Senate Floor

The secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call] Members a quorum is present with the Members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery. Please rise. We will be led in prayer this afternoon by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, after which, please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Sister Gorman.

So let us bring ourselves into God's presence on this beautiful spring day. The mystic Julian of Norwich was immersed in the traumas and tribulations of the 14th century. Today we pray from her experience of God's revelations to her using the attitudes of awaiting, allowing, accepting and attending. Merciful and mysterious God. We await your divine providence, the promise of your faithful, tender love. We await this day's revelation. Curious to discover the surprises it offers. We allow our hearts to open and receive your loving gaze.

We allow your gaze to rest on our hearts. We accept the call entrusted to us with all the blessings and challenges therein. We accept our incompleteness, our vulnerabilities, and our gifts. We attend to our portion of the suffering world. We attend to the task that is ours as we serve the emerging wholeness of creation. May we be transformed by our openness to the mystery of each new day. Amen.

Please join me in the pledge to our flag. I pledge allegiance. Which stands. We're going to begin our Senate Floor session this morning under privileges of the floor. Want to first recognize pro tem Atkins Members.

Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues, good morning. I want to take a moment today to recognize someone who's very familiar to most of us who've been in this building for some time now. And that is Mr. Jamie Taylor. And I'm going to do something a little different. I'm going to introduce his guest right now, and then I'll go into some comments. We have his wonderful wife, spouse, Carmen Taylor is here. Two daughters, Catalina Taylor and Camila Taylor.

We have his sister, Lauren Rowe, and brother in law, Tyrone Rowe, and of course, niece Tinsley Rowe. Right here. And I also know somewhere back here or there should come up is the Executive Director of the Center for California Studies. This would be Leonor Elling, and she is his former Boss and the Executive Director of the Capitol Fellows program. So, as I said, Jamie Taylor is known to many as the Director of the Senate Fellows Program.

He's held that title since 2018 and recently stepped down to accept a new role as the Senate's first Director of diversity, equity and inclusion. Congratulations, Jamie. Jamie is uniquely qualified for this role, this new role that we have because of his experience as the fellow's Director and his previous service to the Senate in the secretary of the Senate's office. For those who don't know him, let me tell you a little bit about Jamie. He was raised in Oakland, California, and is proud of his roots there.

He's a graduate of San Diego State University, where he majored in Africana studies. He also has a master of science in law and a certificate in mediation from McGeorge School of Law. After graduating from San Diego State, he worked for one of our former colleagues, Senator, but at that time, City Council Member Juan Vargas on the San Diego City Council. And that's where I had the honor to meet Jamie. We were staffers together on the 10th floor of city hall. In some really good days.

I worked for Christine Kehoe, he worked for Juan, and we enjoyed that time, I think quite a lot. He began his service to the Senate in 2001 and as previously stated, he worked for the secretary of the Senate's office from 2004 to 2018 as the principal file Clerk. He became well known for his commitment to the legislative process and procedures of the Senate and his ability to work with both sides of the aisle.

Jamie has unmatched institutional knowledge and was already deeply familiar with the Senate's inner workings when he took on the role of the Senate Fellows program Director in 2018. By then, he already knew well the politics and the process of getting effective legislation passed. He supported the Senate fellows as they were tasked with advancing important policies that affect real Californians. He imparted in them the same values he learned, maintaining strong relationships, being honest and transparent, and staying true to ethical standards.

This is important guidance for Senate fellows, and I think all of you have had the experience of the mentorship that Jamie has given to each of them over the years in their 11 months here, and they became active participants. He also made sure the fellows program addresses the participants mental health, which was really critical, especially during COVID He often goes on to maintain that mentorship relationship with many of the fellows beyond the program and remains a trusted advisor to them.

Many fellows go on to serve in important roles in the Legislature, such as ledge directors, chiefs of staff. Many go on to become elected officials themselves. All this to say that Jamie's mentorship continues to have lasting value to our institution long beyond the program's completion. During his time as Director, he was passionate about ensuring that the fellows program was representative of the diverse communities and industries that shape California.

This, and his dedicated, longtime service to the Senate makes him uniquely qualified for this new role as Senate Director of diversity, equity and inclusion. I'm thrilled to see him take the lead on furthering a culture of diversity, inclusivity and equity here in our Senate. I have no doubt, absolutely no doubt, he will excel in this new position. Let's wish him well today, thank him for his many years of service and leadership, and look forward to his continued service in the Senate. And I have a resolution to present to him today.

You now, we'd like to invite all Members to come join the photograph if they wish. Okay, Members, next up on privileges of the floor, we'd like to recognize Senator Newman. Please give Senator Newman your attention, Members.

Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues, I'm proud to note that we have with us today in the Senate gallery directly behind me and above me, 18 very talented and dedicated administrators, faculty and staff from the leadership Academy of the North Orange County Community College District. A year long program for honing the skills of identified leaders of NOCCDs faculty, full time classified staff and administrators. These dedicated community college professionals have made time in their otherwise very busy lives to enhance their advocacy, knowledge, leadership abilities and professional skills.

The Leadership Academy curriculum focuses on current issues and management best practices in the Administration of higher education institutions in support of its broader aim of ensuring the district's responsiveness to the continually evolving economic and societal dynamics affecting its campuses, its students and their families. Please join me in offering a warm California State Senate welcome to the participants of the North Orange County Community College District's leadership academy. Thank you.

Welcome to the Senate, Members. Today is an unusually special day for one of our own. A colleague is celebrating his birthday today. Please join me in wishing a great birthday day to Senator Porntino. All right, messages from the Governor will be deemed read, messages from the Assembly will be deemed read, reports of Committee will be deemed read, and amendments adopted. We're going to move next to motions, resolutions and notices. Without objection, the following Bill from the with floor amendments will be deemed read and amendments adopted.

That's a A-42 AB 610. All right, we're going to move next to introduction and first reading of bills. The secretary would please read [Second Reading] Thank you. We're going to move next to consideration of the daily file. First item up is item number one, governor's appointment. And with that, we'll recognize Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, file item one is the confirmation of Naomi Gallardo for the appointment for the California Energy Commission. She serves as CEC slot for attorney with administrative law experience since 2019. She worked at the CEC as a public advisor and also Chief of Staff to the Commission's chair. When I met with Commissioner Gallardo, we talked a lot about the role the Commission plays on the price of energy, including the division of the petroleum oversight market.

California's gasoline prices are the second highest in the country, and we discussed the importance of the Commission not prejudging the division's assessment of the market without proof or data. Our energy is expensive because of policy choices that have made by this Administration, and the Energy Commission will focus on the harm these policies are causing California families. Continuing down a path of targeting a specific industry without data or proof is the result of energy poverty in our state.

Colleagues, if neighboring states can offer energy for half the price of California, then we need to find out what it is and not prejudge the industry themselves. I want to thank Commissioner Gallardo for listening to that and also listening to the fact that when we talk about my producers in Kern, county, their policy, they are price takers, not price setters. That means the global market sets the price, and then they don't have control over what price it is.

