Senate Floor

[Roll Call]

Members, a quorum is present. I'd like to ask all the Members of the Senate and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery to please rise. We will be led in prayer this afternoon by our chaplain, Sister Michelle, after which, please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Sister Michelle.

Thank you. So as we gather in God's presence, we pray the prayer of Howard Thurman today. Lord, my God, open unto me light for my blindness. Courage for my fear, hope for my despair and peace for my turmoil. Open unto me joy for my sorrow, strength for my weakness, wisdom for my confusion and forgiveness for my sin.

Lord, open unto me tenderness for my toughness, love for my hates, thyself for myself, Lord. Lord, open unto me. Amen.

Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.

Members, I wanted to give you an update of our work Members, I wanted to give you an update of our work so far this week, as well as give you a game plan for our work this afternoon so everyone can be aware. First, let me share the good news that we heard from our pro tem yesterday.

We have dispensed with the vast majority of bills that were before us this week. For today, we do have a healthy consent calendar that will be taken up. We only have approximately 19 bills on file today that we will hear, but there are some limitations to those bills.

Many of those bills are on file have timestamps, meaning that the 72 hours won't be up until a little bit later this afternoon. So we'll have a couple stops and starts as we wait for those timestamps to be in effect. All that being said, on behalf of the leadership, I want to thank everyone for their hard work.

We are ahead of schedule, and certainly that will continue as we finish our business today. We want to ask you for your patience as we deal with some of the logistical issues as well as some of our sound effects from next door on cue. So again, thank you all for your cooperation today.

We look forward to a great session this afternoon. We will begin with privileges of the floor. There are none at this moment. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read messages from the Assembly. I think we may be hearing them. They will be deemed read as well. Reports of Committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted.

We're going to move next to motions, resolutions and notices. Senator Min, I see your microphone up.

I request that file item eight, SB 1126, be moved to the inactive file.

The desk will note anything else under motions, resolutions and notices. See no microphones up. We will move next to consideration of the daily file. We will begin with the Senate third reading, and let me give you a preview on the measures that we'll be taking up first so Members can be prepared. We'll begin with file item 18.

Excuse me. We're going to begin with File Item 19 and then head back to File Item 18, followed by File Item 21 and 22. So we'll begin with File Item 19. This is Senate Bill 1323 by Senator Menjivar. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1323 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to criminal procedure.

Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues. Kicking us off today with SB 1323. In California, there is a monthly statewide wait list that averages between 200 and 300 individuals alleged to have committed felonies whom the courts have deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.

These individuals are waiting for a bed to become available in a state hospital so they can undergo evaluation and a process to restore them to competency. This body, through the legislation ran by the Senator from Los Angeles, has voted to address this backlog when it comes to misdemeanors.

SB 1323 now aligns with the recommendations of experts at the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to improve state competency to stand trial procedures for those charged with nonviolent felonies.

If a person is found incompetent to stand trial, the criminal case remains on hold while the person participates in competency restoration, where the goal is to prepare a person to participate in and understand the courtroom procedures, not to provide lasting therapeutic treatment.

For those who have restored a competency, very few are actually convicted of felony offenses and sentenced to state prison. That's because for low-level nonviolent felonies, the amount of time needed to go through the restoration process is equal to the amount of time they would be incarcerated if convicted.

So by the time the restoration process is done, these individuals are quickly released to the streets with no long-term treatment. Under current law, judges have no choice. All individuals accused of a nonviolent family who are found incompetent to stand trial must be sent for competency restoration.

These individuals are funneled through our state's most restricted and costly state hospital beds, at times waiting, like I mentioned earlier, many months in jail prior to placement at a state hospital. That is why SB 1323 will require mental health experts to determine at the beginning of the process if a person is likely to be restored to competency.

In rare cases wherein everyone agrees at the outset that a person is not likely to be restored, a judge will have the discretion to place that person in other options like conservatorship, specialized placement, instead of wasting resources on a process that will not work.

