Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, a quorum is present. Would our members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery, please rise. We'll be led in prayer this morning by Senator Laird, after which we're going to ask you to remain standing and will be led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag by Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. Marie Curie once said, nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more so that we may fear less. Gracious and merciful God, lead us out of the familiar setting of our doubts and fears, beyond our pride and our need to be secure. To that space where we can link our passions with courage, our hopes with discipline, and our love with persistence.

Help us to listen so that we may understand the cries of the brokenhearted and the struggles of those in danger of losing hope. May those who look to us for leadership experience that courage and confidence. That is our call. Amen.

Fellow members, guests beyond the rail, please place your right hand over your heart, face the flag and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Members, at this time we're going to recess the regular session and convene the first extraordinary session. The prayer and the pledge will be deemed complete. Reports of committees. We have a report at the desk. Secretary, please read.

Mr. President, the Committee on Appropriations to which was referred SBX 12 reports the same. Back with the recommendation due pass, Chair Portantino.

Thank you. Motions and resolutions and notices. Senator Skinner?

Thank you. Sorry, one moment.

Members, there is a resolution at the desk requesting permission to suspend the joint rules as they relate to Senate bill 2 in the first extraordinary session. This request has been approved by the Committee on Rules. I move that the Senate rules be suspended as they relate to SB two in the first extraordinary session.

Or I'm sorry, that's my second act.

Senator Skinner, we're going to do them one at a time.

Yes. Thank you. So I will first raise, as I did, the resolution at the desk requesting permission to suspend the joint rules as they relate to Senate Bill two in the extraordinary session. And that request has been approved by the Committee on Rules.

Senator Jones, for what purpose?

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the motion. There's no rush on this bill. We have plenty of time this year to fully consider this bill and ask for a no vote on the motion.

Senator Skinner's asking for a yes vote. Senator Jones is asking for a no vote. Secretary, please read the resolution.

Resolved, that joint rule 37.4 be dispensed with as required.

Secretary, please call the roll. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call] That's everybody.

Ayes 30, noes 8. The rules are suspended. Now we're moving to Senate rules. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I move the Senate rules be suspended as they relate to SB two in the first extraordinary session. This request has been approved by the Committee on Rules.

Senators Jones?

Thank you, Mr. President. I also object to this motion and would ask for no vote as well. Thank you.

Senator Skinner is asking for aye vote. Senator Jones is asking for a no vote. Is there any objection to applying the previous roll call to this measure? Hearing and seeing none. Ayes, 30, noes, eight. Senate rules are suspended now, Members, we're moving to file item one on the supplemental file. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill two by Senator Skinner. In accolade to energy.

Senator Skinner, when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. President, Members. I'm pleased to present SBX 12, a Bill that is designed to protect Californians against oil company practices that could lead to outrageous gasoline price hikes. Prices like we experienced last summer and fall. We had an excellent hearing yesterday before the Energy Committee on this Bill, which was a very productive discussion. And as I opened, the shocking prices that Californians experienced last summer and fall were a gallon of gas cost in the range of 6, 7, 8 dollar.

And in some places, some very rural places where there are few gas stations, you could find the gasoline at $9 a gallon. These are prices that cannot be explained by the expected charges that California levies due to our clean air fuel blends and our infrastructure, road and street maintenance revenue measures. We know what that cost is. We can calculate it. And it does not equate to the average $2.61 higher price that was charged at our gas pumps compared to any other state in the nation.

And these prices came at a time when oil companies were pocketing record profits. In 2022 alone, oil companies reported more than 200 billion in profits. Chevron, for example, doubled their 2021 profits and boasted their outstanding results in one of their earnings calls. Californians deserve to be protected against any business that unscrupulously pads its profit at our expense, and SBX 12 is designed to do exactly that.

The Bill specifically creates the Division of Petroleum Market oversight within our California Energy Commission, and that body's responsibility would be to monitor California's petroleum market to ensure market participants play by the rules. It also adds a consumer fuels Advisory Committee with experts appointed by the Governor and the Legislature to interact with that division and use their expertise to help do the analysis that we will need.

It establishes new data reporting requirements on oil companies and refineries to provide that new division the information necessary to conduct an analysis. It gives the division subpoena power to ensure that we have the data and records needed to determine if there is a pattern of misconduct or if there is price manipulation. It also gives the division the authority to refer violations to the California Attorney General for prosecution if necessary.

This Bill also authorizes the Energy Commission to establish a maximum gross gasoline refining margin based on the analysis that is provided by the new division. And that analysis, of course, is based on the data that they've received and their expertise in reviewing it, accessing it, and then determining, or rather being able to advise the Energy Commission as to whether any practices seem amiss and if there is excessive prices that cannot be explained by the normal supply issues or market fluctuations.

So then it establishes the CEC to set a penalty after undertaking a public rulemaking process that can be levied when and only when the price of gasoline is determined to exceed the gross gasoline refining margin. And the Bill establishes the price penalty. The price gouging penalty fund in our state treasury, with the funds, if there ever is any, would be then appropriated by the Legislature for the purpose of addressing any consequences of price gouging.

The Bill also ensures that the Legislature receives an annual report, and it builds in a sunset where there is a requirement for the State Auditor to audit the program by March 12033 to determine whether the program is achieving the intended goals of reducing gasoline price spikes and stabilizing the gasoline fuel supply market.

And if that finding is not made, if that determination by the Auditor is that it is not achieving, that it requires the program to cease within 180 days, and, of course, the Legislature could act to cease it sooner. Now, let me be clear. This Bill does not require that a penalty be levied.

It sets up a structure that gives us the information that would be needed to determine whether there is price gouging and whether these spikes cannot be explained by activities that either our refineries or our oil companies happens by virtue of either supply issues or market fluctuations. As I said, it is only if it is analyzed and determined that there is no other explanation for such higher prices in California that a penalty would then be levied.

SBX 12 will help us hold big oil accountable to prevent future excessive profits at the expense of California families. And as a Legislature should do, it is our role to protect our residents from any practices of any business that may harm them. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion, Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise in opposition to the Bill, not because I want to pay $2.60 a gallon higher than they do across the nation. I think that is absurd. But the reason I rise in opposition to this Bill is that the California Legislature has many reasons why we pay a higher price. There's a higher tax, but there's also a lot of regulation that happens in California due to climate change. And our goals to wean us off of oil and gas.

We use 1.8 million barrels of oil in California every single day. Now, the Governor has done an Executive order to phase out the gas vehicles by 2035. We also have seen. So that's a goal, and we're moving towards that goal. We're telling these oil companies that we don't need them anymore. Well, I have news for you. By 2035, we will still be using probably at least a million barrels of oil every day. Every single person in the State of California relies on oil. I'm a farmer.

We use combustible diesel for our farm, and they will be using it in 2035. The technology is not there yet. We do not have the infrastructure, by the way, to electrify all of the California's combustible engines into electricity. So that's number one. We had 47 refineries in California, and we're down to 15 refineries today because we've told them that we're going to phase them out. 10 of those refineries actually do the special California blend, which only is sold in California.

Nowhere else in the world do they sell that blend. So are they gouging or not? That's the question of the day. And I sat through the first extraordinary hearing where we had the LAOs office, we had everybody there, and we had the public who talked. And we have all the environmental groups that are saying, yes, we want to get rid of oil. And by the way, I have no love for oil. I would love to have something that is better for the environment, but works.

But one of them said, if you ask Californians, it polls at 67%, that Californians want you to take the profits away and give it back to the people. That's redistributing wealth. Our constitution does not allow you as a Legislature to take somebody's profit and give it to somebody else. That's a takings. Now, what does this Bill do? Let's talk about this Bill for a minute. This Bill doesn't take profits. It gives the authority to the CEC to analyze and may take that.

That's the way you divert around the constitutionality of this Bill. But what does this Bill really do? This Bill allows the California Energy Commission taking the power away from this body and giving it to the Commission and allows them to regulate and run the business of the oil companies. Literally, they're going to.

In section two or Section three of this Bill, it says, the Commission, in consultation with labor and the Workforce Development Agency and labor industry stakeholders, shall consider ways to manage necessary refineries, turnarounds and maintenance. Now, I mentioned yesterday that I'm a farmer. We change the oil in our tractors every 250 hours because that's maintenance. But sometimes the engine blows up, and when the engine blows up, it doesn't work anymore, even though we maintenanced it. Right.