They just sell the product for the price that's set on the global market. So we had a very thoughtful conversation, and I appreciate the fact that she was willing to listen to what the conveyance of my concerns that I have with creating energy policy or energy poverty in this state, and that we need to make sure we do everything to make sure that energy is affordable for this state. And therefore, I ask for an aye vote on an individual who was confirmed by 5-0 on the Rules Committee on January 10.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Any discussion or debate on the nominee? Discussion or debate? Seeing none of the secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call] On a vote of 39 to zero, the nominee is confirmed. Members, we're going to move next to third reading, and aye'm going to give you a preview of the bills that we're going to hear today so you can be prepared.

We're going to deal with about 20, 20 or so odd bills, and here's the order in which we're going to proceed, and I'll give you updates as we go through the afternoon. We're going to start with file item number 10, followed by file item 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Okay, so the Members can be prepared to have their bills presented. We'll begin first with file item 10 by Senator Dahle. Senator Dahle, the floor is yours. Secretary.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 804 by Senator Dahle, an act relating to criminal procedure.

Senator Dahle?

Thank you, Mr. President, Members. Good afternoon. SB 804 is a hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings bill. Law enforcement and the legal system must be given the tools to properly serve our communities. Law enforcement civilians are becoming more frequently used, something the Legislature has encouraged. Currently, only sworn officers can perform hearsay testimony, meaning if a law enforcement civilians are called to the court, sworn officers must re-interview old victims, or those victims must be called to court to testify themselves.

Let me tell you what this bill actually does. This bill would allow authorized law enforcement civilians with the same exact training as a sworn officer. And that training is five years experience or have undergone the post training, the same as sworn officers do, to perform hearsay testimonies. This bill is good for victims because it keeps the victim from having to go into court and have to face their perpetrator sometime or relive the crime that they were with that they had gone through.

The recent amendments I took in public safety, that sworn officers and non sworn officer law enforcement civilians who commit perjury will be added to the Brady List, and the testimony given is subject to disclose the impeachment evidence. This change helps hold the witnesses accountable and ensures that only the best and most reliable testimony is admissible in court. Members, this is a bipartisan approach to having victims actually be able to have their testimony.

And I want to remind you the last thing that this bill, in current statute today, only sworn officers can take from the perpetrator. These are non sworn officers will be able to take it only from the victims. So that's a very important point. Current law doesn't allow that. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 804.

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

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 32 to two, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 13 by Senator Wahab. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 402 by Senator Wahab, an act relating to mental health.

Senator Wahab, the floor is yours.

Thank you. President and Members, I rise to present SB 402. SB 402 allows licensed mental health professionals to pursue county designation in order to be able to initiate a 5150 hold, even if they are not employed or contracted by the county. Community based organizations and licensed mental health professionals working with individuals on the front line of our district, building trust based relationships with people facing mental health challenges. Licensed mental health professionals follow very strict and specific requirements.

To place an individual under a 5150 hold, the person must be a danger to themselves, a danger to others, and be gravely disabled. These requirements are meant to protect individuals and the licensed mental health professionals alike and ensure that the personnel safety of someone undergoing a crisis. County designation training ensures that the licensed mental health professional have specific training regarding 5150. Understand the gravity of initiating one.

SB 402 ensures that licensed mental health professionals who don't work for the county or contract with it are eligible for county designation. To Institute these holds as a last resort, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, any discussion on SB 402? Seeing no microphones up. Secretary, please call the roll. Excuse me moment. It's a hidden microphone.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Grove, the floor is yours.

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

The author take a question?

It depends on the question, but sure.

I guess that's an affirmative. Senator Grove, your question?

I heard this Bill in Senate health, and there were significant amendments that were applied to that Bill. Did those amendments get inserted into this language here on the floor?

Which amendments are you specifically referring to?

Specifically allowing the county supervisors or the counties whoever, to designate those individuals that would be responsible for doing the 5150 holds.

The county is required to certify whether or not this particular licensed mental health professional is allowed to initiate a 5150. Yes.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

All right, any further comments or questions? All right, seeing none secret. Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote

Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 37 to one, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 15. This is by Senator Umberg. He's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 92 by Senator Umberg, an act relating to courts.

Senator Umberg?

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. SB 92 extends the sunset provision for remote access in criminal proceedings. Many of you have heard this or a version of this bill before. This simply extends the sunset to January 2026. Remote access has allowed particularly indigents to be able to participate without, for example, missing a day of work. I urge an aye vote.

Any discussion on this measure? This is eligible for unanimous roll call. I see an objection or you wish to speak? Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Colleagues, I remain concerned about the issues that have been raised in my Budget Committee since 2020. We heard from trial court employees about serious difficulty hearing, understanding, and translating witness testimony remotely during the pandemic. Testimony from court officials was the opposite. They said everything was fine. And yet, in 2022, budget Subcommitee five, which I chair, received a proposal for courts to upgrade their technology.

We provided $33 million to support remote access in courtroom proceedings, including upgrading audio and video equipment in the courtrooms. Despite receiving the $33 million for technology, most courts have not installed the appropriate and necessary technology. Judicial counsel is still in the process of adopting minimum technology standards to ensure that the technology allows for an accurate verbatim record and a clear understanding of what is going on in proceedings. Technological access and familiarity vary among court users.

All Internet connections fail, but remote proceedings exacerbate the digital divide for court users with poor Internet access. Some court users don't have a private space to participate in remote proceedings. Some live in multifamily situations where they cannot control interruptions. As a result, the use of remote appearances has caused several issues in the courtroom. Difficulty discerning who is speaking, people speaking over one another, difficulty hearing all parties due to ambient background noise. Failed Internet connections.

Judges sometimes ignore court reporters' attempts to stop proceedings when they cannot capture the record. Court reporter licenses and careers could be in jeopardy. They are obligated both by statute to maintain the official verbatim record. Court reporters cannot do this if they can't hear during proceedings. Witness testimony must be in person because remote proceedings increase potential for tampering, intimidation, make it difficult to assess credibility, and verify identity.

We cannot take for granted disparities that exist in the halls of our courtrooms, including for poor people, the elderly, and nonenglish speakers. These disparities are exacerbated by technology if we do not have standards and protections in place. I supported my colleague, the author's bill in 2021, SB 241 to enact until July of this year of last year, a framework for the use of remote technology in civil cases. Unfortunately, this bill is moving forward.

It should have greater inclusion of all the discussions we have had with court porters, interpreters, and criminal defense attorneys. There's no need to expedite this bill. We need a thoughtful, collaborative approach to make sure all parties in our justice system are represented. Although remote proceedings offer convenience for some individuals, justice requires accuracy. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo, and my apologies for not seeing your microphone earlier. Any further comments? Discussion? Debates? Seeing none. Senator Umberg, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my colleague from Los Angeles. I know this has been an issue of importance and engagement for my colleague. Let me just address some of the concerns. First, the concern with respect to the individual defendant. If an individual defendant wishes to be present, that individual defendant has a right to be present. Let me emphasize that that individual defendant has a right to be present. Remote access. No remote access appearance will ever be required, number one.

Number two, in terms of being able to make sure that the record is accurate, bill requires a court reporter to be physically present in the courtroom when testimony is being adduced. That court reporter can stop the proceedings if he or she cannot hear and cannot properly report or transcribe. The attorneys both for the prosecution as well as the defense, can also halt the proceedings as well as the judge. In terms of access, remote access is critically important for indigence.