Two: it will ask judges to determine if sending the person for restoration of competency is in the interest of justice. If it is not, judges will have discretion to pursue these options instead like I mentioned before. Another option would be to go through CARE Court. Finally, it's going to allow judges to reinstate competency proceedings if the person does not succeed or cannot be placed in another treatment. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Senator Menjivar has opened the debate. Any Member want to be heard on this measure? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call].

On a vote of 24 to 10, the measure passes. Please. Remember, we do have a Senator not present, so we're going to skip file item 18 and move to file item 21. Excuse me. This is Senate Bill 1413 by Senator Niello. Secretary, please read Senate Bill 1413 by Senator Niello and act relating to computation of time.

Senator Niello, the floor is yours. Please give him your attention, Members.

Thank you, Mister President. I am presenting SB 1413, which relates to permanent standard time. This is a policy that some might say is as old as time itself. Now, surveys show that almost everybody wants to ditch the switch. That is, people are generally tired of going back and forth every six months.

The question is to which switch to ditch. And that's where the controversy becomes, and California's only option absent an act of Congress, quite literally, is permanent standard time, which I originally proposed in this legislation, overwhelmingly supported by the health community and sleep experts. But as I said, there is some controversy.

There are a number of people who prefer daylight savings, but we can't do that until Congress acts on that issue. But I'm saving you from that decision today. The Bill is just a study Bill.

It was amended in appropriation to have the CEC do a study to assess the near term and long term impacts of observing year round standard time on an energy demand and supply basis. The overwhelming reason for it really is health reasons, but that is the study that we have.

So today's proposal is just to authorize a study to help us make a more informed decision in the future. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Niello. Any discussion or debate on the measure? Any discussion or debate? Seeing no microphones up, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

Secretary, please call the absent Members one last time.

[Roll call].

Out of vote of 33 to 1, the measure passes. All right, Members, since we have everybody here, we're going to deviate from our agenda again. Keeping your attention span up. Without objection, we're going to take up the two special consent calendars.

I'd like to ask if there's any Member that would like to remove an item to please so indicate. Does any Member want to remove anything from the consent calendars? All right. Seeing none, could the secretary please read all the items on both of the special consent calendars?

Senate Bill 892, 893, 906, 916, 929, 939, 946, 958, 969, 974, 995, 997, 1002, 1004, 1015, 1019, 1043, 1073, 1088, 1108, 1111, 1113, 1120, 1138, 1151, 1152...

1159, 1161, 1166, 1187, 1192, 1197, 1200, 1207, 1217, 1231, 1234, 1244, 1246, 1248, 1258, 1315, 1332, 1333, 1341, 1382, 1384, 1387, 1390, 1391, 1397, 1419, 1443, 1452, 1454, 1456, 1465, 1487, 1499, 1511, Semi-Concurrent Resolution 118, ACR 173, 176, 178, 129, 133, 167, 184, Senate Bill 896, 899, 914.

All right, the consent calendar has been read. The secretary, please call the roll. This is on both consent calendars.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's on a vote of 37 to 0, consent calendar number 34 passes. And on the same vote, 37 to zero, consent, calendar number 35 passes. Members, we're going to move back now to file item 18. This is Senate Bill 1411 by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 1411 by Senator Ochoa Bogh. An act relating to curriculum.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mister President and Members. I'm proud to present SB 1411, which will appoint two subject matter experts from each of California's public higher education systems to serve on the Instructional Quality Commission.

During the last revision of California's math curriculum framework from 2020 to 2023, many professors and experts expressed concerns about the detrimental impacts of framework's guidance could have on students who would want to attend college.

The UC's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools Area C Work Group released a report in February detailing how specific courses emphasized by the new mathematics framework do not, quote, unquote, even come close to meeting the required standard to be a more, quote, more advanced course.

