman for a reappointment to the Western Interstate Commission of Higher Education. He is the Director for Higher Education Excellence and a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, and the founder and former President of the Institute for College Access to Success or Access and Success and he was approved on the Rules Committee; May 10 with a 5-0 vote. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

[Roll Call]

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

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Aye's, 35. No's, Zero. The appointment is confirmed. Moving on to file item number four. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, file item number four is a confirmation of Lee Herrick to the appointment of the California Poet Laureate and the Christopher Calderon for the appointment to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. These individuals were approved again on the Rules Committee. March 10, with unanimous vote. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Aye's, 37. No's, zero. The appointment- I apologize: Aye's 38, No's, zero. The appointment is confirmed. Moving on to file item number five. Senator Grove.

[Rol Call]

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, file item number five is the confirmation of Laura Kent-Monning, and if that name sounds familiar, she is related to our wonderful former colleague, Senator Monning, for the appointment to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Ms. Kent-Monning has served on the board since 2020. Prior to her appointment, she was a founding attorney of LKM Legal and an associate attorney with HaleyNelson and Heilburn LLP. She was approved by the Senate Rules Committee. May 10, on a 5-0 vote.

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

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Aye's 37, No's, zero. The appointment is confirmed.

Moving on to file item number 10. Senator Grove.

Madam President, I don't know if it's a point of personal privilege before I present this next item. Could you please ask the minority floor leader to quiet his conversation behind me while I present? Thank you.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

It's done. I can tell.

Okay. Thank you.

Colleagues, file item 10 is a confirmation of Laura Rambin for reappointment to the California Building Standards Commission. She's a principal at Studio Bondi Architecture and serves as the commission's position for the registered architects. She was approved to the Senate's Rules Committee on May 17 with a 5-0 vote, excuse me. Respectfully asked for your aye vote.

So, are there any discussion or debate on this item? Discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 39. No's, zero. The appointment is confirmed. And finally, file item number 11. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, file item number 11 is the confirmation of Tyrone Bland to the appointment of the California Water Commission. Mr. Bland is currently the head of Global Government Affairs for a creative artist agency, and he previously served as a special counsel to the general manager at the City of Long Beach Water Department. He was approved by the Senate Rules Committee on May 17 on a 5-0 vote. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Discussion or debate.

And he is Senator Bradford's friend.

I see. I would expect them to see a bunch of objections, is that it? Seeing no further discussion or debate, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Aye's, 38. No's, zero. The appointment is confirmed. That concludes our governor's appointments for today. We're going to move on to Senate's third reading, and the first file up is Senator Roth. File item number 15, please read.

Senate Bill 817 by Senator Roth, an act relating to professions.

Senator Roth.

Thank you. Madam President. Colleagues, this is one of our sunset bills. The bill simply ensures that the board of Barbering and Cosmetology does not charge more than $50 to an individual who seeks to become a hairstylist. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call? Seeing none: Aye's 39, No's, zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 18, Senator Bradford. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 429 by Senator Bradford. An act relating to natural gas.

Senator Bradford?

Members, last winter, California saw their natural gas bills double, in some cases triple from what you usually expected. SB 429 just requires 100% of these revenues to be directed back to the customer and codifies the accelerated time frame, ensuring that the credit coincides with the highest usage gas utility bill of the year. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam President. I support the bill, but I just think we should go back to the root cause. The bill is asking you to take cap and trade dollars and refund it back to the customers. But if we didn't have cap and trade dollars, the gas bills wouldn't be as high as they are, and then the utilities or the IOU'S could address the issue on the gas prices. But I agree with my colleague wholeheartedly.

There is huge rise in gas prices, but a lot of it has to do with cap and trade dollars. So, I appreciate him using that money to go back to the constituents that we serve.

Senator Stern.

Thank you, Madam President. I wasn't here for committee hearing on this bill. I appreciate Senator Bradford for bringing the issue forward and the bipartisan nature by the way of this agreement. I'm hearing from the San Diego delegation as well, early on about using this climate credit. I just want to briefly reiterate the point I made yesterday about natural gas price spikes: this won't solve the issue. It's going to maybe put a Band-Aid on it.

Unfortunately, it'll pull away from some other programs we care about. But I'm going to support it today in the hopes that we can come to sort of a broader agreement about how to actually deal with natural gas price spiking, deal with our wholesale energy traders, and some of the market dynamics that I think are putting our consumers at risk. But I'll be supporting the measure today and watching it go forward, but $50 won't solve the issue. Thanks.

Any further discussion or debate? Discussion or debate. Seeing none. Members, this is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Any objection? There is an objection to using the unanimous roll call. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Aye's, 37. No's, zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 24, Senator Bradford. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 673 by Senator Bradford, an act related to emergency services.

Senator Bradford, the floor is yours.

Thank you. SB 673 would establish the Ebony Alert to address the often ignored and lack of attention of black youth and young women who are disproportionately missing in California. Despite making up only 12% of the population, African American young girls and women make up almost 40% of those individuals that come up missing on an annual basis.

In California, we have an Amber Alert that authorizes law enforcement agencies to use digital messaging on overhead roadway signs to assist in the recovery efforts of child abduction cases. The problem is that the Amber Alert has strict criteria that a case must fulfill the message to be broadcast, I should say. SB 673 would also encourage, but not require that radio, television and cable, satellite, and social media systems cooperate in disseminating this information contained in Ebony Alert, and this bill has no opposition.

I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none? This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Aye's 39. No's, zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 30, Senator Allen. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 622 by Senator Allen, an act relating to cannabis.

Senator Allen, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Madam President, existing law requires cannabis cultivators to attach a unique identifier to the base of each plant. And this requirement creates unnecessary labor and operational costs for cultivators, as well as millions of pounds of needless plastic waste. According to data provided by the DCC, 43 million plastic tags were issued by the department at a cost of $15 million to the state.

So this will provide more flexibility to the department to regulate how plants are tagged to ensure easy identification of plants for effective enforcement by inspectors and compliance by cultivators while minimizing wasteful and expensive single-use tags. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objection to using the unanimous roll call? There is objection. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

Senate Bill 812 by Senator Roth, an- act relating to business.

[Roll Call]

Aye's, 37. No's, zero. The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 32. Senator Roth. He is prepared. Please read.

Senator Roth.

An act relating to business.

Senator Roth, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President, colleagues, this is another one of our sunset bills, SB 812. The Bill extends the California Tax Education Council sunset date for four more years, and we will continue to work at increasing the ability for consumers to receive important information from tax preparers. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objection saying none. Ayes? 39, no. Zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 33. Senator Roth. He is prepared. Again, please read Senate Billy 16 by Senator Roth. An act related to professions and vocations. Senator Roth.

Thank you. Madam President, colleagues, this one's a little longer. It's an omnimus Bill containing several changes to a number of practice acts administered by various programs within the California Department of Consumer Affairs. The measure makes changes to the operations of a number of programs and the California Council for Interior Design certification following the recent sunset review oversight work for these entities. The Bill updates provisions of the Interior Design chapter to clarify that the California Council for Interior Design certification is the certifying entity, including Codifying, the Commercial Design Stamp designation, among other changes. This Bill deletes a current prohibition in the Veterinary Medical Practice Act that prevents the Veterinary Medical Board from being able to issue a probationary certificate, if appropriate, to an applicant for a veterinary assistant controlled substance permit. The Bill also makes technical changes related to the authority for the Board of Vocational, Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians to decrease community college fees for that board's school approval process when those institutions face declines in enrollment and commensurate declines in state funding. Respectfully, as for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, members, we're going to go through the roll call one time. There is a member off the floor, so we're going to put everything right now on call and we'll let you know when we're going to lift the call. So we're going one time through the roll. Madam 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. Limon. 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. Smallwood-Cuevas. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, aye.

Senator Roth moves the call. We're going to move on to file item number 34, Senator Newman. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 568 by Senator Newman. An act related to recycling.

Senator Newman.

Thank you. Madam President, I rise to present SB 568, which would require that an individual entity must certify that they have attempted to locate a licensed in state e-waste recycling facility before exporting e-waste abroad. Globally, less than 20% of e-waste is currently recycled properly, with the remaining 80% of e-waste ending up either in landfills or improperly recycled. Much of this e-waste ultimately ends up in developing countries, being reprocessed by hand and exposing workers in those places to hazardous or carcinogenic substances such as mercury, lead and cadmium. In addition to these adverse health and climate impacts, the improper management of e-waste also results in a significant loss of scarce invaluable raw materials such as gold, platinum, cobalt, and other rare earth elements. Experts estimate that as much as 7% of the world's gold may currently be contained in e-waste, with up to 100 times more gold to be found in a ton of e-waste than in a ton of mined gold ore. California's e-waste recycling market, which is already among the largest in the world, is projected to grow by 15% or more by 2027, if we can streamline the processing and recycling of e-waste materials, the state has a unique opportunity to become a global leader in the market for safely reclaiming the rare and valuable minerals contained in e-waste. By requiring an entity to declare that they attempted to locate an instate e-waste recycling facility prior to export, SB 568 will yield immense long term economic benefits for the state while reducing the likelihood that potentially toxic e-waste materials will find their way to abroad locations with much weaker environmental standards than California's. We are continuing to work with DTSC, Cal, Recycle and other stakeholders to make the goal and intent of this legislation practicable for all parties involved. I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote this morning.

Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to rise and let my colleagues know why I voted for this vote. We actually pay a price when we buy our e-waste or our materials, and this is a great Bill to actually do the recycling. And so, for those reasons, there is a small fine. We do have places to recycle in California, and it encourages them to recycle in California, and we actually recoup some of the money that we spent on the front end for those reasons. I ask for an I vote.

Is there any further discussion or debate on this item? Senator Newman. You may conclude.

I appreciate my colleagues'comments I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Madam 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, no. Hurtado, aye. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon. 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. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, aye.

Senator Newman moves the call. Members, we're going to pass temporarily file item number 38, 42, and 49. And we're moving on to file item number 50, which is Senator Umberg. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 21 by Senator Umberg. An act relating to courts and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and colleagues, this is another remote access bill to improve court efficiency. This deals, though, with civil actions as opposed to criminal and other actions. Of course, in a criminal matter, you have a right to confront witnesses. The same right does not exist in a civil action. But to the extent that the parties wish to appear personally, they certainly may request to the court. I urge an aye vote.