And that's why virtually every public law institution in California that represents indigence supports this bill, particularly for the elderly. Oftentimes, those of you who practice know that sometimes the court appearance is only five minutes. If you are, for example, homebound and you have to make arrangements to go to court for a five minute appearance, that's incredibly onerous. The same is if you're indigent and you have a job that docks your wages if you miss a day of work. And so, for those reasons, I ask that the sunset be extended. The sunset causes this bill to expire this year. I urge an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the roll one more time.

[Roll Call].

Senator Durazo, is that vote recorded correctly?

No. That was--I said not voting.

Okay. Clarify that as a 'not voting.' Apologies. All right, Members, anyone else wish to cast a vote on this before we close the roll? Seeing none, the measure passes 35 to one. We're going to move next to File Item 16: Senator Cortese.

Senate Bill 554 by Senator Cortese an act relating to restraining orders.

Senator Cortese, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, current laws in California fail to outline jurisdictional responsibility for restraining order petitions. This gap often causes courts to dismiss or deny orders when petitioners are in different states. Even if the survivor fled for safety, SB 554 allows survivors of domestic violence or harassment to petition for an order in a California court, regardless of residency status. The nature of abuse has transformed, and so must our laws. Modern technology provides perpetrators a variety of new tools to harass and promote violence against survivors.

Even from distance, the need for this Bill is tremendous. Interstate violence is now the norm, not the exception. Perpetrators have no borders. Neither should a survivor's protection. The Bill is sponsored by the national campaign. Restraining orders without borders. I respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, any discussion or debate on this measure? Discussion or debate? All right, I'll debate. Having ceased. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Cortese moves a call. Members, we're going to move next to File Item 17. That's SB 689 by Senator Blakespear. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 689 by Senator Blakespear, an act relating to coastal resources.

Senator Blakespear.

Thank you, President and colleagues. I am pleased to present SB 689, which will reduce unnecessary delays in the building of bike lanes along California's coastline in already developed areas. During my time as the Mayor of the City of Encinitas, needing to amend the LCP--otherwise known as the Local Coastal Program--in order to build a protected bike lane project resulted in a difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and at times needlessly contentious process.

It is important for us as policymakers to ensure good governance throughout the state and eliminate bureaucratic hurdles that may prevent or prolong projects that provide a net positive to society and our environment. SB 689 does just that, and it will improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Coastal Commission in the construction of bike lanes. The Coastal Commission is officially neutral on this bill, and it is supported by many cities. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear. Recognize Senator Nguyen.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to propose an amendment to SB 689 to address the issues of retail theft. We need action.

Hold on, Senator Nguyen. Let's have the secretary read your amendments, okay? Secretary, please read.

Amendments by Senator Nguyen. Set One.

Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. President. We need action. Today I'm introducing an overdue measure that would make sure serial thieves face felony charges. Here in California, crime--basic items like shampoo and toothpaste are locked up, yet thieves roam free. When law enforcement cannot effectively pursue, prosecute, and penalize these criminals, Californians end up paying higher costs.

Retail theft is rampant, with incidents like in Huntington Beach jewelry store, where a family had to fight off a smash and grabber, or a Pasadena store losing 500,000 dollars worth of jewelry in broad daylight, or in Sacramento, where shoppers pay the price about 500 dollars more annually to cover the impact of theft. We must send a clear message to criminals: enough is enough. While this Senate will lightly table this amendment, I want Californians to know what this means.

An aye vote on a lay on the table means you do not support hearing this measure to hold repeat thieves accountable. A no vote on the table means you do want to debate the topic of retail theft today. To my colleagues, I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of our businesses and consumers. They are talking about this issue every day. Why don't we support the amendments, reject the lay on the table? Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen. On the amendment, Senator McGuire.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Legislature, and the Governor will be advancing legislation or retail theft this year, and as we all know, that's how the process works. Would respectfully ask to lay the amendments on the table. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator McGuire has moved to lay the amendments on the table. It's a non-debatable motion. Majority vote is required. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

On a vote of 31 to eight, the amendments have been laid on the table. We'll return now to the measure at hand. This is SB 689. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, Senator Blakespear, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

On a vote of 31 to eight, the measure passes. Members, we're going to move next to file item 18, and we're going to go from file item 18 through 25 if you want to be prepared - 18 all the way to file item 25. Next up, Senator Portantino - SB 53. He's prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 53 by Senator Portantino relating to firearms. Senator Portantino?

Thank you, Mr. President. And Members, in 2019, I authored SB 172, which established a safe firearm storage requirement in California. SB 53 is an expansion of those requirements by creating additional standards for safely securing all guns in homes. Existing law requires firearms in a home to either be kept in a locked container or secured with a locking device that prevents the gun from functioning if a child under the age of 18 is in the home.

But there is no broad requirement for the secure storage of a firearm by all gun owners. Let me say that again. There is no broad requirement for the secure storage of firearms by all gun owners. Death by firearm is the number one cause of death for children in our country. Nationwide, over 4.6 million minors live in homes with access to unsecured guns, and one in five gun owners store their firearms in the least safe manner, such as loaded and unlocked.

Over 70% of children reported knowing the location of a household firearm, and one in five parents who reported that their child had never handled a household firearm were contradicted by their children. Additionally, 76% of school shooters obtain their firearms from their parents home or the home of a close relative. SB 53 intends to reduce firearm suicide and unintentional firearm injuries through the safe storage of weapons.

Research shows that states that have implemented safe storage laws saw a 78% drop in unintentional shootings committed by children compared to states that do not have safe storage laws. This does not infringe upon a second amendment right, and it rather ensures that we have safe storage of weapons. If I say to you, lock your car, we think that's common sense, why shouldn't locking your gun just be prudent? Common sense? And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Discussion or debate? Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a problem with the Bill, and the Bill is duplicative. It's punitive to the wrong folks. It's unenforceable, and it's unconstitutional. As pointed out by some people already, California already has the most comprehensive storage laws in the nation. We have laws protecting our children already on the books. We already required to own one of these devices. When you purchase a gun, you're already required to do that. You're already guilty now of a crime.

If you leave a gun accessible to children outside of another crime being committed, this is unenforceable. It's also, on its face, unconstitutional. The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self defense, and is hence unconstitutional. This was already found by a federal court. What this will do is this will cause California's law, if this passes, to be challenged in court.

We're supposed to be the fiduciaries of our citizens' tax money, and doing something that we know is going to cost them a lot of money in court, their tax money, and then losing in court, which we will do, is not very responsible on our half. So if this Bill passes, it'll lead to millions in legal fees for legal defense. But there's something else about this Bill that really irritates me, and that is this:

Most people live, a lot of people live in communities where they can have their gun and they can have it safely stored, because guess what: they'll never need it. So it's irrelevant where it's stored. But there are a lot of communities out there, and there are communities which I served for many years, and those communities, you don't have time when somebody breaks into your house to fiddle with the lock in the storage and get your gun out, because by then, you will be dead.