So you're going to now let the CEC tell these companies when they can do their maintenance and how they're going to do their maintenance, and they're going to try to schedule them because they think there's some manipulation in the market. Let's talk about manipulation. Many of you may recall the Hunt brothers, who cornered the silver market and drove silver from $5 to $40 an ounce.

That was manipulation of trading done by the future markets, which all commodities that we use every day in the world are traded on. The futures markets, wheat, lumber, oil, all traded on the market. That's what sets the futures, allow you to be able to stabilize the amount of product you're going to need to refine. Now, they got caught. They actually did break the law. They manipulated the market. The Attorney General has the ability today to investigate whether there's somebody manipulating the market.

That's what this Bill should be about, whether we are manipulating the market or not. Do we know that or not? We don't know. Not one shred of evidence in all the hearings came and said, we know where they're manipulating the market. Not one. Now, the Attorney General, after the Torrance refinery explosion, is investigating. And who is he investigating? Not the refinery, not the gas station owner.

He's investigating gas trading firms because they trade on the market and there are abilities to manipulate the market when you have natural disasters and you have a shortage in the market. So that's really who should be regulating this industry, is the AG's office. Bonta should be doing it, not the Legislature. Now, I want to say a few things about what we do regulate in California. We've went to public health care and has it gotten any better?

We're taking control of health care through this Legislature and through the Federal Government, and we're getting less health care. So if you think that regulating this industry by giving the power to the CEC is going to fix things, it's not. We want to go out and find out if they're really manipulating the market. And if they are, I want you to go after them. I want to go after them.

I don't like paying it, but we should look at the policies that come out of this Legislature that really caused the market to go up. Five refineries. We're the fourth largest economy in the world and we have five refineries that refine 95% of our special blends. In California. That's a big problem when you have no competition. Competition drives down the market. We have tried to manipulate the markets to help our air quality has.

The California Air Resources Board, during the last audit, has not done anything to help drive down emissions. There's a great example. The CPUC has failed and the CEC. We have a Bill coming so that they'll actually have to come in front of the Legislature so we can ask them questions. Members, we've seen a lot of legislation where it's taking the government and putting it into private businesses.

We had AB 2257 Holden, which is going to now get in between franchisees and franchisors and labor last year. We have a Commission for that. Look, I know this Bill is going to pass out here because it polls at 67%, but polling shouldn't be the reason why we do legislation. We should do legislation because it's righteous and right.

And we should go after bad actors like the Hunt brothers, who were bad actors, and we have the Federal Trade Commission for that, and we have the ability with attorney generals to do that. Now, as one of the eight Republicans on the floor, we weren't part of this negotiation, and that's fine. I consider myself a watchman on the wall.

I'm sounding the alarm that the policies that come out of here are not going to drive down the cost of gas, and the policies that we set by 2035 are not going to get us there because we have a lot of work to do in between. I suggest we look at better ways to actually get to our goals in a way that drives down the cost for these Californians that are suffering every day from the cost of everything going up in California.

It's because of our policies. I would just close by saying, if you want to know what socialism is, it's government running everything. We're supposed to be in a not socialistic environment in America. We have the constitution. We don't have the right to take private people's investments and earnings and redistribute them to somebody else. That's a takings under the Constitution.

Now, this Bill, I think it has some constitutionality problems, but it is going to a board where we're going to regulate and we're going to drive the cost up. At the same time, we're not going to help Californians. So that's the reason why I can't support this Bill, because it's not going to achieve what we want to achieve. We want to go after the bad actor, if there's a bad actor. But there's not been one shred of evidence that they've actually done that.

And the AG has that ability. So I thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to speak. And I know you're going to vote for it. But remember, at the end of the day, it's our policies and it's socialism. When you take control of companies and tell them how to run their companies, that is not American, that is not californian. And we need free markets and we need competition if you want to drive down the cost of the products that every single California needs.

Thank you. Senator Bradford, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. As cShair of the Senate Energy and Utilities Committee and communications, which hurt this Bill yesterday, I stand in support of SBX 12. I want to thank the author and the Senate working group for their diligent work and efforts to bring this measure before us today. This process has been faster than many of us would like, or that we're used to. But this is the nature of an extraordinary session.

I can assure everyone here today that many hours and weekends have been dedicated in discussion that have been poured into this Bill. We're using this expedited process because we have a duty to act on issues like that that has had tremendous impact on the lives of our constituents. This Bill is a much improved version of what we originally introduced, or even what we were discussing as late as last week.

The data transparency and watchdog provisions have been carefully crafted, and I'm confident that they will result in better oversight. That being said, the Bill before us is far from perfect. I want to reiterate the points I raised yesterday in yesterday's hearing. This body is not blameless when it comes to the situations that we find ourselves in today.

Our policies have contributed to the fact that we have fewer than half the refineries in this state that we had 20 years ago, causing us to have and to rely more on imports to meet our supply needs. And we make storage more difficult. And we're removing the option of strategic reserves during periods of unexpected scarcity. We should be careful not to conflate the factors that impact prices with market manipulation.

Nor do I think the Energy Commission has the expertise to regulate the timing of a refinery turnaround or maintenance. We've seen explosions in refineries, including the one at deterrence refinery, which is in my district. Workers safety and that of our communities should always come before cost reduction. Discussions will continue on these issues, and if cleanup language is necessary, it can be introduced. SB one X two will increase transparency and enhance the regulatory oversights of the oil refining industry to benefit all of California. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I too said in the hearing yesterday, and I had questions and comments from the author, and I would just like to reiterate some of those so that the full floor has the benefit of hearing what it was in this Bill several times. And I got up to, I think, 42 when I quit counting Oil producer. Producer is mentioned as someone, an entity that has to comply with the reporting processes and is accused in the language as price gouging.

I want to make sure that we understand the definition of oil producer. The definition of oil producer is a person or entity that takes oil from the ground. So they take it out of the ground, they produce oil from the ground, they send it to the refineries.

The refineries refine it with either special blend or regular blend, depending on what time of the year it is, those refineries hire what's called jobbers or transporters that charge per hour or per gallon of gas to deliver the oil to the retailer, which is like your normal, everyday, average gas retailer. That where you buy gas at a corner store, and then the consumer pays the prices that are from start to finish.

The only person or the only entity within that whole supply chain, and there's a few others in the middle of that, too. But the only entity that does not have any impact on price whatsoever in any way, shape or form, because producers are price takers, not price setters. When the market says it's $120 a barrel, they sell their oil for $120 a barrel.

When it says it's $20 a barrel or a negative impact, and they have to sell a product, they lose money on it because it takes so many dollars to produce it. It's set by a global market and a national market, and on a commodity, on a trade. So having explained all that to the full body of the floor, again, a question of the author.

Will you accept a question, Senator Grove?

Thank you, madam. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Senator, for accepting the question. Was it the intent or the understanding of putting producer someone that has no control over the price in this piece of legislation?

It is not the intention of the legislation to affect the type of producer that you are describing. And I think, as we all know, there are terms that we commonly use in our vernacular, and then there are terms that are referenced specifically to existing code. And it is very often that, not often, it is almost every Bill that's before us uses language and terminology that doesn't redefine the terminology, but that terminology is based on a definition in another existing code.

But to your point, as I committed yesterday in the energy Committee, if we find that there is any lack of clarity around that term and who we are tending to impact, then we absolutely will do fix that in cleanup.

Thank you for the response to your question, and I'm glad you brought up the code section, because the California Code of Regulations that we reference, and we have bills that reference this, because I do know there's interpretations. Know I might know. I say tomato, you say tomato. It's kind of the same thing.

But in the California Code of Regulations that actually reference in this Bill, the definition of oil producer means an operator firm that produces crude oil in California, California tidelands and outer California shelf adjacent to California tidelands in the amount greater to 20,000 barrels during a period of a month in the current preceding calendar year. So the definition of producer, oil producer is referenced in the California Code of Regulations. And that's under the definitions of specific definitions for purposes for reporting requirements.

And I have that if it would be helpful. But it does give you all the definitions specifically for the pieces for the oil producer referenced in this Bill. It makes me very nervous to think that we are going to penalize, I know that this body and this Governor has it out for the oil producers or oil producers producing 70% of the state's oil in this state. My producers are very nervous about this language, as they should be, because it affects them.

They would have to comply with all the reporting requirements, be subject to everything, when again, they don't set the price. They're price takers and not price setters. I also talked yesterday about the cost. California in the nation, if you look it up, is the highest gas tax state in the nation. And you look at the policies that are put forth to this building.