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

Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins, aye. Becker, aye. Blakespear, aye. Bradford, aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese, aye. Dahle, aye. Dodd, aye. Durazo, aye. Eggman. Glazer, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado, aye. Jones, aye. Laird, aye. Limon. 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. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk, aye.

Senator Umberg moves the call. Moving on to file item number 52. Senator Glazer is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 28 by Senator Glazer. An act relating to education finance 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 disposition of these funds.

Senator Glazer, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, SB 28 is a $15.5 billion bond for the 2024 ballot. It reflects previous agreements on the last bond that this Senate put forward. I want to acknowledge that it's a placeholder Bill that there are still many conversations to have between the Governor leadership in both houses, our education leaders, and other stakeholders to fashion of bond that works for everyone. But for now, it moves the process forward, and with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Madam President. I respectfully rise to oppose this bond and many other bonds that we are bringing forward. The taxpayers of our state are a little bit bond weary. Anything that we're bringing to them in the form of bonds is essentially failing, which means all the money that we spend between now and then is a failed experiment. These type of expenditures are priorities. There's no doubt that we need money to be able to continue to build and improve some of the facilities that we have and including some of the projects that are contained within the description of what this bond is saying. The problem is those should be taken care of first when we are doing our budget every year. California's education budget is actually larger than the state budgets for 47 other states in the United States, and it's bigger than the budgets for countries, 39 other countries have bigger budgets than this. That's it. The rest of them are below the spending that we spend for schools. We should be able to prioritize and be able to, because nothing is going to get built in one year. And what we need to do is prioritize this and be able to spend the money over the five years or so that it takes to get these projects through a process and then finally built. But if we wait till two more years, we're going to lose two more years of inflation. Inflation is going to make these buildings cost even more. And so this is a matter for me of being responsible financially with our taxpayer dollars and ensuring that they're getting the most bang for their buck and that we're getting projects online sooner, faster, and being able to prioritize the spending so that we don't incur a bunch of debt that we have to pay interest on that later on, impacts future budgets. So therefore, because of those reasons, I'm opposing this bond. And I will save you the speech for the other bonds, but I will be opposing those as well. Thank you.

Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I represent the Senate on the State allocation board, as do two other Senators. And there is an application process. It is prioritized. We have a dramatic need for school facilities across the state. And in fact, this body, together with the Governor and the Assembly, has been funding facilities on a year by year basis to try to get to the time that we can get a bond there. And this year, as solutions to the shortfall, the Governor proposed bonding for UC and CSU and then proposed the money from the General Fund to pay for the bond. So in essence, we're doing this already, we have a prioritized process, and it demonstrates that there's a need that exists in schools across the state. It is rebuilding of post World War schools. It is building new schools. It is upgrading schools because they weren't constructed originally for digital needs or they had asbestos or they had other things. So this is really important and it is one of those things that we are within our appropriate percent of bonded indebtedness to the General Fund. And at a time when we have a budget that might be down, that we have an economy that needs to be kick started after the pandemic, this meets every need. So I'm going to be proud to support this. I think it's the right thing to do.

Members, any further discussion or debate on this item? Further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Glazer, you may conclude.

Thank you, Madam President. First, let me thank the Senator from Santa Cruz for his articulate comments on this Bill. To the Senator from the Inland Empire, I would say this capital spending is prudent spending when bonds are a prudent use of capital spending because they're meant to have construct things that are going to last 30, 40, 50 years long. And just as the investments in our schools and universities that we're enjoying today were those same investments on with bonding previous decades ago. I had the chance to tour San Jose State University this past week. Got to see their 50, 60, 70 year old buildings, classrooms without ventilation and a whole variety of serious structural problems at that University. I know it's replicated dozens of times at other universities around our state, certainly in the elementary, middle school, high schools around the state where those facilities are really decrepit. We had leaders 50, 60 years ago that showed the leadership to invest in bonds so that we could build those facilities that we've enjoyed for those years. That obligation falls on us. Are we going to look to the future? When you have a serious issue in your house that's going to last a long time, you can borrow for that. It's a prudent thing you do in your own household budget. And for the state to do the same makes sense as well. And I would note that when we had a surplus, the last couple of years, we did invest money in capital that normally would be done with bonding. That situation doesn't we don't enjoy that today. Which is why this is a prudent measure to go forward with. As I said earlier, there are some elements of it to be negotiated. Priorities need to be set. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your ate vote today.

Members, we're no longer going to be putting bills on call. So we'll go through the roll call twice. Say it again. We're going to go through the roll call twice and then close it out. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. Nguyen. 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.

Bradford, aye. Grove. Limon. Nguyen.

Ayes 33, noes four. The measure passes. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 53. Senator Umberg is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 60 by Senator Umberg. An act relating to social media platforms.

Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and members. This bill is similar to a bill that was enacted last year which provided last year's bill provided that if an individual is the target of a social media message that indicates that violence may be perpetuated or perpetrated against that individual, then they can seek an injunction to have a court enjoin the platform from continuing to promulgate that message. This bill does the same thing with respect to drug dealers.

So if, for example, the police or an individual identifies someone as dealing drugs through a certain platform, they can ask that platform to take down that person or that entity's moniker and messages. And if the platform does not take it down, then they can go to court and seek an injunction. And if the platform still does not take it down, then all the tools that are available to the court in terms of contempt proceedings would be available to the individual who is seeking to have that message, that individual's moniker removed. I urgent aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes 39, noes zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 55, Senator Umberg. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 71 by Senator Umberg. An act relating to courts.

Senator Umberg.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. Members of the Senate, currently the limit on small claims action $10,000. This Bill would move it to $15,000. The limit on limited jurisdiction cases is currently $25,000, and this would increase it to $50,000. I am continuing to work with those who have concerns with the Bill as we move forward, but we should note that these limits were set almost 30 years ago, and it's time that we move them. Urge an aye vote.

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

Ayes 35, oh, we'll just take a second.

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

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil. Atkins. Limon. Ochoa Bogh, aye.

The vote on that item is ayes 35, noes two. The measure passes, Senator Umberg.

Thank you. Madam President, I move reconsideration on SB 71.

Under motions and resolutions, that motion for reconsideration is granted. Ayes 38. No, zero. Madam Secretary, please. For clarity's purposes, members, we're going to redo that vote.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil. Atkins. Dahle. Jones. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Ayes 32, noes two. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 56. Senator Umberg is prepared.

Please read.

Senate Bill 77 by Senator Umberg. An act relating to elections.

Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. What this bill does is this bill allows for the recorder, the county recorder, the individual, or the entity that tabulates votes to be able to alert individuals by text message if their ballot has not been accepted. So, for example, if they believe that the signature on the mail-in ballot doesn't match the registration signature, they may not count that ballot. But there is already in law an opportunity to cure, in other words, that the voter may verify that that is their ballot and thus it will be counted. This simply allows the recorder or the registrar to send a text message to alert that voter that they may need to cure the ballot. I urge an aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent members.

Atkins. Grove. Limon. Seyarto.

Ayes 36, noes zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 59, Senator Portantino. He is prepared.

Please read.

Senate Bill 98 by Senator Portantino. An act relating to education finance.

Senator Portantino, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President and members. This bill is no stranger to this body. We've passed it before. It simply changes how we fund public education from an attendance-based model to an enrollment-based model, which is much more fair to do and what most other states do. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins. Becker, aye. B;akespear, 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. McGuire, aye. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen. Niello, no. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Padilla. Portantino, aye. Roth, aye. Rubio, aye. Seyarto, aye. Skinner, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wilk, no

Please call the absent members.

Atkins. Dahle, aye. Grove, aye. Limon. Nguyen. Padilla, aye.

Ayes 34, noes three. The measure passes. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 66. Senator Eggman is prepared.

Please read.

Senate Bill 299 by Senator Eggman, an act relating to medical.

Senator Eggman, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Madam President, SB 299 simply says if you move and you're on medical and your mail gets returned, you don't lose your Medi Cal. Private insurances don't lose theirs. Medi Cal shouldn't lose theirs as well. I ask for your aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil, aye. Atkins. Limon. McGuire, aye. Niello. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Seyarto.

Eyes 35, noes one. The measure passes.

Moving on to file item number 67, Senator Stern. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 302 by Senator Stern. An act relating to healthcare facilities.

Senator Stern, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Members, in California, we've authorized the use of recreational cannabis in a number of environments. But when it comes to medical cannabis, there are certain preconditions that have been imposed on people dealing with palliative care, pre-end-of-life issues, folks with Alzheimer's, dementia, who as a condition of receiving care, they're often told they have to stop using medicinal cannabis and say, switch over to opioids for pain management or antipsychotic medication for mood enhancement. And we've had some really negative outcomes.

We're starting to see some very positive gains in the elder care space. This has had bipartisan support. I think it's a really important step forward. It makes no sense that kids over 21 are running around having recreational cannabis, but people who are dealing with ALS at the end of their life suddenly have to stop using that medicine to manage their pain and have to suffer through end-of-life the wrong way. So hopefully this will start to rectify that. And we're happy that we have our opposition removed and health facilities cooperating and seems to have support on both sides of the aisle. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on this? Any objection? Seeing none. Ayes 38, noes zero. The measure passes. Moving on to we're going to pass temporarily file item number 69. So that takes us to file item number 70. Senator Eggman is prepared.

Please read.

Senate Bill 326 by Senator Eggman, an act relating to mental health.

Senator Eggman, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam President. SB 326 is just a clarifying factor so we don't leave any federal money on the table with our Mental Health Services Act system. And I ask for your aye vote.

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

Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby, aye. Atkins. 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. Limon. McGuire, aye. Menjivar, aye. Min, aye. Newman, aye. Nguyen, aye. Niello, aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Padilla, aye. Portantino, aye. Roth, aye. Rubio, aye. Seyarto, aye. Skinner, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Stern, aye. Umberg, aye. Wahab, aye. Wiener, aye. Wilk aye.

Atkins. Limon.

Ayes 38, noes zero. The measure passes.

Moving on to file item number 71. Senator Rubio is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 331 by Senator Rubio, an act relating to child custody.