They determined these courses would not be acceptable math courses for purposes of UC admissions beginning in 2025. As a result, high school students who are currently enrolled in courses approved by the new mathematics framework won't be able to count them toward their admission to college.

These six higher educational professionals will improve Committee diversity and provide insight to Members, regarding K12 curriculum and course content requirements that are necessary to better prepare students for their rigors of college course. I would like to thank my colleague from San Francisco for working with me on this important policy and give you my commitment.

I'm not sure where he went. Oh, there he is. My commitment to continue fine tuning the Bill as it moves through the Assembly, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, is there any discussion or debate on this measure? Any discussion or debate? It is eligible for a unanimous roll call, seeing no objections. Ayes 37, noes zero. The measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 22. This is Senate Bill 987 by Senator Menjivar. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 987 by Senator Menjivar. An act relating to pretrial release.

Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister President. SB 987 will expand the definition of criminal justice agencies to include pre trial release departments after recent appropriation - after recent amendments out of appropriation. This Bill only applies to the counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Francisco. We took additional amendments to clarify that probation would not be precluded from work and pre child services. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Members, any discussion on this measure? Any discussion? It is eligible for a unanimous roll call, seeing no objection. Oh, excuse me, there is an objection. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call].

Ayes 35. Noes 0. The measure passes. Now, Members, we're going to move back into file item 13. Senator Glazer. He's prepared. Secretary, you may read.

Senate Bill 1181 by Senator Glazer, an act relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Mister President. This Bill would require that any party involved in a proceeding before an agency, particularly related to contracts, licenses, and permits, to disclose their campaign contributions exceeding $250 to the agency before the final decision is made in the proceeding requiring such notice would further facilitate proper conformance with our conflict-of-interest law.

I'd like to mention that this measure has placeholder language in it to allow for further discussion on the Levine Act relating to conflict of interest. And with that, respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on this item? Any further discussion or debate? Hearing and seeing none. Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call? Are we? Ayes 37.

Secretary, please call the roll on file item 13.

[Roll call]

[Roll call[

Secretary, please call the apps and Members. Alan Archuleta, bertado.

[Roll call]

Let's call the AFSA Members one last time.

[Roll call]

Let's call the absence Members one final last time. Allen Archuleta, Newman, Skinner. Aye I 37 no, zero. The measure passes now, Members, we're moving to file item 28 again. Senator Newman, I mean, Glazer, I'm sorry, secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1494 by Senator Glazer, an act relating to local government.

Thank you, Mister President. Colleagues, this is not the first time many of you have heard a Bill like this. In fact, I was talking with my staff at the beginning of the year as to whether I should try this Bill again, and it was quite a spirited conversation, and I think you'll understand why when this debate is done today.

But the goal of this Bill, and I'll explain it in a moment, but the goal is to have an honest and fair tax system. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but if you're going to have to pay taxes, you want to hope that it's a fair system, right? And you're treated fairly. And the rest.

But under our tax system today, if you buy something from the corner store or the mall, it's very clear that the tax money that's collected and this measure doesn't change whether your taxes go up or down. This has nothing to do with it.

But when you have to pay that tax, when you buy it at the local store, you know where that money's going. It's going to the jurisdiction in which you made that purchase. And that tax money goes to support the roads, it supports your public safety and all the rest, right?

But with the advent of online sales, now the rules change. And how do they change the tax rules in place today, which this Bill seeks to change? But the tax rules in place today, is that where your tax money goes.

Now, when you buy something on the Internet is not determined by where you live, where that delivery truck delivers your package. It's a designation that the companies themselves get to decide. A designation of where the warehouse is or the distribution center or the sales office. We refer to it as a point of sale designation.

So that's the deal. So if you buy an Apple computer from your home today, you think you're supporting your local jurisdiction, your city, from where you live, but that's not the case. And I'll explain. As I explained, Apple gets to make a choice as to where that tax money goes.

And so what has happened is that these companies have baited cities around our state to encourage them to be that point of sale for that transaction. And how have they baited the cities?