And I applaud the author when she said in her opening statements that we should protect the consumer against any practice that creates higher gas prices. And I would hope any practice, and I know you meant outside the building, but I would hope that we would take that internally because there are policies that get passed out of this building that create higher gas prices for our consumers.

When you look at the gas taxes, the highest in the nation, and you look at, it's about a dollar, 25 a gallon in total, the excise tax is 53.9 cents, highest in the nation. Federal one is the same as every other state. The low carbon fuel standard tax is state has that. The cap and trade program adds 21 cents. And that cap and trade tax goes up every single year because that's the way the wording and the legislation was into perpetuity.

I know you guys have constituents that also complain about the registration vehicle fees going up. That legislation, when it was passed, increases the cap and trade tax and our vehicle registration fees into perpetuity unless this Legislature acts to stop it. I also looked at some of the other capacity issues. My colleague from Bieber mentioned that we used to have 32 or 42 refineries. Well, we have eight. Now. There's technically nine. But one is closing down in order to not process crude oil into fuel.

So it's a capacity issue. Why did those refineries leave? Has anybody gone to talk to those refiners or the refiners to find out why they left and they went to Texas? There was a discussion yesterday on refiners selling byproduct of fuel to other exporting out of California and not keeping some of that gasoline here. And they made it sound like a bad thing.

But the bottom line is that you have to comply with California's stringent fuel requirements in the State of California due to policy coming out of this business. And if the product does not meet those standards, what are they supposed to do with it? Are they just supposed to store it for non use for Californians? Are they supposed to figure out a way to eliminate it?

So what they do is they sell a small percentage of it to states like Arizona, Nevada, and other locations that don't have refineries in their state. And they made it sound like that was a really bad thing. It's not a bad thing. We won't accept them and allow them to use it here. So what are they supposed to do with it? They export it, and yesterday they were demonized over it.

One of the things that's not mentioned in this Bill, and I really wish it was, you really focus a lot. I think it's on page 11. You focus a lot at the top and we don't have to go into it, but it talks about bringing refined products and tracking vessels from point of destination or point of origin to destination. Like tracking vessels.

Man, when I read that, I got so excited because, you guys know, I always mention that we import 53% of all crude that's produced in Ecuador, where they bulldoze down the rainforest. And they just killed the Indian tribal leader that was trying to. They shot him. Shot him on his hut step that was trying to file a lawsuit and stop drilling in Ecuador because of the rainforest issue, which is a natural sequestration site. So I was so excited when I read that.

But that's for refined fuel, so that means it's already gas when it comes here. We're not even tracking these vessels that go from Ecuador to here and trying to find the point of origin to this to California's ports. And I challenge all of you guys. It's a very interesting site. You should go on vesselfinder.com. You talk about manipulating the price in the market. When these ships again produced in Ecuador and other countries, predominantly by, will bring these, they will transport it from Ecuador to here.

Go to vesselfinder.com. That's it vesselfinder.com. All those little triangles that you see on that moving thing that are moving. It's vessels coming from other ports of origin around the country and they're circling around our know, when you ask about the explanation of high gas prices, why don't we investigate the fact that it's shown, and there is data out there.

Actually, the Mr. President, who's leading the dais today, has a colleague from Florida that actually has data that shows, which is really interesting, that those ships will circle outside our 12 mile radius inside of California's coastline. And when the price hits the right price, they will beeline it to our ports, offload it and sell it to us for a higher price, which causes a cost increase to our refiners, which causes a cost increase to our retailers. And so we're not even checking out that.

And that is one of the highest impacts that we have for highest gasoline prices, not to mention all the bunker fuel that they're burning out right inside our ocean where the wind, a 12 mile an hour wind or whatever could get to our shorelines. So I just think that there's a lot of things, there are some good things in this Bill that I really like. I mean, there are some good things in this Bill that I really like. And I am excited about a few things.

I do think the California Energy Commission, I know that there was a lot of issues or comments made yesterday about delegating it to an know. I don't know that I would send it to any other authority or any other agency, regulatory agency, other than the California Energy Commission. They actually take facts and data regarding energy. They really do. They take facts and data regarding energy and they don't have a predetermined outcome.

At least most of the commissioners that I've met with and spoke with, they understand in a very strong way that they can't have a predetermined outcome for a transition. And I know we talk about transition. I know the Governor talks about transition. I know everybody talks about a transition off of fossil fuels. We are in a transition mode off of fossil fuels. But we are not in the transmission mode that you guys think we're in.

We're in a transition of transitioning off of California-produced oil fuel for Californians by Californians in California, where we control the process to transitioning off of foreign products that come into this state where we control no process, no labor, no environmental safety, nothing. And we're destroying third-world countries because of it. And that's not a joke. We just passed a resolution by the author, Mr. Bradford.

Sorry, Senator Bradford, that is worried about the supply chain because of what's going on in the Democrat Republic, Republic of the Congo. It's the same thing with the oil that we bring here. And the bottom line is that we have an opportunity to make sure that Californians that consume 1.8 million barrels of oil every single day. That has not changed in 20 years. I don't care how much money you've put into green or renewable technologies. In my county, Kern, county, we're all of the above.

We are. This state has 58 counties and one county, my county produces 53% of the state's wind and solar. We produce 70% of the state's oil. So we're not saying we want all energy. We're good about that. But we need to look at supply chains, and we need to look at what's best for the consumer of the State of California. This Bill will add cost. It will reduce refinery capacity, which we already are down to, like I said, eight refineries. You'll Google it, it'll say nine.

You say, she's wrong. That refinery is changing over at the end of this year to a different type of fuel production, which is not to gasoline, to crude, refined gasoline. Like I said, there are a few things in there that I really like. I hate the idea. This is so rushed through the process. I mean, the language dropped on Monday. It's. How many pages? It's 40 plus pages. The language dropped on Monday, and the Committee was set for Wednesday.

It went through appropriations this morning at 7:38 o'clock, and now it's on the floor. That is a rushed process. There's no reason we have to rush this process. Yesterday, it was said several times in the Committee, this is the first of its time ever advancing, leading the way. All that terminology was used on this Bill, and we're rushing it in less than 10 days to get it off the floor and into the governor's office, respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. President. I also rise in opposition to SBX 12 and just want to share some brief thoughts. The governor's goal here, and I think all of our goal, actually, I think we share the goal of lowering the cost of fuel in California. But unfortunately, this isn't going to do that. This is not going to move us in that direction. This Bill will inevitably be either a tax increase or a fee increase, one of the two or both.

And we all kind of, I think, accept quietly and maybe not publicly. That's really where the Governor is pushing this. I think that's his goal, is to raise the cost of gasoline. I don't think most of us share that goal with the Governor, and I think we would like to work towards lowering the cost of gasoline for our constituents. If you don't want to increase the gas tax, and you want to lower gas prices. I recommend opposing this Bill.

As my colleague from Bieber pointed out, this is going to create a new government. There's no way a new government can be less expensive. As our colleague from Kern pointed out that we need to produce more of California's oil by Californians in California. If you're looking for a guaranteed way to lower the gas prices, I recommend instead supporting my Bill, which is SBX 11 which will suspend the gas tax, $1 per gallon per year. I just want to close with something that was covered this morning in the press. Mr. Speaker, permission to read, please.

Permission granted.

Thank you. And this underscores one of the points that our colleague from Kern mentioned regarding the process of this particular Bill. I'm reading from calm matters this morning. Reporting on the Committee hearing yesterday, the Democrats on the panel mostly used their time to monologue. This was after they said it was a lengthy hearing with a lot of back and forth and a lot of talking.

Many of them lamented the speed at which everything was moving, then justified their votes by pointing to internal deliberations that had been happening for months to how much better the new proposal was than its previous iteration, and that the urgency of acting on an issue that has slammed their constituents pocketbooks. Members, I want to read one phrase out of there, reread one phrase, so that it kind of sinks in to all of us. Deliberations, internal deliberations that had been happening for months.

Internal deliberations that have been happening for months. Members, each one of us are elected to this legislative body, and most of us have worked very hard to get here. We're elected to this body by almost a million Californians. A million Californians that expect us, when we come to the state capitol to represent them, that we will have their voice in mind when we go into Committee, when we come to the floor, when we have conversations with each other, they know we're not going to always agree.

That's the purpose of a representative republic that we serve in. But they expect their voice to be heard. And I want to ask each one of us, who of us was included in those internal deliberations? Were all 40 of us included in that internal deliberation? I know for a fact no, eight of us for sure were not. Were all 32 remaining Senators involved in those internal deliberations? How much impact did you have on this language that's coming forward today to this floor?