Senator Rubio, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, today I'm proud to present SB 331, a critical Bill that will strengthen protections for children victims of family during family law preceding cases. This Bill will continue to prohibit courts from ordering reunification treatments, which are known as CAMPS that are non regulated, for profit businesses where they abruptly cut off a relationship between the children and their primary parent, sometimes up to two years. These children also are cut off from important support systems, preferred family members, friends, schools, belongings, and communities which they know. Members, this Bill is known as Piqui's Law for a reason. This Bill honors the name of a five year old little boy who was murdered in my district by his father on April 2017. After his mother pleaded with the courts and alerted the courts to the dangers her child was facing, the little boy would plead not to be sent back to his father, and yet he was and never came home. This Bill will strengthen protections for victims like Piqui and families who are in distress across our state by requiring judicial counsel to establish more detailed training on domestic violence and child abuse, as well as judicial reporting requirements to measure program's effectiveness. I believe Piqui's Law not only meets the needs of the moment, as we're seeing so many children being murdered, but it also gives voice to the 920 children who've already been murdered by a parent and who are calling out beyond their grave, asking us, pleading with us to do something because the judicial system failed them. And I also am pushing this measure forward on behalf of three little girls, Samia, Samantha and Samara, all under 13 years old, who were murdered last year here in Sacramento by their father. And, of course, Piqui, who is someone who I was close to. Thank you. And I asked for your aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Jones. Limon. Padilla.

Ayes 36, noes zero. Okay.

If you could please call the absent members again.

Atkins, Jones. Limone. Padilla, aye.

Ayes 37, noes zero. The measure passes. Members, we're going to move on to file item number 73, Senator Portantino. He is prepared. Please read

Senate Bill 357 by Senator Portantino, an act relating to vehicles.

Senator Portantino, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President and members, SB 357 would provide doctors with more discretion to report conditions they believe will impair a patient's inability to drive, including epilepsy. 425,000 Californians are epileptic, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Are there any discussions or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, this is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call? Am I seeing yes? Maybe. We're good. Very good. But we will use the unanimous roll call without objection. Ayes 38, noes zero. The measure passes. Move on to file item number 74. Senator Portantino. He is ready. Please read.

Senate Bill 368 by Senator Portantino, an act relating to firearms.

Senator Portantino, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and Members, SB 368 would prohibit firearm stores and dealers from raffling off inventory items, accessories, and firearms to anyone, whether it be purchased, whether they purchase a raffle ticket or not. This Bill also extends the 10 year prohibition on owning a firearm by 10 additional years if a person is found to have violated the prohibition. And lastly, we want to make sure we create an evaluation process for those nearing the end of their 10 year prohibition period. Just because the date is up doesn't mean the person is capable of owning a firearm and will use it responsibly. And I want to credit activists in the City of Burbank who alerted me to the raffle issue and give them props and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

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

Please call please call the absent members.

Atkins. Eggman, aye. Limon. Newman, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Wahab, aye.

Ayes 39, noes eight. Ayes 29, noes eight. The measure is adopted. Members, we're going to pass temporarily file item number 75 and 78. So that brings us to file item number 79. Senator Wiener. He is prepared. Please read

Senate Bill 407 by Senator Wiener, an act related to foster care.

Senator Wiener, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Madam President and colleagues, I rise today to present SB 407 to strengthen protections for vulnerable youth by ensuring that they are not placed in anti LGBTQ homes. SB 407 will strengthen the resource family process for LGBTQ foster youth by requiring explicit consideration of LGBTQ youth and environmental assessments by creating standard documentation by the Department of Social Services for these assessments to include LGBTQ youth needs by reviewing county approved resource families to evaluate if they're meeting the needs of LGBTQ youth and ensuring that resource families have the necessary skills, knowledge and abilities to support LGBTQ youth. Youth who identify as LGBTQ are heavily overrepresented in the foster care system. Various studies have estimated that 30% of foster youth are LGBTQ. While we have existing protections, they are not strong enough, and this will help us take that next step to ensure that if a foster youth comes out or LGBTQ foster youth is placed in a home, that home will not be hostile to that young person and will indeed be supportive. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam President. I don't have any prepared remarks on this particular Bill, but I feel compelled to speak on it because of the sensitivity and nature of the Bill. I was on a Committee when we discussed this particular Bill and some of the concerns that I have, I feel I'm hoping to convey what truly is in my heart and the concerns that I have with this particular Bill. So in the Committee, I asked certain questions of the author with regards to the training and options that families would have. Understanding that one third of our youth that are in foster care identify as LGBTQ and the training required of families wanting to be a resource family for these particular children, wanting to make sure that people are prepared. But as we all know, as anyone who takes any courses in any classes, not everybody masters the material being taught. They might not own the information at that particular point, and we should respect and meet those individuals at that point. In traditional classes, in schools, when people take classes and people don't master the information, we don't discriminate against them, we don't think any less of them, and we don't exclude them from pursuing other opportunities because they haven't mastered what has been taught. In that case, we also in this particular Bill by people not mastering or not owning that information that is being taught at that particular moment. This Bill would exclude them from becoming potential resource families to two thirds of families or two thirds of children who do not identify as LGBTQ. One of the questions that I had for the author in our private conversation, I don't remember whether or not we had that in the Committee or not, was whether or not families could just as they can choose whether to foster a child that is an infant or a child of mid age or a teenager, knowing and understanding that not every family has the capacity or the ability to take care of an infant, but could potentially take care of a child who's an adolescent or a young child who can sleep on its own and is not waking up every two or 3 hours. Why not have the ability for families to choose whether or not they have the ability and the capacity to reach out and host a child that identifies as LGBTQ? I've been thinking a lot about this Bill since we heard it in the Committee because I often see a label and those stickers that say coexist. And I've been thinking in my mind, what does that mean? What does it look like to coexist in a country like ours in America where we advocate having that freedom of belief system, of cultures, of faiths and so forth, so long as it doesn't interfere in someone else's ability to pursue the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness? Right? So in my mind, as I was thinking about this Bill and thinking about the notion of coexisting, this Bill, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it would discriminate against people, one that can't master the information and own it and own the information that's being taught with sensitivity with our LGBTQ kids. It doesn't allow for people to exercise their personal faith and meet people where they are in their belief system. It does the opposite. But in a perfect world, in my head when I think about coexisting, I believe that the systems in place allow for people to be accommodated in meeting them where they are without discriminating against one or the other. I don't believe we should be on one far end or on the other far end but allow for choices and capacities in meeting people where they are as far as the families go to meet the needs of each individual child, because as a parent and as a woman of faith, I believe that every child deserves to have a loving home. And by the same token, we should be truly respectful and really practice and have policy that embraces differences of opinion, differences of abilities to live life and be respectful, especially when they're not purposely hurting anyone. So in any case, I believe that we should have a policy that embraces choices, that doesn't vilify one belief system over another, but embraces and respects and accommodates and meets people where they are. And for that case, knowing that we have so many families wanting, desiring to host children and knowing and really being careful in where we place our children that are vulnerable, giving options and meeting people where they are is the type of policy that I want to see on this floor. And for that reason, I will not be supporting this Bill. But my colleague knows that I truly want to work towards policy that protects our children regardless of whom they believe themselves to be and also respects and we respect people's ability to live their life's principles.

Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Madam President. I was in the policy Committee when we heard this Bill, and I got pretty emotional in there, and once again, was I'm feeling the same emotions as I was then. My member, the Senator from Big Bear mentioned, that stuck with me to protect people's principles. And I think about the principles we're seeing right now with some parents is conversion therapy. And that's their principle. In respecting people's opinions, it doesn't mean that we force our youth to shock therapy, to conform to that foster parents principle. That's what's at stake right now. And we're seeing this. This isn't imaginary. This is happening across our nation right now. Our youth, our LGBTQ plus youth have the highest rates of suicide, anxiety, depression. We are bottlenecking our LGBTQ plus youth in the United States. There is nowhere else for them to run to except California, New York, perhaps Washington. One third of our foster youth identify as LGBTQ plus, and those are the ones that are out. Those are the ones who are identified in the moment of that study. We don't know when we place foster youth if they're out or not. What we do know is that we need to place every single youth in a loving and caring home. If that parent, like my parent, is not okay with my sexuality, then they'll work through it. But it does not mean that my mom is going to force me to conform to heterosexuality. It just means that it's going to be a process and have communication. I agree that there is sometimes a learning curve, if you will, in understanding what it is to be empathetic, sympathetic for someone, a child who is different, whether biological or adopted or your foster child. But that learning curve does not extend to locking them in a closet, does not extend to forcing them into therapy, does not extend to refusing to help them navigate together. This Bill is looking to protect our foster youth, period, end, that's it. It's looking to protect our LGBTQ plus foster youth that often are made up of youth who are kicked out, who are runaways, who are turned to unhealthy sexual behavior. And if we are looking to find preventative measures to end the cycle of the unending number of LGBTQ plus youth falling into the foster care, then this is a good way to do it, to ensure that they're placed in homes that will be accepting them and will be loving them. Because then those numbers will then turn into homeless youth, which we already know LGBTQ plus youth make a disproportionate amount in them. I am not here to cater to homophobic parents. We're not here for that. We're here to cater to the youth who have gone through endless amount of barriers and yet is another barrier to find a stable and loving home. I applaud the author of this Bill for stepping forward and protecting our vulnerable youth, because when we uplift and protect our vulnerable youth, we're uplifting every single youth. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this.

Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Madam President and members. So people know I'm a social worker. And most of my life I've worked in the adult field. I work with adults. I work with addictions, mental health, end of life medical issues. But when I was going through my Master's program, we have to do internships as we all do. And so one of my internships I did was in the foster care agency. So I spent some time a year working in the foster care agency. So I spent some time a year working in the foster care agency. And I could tell you I didn't love it. And I didn't love it because I didn't always think that we were focusing on the client. Because you got to think about when you're dealing with anybody, like who's my client? Who is my client. And in this situation, the client is a child. The child is the child who has been damaged in their home of origin, oftentimes abandoned, kicked out, rejected, tortured. And so when we place them, when the state takes a child away from their home, away from their parents, has to be for cause. And you have to be able to provide that child a place to live, to be accepted, to be able to hopefully thrive. As my colleague stated, we know one third of the kids in foster care systems are LGBTQ, oftentimes because they have been rejected by their own families. And so then to send them to another family who might have some of the same feelings that their own family had about rejection, about sin, about something needs to be conserved, about somebody needs to get their gay prayed away. And we know a lot of that exists. We try to pray away the gay, and it doesn't work. What works is loving people exactly where they are. And so when we think about a Bill like this, we think about who is this trying to help? It is not there for foster parents. It is there to help them become the loving parents that we need for all of our kids when the state removes them from their parents rights, which is a big deal to be able to take away a parent's rights and remove a child. And so you better be sure that you have a place where that child's going to be loved and accepted and able to thrive in every way that a child should be. The child is the patient. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I wasn't actually going to speak on this item, but I feel like it's my duty to. I just want to very clearly state as a former foster youth myself, that foster kids, primarily those that are removed from a hostile environment, are supposed to be placed in an environment that is about love and acceptance. And that is the end of it as a whole. A foster parent, it's a job. It's a job that the state is also paying for. And I want to be very clear about that. We have to have stronger criterias for those that we trust to raise kids on our dime. And I want to be very clear that the statistics speak for themselves. The majority of our homeless population come from foster youth populations as well as the LGBTQ community. And the kids there, they are human trafficked. They make up a good percentage of our prisoners in our systems, our jails, and much more. In fact, less than 3% of foster youth obtain a college degree. This is a system that we operate as the State of California. This is a system that every county engages in. And I think that it is very, very important to highlight that when we remove a child from a hostile environment, that we need to place them in a loving and acceptable environment for that child to thrive in. So I fully and wholeheartedly support this Bill, and I ask for an aye vote.

Senator Ashby,

Thank you. I too spoke about this item in Committee passionately. I think it's a very good Bill, and I appreciate my colleagues today with lived experience who spoke. I have worked in and around foster care almost my whole life, really since I was about 12 years old. And most of my aunts, are former foster youth that my grandma adopted, some of you know this about me already, my father was the head of foster care for the State of California and the child welfare Director for San Diego. County. And I had the privilege of a lifetime to be his business partner before he passed away. And our primary area of focus was working with foster youth, particularly transition age foster youth, on programs across the entire State of California and sometimes beyond. My dad was a very well known national expert on foster care. And what I could tell you and what every person who's ever taken a child in as a foster parent could tell you, is that there is only one thing that that youth needs, and that is to be loved unconditionally. Just like all of your children. Just like any child you ever encounter, a child that you take into your home needs one thing from you, for you to love them unconditionally, regardless of what happens in their life, regardless of the changes they go through from two or five or six or 12 or however old they are, when you get them for the rest of their life, they need to know they can count on you. That is what this Bill, the Senator from San Francisco seeks to do. He seeks to make sure that young people who are taken out of their homes will land in homes that will for sure love them no matter what happens. And you've already heard statistics from my colleagues. We're well educated on the matter, but there is a tremendous amount of LGBTQ, former foster youth living on our streets. There are also a tremendous amount of foster youth who never make it through college. You all have made it a priority. You all have gone out of your way to help foster youth in this chamber. This is one more way to protect young people. And I applaud you for moving the Bill forward, Senator, and I urge an aye vote.

Senator Newman.

I also hadn't planned on speaking today on this. I served for three years as a court appointee, special advocate to a foster child in Orange County. And my colleagues have raised some very good points, especially my colleague from Fremont. You would think in a State of 40 million people that we could find 60 to 80,000 good people to be foster parents. But too often, as my colleague pointed out, people do it for monetary reasons. And as a result, those foster children find themselves in homes that are really challenging, where they have gone from one challenging situation where the state has intervened, to another challenging situation where the state is, in effect, perpetuating the situation. And that is a problem we need to solve at some point. Until that time, this is a very reasonable, in fact, a necessary measure. Glad to support it today. I urge an aye vote.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Madam President. I, too, did not intend to rise, but today I will in support of SB 407 and congratulate the author for his leadership. And I have to say, having had the privilege of serving on the board of directors for many years of a foster care agency that dealt with high demand, complex cases, and as an LGBTQ person who suffered abuse and bullying as a child, I am reminded by this conversation that often the worst kind of abuse is that that is cloaked in well meaning intentions. That is indirect and not direct, that is subtle and not overt. When the State of California takes responsibility for the fostering of a child, it is wholly appropriate that the right standards are in place to be sure that that environment is one that is affirming and loving and nurturing. I thank the author. I urge an aye vote.

Is there any further discussion or debate? Any further discussion or debate? Senator Wiener, you may conclude.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I want to thank my colleagues for that debate and for some very powerful points. Colleagues, it is not random that we have such high rates of homelessness among LGBTQ youth. It is not random that 30% of foster kids are LGBTQ. It is not random that we see higher rates of interactions with the criminal justice system and so on and so forth. These are not random occurrences. They happen because far too many of these kids are treated like human garbage. They are cast out of their families. They are abused. They are told that they have no worth. And so it's no wonder that these kids suffer so much. And if a child has already either run away from home or been kicked out of their home, the last thing that the State of California should do is place them in a home that is hostile to their very existence. We're not asking for perfection. We're asking for a basic level of respect and acceptance towards these kids. And we're asking that they not be abused. And we absolutely should be asking that at a minimum, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Dahle. Grove. Limon. Ochoa Bogh.

Ayes 30, noes five. The measure passes. Members are going to move on to file item number 81. Senator Newman is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 425 by Senator Newman, an act relating to air pollution.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise present SB 425, which would offer targeted incentives under the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project to zero emission pickup trucks as part of California's broader set of initiatives to rapidly decarbonize our transportation fleet by increasing access and affordability and thereby encouraging the market development of new zero emission options that can better meet consumers practical needs. SB 425 marks the first step in decarbonizing the roughly 5 million pickup trucks currently on California's roads. This measure enjoys support on both sides. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins? Grove? Aye. Limón?

Ayes 37, noes 1. The measure passes. Members, we're going to temporarily pass file item number 83, 84, 87, 90 and 92. Which brings us to file item number 93. Senator Blakespear is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 511 by Senator Blakespear, an act relating to climate change.

Senator Blakespear, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Members.

Members, today I present to you SB 511, which would direct the California Air Resources Board to prepare and provide data on greenhouse gas emissions for cities and counties. Many local governments do not have the expertise or funding to do this, and it makes it tough for them to measure their progress toward meeting climate goals. The lack of data also makes it difficult for the state to uniformly analyze statewide progress and identify trends.

By creating an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, the Air Resources Board will help cities and counties meet their own goals and the state to analyze what we know is happening in terms of rising temperatures, wildfire droughts, and other climate related events. I urge an aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Eggman aye Jones. Limon.

Aye 37. No. Zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 99. Senator Becker is prepared. Please read

Senate Bill 582 by Senator Becker, an act relating to health records. Senator Becker, the floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I rise to present. SB 582 is designed to protect healthcare providers, including small doctors practices and CUNY clinics from price gouging by their technology vendors. I'm not against technology vendors getting paid for their work and making a reasonable profit. This Bill just says they cannot charge unreasonable fees. Fortunately, that's defined by the Federal Government. This Bill just applies those same rules to our state-level data sharing requirements. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call saying None, aye 38? No zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 101 Senator Portantino. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 596 by Senator Senator Portantino. An act relating to school employees. Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. Sadly, we've seen a rise of in civil behavior throughout our country. We've seen people who normally would practice good decorum. Not and oftentimes that behavior is targeted towards school personnel in their private time. We've had recent instances in California where teachers and administrators who support and teach to state standards about Pride and LGBT issues. Again, according to state law who have been harassed and intimidated outside of a school district, we should not be harassing anyone in their private time period.

We shouldn't be attacking or harassing a doctor, a nurse, a plumber, and certainly a teacher who teaches to California law should not be subject to that. So SB 596 seeks to make sure that we protect those school personnel in their private time for following state law should not be subject to that harassment and violent attacks or threats and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Eggman. Limon.

Could you please call the absent Members one last time?

Atkins. Eggman. Limon.

Senate Bill 597 by Senator Glazer, in accolade to rainwater catchment systems. Senator, the floor is yours.

Okay. Ayes 29. Noes, eight. The measure passes. Moving on to file item 102. Senator Glazer is prepared. Please read.

Thank you, Madam President, you're doing a great job today. We appreciate you. Members, while California has had the wettest winter on record, our state is still facing a water crisis exacerbated by climate change. And it's really necessary that we make the most of rainfall to help augment our storage capacity and ensure that water can be put to its use and not lost.

This Bill, before you today, will require the California Department of Housing and Community Development to research and propose standards for rainwater capture systems on new homes. The Bill empowers HCD to evaluate the economic feasibility of these systems and their potential to decrease reliance on imported water as a part of the operations that will go into effect. If this Bill becomes law, HCD will engage with local water agencies, manufacturers and stakeholders to best address the state's diverse needs in water storage. And I mean diverse needs.

Every part of the state's different, and I know they'll take that into account. This is a proactive measure to address California's water challenges and ensure a reliant water supply for our future, our present and our future needs. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Allen. Aye Alvarado-Gil. At Archuleta? Aye Ashby. Aye Atkins. Becker Aye Blakespear. Aye Bradford. Bradford. Aye Caballero. Aye Cortese? Aye Dahle? No. Dodd. Dorazo aye Eggman? Aye Glazer. Gonzalez. Aye Grove. Ertato aye Jones. No. Laird? Aye Limone. Mcguire. Aye Menjivar. Aye Min? Aye Newman? Aye Wynn. Niello no. Ochoa bogh? No. Padilla? Aye Portantino? Aye Roth? Aye Rubio? Aye say ARTO. No. Skinner. Aye smallwood Quavas. Aye Stern? aye Umberg. Aye Wahob? Aye Wiener? Aye Wilk? No.

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil no. Atkins. Dodd. Glazer aye. Grove no. Limon. Nguyen no.

Ayes, 28. Noes, nine. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 103. Senator Skinner. She is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 598 by Senator Skinner, in accolade to health care coverage.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Madam President, Members, I'm pleased to present SB 598.