Those are communities that don't have the privileges of having a safe community, and those are the very people that we're supposedly doing these laws for. So this law is unnecessary. We already have laws on the books. In general law, there's already a negligence clause. If somebody is negligent in the handling or storage or the keeping of a firearm and it results in the death of another, well, guess what? They're going to be held accountable for that. So it is unnecessary.

So unnecessarily, we are forwarding or trying to advance a bill that's going to just cost us a bunch of money and then get thrown out in court eventually anyway. So it was pointed out in committee that I'm a public safety guy, and it makes common sense. This is common sense for some people, but it's not common sense to the people that need to use their weapons to protect theirselves and their families from the people that are breaking into their homes or accosting them.

And so why would we not do. Why does it make common sense for some people but not others? Common sense is your perspective from where you live and where you see this issue. So for me, being in public safety for 35 years, yes, I've seen it all. Not all the suicides are by gun. There are plenty sprinkled out over the array of methods for people to commit suicides. Suicide is a different issue than gun violence. Suicide is an issue of mental health.

And that's something that we should be working on. This is not going to help that issue. So I would urge a no vote on this so that we can continue to help people. But we are not going to make criminals out of people who are simply using their constitutional right to own a gun. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Portantino, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members, colleagues. We know this works. We know this saves lives. Let me say that again. We know this saves lives. We know this works when we have the example from other states of a public policy, a public safety policy that makes it safer for children to go to school, and we say, zero, it's going to be inconvenient to lock my gun up. That's not common sense. That's not what we should be doing. As the shepherds of public trust, of public safety, of our children's health and welfare.

70% of the shooters get the gun from somebody they know because it's not locked up. 70% reduction in unanticipated shootings. 70% reduction when this policy is implemented. This is not an infringement on somebody's second amendment. This is a recognition that guns kill people, and the readily available, unlocked guns kill more people.

And the best way to make it safer for our children to go to school and for people in households where there's trauma is to make sure the weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, and the way to do that is to lock them up. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call].

Please call the absent Members.

Abragio, Gonzalez, Utado, Roth Ida. No.

On a vote of 27 to nine, the measure passes. Moving on to file item 19. This is SB 230 by Senator Seyarto.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 230 by Senator Seyarto an act relating to taxation to take effect immediately. Tax levy.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. Mr. President. I rise today to present SB 230. SB 230 would allow individuals and households making below median income to deduct health savings account contributions from their taxable income. This will give working class Californians an additional tool to offset the cost of high deductibles and make healthcare more accessible when it is needed. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any further debate on this measure? Any debate on this measure? Seeing none, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 28 to four, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 20. Senator Wiener, he seems prepared.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 294 by Senator Wiener. An act relating to healthcare coverage.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Colleagues, SB 294 may seem familiar to you because this body passed it previously, and this legislation will increase access to mental health treatment for young people. And specifically, it provides that for folks under the age of 26, if their health plan denies their request to cover mental health treatment, it will automatically trigger an independent medical review or an IMR.

We know that many families do not even know that this appeal process exists, particularly folks for whom English is not the first language, based on the data that we have. And we also know that when independent medical reviews for youth mental health needs are requested, overwhelmingly, the health plan loses. So this will increase access. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, any debate on this measure, SB 294? Any debate? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 31 to seven, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 21. We're going to go file item 21 through file item 25. File item 21. SB 480 by Senator Portantino. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 480 by Senator Portantino, an act relating to school districts.

Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 480 will implement a pilot program for California to use the Korean Meister high school system. In essence, this system teaches kids largely technical and professional career skills while they're still in high school, provides students who may not know whether they want to go to a four year institution into the workforce. It provides them the opportunity to learn those job skills while they're figuring out their future while they're in high school.

When I was in Korea several years ago, I was made aware of two of their systems that they use. One is you go to class Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and you work Thursday, Friday. Another is you go to class for a month, you work for a month, and when you graduate, you've learned the technical skills of that particular discipline. And they commonly refer to those jobs as new collar jobs. We need a tech workforce in California. This is a unique opportunity to model a pilot on a successful program from another country that's doing it well. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 36 to 1, 37 to one. Excuse me. The measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 22 by Senator Cortese. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 483 by Senator Cortese. An act relating to pupil rights.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you again, Mr. President and members. Today I write to present Senate Bill 483. This bill will prohibit prone restraint in all California schools, which is a technique that physically or mechanically restrains students in a facedown position. The US Department of Education has recommended the elimination of this dangerous technique in public schools because it restricts students' airways and has the potential to be fatal, and, in fact, has been fatal. By passing this bill, California will follow the Department of Education's recommendations and join the more than 30 states that have already banned prone restraint in public schools. The bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, any debate on this measure? Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. When I heard this bill in committee and I was mortified by the mother's testimony about her developmentally disabled child being in the prone position for hours as he died a slow, painful death and the other students watched. It's hard to believe that a bill like this is necessary in the State of California. Who would have thought that any teacher, any individual would put any student in a prone position for hours at a time?

I understand an immediate response to protect the health and safety of other students and the teacher, but based on the testimony that was happening at this particular situation, this was a developmentally disabled individual who may have had a reaction to something. And to leave that individual in that prone position for hours as he suffocated is horrific at best.

And not to go back to a bill I introduced last year, but I think that the pilot program that we said so, that students like this just aren't warehoused in our public school system, where parents could use taxpayer dollars of $17,000 a year to allow these parents to put them in different types of learning environments, to create upward mobility and maybe a more adequate facility that would help those that are developmentally disabled be higher wage earners and higher learners because they would have specialty attention instead of treatment like this. And I'm not saying all schools are like this. I just think there needs to be options out there. Again, I applaud the author for bringing this bill forward. It was heart-wrenching to listen to that mother tell the story of what happened to her son. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Any further discussion? Any further debate? Senator Cortese, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objection. Ayes 39. No, zero. The measure passes. We'll move next to file item 23. This is SB 571 by Senator Allen. He's not at his desk. We'll move next to file item 24. Sorry. I guess we'll hear it next year. This is file item 24. This is SB 575 by Senator Wahab. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 575 by Senator Wahab, an act relating to underage marriage.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. Chair and Members, California lacks a real understanding of the impact of child marriages across the state. What we do know is that California affords its children some of the weakest protections against childhood marriage in the United States. Data shows that 90% of women who were in childhood marriages report physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Currently, children in the state require the consent of one parent and a court order to be married. But there are loopholes in reporting.

Child marriages without court orders are not required to be reported. SB 575 closes that loophole and requires all child marriages to be reported. To make genuine progress towards supporting our children, we need to identify the scale of this issue. This bill directs county recorders to issue a report of all child marriages in 2019 to 2024 to the state registrar. This bill also establishes a study to determine the impact of extra legal child marriages and gather essential data to determine the scope of this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Wahab, any further discussion on this measure? It is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objection. Ayes 39, no, zero.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 38 to zero, the measure passes. At the request of a higher authority, very high, we're going to move back to file item 23, SB 571 by Senator Allen. He seems to be distracted. All right, we're going to go back to file item 571. The secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 571 by Senator Allen, an act relating to fire safety.

Senator Allen, the privilege floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. You're doing a great job today. I'm pleased to be presenting this bill. This bill charges our State Board of Forestry with the task of studying standards related to ingress and egress for new developments proposed in high risk fire areas of the state, fire prone areas of the state.