How much of your constituents voices are represented in this legislation, in these 40 pages of a Bill? How much of the things that are important to you that you ran on are represented in this legislation nation. I would really like for this question not to be rhetorical and somebody stand up and tell me how much they were included in these internal deliberations with the Governor and.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. So, boy, I hate going after some of my colleagues here because they speak so eloquently and they're so knowledgeable, and they've been here a while and they've covered a lot of things that I wanted to mention. But I want to start out with this. I'm going to answer the question, why are gas prices so high in California? And all of you can read the same thing. You just have to go to the gasoline website and it'll tell you taxes.

My colleague from Bakersfield has already covered the taxes. It's not gallon like we heard in Committee yesterday. It's a dollar 30. But if you take away the, everybody else has to pay the federal excise tax, it goes down from there. But those are all taxes. Self inflicted wounds, if you may, that we have put into our gasoline price.

That's also the isolated nature of the California fuels market, and some of my colleagues have touched on that, the special gasoline recipe that we hope reduces air pollution and then also the environmental program costs. But to sum it all up, it's our energy policy. Our energy policy and our efforts to replace fossil fuel with all electric in a very, very short amount of time. Why can't we just tell our constituents that that's why your gas prices are so high.

That's why your electricity prices are so high. That's why your natural gas prices are so high. We're trying to do an environmental effort and all of you on their behalf, but there are consequences for doing what we're doing, and these are one of the consequences. Now let's talk about the market, because we heard a lot of testimony from our colleagues about the price of fuels and how it spiked. Well, it spiked in June of 2022, right?

It spiked all the way up to an average of 629 a gallon for all of the other months. It was just about in the four to 550 range. But that's where it was. But why in the heck is it at four to 550 range for the last three years? I'll tell you why. Because it went above four gallons, $4 a gallon in March of 2021. It's because of our energy policy. We've always outpaced for the reasons mentioned before the other states in our prices.

When I was a young man, I got my license when I was 16 or 17, I can't remember exactly when, by a nice little pickup truck. And I used to throw my skis in the back and I'd drive up to mammoth and you know what? I got gas in San Bernardino. Even if it was half a tank, I got gas in San Bernardino. And then I would get gas in the next populated area, which was bishop.

It still cost another dollar, 50 a gallon up in Bishop. But no way was I going to stop in the middle of the desert at the only unical station that was there. Because even though gas everywhere else was a dollar something, their price was $350 to $4 a gallon. I couldn't even believe it. So I learned real quick, as a consumer, you go where the market tells you to go if you care about those things. I don't buy gas in Beverly Hills.

I never bought gas in Brentwood because why? Because if you go to those gas stations, they're catering to a different market, folks, and you have a choice to go there or not. That can account for some of that. But what bothers me is we're going to spend, well, actually, we just kind of wrote a blank check this morning, but we're going to spend between seven and $10 million a year to tell us what we already know and give another regulatory agency hooks into the private industry.

And every time we've done that, what has happened? Every time we've done it, the prices go up. So I don't think we're helping the citizens. I don't think we're helping consumers. We're not being a watchdog for our consumers. We're just not telling them the truth. And the truth is there's a cost to our policies and we're paying the cost now. I also want to echo the sentiments of my other colleagues. Why the rush? Why did I get this on Tuesday, if even Tuesday night?

And why is this the first we have heard of this different approach instead of the approach we were hearing about in December? Yeah. Coming up here, being in the minority. Yeah, it's kind of a drag because you do, you hear things last. And I guess the honeymoon is over. Everybody talked about, zero, we're going to get up here and work with everyone. zero, yeah. We're going to all work together and do this. No, they're not.

They're going to do exactly what we've been doing for the last three years that I've been up here. So you're going to pass this? I know this house is going to pass this because it's already preordained, but we are not helping our consumers. There are reasons for the gas, and we don't need to create an insulation, again, between us, the legislators, the elected people, and our people, because that's kind of what this is.

You know, what if we impose one of these fees, taxes, whatever you want to call it, excess profit, tax fee, and gas prices spike. Well, guess what? Consumers are going to be mad at us, and we don't like that because they have to vote for us. Right? So what are we going to do? We're going to give it to somebody else.

We're going to abdicate our responsibility and give it to somebody else, another entity that we can tell our people when they come and scream at us that, what the heck is this? I have to give up my car in 2035? Well, you don't CARB resources. It's not us. They're the ones who do that stuff. I don't need an insulation. I don't need a firewall.

Between me and the people that elect me, if I make their prices go up with my policies, I'm going to tell them why. And if you want to tell them that it's better for the prices to go up than to not accomplish our environmental goals, just tell them that we don't need to spend another seven to $10 million, if it stays at that a year to be able to tell them that. So colleagues call it what it is.

It's abdicating what we should be telling our constituents, and we're giving that to somebody else so they can do the dirty work and we can tell them, hey, we're just trying to keep them from gouging you. A lot of people don't buy that. I never did when I was not an elected official, and I don't buy it now because I can see it and so can they. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item, Senator Wilk?

Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday in energy and utilities, I laid off this Bill, and I intend to lay off it again today because I'm conflicted. Fact of the matter is, I'm still under the old lines, and I have 1,060,000 constituents. Over half of those constituents are on medical.

I have 250,000 daily commuters that either go from the Anabol Valley down to Los Angeles, which they call down below, and I have another 85,000 in the Victor Valley that travel down to the Inland Empire, which they call down the hill. And they've been squeezed by these high energy costs, not only gas, but all other energy costs. Again, mentioned earlier today by my colleagues about the policies that we've passed out of here.

But the fact of the matter is, and I think a lot of us have sat through these briefings since the Torrance fire in 2015, there's been a hidden 40 cents a gallon more than it should be once you factor in California's taxes and regulatory environment. We've been paying our consumers about 40 cents a gallon more that equates anywhere because of the pandemic, and less driving anywhere from three to $5 billion a year more that our California voters and residents have been paying because something's going on.

We've talked to people in the industry and everybody says, it's not me. It's not me. Well, it's somebody. And they know that this train was pulling out. So I don't know why no one's come clean. I do want to again, affirm what our Senator from Kern County said. It is not the people extracting from the ground, the producers. It is a commodity. They get paid what they get paid, but something's going on, and I think our residents have a right to know.

Now, me personally, I think the cleanest way to do this is actually give this to an entity that actually knows how to do this and has a record of doing that. And that is the Federal Trade Commission. It should have been very simple thing, a Bill. Ask the Federal Trade Commission to do it. They do it. They bring the results back to us. That's the way we should have done it.

Again, it keeps us as a co equal branch of government and allows us to make the decisions, as my friend from western Riverside County said. So now we're going to give it to an entity that may or may not be able to do it. In addition to the analysis, they're also going to tell these refineries how to do their job. And this is a reach from government into business, into the private sector. Look, I'm pro business, but I'm anti monopoly.

But this proposal, I just think it's an overreach. 12 is going way too fast. As mentioned, we barely got it. There's drafting errors in it, which the Senator from Kern County pointed out yesterday it's been acknowledged it's going to be changed, but it's moving so fast. What else have we missed that's in here that we're going to have to go back and clean up, which we have a history of doing. So, like I said yesterday, a plague on everybody's house.

I think the industry should have come clean. They haven't come clean. I think this doesn't get us to where we want to go. And again, not everybody had input. It may have been bicameral discussions, but it certainly wasn't bipartisan. And that is very disappointing. So I'm laying it off today. Not necessarily that this is the best approach, it's not the best approach, but also our consumers have a right to know what's happened to them since 2015, and we'll just see how it all plays out. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Senator Allen?

Members, I just want to respond to a few issues that have been raised. I absolutely agree with the Senator from North LA County. We know there's somebody that's playing a role here, and yet we don't know exactly who and how. This issue of transparency has been at the heart of this problem from day one. And our residents do have the right to know. I do agree that we ought to get the FTC involved and let's work together on getting them involved.

We also know we have a unique set of circumstances here in California, and we can't just rely on the Federal Government to look out for California consumers when they got so many other things going on and so much bipartisanship there. So I think it's still very appropriate to give the CEC more power and really create an infrastructure to study all of these issues.

The challenge here at every step of the way has been a lack of transparency and lots and lots of finger pointing in a lot of different directions. And I will just say, as much as I appreciate my dear friends on the other side of the aisle, it was so disappointing that when we brought forward a Bill last year, SB 1322, a really rather simple Bill that just looked at refining transparency, transparency associated with data, pricing data from each oil refinery operating in the state.