Increasingly, when you go to the doctor and your healthcare provider or Doctor prescribes something or recommends, highly recommends a certain treatment, feels that that is the thing that you need for the condition that you're experiencing. It can be delayed.

Why? Because the insurance companies are increasingly requiring what's called prior authorization. Now, at times, that can be very appropriate, but it is increasingly being used to delay or refuse a treatment that a doctor feels is medically necessary. And when that happens, when that delay occurs or the refusal occurs, then as a patient, there's a lot of bad consequences that can happen. You can get frustrated and no longer pursue this needed treatment. You can then be in a circumstance where your condition gets worse and you're hospitalized.

Whereas if that condition had been cared for, you might have prevented that hospitalization. There's multiple problems that this increasing use of prior authorization and the denial of treatment by insurance companies is causing. So what SB 598 does is three important things. It recognizes that prior authorization, at times is obviously necessary. And it gives a one year prior authorization exemption to those doctors and healthcare providers who have consistently practiced within the insurance company's guidelines so they've not had their treatments or their prescriptions questioned.

It requires insurance companies to discontinue prior authorization on care that is consistently approved 95% of the time or higher. And it ensures that prior authorization reviewers have the same medical expertise as the provider they are reviewing. Why would you want someone without that medical expertise to be determining what your treatment or your care should be? So with that, I ask for your aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil. Atkins. Dahle aye. Limon. Nguyen. Niello. Ochoa Bogh. Smallwood-Cuevas aye.

Ayes 32. noes two. The measure passes. Moving on to file item 110. Senator Glazer is prepared. Please read

Senate Bill 644 by Senator Glazer. An act related to business. The floor is yours, sir. Thank you.

Madam President, Members, how many of you remember the show Truth or Consequences? Anybody remember that show? Okay, we're going to have a moment of truth or consequences on our floor here this morning. The truth is well, let me ask you a question. How many of you had made reservations for lodging on the Internet? A lot of us. Raise your hand. Okay? Most of us have made reservations for lodging on the Internet.

Now, the truth is, has anyone ever made a mistake and finished that reservation and gone, zero, rats, that isn't exactly what I wanted to do? Now, if you did it on a third party platform, the consequences are it's done. You can't change it. Most of those platforms don't allow you to do a do over. That's the truth, and that's the consequence. So the Bill before you today tries to deal with that consequence.

It says that if you make a mistake in making a reservation for lodging on a third-party platform or even with the facility itself, that you get to do over. If you change your mind or something's come up within 24 hours. That's all this Bill does. It would require all these third-party, short-term rental places to provide that a full refund in those 24 hours, as long as you haven't made it 24 hours before you actually arrive at the establishment.

So that there's a misunderstanding about this Bill, that that 24 hours is a long time before you get there. No, it's just the time in which you make the reservation. That's all it really is. That you have a consequence that says, oops, I made a mistake. I didn't mean to do that. I want to be able to do it over. So it's, I think, a very prudent consumer protection measure that all of us have fallen into these traps. This allows us to get out of it. That's the truth, and that's the consequence. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Thank you, Madam President. I'm actually in support of this Bill. But the problem with his analogy on truth or consequences, your first answer was the answer that they locked in. So your analogy failed. But I'm going to support it because it's a good policy, but bad analogy. And if you're going to take two minutes of our time, do a better job. Thank you.

Any further discussion or debate, Senator Glazer, you may conclude.

Oh, my God, I get to close now. He's giving me this rare opportunity to use your valuable time to hope that you don't have more consequences in your life. Truth or Consequences was the first broadcast show, 1941, for those who were into trivia. And with that, I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of all of you and hope that this will have a good consequence for our consumers. And please vote yes on SB 644.

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

Alvarado-Gil no. Atkins. Dahle no. Limon. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye.

Ayes 32. Noes six. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 111. Senator Grove is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 651 by Senator Grove. In accolade to water. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, colleagues, today I rise to present SB 651, which will amend and shorten the judicial review period to 270 days for projects outlined in the California State Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the groundwater sustainability plans in that State Water Groundwater Management Act, and the GSPS that DWR may order to be adopted. I'm advocating for a proactive approach that will speed up the construction of our crucial water projects. The longer we wait, the less water our growers communities and habitats will have captured to survive the dry years.

SB 651 will help GSAs build projects that we need to reach Sigma compliance within the short 17 year window that we have left. The GSAs believe that the SB 651 will help achieve priorities that have been set forth to reach our sustainable yield while not hindering environmental quality. Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

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

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. Becker aye. Blakespear. 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. Limon. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Blakespear. Limon. Rubio aye. Wahab.

Ayes. 36. No. Zero. The measure passes. Members, we're going to go back to the bills that are on call, so we are going to start with file item number 33. So if everybody would pay attention because we're going to go through this once, we will start with file item number 33. SB 816 by Senator Roth. Please call the absent Members.

Limon. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Please call the absent Members.

Limon. Smallwood-Cuevas aye.

Ayes, 39, no zero. The measure passes. File item number 34, SB 568 by Senator Newman. Please call the absent Members.

Limone, Skinner. Aye.

Ayes 33, noes, six. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 50, SB 21 by Senator Umberg. Please call the absent Members.

Eggman. Limon. Skinner. Eggman aye. Skinner aye.

Aye 39, no zero. The measure passes. Members, that concludes our morning calendar. As you know, we have an afternoon calendar. There is lunch that has been provided. We're asking everybody to stay in the building. Do not go to your offices. We want to get started back here at 01:00. And the sooner we get started excuse me. The sooner we get started, the sooner we'll get done today, so you've done a terrific job. Please stay in the building. Members. The Senate has reconvened. Thank you so much for your promptness. It is much appreciated.

We're still on the third reading file, and the next item up is file item 112. Senator Bradford is prepared. Please read Senate Bill 661 by Senator Bradford, an act relating to collegiate athletics. Senator Bradford, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. SB 661 extends the rights of student-athletes by requiring all California four-year colleges and universities to honor students athletic scholarship in the event that the athlete suffers an incapacitating injury or illness that makes them no longer able to play their sport. It also requires student-athletes to be given financial literacy education. In light of SB 206 that I and the Senator from Berkeley authored two years ago, I mean, three years ago, for name, image, and likeness, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

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

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. 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. Limon. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye. Ayes 38. Noes zero.

Senate Bill 690 by Senator Rubio in accolade to domestic violence. Senator Rubio, the floor is yours.

The measure is adopted. Moving on to file item number 114. Senator Rubio is prepared. Please read.

Thank you, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, today I'm proud to present SB 690, which builds off a previous piece of legislation that grants survivors of domestic violence extra time to heal, come forward after they've experienced domestic violence.

This Bill extends the statute to 15 because we've recognized, based on data, that the average years it takes for a victim of domestic violence to deal with their issue and their trauma, and being able to freely come forward after such a traumatic experience is eight to 10 years. That is why we're pushing forward for 15. More and more of us are recognizing the depth of the trauma, and in these cases, it increases the ability for these victims to seek justice.

Members data shows multiple reasons why survivors of abuse don't come forward, and it's. A variety of reasons. And all of us have different circumstances at home, and it includes age, time of the abuse, ongoing trauma. Some victims have children, and that's a really important issue to consider. Sometimes victims stay in relationships even if it's unsafe, because they're worried about their children. Simply, it's just not enough to have five years to come forward when there's so much to take care of. In America, we have an average of 50 women that get shot every month by an abuser.

We must continue to fight for victims and allow them enough time to come forward. I want to reiterate that victims still have to prove their case in court. It's not a he said, she said. And we remove those barriers, then they're more likely to come forward. Please consider giving the same protections that we give victims of sexual assault who have absolutely no barriers. And we've removed the statute of limitation altogether. I know there's other bills that are considering doing that for child victims. Let's give victims of domestic violence the same respect and consideration. With that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Madam President, Members, I rise in support of this Bill. And I wanted to reiterate some of the comments made by the author. If you read about the psychology of domestic violence and domestic abuse, you will see that the perpetrator breaks down the confidence of the person that their victim and the self esteem. So you break down that confidence of self esteem.

That perpetrator works to eliminate any source of their friendship network, their family and support network, and of course, any income so that they're completely dependent on the abuser. Now, all of these factors contribute to why. If we wonder why is it then that the survivors of such abuse don't come forward and don't bring their cases in what we consider to be a reasonable time? Well, they have no self esteem, they have no confidence, they blame themselves. They have no support network.

They're dependent on that person for income. There are so many other factors. And additionally, as she pointed out, and I'll say it a different way, the number one reason a woman is murdered in the United States, or not reason, but source, is an intimate partner. So during the time where there is still any kind of close contact with that abuser, there is a huge risk to the woman to coming forward.

It may take years for her to feel in a secure enough setting and secure away from that abuser that perpetrator to be able then to bring such a case forward. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Is there any further discussion or debate? Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Rubio, you may conclude.

Thank you. I want to thank my colleague from Berkeley for her comments and just adding a little bit more substance to why this Bill is critically important. And I also love to take the time to always encourage Members of the public and colleagues and anyone that's listening to please never use the statement, why didn't he leave? Or why didn't she leave? It must have not happened. There's reasons why they don't come forward and doesn't mean that they're not telling the truth. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. 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. Limon. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

39 ayes. No zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item 121. Senator Becker is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 721 by Senator Becker. An act related to artificial intelligence. Senator Becker, the floor is yours.

Good morning. I stand to present SB 721. This Bill creates the California Interagency Artificial Intelligence Working Group to work on the implications of safeguards for AI technology. Increased transparency in the creation, deployment of AI will ensure ethical use and public trust in the technology. It's important that as we continue to invest in innovation and new technology, we ensure the path forward does not create undue harm. I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Are there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate seeing no one, 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. Laird aye. Limon. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Jones. Limon.

Ayes 38. No zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item 122. Senator Glazer. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 724 by Senator Glazer. In accolade to the Political Reform Act of 1974. Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. Hey, listen, the classic question we ask on most bills that come before this floor is what problem are we trying to solve? That's the classic question. We get a lot of proposed laws, and that brings the heart of the matter right before us. So I'm going to explain now the answer to that. But first, set the stage. This is a disclosure Bill. That's all it is. It's about disclosure. We have rules about disclosure.