So we find ourselves at a bit of a confluence of a crisis here. We continue to need to develop additional housing. We also need to be making sure that we're making these decisions with the necessary consideration of the threats that some areas pose. Last year, of course, the board released its minimum fire safe regulations, but those regulations did not directly consider a minimum number of ingress and egress routes required in new developments.

And in many areas of my district, I'm sure many of yours, you've got existing evacuation routes that have the potential being stretched thin in the event of a major wildfire emergency. And without consideration and inclusion of additional evacuation routes in new builds, the consequences could be deadly. So this bill seeks a valuable step by directing the board to study this issue while considering important components like development size if it would contain vulnerable populations, traffic impacts, and others. It's a work in progress.

We're working with stakeholders on this nuanced but important issue. I've committed to keeping both the relevant policy committees apprised for the bill and moved from our chamber today. I've spoken with a couple of you about setting certain standards for minimum size build so that we can make sure that we're really focused on sizable new development that could dramatically strain our ability to get people out during a wildfire emergency. And that's the goal of the bill here. And in order to keep having these very important discussions, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Allen. I see the microphones up from Senator Laird and then Senator Dodd. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. President. I expressed concerns about this in Committee because the Board of Forestry was tasked with this and they couldn't do it because there were really big issues that they couldn't resolve. And what this bill does is says we'll force you to resolve it, but is silent in many ways about the stance on those issues.

And in my district, we lost 925 homes to a fire and some of the ingress and egress is single. And if there's a new house proposed in any of those neighborhoods, many of the people that were burned out cannot rebuild. That would be unacceptable. And I have been debating what to do on this bill because it's constantly a work in progress as it's come by.

And I want to make sure that I can go home and not face hundreds of people and say, sorry, we passed this bill and you cannot rebuild from the fire. So I just want to put that on the record. And regardless of what I do today, to me that has to be worked out. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Leard. Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd and then Senator Dahle.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I concur with the comments from my colleague from Santa Cruz, is somebody that had a number of homes burned down throughout my entire district. I really think the last effort by the Board of Forestry, frankly, was an abject failure in many, many cases with the rules that they put forward. And then, fortunately, we were able to get those as guidelines and not mandates for counties.

So the counties have the discretion to be able to do what they need to do in their counties. I think it's critical that we continue, and I did talk to the author from Los Angeles that he'll work with RCRC and try to get a minimum threshold so this doesn't hit the type of people that the Senator from Santa Cruz suggested it would. And I agree wholeheartedly. It not only would, but it did.

And we had a lot of work to do to get it to where it is right now, where it's kind of discretionary on the part of the counties. But the counties are afraid because they're thinking, hey, the states, given these rules, and some counties do not believe it's discretionary. They believe that it's the law of the land and they're enforcing it. And I just think it's the worst thing we can do. So we got to be very careful. I will support it today, but I promise if this comes back like this on the floor that I'll get up and speak against the bill.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. I have microphones from Senator Dahle and Senator Wiener. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President, Members. I just, too, want to say that somebody who's represented many areas that have had fires, you know the Camp Fire, the Carr Fire, the Dixie Fire. And we've had egress problems and that those are passed. This is actually for new development, and I applaud the author for that. But I will be laying off today because the devil is in the details.

We need to really make sure that we don't penalize folks who are in a spot where they've lost everything and then can't rebuild. And trust me, I know that the Senator from Santa Cruz is talking about. I've heard from him, too. I trust the author will work those details out as we go forward.

Hopefully, we won't see a lot of amendments that hurt folks and we can actually get where we are trying to go, which makes fire safe communities a way they can get out and they can still build. That's the goal here. So I applaud the author for that. But I'll be watching this bill as it goes through. Thank you.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. President. So when this bill was first in print and coming to Committee, as the author knows, I had very, very serious concerns about the bill. And in that form, I would have been a no on the bill. And I want to really thank the author for agreeing to pull back and to take more time and to actually invoke a process here.

And I understand there are concerns about that process, but I really want to give the author credit for doing that because the original bill, in my view, would not have been acceptable. And I do appreciate the author taking more time. So I'll be supporting the bill today.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Allen, you may close. Excuse me, Senator Stern.

Sorry to belabor the debate. I guess if we're talking about districts who have been hit by fires, we lost more properties in the Woolsey Fire than any fire for the last three decades. Lost my own home, had an evacuation that was botched and put my grandfather in the hospital. So ingress and egress is awfully personal and serious. I actually really respect what the author is trying to do here.

And I know these are tricky tensions of after that fire happens up that long, windy road, you want to go rebuild whatever was there. And a lot of times it's people with very nice homes who maybe want to go rebuild an even nicer home. I don't think any of this bill is going to get in the way of those people doing what they got to do. I think it's really about trying to backdoor big new developments in these fire zones without adequate oversight.

So I didn't take from the author's presentation at all that for the folks who have been hit by fires, that there's any tend to block that rebuilding. But I think we all need to be serious on this floor about the insurance crisis and that if we are going to expand development deeper into these fire zones, we are going to have an even greater insurance crisis. So I guess I'm standing in support as someone who faced these similar problems. And I appreciate the author's work. Maybe you can comment on that in your close?

Thank you. Senator Stern, any further discussion? Seeing none. Senator Allen, you may close.

Well, first of all, I want to thank my colleague. That's absolutely right. We are focused on new development. So the kind of rebuild that you're talking about, Senator, from Santa Cruz, is not what we're looking to get at here.

We actually had proposed minimum standards, Senator from Napa and I were discussing this in our bill as originally formulated, to say that this bill would only, by the way, let's remember we're just asking the board to study this issue. But even then, we wanted the minimum standard to be the kind of new development that would trigger an increase in 40 vehicles that would need to be evacuated on a dime within the context of a catastrophic, quick-moving wildfire.

So the idea would be that it would be at 20 residential units or the commercial equivalent, but we don't want to hit people's ability to rebuild. I want to make that really clear. And we do want to have these minimums. Now, the Natural Resource Water Committee took that out. Quite frankly, we're going to have to have some further negotiation with the Committee. And I very much welcome your engagement in that conversation, Senator, because they want a more expansive view.

I'm also hearing from everyone here on the floor today. We want to really keep this tight. I agree with you. So we're going to have to engage that conversation with the Committee. But ultimately, this is about ensuring that as folks are trying to develop major new developments involving literally 20 new housing units or more, or an equivalent, that we're taking into account the importance of ingress and egress in the case of a catastrophic wildfire. We saw what happened in Paradise.

We've seen other cases, such as those mentioned by the Senator from Los Angeles. That's what we're trying to address here. And it's with that, that I ask for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 31 to zero, the measure passes. Members, we're going to move next to file item 25, followed by file item 27, 28, 29, and 30. We'll move next to file item 25. This is SB 691 by Senator Portantino. Will the clerk please read the bill?

Clerk, please read the bill.

Senate Bill 691 by Senator Portantino. An act relating to State Board of Education.

Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mr. President and members. SB 691 is a simple bill that would add two students to the State Board of Education. Two additional students. There's one currently on the board. I think it would empower young people to be more active in crafting education policy. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any discussion on this measure? Any further debate on this measure? Seeing none, the secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members. On a vote of 31 to seven, the measure passes. We'll move next to file item 27. Secretary, please read the Bill.