My friends on the other side of the aisle did not vote for that Bill, voted against that Bill, which suggests to me that there's just, I'm hearing everything I'm hearing, and I appreciate so many of the arguments that have been made, but there's been just a lack of willingness to even support basic transparency on the part of the oil industry in this area. And that's really what I think is most promising about this Bill.

At its heart, it's providing the CEC with power that has never had before and responsibility that's never had before. Which is a real investigation, real access to data associated with the supply chain every step of the way, including all those vessels that are sitting out off the coast that my friend from Bakersfield talked about. Well, let's go to check out that website. That's exactly what we have to do. That's exactly what we're empowering the CEC to do. That's what the CEC has not ever had the power to do before.

In fact, when I first proposed SB 1322 and talked to our friends in the oil industry, they said, Oh, CEC's got this great consumer watchdog mechanism. And of course, you talk to CEC and you actually delve into the details. That was just not true.

They had a data collector who did a good job of understanding the market economics, but didn't have any real power to investigate and interrogate the supply chain so as to better understand all of these market forces and factors that were leading to these price spikes. That issue is going to be remedied through this Bill with experts and economists and a team that they're going to build at the CEC to really investigate and engage in this issue.

And that's why I'm most excited about supporting the Bill today. I hear the concerns that have been raised. I just hope that we can work together in a collaborative spirit that really does focus on transparency. And I really hope that some of the comments that we've heard today suggest a real commitment to transparency moving forward. That's the reason why I'm supporting this Bill today, and I appreciate your attention.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Any further discussion or debate? Hearing and seeing none. Senator Skinner, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I want to start by thanking the governor's office for initiating this very important conversation and their work in putting the initial Bill First, the initial Bill before us, and now this subsequent Bill. And I want to thank the Senate, or should I say the revisions to the Bill.

And I want to thank Senate staff and the Members who met with stakeholders, including our oil companies and refiners and others, many others, and who worked to address concerns related to the Bill in its initial form. In its initial form, there were issues raised about whether by fixing in statute a certain cap on a specific cap in the. I get the term right, the average I'm going to blow that term.

But anyway, by setting it a specific cap, the fear was that, of course, we're basically communicating to the industry, raise your prices all the way up there if you don't already have it at that level. And by fixing a specific cap, it did not allow give us the ability to get the data to really analyze whether there is price gouging that's occurring or whether there is a reasonable reason for the gas to be higher.

Now, we know, as I opened, that gas prices are higher in California for a number of reasons. But we can calculate those reasons, and those are far under a dollar a gallon. Our taxes are only $0.54 additional our state taxes. And yet what we experienced, what Californians experienced were prices that were $2.60 on average, $2.61 on average, higher than any other state. And depending on where you lived in California, it was even far higher than that.

So imagine if you are a family that has two vehicles, and those vehicles are, say, 16 gallon tanks, which is probably smaller than a lot of vehicles, then you are spending $60 or more a week extra just to fill your tank, which over the course of a month, you can imagine what that causes, that type of increase to your household expense. That is extremely unfair to Californians.

Now, while there may be some Californians who don't love the fact that we have a little higher tax or may not appreciate that we do a specific blend to improve our air quality, the majority of Californians absolutely want and prioritize our clean air. They know the health impacts of poor air quality. And so they welcome that California has a special blend.

But our special blend and our specific state tax in no way creates prices that are the type of prices we've experienced, especially last summer and fall. The Bill we have before us today reflects the work of the meetings with stakeholders of the Senate team, of the staff of the governor's office to address what were concerns that were raised. And as I stated, this has been out in the public, the initial proposal, for months.

And of course, there's been discussions, as in anyone's Bill, there has been discussions based on that original language. What we have before us today is a much improved product. It ensures that the state can get the data that we need to determine if Californians are experiencing unfair price spikes and if there are market manipulations or unfair practices by the refiners or the oil companies. And by containing the strong transparency measures that that data would allow, it could potentially expose oil companies for unfair practices.

And with some of our, we have other legislation that creates transparency. And that transparency alone has modified a business's practice. So if that transparency causes our oil companies, if they might otherwise have been manipulating prices, to refrain from doing so, then that is a incredible benefit to our California consumers. And if that occurs, then we will not need a penalty. We only need the penalty and the way the Bill is constructed.

The Energy Commission would only levy a penalty if that market manipulation is demonstrated and those prices are unfair on Californians. And with that, again, my thanks to staff, to the governor's office, to all of the input from stakeholders, and with that, I ask for your. I vote.

Thank you all. Debate has ceased. Secretary, call the roll on file, item one.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 30, noes eight. The measure passes. Senator Jones, for what purpose?

Thank you, Mr. President. Can we move to motions and resolutions, please?

Our motions and resolutions.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate rule 28, I have submitted a letter to the Senate Rules Committee requesting to withdraw SBX 11 from the Rules Committee to the Senate Floor so that we may have an immediate and robust debate on the merits of that Bill, and if I can speak to the motion at the appropriate time.

Senator McGuire.

Thank you so much. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, respectfully, would ask for a no vote.

Senator Jones, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak to my motion. Please appreciate the attention of the floor. The special.

It's limited to the purpose of the motion. The purpose of the motion?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Speaking about the merits of the Bill while we debated heavily the last Bill on this floor and paved the road for gas increases in the name of lower gas prices, it seems only logical and fair to debate the alternative solution to lower gas prices, which is my SBX 11 which I was very honored at the beginning of the extraordinary session to have the first Senator in that extraordinary session.

Purpose of the motion? Not the merit of the Bill.

Thank you, sir. The Californians pay almost a dollar, 40 per gallon more than the average American. At a time when gas prices are approaching $5 per gallon. It's important that we consider all options and help cut costs at the pump. We have a special session right now to lower gas prices. Let's take advantage of it and fully consider our options. For these reasons, I would like to withdraw SBX 11 which will literally lower the price of gasoline immediately. And please bring that Bill to the floor for debate. Thank you.

Senator Jones is asking for a ayevote. Senator McGuire is asking for a no vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes eight, noes 28. The motion fails. Now, Members were Members. We're just going to take a two minute break, so please remain on the floor for 2 minutes.

Members, we will now reconvene the regular session privilege of the floor. There are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Ports of Committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Motions in resident dilutions and notices, there are none. Moving now to consideration of the daily file. Secretary reading yeah. So now we're moving to Senate reading file second reading. File items one through seven. Secretary, please read.

Senate bills 283 with amendments 2444 with amendments. SB 467, SB 486, SB 445 with amendments. SB 10 with amendments, SB 472 with amendments.

Now, Members, we're moving now to Senate third reading. Our first item up is file item 23. Senator Newman, he's prepared. Secretary, you may read

Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 by Senator Newman relative to CASA Appreciation Day.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I am pleased to present SCR 35, which will officially commemorate today, March 23, 2023 as CASA Appreciation Day in the State of California. Court-appointed special advocates, also known as CASA volunteers, or CASAs for short, play a truly critical role in advancing the best interests of children in the state's foster care system. Across our great state. There are currently more than 80,000 youths in California's foster care system, largely as a result of abuse, neglect or abandonment.

In too many cases, these children are subject to falling through the cracks in a chronically overburdened child welfare system that can't always provide sufficient attention to all of the children whose lives and well being have been entrusted to it. That's where CASAs come in. Upon completion of specialized training under the supervision of credentialed and professional staff, these committed volunteers receive a court appointment to serve as an advocate and voice within the juvenile justice system.

By getting to know their kiddos, as CASAs generally refer to the foster children with whom they're matched, these trained and highly committed volunteers gain a unique understanding and perspective of their child's challenges and needs. The knowledge and trust they build equips them to represent the child's best interests before the judges and other key players in the state's often labyrinthine child welfare system. California's network of county-chartered CASA organizations includes 44 local programs serving 51 counties.

Combined, they include more than 500 professional staff under the leadership of the more than 500 local board members guiding CASA programs up and down the state, all of whom are working every day to ensure that CASA volunteers can provide effective and compassionate advocacy for foster children. Last year, CASA volunteers served nearly 13,000 foster children, or 16% of the roughly 80,000 youth in California's foster care system, with CASA volunteers contributing approximately 441,000 hours of their time in this labor of love.

If that time were paid for, it would be valued at well over $15 million. My wife, Darcy, and I have both had the privilege of serving as CASAs. Through that service, I gained a firsthand appreciation of just how complex the child welfare system is and just how overwhelming it can be for the children in the system who may not have invested committed adults to help them along in their journeys.