Those who want to engage in politics, in lobbying. We have rules. And here's the two of the rules, and it'll explain why this Bill is necessary. The first rule is that if you're trying to influence someone who's on the ballot, if you don't say that their name and defeat them, if it's 45 days before the election, you still have to disclose your engagement in that election. Okay?

Now, on the lobbying side, if you're trying to lobby this Legislature, the disclosure rules say that if it's very specific that you're trying to lobby on a Bill, you have to disclose. All right? Now, what happened last year is that an interest group who didn't want to disclose took advantage of those laws to find the gap.

The gap between the 45 days before the election, that someone's on the ballot and the gap that you're not going to say that we want that person to vote for or against a Bill that's specifically on the floor of the Senate or the Assembly.

So this Bill before you closes that gap, expands the disclosure requirements so that those people who want to influence us and our work, whether it's because of an election or because of a Bill, have to disclose who they are and where that money is coming from. That's the Bill before you that I respectfully ask for your consideration and an aye vote.

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

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins aye. Becker aye. Blakespear aye. Bradford aye. Caballero aye. Cortese aye. Dahle. Dodd aye. Durazo aye. Eggman aye. Glazer aye. Gonzalez aye. Grove. Hurtado aye. Jones. Laird aye. Limon. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen. Niello. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk aye. Ayes 32, no zero.

The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 125. Senator Umberg. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 758 by Senator Umberg, an act relating to firearms. Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and colleagues, my notes here say that this is Gun Trafficking Prevention Act and its an Irwin Noak BIll. So in addition to being an Irwin Bill, in addition to being an Irwin Bill, what this Bill does is this Bill addresses in some part the issue of illegal weapons being purchased, or at least weapons that would be illegal in California, being purchased out of state, and being brought to California for resale posts.

A sign at the border that says, hey, you can't bring weapons that are illegal in California into California, and also makes it illegal for someone to purchase a weapon in California knowing was brought into California illegally I urge an aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil. Limon. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Smallwood-Cuevas aye.

Ayes. 30. No, six. The measure passes. Members are going to go back in the file to file item number 83, Senator Atkins is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 447 by Senator Atkins. In accolade to economic development. Madam Pro TEM, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President, colleagues, I rise to present SB 447, and this Bill will list the travel ban and create in its place the Bridge Project, which will be used to promote a nonpartisan marketing in other states that would emphasize the value of inclusion and acceptance of the LGBTQ plus community. It's important that we acknowledge the meaningful impact that the travel ban has had, particularly early in its implementation.

AB 1887 helped raise awareness regarding LGBTQ discrimination and even gave states like North Carolina and Georgia some pause about their discriminatory laws. Unfortunately, in the years since the travel ban's passage, states have continued to enact discriminatory laws, and the list of banned states has ballooned to 23. In many instances, the travel ban has inadvertently caused California to isolate our own services and citizens in a time when we're leading the nation in ensuring inclusivity and freedoms.

Researchers, many of whom are seeking to analyze and shed light on discrimination in states subject to the travel ban are unable to use state funds to travel to those states for study or to present their findings to others in their fields. Several state University athletic programs have also had to adjust to AB 1887 and secure private funds for out of state travel. There's also the impact on California's effects to be a beacon of reproductive freedom and help those in other states obtain care.

SB 447 rethinks our approach. It would lift the current travel ban, put in its place the Bridge Project building, and reinforcing inclusive, diverse, gender-supportive quality. The intent of the Bridge Project is to target audiences in states that have established discriminatory laws with compelling messaging regarding anti-discrimination, to open hearts and minds, and to help our LGBTQ plus folks in other states feel less isolated and alone.

One thing that is really important to note, the Bill prohibits Bridge Project marketing campaigns from promoting a political purpose or featuring any elected official or candidate for elected office. It would focus on issues, not politics, messages that encourage kindness, compassion, and peace. I've had several positive conversations with other legislators and advocates who support AB 1887 and who agree that now it's time to lift the ban and replace it with a new approach.

These discussions are ongoing, and I look forward to working with stakeholders as the Bill moves through the process. Colleagues, SB 447 or the Bridge Project is the positive approach and the positive tool that we need for California. It's the positive message that the rest of the nation needs to hear, see, and feel. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate seeing none, please call the 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. McGuire aye. Menjivar aye. Min aye. Newman aye. Nguyen no. Niello no. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto no. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab aye. Wiener aye. Wilk no.

Please call the absent Members.

Limon. Ochoa Bogh no.

Ayes 31, noes eight. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 84. Madam Pro TEM is prepared. Please read

Senate Bill 450 by Senator Atkins. in accolading to land use. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, colleagues, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present SB 450. Many of you will recall a Bill I previously authored, SB 9, the California Home Act, which was signed into law in 2021. SB 9 sought to widen access to housing for California's working families by stream owning a homeowners. I'm going to emphasize homeowners ability to build a duplex or split their own residential lot, allowing for up to four units.

Unfortunately, in the 15 months since it became law, we've seen a number of local jurisdictions take some creative license with it, either by ignoring the new law in its entirety or imposing overly burdensome standards that seek to discourage the housing options provided by SB 9. This Bill, SB 450, would increase the effectiveness of SB 9 by improving access and certainly or uncertainty for homeowners who wish to use the provisions of that law and increase the enforcement of existing law. This Bill enjoys a broad base of support, and with that, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any?

Discussion or debate? Seeing none, please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Becker. Glazer. Limon.

Ayes 30. No. Seven. The measure passes, and the next Bill is file item number 87. Please read.

Senate Bill 487 by Senator Atkins, in accolade to abortion.

Madam ProTEM, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President colleagues, I am presenting SB 487. It's focused on abortion provider protections. It's a critical component of California's efforts to shield and enhance access to reproductive services and abortion care. To put it simply, this Bill is needed to help protect providers who provide abortion and gender affirming care to people from out of state from additional sanctions.

The aftermath of the Dobbs decision overruling Roe not only eliminated 50 years of reproductive freedom, but it also emboldened states to enact their own bans and restrictions, with many passing laws to target providers. While many of the states with abortion bans do have limited exceptions, providers are becoming increasingly wary and discouraged from entering the reproductive health field with a shortage of access to care in other states.

California is seeing people who need abortion care coming to our state because they can't find a provider or can't find anyone willing to take the risk in their home state. We're also seeing some of our providers traveling to other states to provide abortion care services.

The purpose of SB 487 is to protect California healthcare providers who are willing to take risk by providing abortion care and gender affirming care in other states from additional sanctions, as well as providers who provide those services in California for people from out of state. This Bill, in essence, would shield providers from retaliation and repercussions so that there's no disruption in their ability to perform abortion care.

In California, where abortion care is legal and enshrined in our state constitution, SB 487 is narrowly crafted and in no way limits or restricts all of our usual consumer protections or the ability of the Medi-Cal program to terminate providers for other non-abortion healthcare reasons. Because in California, abortion is health care, and our providers deserve peace of mind, not persecution. So I respectfully ask for your support.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Durazo aye. Jones no. Limon.

Ayes 31, noes eight. The measure passes. Members, we're going to go back to the end of where we left off, which is file item number 126. Senator Portantino. He is prepared.

Senate Bill 765 by Senator Portantino, in accolade to teachers.

Senator Portantino, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and Members, this Bill seeks to help retired teachers come back to teaching during a time of teacher need. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any Member that would like it? Pull for separate vote saying none. Seeing no objection. Ayes 39, no, zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 142. Senator Umberg. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 22 by Senator Umberg. In accolade to courts and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Umberg.

Thank you. Madam President and colleagues, this is the third of three remote access bills with respect to court efficiency. This deals with juveniles and mentally ill individuals who are seeking to be able to be present in court for purposes for example, in terms of those who are mentally ill, to assess their competency. Also to assess whether or not continued, for example, treatment, confinement is necessary just by way of example. There are only five state mental hospitals here in California.

And if you are, for example, in Napa State Hospital, and you have been committed to that hospital from, say, Monterey County, if you don't have remote access, it would require that the sheriff from Monterey go to Napa, pick you up, bring you to jail, have you spend a night in jail, then make an appearance either that day or the next day. Go back to jail, then go back to the hospital in Napa. It's almost inhumane to require that. I urge an aye vote.

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

Allen aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta aye. Ashby aye. Atkins. 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. Newman. Nguyen aye. Niello aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla aye. Portantino aye. Roth aye. Rubio aye. Seyarto aye. Skinner aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Stern aye. Umberg aye. Wahab. Wiener aye. Wilk aye.

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Durazo. Nguyen. Newman. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab aye.

Ayes 35, no zero. The measure passes on the urgency. Ayes 35, no zero. On the measure. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 149 Senator Glazer. He is prepared.

Please read Senate Bill 683 by Senator Glazer. In accolade to business. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President, Members, we had a discussion earlier today about making reservations on the internet and the various challenges that come into play when that very popular way of making reservations happens for you and for many of our constituents. So how many of you have done that for a lodging establishment or a short term rental establishment, thinking you had a really affordable price?

And then by the time you got to the end of the process, all of a sudden, these fees pop up, these extra expenses pop up, and it's a lot more expensive than you were even told. And how many have gone to rental establishments, hotels, and they add on fees at the front desk, a resort fee, some other fee that you didn't know anything about.

So this Bill, SB 683, would just require hotels, short term rentals and third party booking services to display the total cost of the stay. That's it. Total cost. So everybody could know up front. You can't mislead people. The Bill would improve consumer protection, prevent confusion by misleading prices. The Bill I understand, has support on both sides. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate saying none? This Bill is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there anybody that would like to object? Seeing no objection. Ayes 39 no. Zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 160. Senator Becker is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 48 by Senator Becker. In accolade to energy.

Senator Becker.

Friends if we're going to do what we need to do for the state and for the planet, we need to be looking at our greenhouse gas emissions, holistically. And I think that's what we're doing here in this body. So we're going to do that. Buildings are one of the big ones. Strong building codes have dramatically improved the efficiency of new buildings. But the state also needs a policy for tackling existing buildings. And that's what this Bill is tackling.