Senate Bill 764 by Senator Padilla and acquiring to minors.

Senator Padilla. Members, please give your attention to Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. SB 764 is the Child Content Creator Rights Act, which would require family content creators who are compensated for filming their minor children in more than 30% of their content to set aside a percentage of that revenue in a trust that the minor can access when they reach the age of majority. As many of you know well, California's groundbreaking Cougan act nearly three quarters of a century ago protects child actors in California operating under contract who are filmed.

But these protections do not extend to the emerging circumstance we face today. The rise of social media has seen family content creators explode, with many parents filming their daily lives and earning thousands, thousands and more dollars in revenue, sponsorships and advertising. Some regularly include their children in this content, including filming the intimate details of their personal lives for their audience of millions to see. In addition, this raises serious questions about the rights of children who were drafted into this emerging entertainment landscape.

Videos about peak moments such as new homes, pregnancy, new babies get more views, incentivizing families to post more videos of their children and sacrificing their privacy. SB 764 simply applies the Kuganak protections to modern entertainment and performers. As social media becomes even more integrated into our daily life and a growing share of the entertainment landscape, we need to update our hard fought labor provisions and safeguard the financial future of these performers. SB 764 would recognize that children deserve financial protection and compensation for being filled. This Bill has received bipartisan support, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Any discussion, any further debate on this measure? Members seeing no microphones up, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call].

On a vote of 34 to zero, the measure passes. We'll move next to File Item 28 by Senator Caballero. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 768 by Senator Caballero, an act relating to environmental quality.

Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. Members, this continues the saga of one size doesn't fit all in the State of California. Some regions are actually different than other regions. In 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, and it established a special administrative and judicial review process under CEQA for the City of Sacramento to streamline the development and construction of the Golden 1 Center.

So for those of you who have gone to the Golden 1 Center, you know it is an infill project in the middle of the city. And the bill tasked the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to develop new guidelines to replace the current criteria used to measure transportation impacts. In other words, if you built that facility according to the old transportation system, it could not be done because it was going to increase traffic in the region.

But because OPR came up with a different system, which is vehicle miles traveled, they got around that problem and created an opportunity to do infill projects in transit-rich communities. And that's exactly what was done in this instance by a budget bill which took the concept and applied it to the entire state.

We now have a situation where we have developments all over the state, in particular, housing developments that have to meet vehicle miles traveled guidelines, which means that you have to put in transit, you have to create bicycle lanes, you have to create walking lanes, all as a way to get people out of their houses. What has resulted by that is it has resulted in a fee because many communities don't have transit, the bicycle path isn't going to make any difference, and in suburban and in rural areas, this VMT application results in increased costs for development.

At the exact same time that we're telling communities, 'we need you to build, to plan and build for housing,' we're also saying, 'oh, by the way, you have to comply with vehicle miles traveled because if you put that house in that location, you're going to create traffic and commuters.'

Members, we know that in highly urbanized areas, they're not building enough housing and that people are traveling further and further away from their place of employment to find a house that they can afford. My district in particular, has seen the impacts of this, and I know in many of your districts as well.

In the County of Riverside, the unique situation that was created is that when the county decided they needed to improve the traffic on their highway system, they were not allowed to upgrade the highway system because it would increase vehicle miles traveled. In other words, Riverside was stopped from doing a safety improvement to keep people safe on the highway because of vehicle miles traveled. People are traveling because they can afford a house there.

And by not fixing the road, we don't improve safety and we don't do anything to stop people from traveling to where they can afford to buy. The bill basically is a study bill now, and it's a study bill to get the Air Board, the Transportation Agency, the Housing Agency, all to sit down and to say, 'look, we've set up priorities that don't make sense.'

We have penalized communities who are building the housing that's needed in our state, but who also are required to use a model that doesn't work for them. It doesn't reduce traffic by adding a fee onto a house. It doesn't improve traffic by not allowing safety improvements.

We need this study to be done so we can figure out how do we incentivize the building of housing and how can we do it in a way that complies with CEQA and that meets the needs of rural and suburban areas. And so I believe a comprehensive study is necessary to draw attention to any opportunities to improve the VMT analysis. And there is clear evidence gap to justify limiting or excluding projects from VMT. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this really important study bill.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. I see microphones up from Senator Roth and Senator Dahle. Senator Roth.

Thank you, Mr. President. I realize it's 3:30 in the afternoon, so I'll try to make this brief. You've heard me before. I live in inland Southern California where we build homes. We build--used to be affordable homes. Our policies in the state are in somewhat of a conflict. We often incentivize job growth, job retention, job expansion in the urban coastal areas, where that's where jobs historically have been.

And we tell the inland parts of the state, through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process to build housing. In this case of the City of Riverside, the RHNA allocation is 18,000 homes. We tell the inland parts to build housing to house the workers who work on the coast in the urban areas. We don't require those urban coastal areas that are getting money for job expansion, job recruitment, retention, to certify that they either have or will build worker housing.

We use the RHNA allocation to drive the housing to the inland parts of the state. In the inland parts of the state where I live, the transit doesn't work. The bus lines don't connect where they cross county lines, and you cannot take the bus to get from your home to your job efficiently and effectively. It would probably take four or five hours to get from places in Riverside County to jobs in Orange County or in Los Angeles County.

The train doesn't work because the passenger trains use the freight lines, and so the train service is not as frequent as it should be, and you certainly can't get back midday if your child gets sick or you have to get home for some other reason. So our policies don't work. We can't seem to get them connected with this vehicle miles traveled. I will give you a recent example of a highway expansion project in Riverside County, the 91/215.

It was an expansion project that was multiple millions of dollars that was previously approved, and the regional transportation agencies, RCTC and the one in San Bernardino County, went before the California Transportation Commission to get an allocation, a 200 plus million dollar allocation of that previously approved construction money, and the request was denied. It was denied because the project increases vehicle miles traveled. Well, of course it increases vehicle miles traveled.

When you direct the housing be built and the jobs are on the coast, every house you build will increase vehicle miles traveled. Now, I will tell you, the Transportation Commission wisely reconsidered that decision, and I believe it was just last week toward the end, they approved that project, but the initial outcome was outrageous. Your policies in the State of California must integrate and they must work, and in this case, they obviously don't. I suggest that we give the Senator from the Central Valley an aye vote on this bill. It's a good bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Roth, for those brief remarks. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. I actually voted for the bill in Committee, and my district, as everybody knows, is the largest district in the state, and vehicle miles traveled penalizes us. Number one: we have to travel. Number two: we don't have public transportation that works with very sprawled out communities.

But at the same time, a lot of parts of my district which are here in the Sacramento area have public transportation that people don't use. So I'm just going to say, I noticed that no Republicans have voted for this bill. Obviously, my district hates vehicle miles of travel period because they all travel, and taxing those miles or not having public transportation. But I'm going to support the bill because of a couple of reasons.

Number one: I think that we've got it wrong when people aren't using our public transportation and we're saying they are, and we're making decisions on that at the same time we're putting more people on the road to get to their work in affordable areas. So I have applaud the author for taking on a very difficult issue, but we need that information. If we're really going to do it right, we need to get good information and find out what people are really doing.