Senators, I can personally and passionately attest to the critical role that California's CASA volunteers continue to play in championing the interests of all California children to a safe and loving environment as part of building an overall foster system that respects and serves both their needs and their rights. Please join me in recognizing the contributions of Court-Appointed Special Advocates by designating today, March 23, as CASA Appreciation Day. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Senator Dorazo?

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I, too, rise in support of the resolution, and I thank the author very much. As chair of the Budget Subcommitee where this resources for CASA have come up, I've learned so much about the work that they do. Imagine that there are volunteers doing the work of guiding these foster children, foster youth, through our system, so that they could get the resources that they need. It's volunteers.

Our resources to CASA is about them having a little bit more money to be able to recruit and train volunteers to provide these services to the youth. So I've become a very big supporter. I appreciate that you're giving this recognition to them, and I think it's time for us to show our recognition where it counts, the resources that they need. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item, Senator Grove?

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise in support of SCR 35. You know, these kids end up in this situation, 99.9% not of their own fault or own decisions. And so I appreciate the author bringing this forward and honoring those individuals that are all volunteers that will help these kids navigate the system and actually be a friend and an ally during this whole hurtful process. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing and seeing none. Senator Newman, would you like to close?

I truly appreciate the kind words of my colleagues, and my colleague from Bakersfield could not have put it better. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, secretary, please call the roll on file item 23.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 39, noes zero. The resolution passes. Now from your desk, Senator Newman, privilege of the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for the vote. With us today to celebrate costs Appreciation Day are some of the very admirable and impressive individuals who do the important work each day of recruiting, training, and guiding Casa volunteers while ensuring that they have the tools and the support needed to serve in this essential role. On the floor with us this morning are Sharon Lawrence, Reagan Phillips and the Honorable Carol Jackson.

Sharon Lawrence serves as the Chief Executive Officer for the California Costs Association and is a passionate advocate for foster youth and for improving the foster care system. Ms. Lawrence has been with the organization since 2017. After serving as the CEO of Voices for Children for over 20 years, Reagan Phillips serves as the Chief Executive Officer for Casa of Orange County.

Ms. Phillips has spent her entire career advocating for dependent children and has been with Casa OC since 2009, serving as a board Member, as its chief program officer, and currently as its CEO since 2017. Carol Jackson has served as the California Casa Association's senior policy advisor since 2017 after previously presiding on the bench as a judge for the San Diego Superior Court for 14 years.

Judge Jackson's experience adjudicating cases in the juvenile justice system has provided her with tremendous legal and structural insights in support of the Association's essential work. Also joining us today in the Senate Gallery are Carol Noreen, Executive Director for Sacramento Casa, Kelly Donato, associate Director of Sacramento Casa and Kelly Larazignol, grants management manager for the California Casa Association.

Please join me in celebrating Casa Appreciation Day and thanking our guests for their heroic work within the foster youth system and giving them all a very warm California Senate welcome.

Members, let's give them a warm Senate welcome. Welcome Casa to the California State Senate. We're going to pause momentarily for photo opportunities. Any Members wishing to take photos at this time will do it now. Members, we're returning to Senate third reading. Next up is file item 23 by Senator Wilk. I'm sorry, 22 by Senator Wilk. Secretary, please read Senate resolution 19 by Senator Wilk. Relative to national surveyors Week, Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members Sr 19 would make this week, March 19, through the 25th, National Surveyors Week. It brings much needed recognition to an industry that employs 45,000 professional surveyors in the United States and approximately 4000 here in the State of California. Land surveyors are most known for their critical work on projects in building and construction, transportation, communications, mapping and the definition of legal boundaries for land ownership.

It's the hard work of these surveyors that determine the boundaries of our land which has undoubtedly been the greatest economic asset for California and the United States. And I am carrying this resolution because I come from a family of surveyors. I recently had my genealogy did, and I discovered that my great great great grandfather was Daniel Boone who was the first surveyor in the State of Kentucky. So with that, this would establish the week of March 19 through the 25th, 2023, as national surveyors Week.

And it's a fitting tribute to all surveyors. With that, I respectfully ask for an. aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate? Hearing None. Secretary, please call the roll. zero, it's eligible. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using unanimous roll call on this item? Hearing. Seeing, none. Ayes, 39. noes, zero. The measure passes. Now we're moving to privilege of the floor. I know. Senator Wilk has a guest. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment to recognize a few individuals that are standouts in the surveying community. With us today is. And raise your hand. Want to call your name? Kevin Hills, who is the President of the California Land Surveyors Association John Scarpa, who is a surveyor locally here in Sacramento County Dallas Sweeney and Michael Hartley, who are on the board of professional Engineers, surveyors and geologists.

And finally, lastly, but not least, Kimberly Oreno, the Executive Director of the California Land Surveyors Association. And please extend a warm Senate welcome to these individuals. Thank you.

Welcome to the California State Senate. Members wishing to take a photo? This now would be the time. All right, Members, we return to Senate third reading. Next up is file item 25. Senator Wahob, she's prepared. Secretary, I have 25. Senate Concurrent resolution 30, Senator 37 by Senator Wahab, relative to Naurus. Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.

Thank you, President, Senators and members of the public. Nowruz means new day and is a cultural celebration of the first day of spring, which is March 21. The new day symbolizes a commitment to springtime renewal, peace and overall solidarity between generations, friends, families and communities.

Nowruz commemorates the new year for many Afghans and Central Asian community members all over the world, including Iranians and 300 million people that celebrate this 3000-year-old custom in over 23 countries, including the United States, where Nowruz is celebrated by Americans of all backgrounds, including those with Baha'i, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, and non-religious backgrounds, this is not a religious holiday.

In fact, the United States census reports the largest population of Afghans outside of Afghanistan live in California, and Nowruz serves to remind us all of the many lasting contributions of the Persian civilization to the world and the noteworthy impact of them to the social and economic fabric of the society in the United States. The embodiment of the unity of cultural heritage and centuries-long traditions plays a significant role in strengthening ties among peoples based on mutual respect and the ideals of peace and good neighborliness.

After thousands of years in the making, Nowruz remains beloved, universal, and deeply embedded in Persian culture. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and leave you with this poem. Happy Nowruz. May you always be happier than diruz, yesterday, luckier than imruz today, and blessed aruz, every day. Nowruz Mubarak, happy new year to all who celebrate. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague from Hayward for bringing forward this resolution. As Vice Chair of the Asian American and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, I'm honored to rise in support of SCR 37 and recognize Nowruz, sometimes known as Persian or Afghan New Year. On your desks you'll find in front of you some spring flowers to commemorate this occasion, and I want to thank Senator Umberg and his staff for helping with this.

You may have stopped by our caucus's celebration of Nowruz earlier this week and received some tulips or enjoyed some Persian sweets. On behalf of the API Legislative Caucus, I want to thank my colleague from Santa Monica and his staff for helping to organize that event. Nowruz means new day and it's a celebration of peace, family, and community. It marks the first day of spring and is the start of the new year in Persian culture. It is meant to be a time of joy and rebirth.

As someone who has the privilege of representing a vibrant and amazing Iranian-American community in cities like Irvine and Newport Beach, Nowruz is also a reminder to me of the wonderful diversity of cultures that we have in California and in the AAPI community. And in fact, I have a few constituents here today. From the Iranian-American community we have Sudhi Faroknia, Faye Hazar, and Alex Malhajur. But while Nowruz is meant to be a time of happiness and celebration.

This year's Nauruz comes at a time of great sadness, anger and fear in the Iranian-American community. What is happening right now in Iran, where the brutal fundamentalist regime is cracking down on peaceful dissent, abducting tens of thousands of innocent people, poisoning girl's schools, and engaging in a systematic campaign of torture, rape and murder, has not received the same attention here in the United States as the war crimes in Ukraine. But it is no less evil or condemnable.

I want to ask us all to direct our thoughts and prayers to the people of Iran, even as we enter into a time of celebration for many cultures and religions. Happy Nowruz. And may this year bring us all health, prosperity, love and joy. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion of eight? Hearing, seeing none. Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote, thank you.

Members, this is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on file item 25? Hearing, seeing none, ayes 39, noes zero. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 26 Senator Wahab. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 38 by Senator Wahab, relative to Ramadan.

Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.

Thank you, President, Senators, and members of the public. Now, Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide. It's a time to reflect spiritually, build community, and aid those in need. And it marks an annual spiritual renewal for each individual, a reason to celebrate and express gratitude. The observance of Ramadan commenced at dusk on March 22, 2023 and continues for one lunar month, with people fasting from sunrise to sunset each day. Fasting is one of the aspects of Ramadan.