They said, listen, if we make your city the point of sale, you're going to get all the tax money from any Internet sale anywhere in California. Would you like that? And I'm sure the city manager and the mayor and the council says, yeah, we love that idea. You should designate us.

And then there's a little bit of a, yeah, but here's the deal. If I do that company a, I want you to give me half the money back. How about that? You're going to get half of it, and I want you to give half of it back to me.

And a city says, well, that, that still sounds like a pretty good deal for us because, you know, we were only going to get a little increment of that tax money before, and now we're going to get almost all of it. Yeah, we're going to give you a half back. Okay. So that's what's happened. Now.

That's what's happened to our tax code now, when you buy something on the Internet. So to address this problem, SB 1494 would do three things. First, it would prohibit a local agency from entering into, renewing or extending a tax rebate agreement. You just can't do any new ones.

Secondly, it would give cities until 2030 to phase out existing agreements. So it gives them six years to adjust from that gold mine that suddenly reappeared in their town, to go away and to adjust for that. And third, it requires cities to post existing agreements on their website until they expire.

Now, we know that these revenue sharing agreements create a perverse economic incentive and are a big problem. Both our State Auditor, who works for us, and the legislative analysts have issued reports showing that the use of these agreements do not result in a net benefit to the broader economic region within our state.

It simply shifts existing sales tax dollars from one jurisdiction to another. And there's a cost to that. A study was done to understand who were the winners and losers under these agreements that exist today.

It was done by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, and they issued a report that identified the winners and the losers under this tax scheme that's in law today. And what they found is that 7% of the cities in California are winners. Good for them.

And we may hear from some of their representatives here this afternoon. But 93% of the cities are losers. That tax money that would have gone to them are now going to that 7% of the cities.

And so when you want to know who are the winners and losers, you may get a sense of that a little bit today. But I can tell you that if you live in cities like Los Angeles, you're a loser. San Francisco, Oakland, you're a loser. San Diego, you're a loser.

And 93% of the cities in our state under this law today are losers. And we've also learned that the cities that do benefit from these agreements, they do so at the expense of the cities right around them. So city a and I won't name names, although I could, you may say, this is good.

I represent the city, and they're going to gain. Well, just look a few blocks, a few miles away and you're going to find a city that loses.

And folks, when we're talking about how much you're losing of tax dollars, let me tell you, it's over $1.0 billion are given back to these companies, $1.0 billion that would go to public services in all of our jurisdictions. We're giving back to these companies in that rebate scheme that I talked about.

And you say, well, who are these companies? They are the biggest and richest companies in the world. We're talking apple, Nike, Walmart, Best buy, Amazon.

It's quite a large list who have the sophisticated tax accountants to know that they can bait these cities to make these schemes, to make these deals, and to take money from 93% of our other cities to get to the benefit of those 7%. And that's what this measure does before you today.

It says, no more schemes, no more robbing the public purse. We want to have fairness in our tax code. We want to have honesty. So if we have to pay taxes, it's going to be treated, we're all going to be treated fairly. This ends those schemes. And with that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote today.

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

Thank you Mister President. Members, I rise in support of this Bill as the person who carried the Bill that was successfully signed into law that required our Internet companies to collect sales tax. And this was back in 20, let's see, it was signed in 11, I believe, 2011.

Up until that point, everybody thought they were just getting some discount when they bought goods, say off of Amazon or other places. And California was losing that revenue. So. And of course the percent of sales on Internet versus brick and mortar in those days was far lower than it is today.

Now the percent of sales on the Internet continues to grow each year and the. Excuse me, I almost lost my train of thought. But in passing that Bill there were some deals cut that. So let me step back. The purpose of the Bill was of course to help California's revenues. We were in the middle of a recession.

We had terrible deficit, far higher than we do today. And it did help our revenues. But just like what's happening now in the middle of that recession, we had our downtowns, we, our main streets were decimated. Brick and mortar stores were closing everywhere.