The Bill uses what is emerging as the best practice across the country benchmarking data that we already collect to achieve the state's targets for energy efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reduction. It only applies to large buildings, so it's not going to pack smaller buildings or single-family homes. And these large buildings, commercial buildings of 50,000 sq ft or more, they count for 53% of our total space, but they actually count for 5% of our state's emissions.

So 19 million tons of CO2 a year are come from these large commercial buildings. 50,000 sq ft or more. The Bill is only calling for CSC to propose a strategy. So once that strategy is received, we'll have an opportunity to review the plan and decide whether to authorize the CDC to take action on it. But California can follow the example of other states, including Washington, Colorado. Cities like New York City, Washington, DC.

And the City of Chula Vista here in California, who've enacted these kind of building performance standards, leveraging benchmarking data to improve the efficiency of older buildings and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil no. Atkins. Rubio aye.

Ayes 30, noes nine. The measure passes. Moving on to file item 168, Senator Cortese. He is prepared.

Senate Bill 94 by Senator Cortese in accolade to sentencing.

Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam President and Members of rights to present SB 94, which would allow judges the ability to review life without parole sentences for individuals who have served at least 25 years of their sentence and were sentenced for offenses with special circumstances. Committed before June 5 of 1990. These cases represent a very narrow population that consists of the most elderly individuals behind bars.

Many of these individuals have shown decades of exemplary behavior, participate in extensive positive programming, and have devoted themselves to becoming positive members of society. Additionally, research conclusively demonstrates that there's little risk for elderly individuals to re-offend or recidivate upon release. According to CDCR, California Static Risk Assessment Tool, 88% of people serving life without parole have been assessed with the lowest risk score on that scale. Elderly inmates eligible for parole under SB 94 would face three levels of intense evaluation.

First, the judge, which would have to grant a petition. If he grants a petition, the judge, he or she would then hold a hearing. That hearing, according to the California Constitution, would require notice to victims, and victims would have the opportunity to make a statement. If that goes well for the felon, that individual would then be eligible for a parole board hearing. And if the parole board grants parole, then the Governor would need to agree that the individual is fully rehabilitated.

So there's three steps, maybe four, if you count the petition, that could be denied in the first place. Statistically, the Parole board is far more likely to deny parole than granted. I think we all know that. But the actual statistics are that the board only grants parole to approximately 16% of petitioners inmates who demonstrate their complete rehabilitation under the parole board's. Severe scrutiny, as I said, would then advance to the governor's review.

Again, the Governor would review each case individually and would be ultimately accountable for granting inmate parole. This Bill creates a process for the judicial review of cases that have not been looked at in decades.

I want to make something clear because it's been brought up by multiple Members of this House, and that is the notion of a carve-out for shorthand, what we sometimes call cop killers, which is actually a penal code section that deals specifically with special circumstances related to peace officers, other public officials, and so on. That penal code will be amended into the Bill as a carve-out in First Committee in the Assembly. Should we get it off the floor here today?

Again, I mentioned victims rights to participate in a hearing that's already constitutionally granted. There would be a maximum under this Bill of three efforts to petition a judge for a hearing after three, and they have to be three years apart. It's the way the Bill is written. You're out of chances to even get a petition heard by a judge. With that, I'll stop. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Newman.

Thank you, Madam President. So I'm one of those Members who had some concerns about some of the details. And I do appreciate the author's willingness, one, to take that amendment to exempt for, want a better term, cop killers. And I do appreciate the work you're trying to do here, especially when you consider this was during an era where very little nuance was granted in the course of certain trials.

So you've got inmates who, unfortunately, looking back pre 1990, they would be treated very differently today, and we're aware of that. But these are challenging measures. So to the author, you and I have had a conversation. I want to be clear again on the record. There's some concern about different categories of crimes. I appreciate you including some and specifically an instance where somebody was a participant in the murder of multiple people, a mass murder of three or more.

And so looking for your commitment here, if and when it passes from this House to work on an amendment that would specifically exempt anybody who murdered multiple victims.

And I actually never asked the author question. I'd like to ask the author question.

Would you take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. And thank you, my colleague from Sierra. What do you think about that? So, Senator Cortese, you know, do appreciate your thoughtfulness throughout and how would you respond to that?

The first of all, I appreciate you and others having brought that issue up as well. It had not been brought up before four today. Otherwise I can assure you, we would have attempted to deal with it. For example, just to exhibit that good faith, the issue of serial killers was brought up earlier in the process prior to four today. And we recently took amendments on that issue to remove all death penalty cases from the Bill, which automatically then deals with the serial killer issue.

I am committed to going back to work with our team, which includes legal experts and alleged counsel, to come up with an amendment that deals with what we commonly call mass shootings, but mass killings, and try to do that in a way that wouldn't disadvantage somebody who deserves review. But the issue is a good one and it should be addressed and we will address it. Also, our goal will be to have that addressed in First Committee in the Assembly.

I do appreciate that on my own time. Other colleagues suggested as a prospective amendment changing the age parameter to an age of 65 or above. I do appreciate your response that in any event, this is pre 1990 crimes. Anybody who's going to be pursuing this course would be over 55 at this point. And to be clear, it's a process, it's not an outcome. This simply creates an opportunity for them to petition for parole hearings. So with your sort of thoughtful consideration, your willingness to make these amendments, I'll be supporting the Bill today.

Thank you, Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Madam President. Members I also rise in support of the Bill and I appreciate the comments by our colleague from Orange County regarding those amendments that he would seek. I wanted to bring up, and if it were my Bill, I would probably be utilizing a year a little different than 90. I might even go to 2000. But our author here has a Bill that is quite reasonable in looking at only those people who are sentenced to life without parole in that year or earlier.

Now, what I'm going to describe to you is I happen to be on an email list at Stanford Law School, has a clinic at this school where law students engage. They look for unique cases, mostly life without parole cases that were sentenced obviously under a different time. And just recently I received an email from them about a person that was sentenced as life without parole in 1998. That person was a trans woman.

And of course, recall, this is 1998, so there was little acceptance, recognition, sympathy, empathy, what have you, for a trans person at that time. This person, they ended up under three strikes. They had somewhat considered more minor felonies up to the point where they got the life without parole. And if they were to be sentenced today, they would only receive six months in county jail.

This person, Alejandra, served 25 years before in male prison as a trans woman before the law students were able to successfully petition the court and have that sentence reviewed and the circumstances and all of the rest. So the reason I'm supporting this Bill is because many things have changed since the time that the folks that the Bill by our colleague from San Jose is addressing to us many things about our sentencing practices, our understanding of the circumstance of the person, everything about it has changed.

And the ability for our parole board to review these individuals is appropriate. And of course, as has been pointed out, the parole board can still deny there is nothing in this Bill that requires the parole board to release the person, still has to be deemed by them to not be a threat to public safety.

So I think this is a reasonable measure to allow for such a review when we have had so many circumstances change and especially with the other safeguards that the author has put in and has committed here on the floor to continue to put in. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Senator Skinner. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank the Senator for just being open to have discussions and work on his Bill. I know that from my perspective, victims are very important as it pertains to the conversation. It is really difficult, especially when they've experienced very traumatic assaults or crimes, to have to relive it through just sheer circumstance of having their either murder or abuser or what have you come out.

So I just really want the author to continue to consider just a way of strengthening a little bit of that in terms of maybe notification to victims. And I know that they already have the ability sometimes to come and provide victims impact statements, but sometimes it's not that easy. And so there's a framework that we can work on to ensure that victims are protected, families are protected, they're given notifications. So it doesn't become such a hard circumstance when they hear about it.

So just, if we can continue to work on that, I will be supporting the Bill. Thank you for the amendments that you've already offered, but that issue continues to really weigh heavy on my heart, making sure the victims perspectives are taken into consideration.

Thank you, Senator Wiener.

I thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of SB 94. There's been a fair amount of misinformation about this Bill online. And I think it's really important for people to understand that this Bill does not automatically release anyone from prison. This is a multi-step process. These are only individuals who have spent a huge amount of time in prison. They are likely to be on the older side, and we have a fairly geriatric prison population at this point. They can petition the court.

The court can go through a whole process with opposition if the government opposes to look at the facts and circumstances of this person's record in prison over decades, what their disciplinary history or lack thereof is, their rehabilitation, and so on and so forth. And then if the court decides to resentence, that does not mean that they are released. All that does is provide that instead of life without parole, they have the possibility of parole.

So they can go through the same parole process that other people go through, and they have to petition for parole and so on and so forth. So this is an enormous process, even as outlined in this Bill. But I think it's important for people to understand that this is not just via this Bill releasing anyone. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Allen.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the Senator from Berkeley did a great job of explaining why it's important to pass something like this. I do want to associate myself with the line of questioning from the Senator from Orange County, Senator Newman. And I'm certainly happy to support the Bill today, give the author the opportunity to work on some of these issues as it goes over the Assembly. But I'm very hopeful that you're going to address the issues that were raised by the Senator over in the Assembly before if it is ever to come back. So thank you.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam President. Question of the author.

Will you take a question? Yes, he will.

Thank you, sir. I know that you made a comment in your opening statements that you took out or carved out egregious crimes against law enforcement. There are still some things in there that give me grave concern, and I wanted to know if they were part of the carve out, too, lying in weight, murder through poison, raping their victim while torturing their victim. And I'll just start with those. Those four. Are those four still included on letting people out?

Or are those included in your because they wouldn't necessarily be life. They'd be life without parole, possibly a parole not of death penalty cases. Does that make sense? I hope right?

Those would be special circumstances that would be associated with a life without parole sentence. We do nothing to change those special circumstances in the Bill, as some of the other speakers have said. This Bill I don't want to say simply because each one of these cases is going to be a complex issue, but what this Bill does procedurally is allows somebody who's been incarcerated for at least 25 years factually, chronologically, at this point, a pre 1990 would be longer than 25 years.

You're talking about someone in the mid their mid 1950s would have the ability to petition a judge not to argue whether or not special circumstances were present during the original crime, but to present any kind of evidence in an evidentiary hearing. Should the judge grant that, to argue for the right to go before a parole board.

If he or she decides the petition is not warranted and a hearing is not warranted, the individual would have two more opportunities over the next six years, three years apart, to ask a judge again for the opportunity to seek parole. The youngest people at this point on LWAPP would be 65 years old at this point. The average age on LWAPP right now is 63 years old.