No one is required to fast. Young children, the elderly, the disabled, community members, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and travelers are supported in their decision to not fast. The hunger encourages reflection, compassion, and empathy towards the needy and how our lives do or do not align with what is important. In turn, breaking the fast with friends and family in the late hours reminds us of what we should treasure and enjoy each other.

With Islam being the third-largest religion in the United States, we should celebrate our diversity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague from Hayward again for bringing this forward. As Vice Chair of the AAPI Legislative Caucus and a proud co-author of SCR 38, I rise as well in support of this resolution. Which commemorates the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and expresses the legislature's respect for Muslims across our state and throughout the world.

Ramadan is the holiest time in Islam, a time when the most observant Muslims observe a month long regimen of fasting from sun up to sundown, which is meant to be a time of prayer, reflection, a time to be closer to God.

As someone who has the privilege of representing a large and wonderful Muslim population, including many Iranian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and Asian-Americans who follow the Islamic faith, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Muslim community for all of your incredible contributions to our culture and society. I have so many wonderful Muslim leaders in my district, whether they are in community service, public service, or the private sector, whether they are engineers, peace officers, or imams.

I feel blessed to have so many Muslims as friends and neighbors. So I want to wish all who celebrate Ramadan Kareem, may your fast be easy and your month be filled with peace, love, and a greater closeness to God. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Hertrado.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I also rise in support of SCR 38. Ramadan is a holy month of fasting, a time when Muslims in California and across the globe sacrifice worldly comforts and devotion to their faith. Ramadan is a period when charity to others is emphasized, where practitioners of Islam focus on the needs of those less fortunate and give what they can to ease the burdens of their neighbors.

You may or may not know this, but Latinos are actually the fastest-growing Muslim group in the United States, making up 8% within the group according to some polls. During this holy month, it is my hope that we reflect on the lessons Ramadan offers, that we can be more empathetic individuals and give gladly without expectation of reward. I thank my colleague from Hayward for authoring this resolution and urge an aye vote.

Senate Concurrent Resolution six by Senator Umberg relative to Iranian protests.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate, Senator? Oh, Senator Becker. Didn't see that microphone. Senator Becker.

Senator Umberg, floor is yours.

Thank you, colleagues. I rise today as Vice Chair of the Jewish Caucus to rise in solidarity with Muslims that will be celebrating Ramadan. And we just want to express our support and solidarity on behalf of this month of fasting and reflection.

Thank you. Any additional comments on this issue? Seeing none. Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you. To all my colleagues who speak in support of this. I ask for an aye vote thank you.

Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on file item 26. Hearing and seeing none. Ayes 38, noes zero. The measure passes. Now, members, we're moving on to file item 148 by Senator Umberg. He's prepared. Secretary, you may read.

Thank you. Mr. President and colleagues, I rise today to present SCR 6, which proclaims the legislators the Senate's solidarity, the Legislature's solidarity with the people of Iran and the Iranian Americans and Californians who are protesting in support of the people of Iran. I want to thank my colleague from Hayward for recognizing the culture and the richness of the Persian Community and their contribution to us in California, as well as my colleague from Irvine for pointing out what's going on in Iran today.

This month, we celebrate Women's history month. And we've recognized just the other day the remarkable women from all over California, including two women who have taken this cause up as a personal matter and are part of the leadership in California demonstrating the atrocities going on in Iran and what our response should be to those atrocities. There's one woman in particular I want to recognize, and that's Masha Amini.

Masha Amini was 21, and on September 16 2022 arrived in Tehran to visit her family, but was subsequently arrested by the Islamic Republic of Iran's morality police for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly in violation of Iran's compulsory dresscode. She subsequently died as a result of the brutality she suffered while incarcerated.

Masha Amani's Amini's death sparked the first Iranian female led uprising of our time, involving thousands of Iranian citizens, including teenagers, students, men and women of all ages, which continue today, taking to the streets and University campuses to protest the brutality and repression of the current Iranian regime. Iranian authorities have responded violently to these protests.

According to the United nations and numerous human rights groups, hundreds of people have been killed while protesting and thousands have been arrested, many of whom are facing impending execution or a life sentence for participating in these protests. Iranian authorities have used censorship and restriction of the Internet as a way to suppress communication and the leadership of this uprising. These efforts have not stopped the people of Iran from fighting for their freedom every day.

In fact, despite this repression, protests continue to expand in the defense of basic freedoms and civil rights and women's rights. The courage and bravery of the Iranian people, particularly the women, have inspired thousands across the world to take to the streets in solidarity. Many of these demonstrations and support have taken place right here in California, which has the largest Iranian American population in the country.

SCR 6 declares that the State of California stands in solidarity with the people of Iran in their fight for freedom and self determination. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise as a proud co author of this measure. I commend the author for bringing this forward, and I firmly align myself with his comments. I'm also proud to have a sizable Iranian community in my district, and I stand proudly with them in their struggle for freedom. I wish the entire California Iranian community, Nauruz Mubarak, and I urge an aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Next up, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of SCR 6. I think it's really important to focus on what is happening in Iran right now. We had the murder of Masamini, but this is just one example, a horrific example of what the fascist Iranian regime has been doing for many years to women, to LGBTQ people, and to others.

And I am in such incredible awe, particularly of the young women who have risen up in Iran, putting their own lives at risk, the lives of their family at risk, and they just keep going and keep going because what is happening in Iran should not be happening in this world ever. And so I want to thank all of the activists on the ground in Iran who are risking their lives to try to move to a better place and a safer place and a more just society.

Thank you, Senator Allen.

Yeah, I just want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues. I've been following the events in Iran pretty closely over the past few months, and I've been so inspired by the courage, the real courage, particularly of these young women who've been taken to the streets and have really been punished. People have been killed. People have been executed. People have been murdered in the streets. It's an absolute outrage.

And yet the waves and waves of people stepping forward and standing up for basic human rights has been so inspiring. I also want to just recognize my woman of the year. Mariam Zara, has come back up to be here with some folks from the Iranian American Democratic Club. I believe she was planning on being here in the gallery. Hey, guys.

But she and some of the others up here represent just a few of the many, many californian Iranian Americans, Iranian Californians who have stepped up to play a big role in helping to raise the profile of this issue. I had the great honor of meeting with a number of students at UCLA not too long ago, along with Sharon and Nazarian, a good friend who's on the Beverly Hills City Council, Iranian American who's been a leader in this fight as well.

Students and activists have been banging the drum about this issue, protesting outside the federal building in Westwood, making sure that the voices of those who have been putting their lives on the line on the streets of Tehran and elsewhere within the country are getting the adequate attention that they deserve.

And I just am happy that this body is coming together today to send a very clear signal of solidarity to those people who have been risking everything to stand up for basic values of human rights and dignity on the streets of Iran. So I respectfully and strongly urgent, aye vote on SCR 6.

Thank you, Senator. Min.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today as a proud co author of SCR six, and I want to thank my colleague from Santa Ana for bringing it forward. The torture and murder of Masa Amini last year served as a stark reminder of the oppression that faces Iranian women and girls and of the systematic brutality of that authoritarian regime. Masa Amini's crime, let's be clear, was wearing her hijab improperly and showing some hair.

Her murder sparked weeks of protests across Iran and many here in the United States. When President Biden visited Irvine last October, he was greeted by thousands of peaceful Iranian demonstrators who wanted to stand in solidarity with Masa, and it was very inspirational. I was privileged to attend that event and brought with me the President of our local Iranian American Chamber of Commerce. She and her sister wore t shirts announcing their solidarity with Masa.

And President Biden noticed these t shirts and actually made a few comments expressing his support for the people and the women of Iran. But since that time, unfortunately, the Iranian theocratic regime has cracked down brutally on its people, not only on the thousands of protesters, but on anyone it is deemed a threat to its hold on power, including girls and young women. The Iranian secret police and others have abducted over 22,000 Iranians. They've engaged in a systematic and brutal regime of torture, rape, and murder.

They have poisoned girl schools. Now we hear all the time about the massive human rights abuses that are taking place in Ukraine right now. And to be clear, I stand with the people of Ukraine. But we need to do more to publicize and draw attention to what is happening in Iran. So I want to thank my colleague again for bringing this forward.

I hear every single day from people in my district, Iranian Americans, about the pain and anguish they feel for their relatives who are still in Iran. I just want to say to them, I feel your pain. I feel your anger. I feel your sadness and frustration and hopelessness and helplessness. This resolution states clearly that this body stands with the Iranian American community against tyranny against oppression, against evil.