And it's contrary to what the Legislature has been trying to push them to do, and we're having these conflicts. So I'm going to vote for the bill. I'm hoping some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle will recognize that this will be good information to make good decisions in the future on what people are really doing. Irregardless of what we want them to do, they're doing something different. For those reasons, I'll be supporting the bill again today.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Senator Caballero, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me and urging in support of this bill. You know, ultimately what we need to do is make our policies make sense. And as I was looking around and urgently imploring the coastal regions to support this bill, the issue has to do with, are we going to go beyond what we're doing right now and create a transportation system that'll move Californians to wherever they want to go?

And right now, all of our policies really limit our transportation agencies from reaching out into new regions and creating partnerships. And my hope out of this study bill is that we'll come up with a whole host of things that if this is happening in your county, you don't have the public transportation, it's a job-poor area, the money that the state is putting out for job creation is going to areas that are not producing the housing, if we can get all of this data together, we can make it make sense in a way that helps us to build housing, helps us to move people all over the state, and with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call].

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 34 to four, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 29 by Senator Limon. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 782 by Senator Limon. An act relating to state government.

Senator Limon, the floor is yours.

Thank you. SB 782 requires the office of the governor to maintain on its website a list of all state boards and commissions, including the purpose, membership lists, and information when they convene. The bill also requires an annual report with aggregate demographic information of individuals appointed to the State Boards and Commission. SB 782 has received strong bipartisan support over the last four years. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Limon. Any further discussion on this measure? Seeing none, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Senator Limon moves the call. Members, we have eight bills remaining, so let's take a breath. The next five are going to be file item 3032-3334 so next up is file item 30, SB 820 by Senator Alvarado-Gil. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 820 by Senator Alvarado-Gil. Cannabis. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present Senate Bill 820. This is a Bill that adopts the same civil asset forfeiture process currently applicable to unlicensed manufacturing of alcoholic beverages. This would apply to unlicensed commercial cannabis activities with more than 1000 live plants upon a judgment in favor of the forfeiture under SB 820, the seized property would be sold at public auction, with 85% of the proceeds going to a reinvestment of the cannabis control Fund to support cannabis equity businesses.

Questions from my colleagues have come out to clarify. This Bill would require that a warrant issued by a judge, upon probable cause be obtained before any property can be seized under the Bill. This also creates a very specific list of items used in unlicensed cannabis operations that will be included in the seizure. It does prohibit the seizure of vehicles carrying cannabis or cannabis products valued at less than 5000. As well as clarification that this does not include real property under the seizure.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate, this measure is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objection. Eyes 39. No, zero. The measure passes. Excuse me. All right, aye didn't see an objection in the back, so we're going to call the roll. Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call] All right. And a vote of 36 to zero, the measure passes. Members, we're going to go back to measures that have been put on call. We have two of them. We're going to begin with file item 16, SB 554. Secretary, please open the roll. [Roll Call] On a vote of 32 to six, the measure passes.

Next, we're going to move to file item 29. This is SB 782. Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call] On a vote of 39 to zero, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 32. SB 7 by Senator Blakespear. Secretary, please read it.

Senate Bill 7 by Senator Blakespear an act relating to housing.

Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. President and colleagues, I am pleased to present SB Seven, which will clarify existing statutes regarding requirements for local governments reporting of extremely low income housing production. SB 7 will require local governments to report the certificates of occupancy that they issue for extremely Low income housing. Certificates of occupancy indicate that construction is complete and a unit is ready to be occupied. Since 2017, the Legislature has taken major strides to hold local governments accountable for increasing housing production.

While tracking of locals housing production is robust, there is a need to enhance tracking of the type of housing production that California's most urgently need. SB seven will address this need. I respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear, Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have amendments at the desk.

Secretary, please read the amendments.

Amendments by Senator Dahle. Set one.

Senator Dahle, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I rise today to offer an amendment to SB 7. We must stop the dangerous practice of releasing sexually violent predators into our communities on a transient status. This practice is unconscionable and dangerous. According to Liberty Healthcare, 75% of sexually violent predators released on transit status failed to transition successfully and were rehospilized or revoked due to serious violations. We know the dangers of these predators pose. We can and must do better instead of giving them an RV and just dumping them in the community.

If the offender cannot be placed in a resident house, then we should house them on state property where that state personnel can closely monitor them. Liberty healthcare has testified that it is easier to monitor the offenders in a fixed residence with hardwire phone and Internet. Sexually violent predators aren't your average felons. While there aren't great numbers, in numbers, they pose greater than average risk of reoffending. The state's obligation is to minimize that risk. I know that my Democrat colleagues likely will table this motion without debate.

That's what happens in the same amendment last year. By voting to table this motion, you are voting to reject consideration of this measure. I say this to you, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is a growing problem. At least let's debate the issue so Californians can see where we stand on protecting the people in our districts from this very real threat. Members, I've had many of these folks placed in my district, not the districts they come from, because it's a rural area. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote on these amendments.

Member Senator Dahle has placed amendments on the floor. Next. Want to recognize Senator McGuire?

Thank you so much. Mr. President. Mr. President, this Bill is focused on affordable housing for working families and seniors. The amendments aren't germane to the Bill and would respectfully request amendments be laid on the table, and with respect, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Easy for me to say.

Senator Mcguire has moved to lay the amendments on the table. It's a non debatable motion. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 31 to eight, the amendments are placed on the table. We'll move back to the main motion, which is the passage of SB number seven by Senator Blakespear. Any further discussion on this, Senator Jones?

Thank you, Mr. President. On file M 32, SB 7, the language that's in the Bill currently, I believe, is unobjectionable, but it is a gut and amend, and this language has not been through any policy Committee here in the Senate. So I'm going to encourage laying off on this vote just in case it goes to the Assembly and the Assembly messes it up. So we don't want that to happen. And so I'm going to ask for an abstention on this vote.

Thank you, Senator Jones. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Senator Blakespear, you may close.

Thank you. Yes, this Bill is much reduced from its original goals, but it is still important, and it is supported by a large number of groups, which I will not read out. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All debate having seized the secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 32 to zero, the measure passes. And in the words of the Senator from San Diego, Senator Blakespear, don't let the Assembly mess this up. Okay, we're going to move next to file item 33. This is SB 37 by Senator Caballero.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 37 by Senator Caballero. An act relating to homelessness.

Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to present SB 38, which will establish the Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities Housing Stability Act to offer competitive grants to nonprofit organizations, continuums of care, and other community-based organizations to provide shallow subsidies for vulnerable older adults and adults with disabilities at risk of becoming homeless. Members, the largest demographic population that is falling into homelessness are adults over the age of 55. And we know this is happening because they've retired, their Social Security benefits aren't sufficient.