These are older people who would get three chances, essentially over nine years, to ask for the right to go for a parole board. And a judge would have the right in each and every case to say no if the judge thought that something about this underlying circumstance of the case should preclude that, or the individual's level of rehabilitation should preclude that.

Thank you. On my own time, I thank the author for the response. I really do. It did confirm what I thought the Bill was that it's based on age of the individual and length of time in prison versus the circumstances that put him there in the first place. And we're talking about releasing or having the possibility of releasing some of the most egregious criminals in the history of the State of California. And I'd respectfully ask for a no vote.

So any further discussion or debate any further discussion or debate saying none, Senator, you may conclude.

Thank you. Madam President, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Caballero. Eggman. Min. Portaninto. Roth. Umberg.

Ayes 21, noes 12. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 183. Senator Laird is prepared.

Senate Bill 272 by Senator Laird in accolade to sea level rise.

Senator Laird, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, if any of you come to my office, you will see the campaign sign from my first council race, which has as its insignia the lighthouse. My logo was the lighthouse in Santa Cruz. This week, amazingly, the City Council there had a discussion, as that point has been completely undermined and the lighthouse is not going to be safe over time about whether to move it inland. And the rising seas and coastal erosion have changed our communities.

The atmospheric rivers this year cost $1.0 billion in damage in California, wiped away roads overtop sewers. Things fell in the ocean. Neighborhoods flooded. This Bill, Senate Bill 272, requires a local government within the coastal zone or jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission, BCDC to address sea level rise planning and adaptation through either an existing local coastal program or a San Francisco Bay shoreline coastal resiliency plan by January 2034, with a goal of completing them by January 29.

This is an identical reintroduction of a Bill last year which the Governor vetoed because he said there was not money in the budget. Then we were hit by 12 atmospheric rivers. I will continue to work with the Governor to clarify eligible funding sources, as well as engaging with the Administration and legislative leadership to make sure the coastal resiliency money stays in the budget. My office work with stakeholders to remove concerns. As a result, opposition has been removed. There's no registered opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Dahle aye. Nguyen. Seyarto. Wilk aye.

Ayes 36, noes one. The measure passes. Members are going to temporarily pass 185. Move on to 194 by Senator Skinner. She is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 343 by Senator Skinner. An act relating to child support. Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thanks Madam President, Members, SB 343 makes some necessary changes to California's child support laws to conform with federal rules. And this Bill has support support. I ask for your aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Discussion or debate saying none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection saying none. Ayes 39. No. Zero. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number 200. Senator Eggman is prepared. Please read Senate Bill 355 by Senator Eggman. An act relating to electricity. Senator Eggman. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Senate Bill 355 by Senator Eggman. An act relating to electricity.

Senator Eggman.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

SB 355. And here for the freshmen, this is an extension Bill of one I did in 2015. So a Bill I did in 2015 expanding or providing opportunities for Low income housing projects to have solar rooftop on their rooftops. And that benefit go right to the tenants. This Bill expands the pool of those that can apply for it to be able to make sure that we fully use the program as it was intended. I respectfully ask for your vote.

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

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

Please call the absent members.

Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Atkins. Cortese. Aye. Grove. No. Min. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Nguyen. No.

Aye's 31. No's seven. The measure passes. Members, moving on to file number 203.

Senator Wiener. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 365 by Senator Wiener. An act relating to civil procedure.

Senator Wiener, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam President and colleagues. I rise to present SB 365, which will prevent corporations from delaying justice for consumers, public entities and workers. This Bill closes a legal loophole that allows corporations to automatically delay court proceedings, often by years, by filing an appeal after a judge has denied their motion to compel arbitration. Even if that motion to compel arbitration was completely frivolous, they can simply file an appeal, and no matter what the merit, can delay justice by years.

Current law allows corporations to simply freeze these lawsuits. For example, the Attorney General of California never even signed an arbitration agreement with Lyft and Uber. Yet those corporations sought to did appeal their denied frivolous motions to compel arbitration, and that resulted in an automatic stay of those trial court proceedings.

SB 365 will simply provide trial courts with the discretion once an appeal of the denial of a motion to compel is filed, they will have the discretion to decide whether to stay the trial court proceedings or to allow those proceedings to move forward. They can look at the facts of that situation. This is a long overdue reform to our civil justice system, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins. Dodd. Aye. Glazer. Hurtato. Aye. Nguyen. No. Rubio. Aye.

Aye's 29. No's nine. The measure passes. Moving on to file item number two. Five. Senator Wahab is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 404 by Senator Wahab, an act related to underage marriage.

Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I'm here to speak to you guys about SB 404, the Safe Minors Act, which will ensure that children in California cannot be coerced into illegal marriages. As many of you know, current law in California requires minors to participate in a rigorous process in order to obtain permission to marry.

While some--myself included--have concerns with minors getting married under any circumstance, California does have some guardrails to protect children. When married legally, minors receive information about their rights as an emancipated minor, information about how they can separate from their marriage, and/or provided access to the National Domestic Violence Hotline and National Sexual Assault Hotline. However, current law does not account for instances in which a third party arranges or officiates an underground marriage between a minor and another person.

This gap in existing law puts children of all ages at risk of being coerced or forced into a marriage by a third party without the protection provided through California's legal marriage licensing process nor information about it. SB 404 would align illegal child marriage with other types of illegal marriage by making it a misdemeanor for any person to willfully arrange or officiate a marriage between a minor and another person that occurs outside of the confines of existing marriage licensing laws.

While I understand that some may have concerns about the creation of a new crime, I firmly believe that the State of California should make every effort to protect children from opportunities for abuse and coercion. This bill will help protect the well-being of children in California, ensure that they have the opportunity to make informed decisions about their lives and their futures free from undue influence or coercion. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none, ayes: 39; noes: zero. The measure passes. Moving on to File Item number 206. Senator Ashby is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 408 by Senator Ashby, an act relating to foster youth.

Senator Ashby, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President. Today I rise to present SB 408. This is a foster care prevention bill to help youth and families in crisis by deploying ten regional health teams across the state that will provide trauma-informed services for a myriad of care systems. I urge an aye vote.

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

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

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

Please call the absent Members.

Atkins? Eggman? Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Padilla? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye.

Ayes: 39; noes: zero. The measure passes. File Item Number 207. Senator Becker is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 410 by Senator Becker, an act relating to electricity.

Senator Becker.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Thank you to present--the opportunity to present SB 410. The core responsibility of our utilities is to connect things to the grid, things like new housing developments, home electrification upgrades, EV chargers, et cetera. Unfortunately, California's electricity monopolies are failing to perform these core responsibilities, particularly PG&E. Californians are experiencing extreme delays in the time it takes for utilities to complete these energization projects, some even up to six to nine months.

It should not take six months for our utility to upgrade your distribution line. It's time for us to hold PG&E and others accountable. This bill does that. It requires the PC to plan and set timelines for how to accommodate these growing electricity grid connection requests in order to reduce delays and preemptively prevent future delays. This foresight planning will ensure California electricity customers are provided with a timely and necessary electricity service to help the state meet our climate goals and housing needs. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. I voted for this in Energy or EQ or wherever it was at, but it got amended in appropriations to take out the working group, and at the end of the day, setting a deadline and forcing--we all understand that there's issues, but a lot of that has to do with equipment. It has to do with a lot of other things other than just the utilities not doing what they're supposed to do.

And there was another bill that we had a huge fight over, and this was the best option, but now it's been amended to make this bill where I can't support it today. For those reasons, I ask for a no vote on this bill.

Is there any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, Senator Becker, you may conclude.

Well, thank you. I too, like that provision. I do think there will be opportunities to collaborate. Certainly that's the spirit of this bill is to get everyone together to understand all the reasons for delays, and certainly--especially with net energy metering changing--we've had a rush of solar applications, et cetera. So that's really the spirit of the bill to get everyone together, the workers, the management, everyone at the table to discuss this, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Please call the roll.

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

Please call the absent Members.

Alvarado-Gil? Atkins? Padilla? Padilla? Aye.

Ayes: 30; noes: eight. The measure passes. Moving on to File Item Number 208. Yeah. Okay. We'll go back and call the absent Members on this item.

Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Atkins?

Ayes: 31; noes: eight. The measure passes. Moving on to File Item Number 208 by Senator Allen. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 414 by Senator Allen, an act relating to climate change.

Senator Allen, the floor is yours.

Hey, Madam President. This bill asked the Air Resources Board in consultation with the CPUC and the CEC to develop an assessment of specified hydrogen applications and directs the assessment to include a rank prioritization of those applications. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any discussion or debate on this item? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using the unanimous roll call? Seeing none, ayes: 39; noes: zero.

The measure passes. Moving on to File Item Number 209 by Senator Laird. He is prepared. Please read.

Senate Bill 416 by Senator Laird, an act relating to greenhouse gases.

Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Senate Bill 416 codifies and expands Governor Brown's 2012 Executive Order which requires new or majority-renovated state buildings to attain LEED silver certification or higher. This bill goes further and requires LEED gold certification and higher. Energy use from buildings is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California.

It's clear we have to work to make them more efficient. The state has 273 LEED-certified buildings, 32 percent of which are gold or higher. This includes a swing space which is certified LEED platinum. This bill has no registered opposition and has had no no votes. I would ask for your aye vote.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam President. Question of the author?

Will you take a question?

Yes.

He will.

Were you the Secretary of Natural Resources under Governor Brown?

Yes. Was that a leading question?

My real question is, I understand that the bill would require the LEED gold certification standard for now new state buildings that are over 10,000 feet and the swing space you just said in your opening--that it does qualify and that it does meet the LEED platinum standards above the gold standards. So I was wondering if the swing space elevators are characteristic to the standard in which you are putting forward now that takes us a long time to get to our office. Just curious. Asking for 39 other colleagues on the floor.

And all our staff. More importantly.

Yes. Yes.

Well, what does it matter if it's LEED or platinum? The elevators are still going to operate the same. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Is there any further discussion or debate? Seeing no further discussion, Senator Laird, you may conclude.

With debate like that, how could you oppose this bill? I appreciate the additional comments and ask for an aye vote.