This resolution makes clear our view that there is good and evil, and that we in California will always side with good against evil, that we'll do what we can to protect the rights and autonomy of women, girls, life and freedom. I wish we could do more in this body, but this resolution is a good start, and I respectfully urge you to vote aye on SCR six.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Thank you. I also rise to encourage an aye vote on SCR 6 and thank the author for bringing this forward. And also thank my colleague from Hayward for sharing more about peace and about spring and about new things happening. And hopefully with this resolution, California really raises our voices together in spring for solidarity for the women and girls who are risking their lives for freedom.

Earlier this week, my woman of the year as a teenager, proudly from Stockton as a teenager, was activated and went to the United nations. So surely if a teenager can take her voice to the world stage, we can do more here in California to lend our voices to this issue. And I ask for your. I vote on SCR six. Thank you, Senator Wahop.

Thank you. I want to first thank my colleague, Senator Umberg, and Colonel Umberg, I should say also for bringing this, and I'm a very proud co author of this particular SCR 6. I want to clearly state that SCR 6 supports Iranian protesters fighting for basic freedoms and human rights against a repressive regime. Thousands have been arrested or killed for speaking out, including Masa Amini, whose death sparked the protests.

The resolution urges the international community to condemn the regime's violent repression of nonviolent protests and apply pressure for basic human rights. It supports existing U. S. Sanctions on those responsible for human rights abuses and encourages further efforts, including expanding Internet access and more sanctions. The resolution acknowledges the contributions of Iranian Americans in California and stance in solidarity with Iranians fighting for the rights.

But one thing I do want to highlight as an Afghan American woman, there are many Afghans that actually flee Afghanistan and enter Iran as refugees. In particular, a lot of the women are facing the same abuses that the Iranian women, and it's a united effort. And I stand here today in solidarity with Iranian Americans that are fighting for their basic rights and their family's rights, but also the Iranian women that are fighting there.

I would be remiss if I didn't state their slogan, zan zindagi azodi zan meaning woman zindagi, which means life, and azodi meaning freedom. So I really want to highlight that I stand with them. I thank all my colleagues for speaking up in support of this SCR 6. And I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing none. Senator Umberg, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my colleagues for recognizing the atrocities and the courage of those in Iran who are fighting against the regime. I don't think it's possible for us to conceive the kind of repression and the kind of abuse that occurs when folks in other parts of the world stand up for their rights. This is an amazing uprising that deserves our unanimous support. I urge and aye vote.

Thank you. Members, this item is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on this item? Hearing and seeing none. Ayes, 37. noes, zero. The measure passes. Now, Members, we're moving to our final item. File item 150. Wait, a file item 150? Yes, by Senator Rubio. She's prepared. Secretary, you may read Senate Concurrent Resolution 41 by Senator Rubio relative to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Day. Senator Rubio?

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, today I rise to present SDR 41, which honors the life and legacy of former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The resolution proclaims March 15, 2023, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Day. As we wrap up Women's History Month, we will celebrate, remember, and honor RBG, as she's now respectfully called, for being a fierce guardian of equality for all. We must always remember to highlight women who were trailblazers and whose shoulders we stand on.

And recognizing Justice Ginsburg is paramount, as she shaped American law for decades in the courts and helped pave the path for civil and equal rights for all women. Nearly three years after her passing, we are already experiencing the devastation across our country. Many states are working to strip away essential rights for all women to have control over their bodies. Justice Bader Ginsburg saw this in the '50s, '60s, and beyond. She dedicated her life to advancing women's rights and protecting all those vulnerable communities.

She never envisioned that after the heavy lift she did on behalf of all of us for nearly 50 years that it would be done so quickly and easily. This only underscores how fragile all of our rights are today. In California, we continue to fight for reproductive rights not only in our state, but we stand in solidarity across our nation. I would like to share one of my favorite quotes. Permission, to read.

Permission granted.

Thank you. Women's rights are an essential part of the overall human rights agenda. Trained on equal dignity and ability to live in freedom, all people should enjoy. RBG's landmark case, United States versus Virginia, ended gender segregation in public institutions and set the precedent for every gender equity victory that followed. She overcame challenge after challenge after challenge, and she broke multiple barriers for all of us.

She graduated first in her class from Columbia Law School, became the first female professor to earn tenure at Columbia Law School, served as the first female member of the Harvard Law Review and Columbia Law Review, and later became the second woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Through litigation, community outreach, advocacy, public education, Justice Ginsburg empowered poor women, women of color, immigrant women, LGBTQ individuals who had been subject to gender bias and who faced pervasive barriers to equality.

She worked to ensure that everyone and their families could enjoy the benefits of full equality and participate in every sphere of society. She was a woman of Jewish faith who endured gender and religious discrimination that denied her employment opportunities, and yet she prevailed. I believe in this nation. I believe in its people, and I believe we all want to do the right thing.

And even though it'll take a little time, I would like to say to her that we will prevail once again to honor her work. Justice Ginsburg left a profound mark in American history, and the nation is deeply indebted to her. Senate colleagues, today, we honor her work, and we remember her. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? Senator Ashby.

Thank you very much. And I want to start by thanking the Senator from Baldwin Park for giving us all this opportunity to honor the memory of Justice Ginsburg. Role models are important. I was a single mom in law school. I worked full-time during the day and raised my little boy on my own. When I researched other moms in law school, Justice Ginsburg rose to the top. What that meant for me is that there was hope. It was possible.

If she could do it, maybe I could, too. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a mom also while she was in law school. And though she was first in her class, she couldn't get a job after law school because she was a woman. Eventually, as you all know, she went on to teach and fight for women's rights and join the Supreme Court. And you'll look around and see so many of us wearing these collars today that she made famous.

But I think it's important to note why she wore one. Because a justice robe is made for a man. There's a slight opening at the front so that you can see his tie and his collar. So she intentionally and unapologetically added a touch of femininity, not only to the laws and rules for which she stood out for us, but also to the very wardrobe that was made for men. Justice Ginsburg was once asked how she'd like to be remembered, and this is what she said.

I wish to be remembered as someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability and to help repair tears in her society, to make things a little better through the use of whatever ability she has. For me, she was a hero, both in word and in deed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion and debate on this item? Hearing seeing none. Senator Rubio, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. President. And I do want to take a moment to thank all the great Senators here on our floor that are wearing chokers to honor her memory and legacy. And with that, I just ask for your vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, this is also eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call on file item 150? Hearing and seeing none. Ayes 37. Noes zero. The measure passes. Now, Members, we're just going to break for a minute for all the women who would love to take a picture or anyone wearing a collar. Anyone wearing a collar. Are we doing it in front? Okay, we're doing it in front of the desk. All right, thank you very much.

All right, Members, now's the time for Committee announcements. Senator Laird?

Thank you, Mr. President. Education Budget Subcommittee Number One on Ed will meet upon adjournment of session in Room 2100 in the swing space.

Sub one will meet in Room 2100 upon adjournment. Next up, Senator Becker.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Subcommittee Number Two will meet on Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy, will meet in 2215 minutes after the close of session.

Subcommittee Two will meet 15 minutes after adjournment of session in Room 2200. Next up, Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. President. Subcommittee Number Three on Health and Human Services will meet 15 minutes after session in Room 1200.

Okay. Subcommittee Three will meet 15 minutes after session in Room 1200. Next up is Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. President. Budget Subcommittee Number Four on State Administration and General Government will convene about 15 minutes following the recess of the floor session here in the Capitol in Room 113.

Subcommittee Four will meet 15 minutes after adjournment in Room 113 here in the Capitol. And Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. President. Budget Sub Five will be meeting in Room 112 here in the Capitol at 11:20.

Budget Sub Five will meet in Room 112 in the Capitol at 1:20. 11:20. I'm sorry, at 11:20. If there's no further business. Senator Grove, the desk is clear.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, this weekend I'll be celebrating our wonderful former colleague, Senator Jean Fuller, who is receiving an award from our Bakersfield College. And our brand new Chancellor, Sonya Christensen, for her extraordinary efforts in continuing supporting our educational community. With that said, the Senate will be in recess till 3:30, which, at which time the adjournment motion will be made. And we will recess until Monday, March 27, at 02:00 p.m..

Members, the Senate will be in recess until 03:30 p.m. At which time the adjournment motion will be made. We'll, we will reconvene Monday, March 27, at 02:00 p.m.