They end up with a medical emergency or get evicted from their housing, and the next thing you know, they're on the streets and they're not able to take care of themselves. We have an obligation as a society to treat our elderly with great respect. A lot of times that doesn't happen. And in this instance, we need to figure out what are the strategies to keep them housed so that we can ensure that they don't end up on the streets. Amendments taken in the Senate Appropriations Committee narrow the bill to a pilot program to reduce the bill's fiscal impact, and the amendments reduce the cost of developing and administering the program. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. And to be clear, this is Senate Bill 37. Any further discussion or debate on this measure? Seeing none, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 36 to zero, the measure passes. Members, we have five bills left. The order in which we'll hear them are the following. File item 34, 36. Then we'll move back to file item 14, 25, and 31. Next up, file item 34 by Senator Skinner. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 59 by Senator Skinner. An act relating to menstrual products.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Know, when we walk into a restroom, especially a public restroom, we expect that the supplies for a sanitary experience will be provided. Soap, water, toilet paper, those are expected, but for half the population, menstrual products are a basic need for a normal, regular bodily function. What SB 59 will do is ensure that restrooms in our state-funded buildings provide menstrual products, just as they provide toilet paper, soap and water, et cetera. California has already ended the tax on menstrual products.

We require menstrual products to be provided free at our public schools, grade three to 12. Also our CSUs and our community colleges. So SB 59 will just ensure that our state buildings have the same thing. SB 59 promotes equity for all Californians that menstruate. Period. And I ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 32 to zero, the measure passes. Next up, file item 36 by Senator Umberg.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 379 by Senator Umberg and Acri Lane to prisons.

Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. President. And colleagues. I'm presenting SB 379, the accountability letter bank. The genesis of this Bill was a visit to Donovan State Correctional Facility. Several. Several of you were there and meeting with various folks who are incarcerated. Some of those individuals had interacted with their victims and found it to be a positive experience, both for the victims as well as for those who are incarcerated. However, some wish to contact their victims, and understandably, there's no method to do so.

And, in fact, some victims don't wish to have any contact with those who were the perpetrators of the crimes that created them as victims. The purpose of this Bill is to basically create an escrow or a bank where someone who is incarcerated can submit a communication, can submit a letter, and then the person or persons who are victims can ask basically to receive the letter, but there's no direct contact between the two. I think it's a healing and restorative measure. I urge and I vote.

Thank you, Senator Unburg. Any further discussion on this measure? It is eligible for a unanimous roll call, seeing no objections. I. 39. No, zero. The measure passes. We're going to move back in the file, have a presentation by one of our Members here. File item 14. The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 827 by Senator Glazer, in equilibrium, to transportation.

Senator Glazer?

Thank you, Madam President. And Members, this Bill would apply existing statutory authority granted to the Department of Transportation's Inspector General to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District's Inspector General. Specifically, it provides the Bartig with explicit access to records and property, and access to confidential records, unless state law explicitly precludes access. With that, respectfully asks for an I vote.

Seeing no microphones up, Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

39 to zero. Measure is adopted. Moving on now to file item 26, SB 733.

The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 733 by Senator Glazer and ...to corrections.

Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, we've had considerable debate on this floor about solitary confinement, and for good reason. It's a system that many of us, from whatever perspective, I think, feel is broken and not working the way it should.

The measure before you, part of the challenge in deciding and voting on these numerous reforms to this area, is that we're really lacking in data about who goes to solitary, for how long, how many times, for what reason, and that when you ask the Administration to provide that factual data so we could make good choices as policymakers.

We don't get the information back for a variety of reasons, but at the end of the day, they're not giving us the information for us to make the changes that many on this floor think are necessary. The Bill before you is only a data Bill. It only requests that the Administration provide the information and the data that I noted earlier. Who's being sent to solitary? How long are they being kept there? How often, under what circumstances are they being sent to solitary, and, of course, why?

It's justified, along with a number of other data requests, about their access to health care, to mental health care, to rehabilitation, to recreational opportunities. So the Bill before you is not the reform that many people would like to see us do, but it is setting a foundation for those choices that you may wish to make today, tomorrow, next year, this year, or next year without a respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no microphones up this. Senator Skinner, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. And Members, I am not in favor of the Bill, and the reason is that I think that it's a mistake for the Legislature to get in a position where we put into statute requests for information from the Administration. Once we start that route, then we've pretty much said that we pretty much have to pass a Bill in order to get information that is legitimately ours to request.

Now, I'm not aware yet, I am not questioning the author in terms of he may have requested that data. I don't know whether any of our committees, say public safety or Budget Committee, have. I don't know whether we've been refused, but I'm very hesitant to put into statute something that says, Department, you must give us information because that is something that when we are trying to analyze policies or budgetary actions, we deserve. So that is why I will not be voting in support.

Thank you. Any other Members wishing to speak? Seeing none. Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Look, I wish that the Administration would be responsive to our requests. At least some of the Members that weren't recently elected know we've had spirited debates on this issue for a long time, and yet where's the factual basis for deciding whether or not the Administration is running our corrections agency appropriately? So, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to request and demand in legislation like this. But it underscores the importance of us as policymakers making good choices with real data and information.

I think that, as I said in my opening segregated housing, as it's referred to is a serious penalty on someone in our prisons. Sometimes it's done for their safety, sometimes it's done for the safety of others, both inmates as well as correctional officers. But we need to have a shining light on exactly how they're running these institutions. And that's the purpose of the Bill. That's what it's focused on. And would that respectfully ask for an aye vote?

Thank you. And all debate has ceased, Senator Cortese. So all debate having ceased, secretary will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

31 to one the measure is adopted. 30 to one the measure is adopted. Moving on now to file item 31. Senator Glazer, the Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 875 by Senator Glazer. An act relating to health and care facilities.

Senator Glazer, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Many of us know or can imagine how stressful it is to navigate the process of finding a safe setting for an aging family member or friend who needs professional support. Referral agencies are often used for that purpose to help families make those decisions. They do that by learning about a senior's needs and then connecting them with a residential care facility that has rooms open and in some cases, quickly.

However, current law only minimally regulates referral agencies, and this bill addresses two elements to raise the bar on what is going on today. Number one, it creates a disclosure requirement that doesn't exist today. You have to disclose under this legislation whether you have to give consumers a disclosure. But you have to let me say this again. The measure will ban certain practices, like referral agencies, from having any direct or indirect financial interest in any medical facility doing business with the licensee.

There are some other disclosure requirements in the bill, but the other element of the bill is a licensing requirement that doesn't exist today. It creates a licensing requirement for referral agencies. Now, there are some who have concerns about the bill, who feel that the licensing requirement should be much more extensive than what is in the bill today. And I've committed to working with those entities to see if we can make them more comfortable with the licensing requirement. But the main objection is they want to see it go further. The bill today does provide important disclosures, does add a licensing scheme so that there can be greater review of these referral agencies. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

No members wishing to speak. This is eligible for a unanimous roll call. There are objections. Thank you very much. Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Vote is 32 to zero. That measure is adopted. We're going to take a brief pause here, please, and you may notice a change in presiders.

Thank you for your patience today. If there is no other business before the Senate, Senator Atkins, the desk is clear.

Thank you, Mr. President. Well, colleagues, according to our majority leader, we did some great work today. So the good news is our next floor session will be scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, January 30th, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. Not 10, 11 a.m. We'll work the file for approximately an hour to 90 minutes, and we should be able to complete our business very timely tomorrow. So with that, Mr. President, thank you so much.

Thank you, Senator Atkins. The Senate Members will be adjourned. We will reconvene Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. Thank you very much.