Now many of those brick and mortar stores came back, but now in the pandemic we've seen once again they're closing. And we of course for a variety of reasons, because of Internet sales, because of so many other things, we see our malls emptying.

And this is not only a loss to the state and our state revenues, but to our local governments. And the, the purpose of the original Bill was to help not only our local governments but also the state tax revenues.

But in the negotiations, in the ultimate negotiations with the governor's office for the Governor to sign the Bill, it allowed for certain jurisdictions to be able to get these big incentives and in effect give back to those huge mega entities like Amazon.

And then in effect, as our author has described, deny not only the State of California the revenue, but the local governments. And this Bill is different than past attempts.

I have supported every attempt to try to rectify that because I believe that the local government should get the sales tax from the point of sale, which if I'm sitting at home and I purchase something and that's delivered to my house, then my local government should get that sales tax.

Now this Bill does not quite do that, but this Bill at least protects our revenues both for local governments and for the state. And it's a far improvement over what we have now. And with that I ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Senator Dahle.

Thank you Mister President. Members, I rise as a co author to this Bill and I just want to maybe give a little perspective. You know, I know that the Senator has tried this Bill many times, and when something's righteous, it's righteous. And this is righteous. And why do I say that?

All of us, maybe not all of us, but many of us may remember the great Cal Worthington, who had his. He rode a cow and he sold cars, and he was in Sacramento County. I think he was in LA and he was all over the place.

But he basically moved his car lot out to Roseville and did an auto mall and basically took the tax base with him from the City of Sacramento. And he did well out there. And it wasn't. The people in Sacramento were, like, not too happy about losing those big sales for taxes.

So eventually the state got smart and we came in and what did we do? Did point of sale. So wherever you buy your vehicle, doesn't matter. Wherever you register that vehicle is where that tax base goes. Because many cities and counties want to see those taxes in their local neighborhoods.

This is similar to what the Senator is trying to do here, is if you think about 93% of the cities and counties are losing this tax dollars goes to your parks, to your roads, to your law enforcement in your community.

And now it may be going to, you know, a distribution center that's along a freeway, typically I 599 and those areas. But what I want to talk about, more importantly on this Bill is the people who are opposing the Bill. Cal tax is opposing this Bill. Why? This is not about a tax.

This is about a distribution of a tax. I was in the Committee when the Senator presented his Bill. I'm the Vice Chair of that Committee, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers came opposing the Bill. This is not about raising taxes. This is not about lowering taxes. This is about distribution of taxes. I want to get that very clear now.

I'd like to talk about the companies that are gaming the system. And we hear every day on this floor about disadvantaged communities and people not getting a fair break in California and the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor. Think about this. This is not a tax increase or decrease. This is about distribution.

These multibillion dollar companies in California are robbing your community and putting in that tax base that I pay in Bieber in their pockets, getting even more rich off the backs of a tax. And 93% of communities in California are suffering that they should have that tax. That I think is the most important part about this Bill.

It's about equity. It's about what's doing right now. Look, yes, there are a lot of winners, and there's a lot of folks whose communities do better and do get that tax. But at the end of the day, are we going to do what's right? Are we going to distribute the tax? Right?

Are we going to allow the powerful lobby of these $1.0 billion companies? The little store in my town doesn't have a lobby, they have me. And I'm a Republican in a Democrat controlled environment and I do my best to try to give them a break.

And I'm also a small business owner and I get destroyed by big businesses. So all those little businesses that are out there, the corner markets that are staying alive, that are supporting your parks, your roads and your law enforcement, if you vote against this Bill, you're saying, well, the big guy is going to win again.

So for those reasons, I just want to lay the record straight. This isn't about a tax increase or decrease. This is about tax distribution.

I thank the good Senator for bringing this forward and I ask you to reach down in your heart and do what's right for that 93% of your communities that are losers and the 7% that are winners.

A lot of those winners, you may represent a town or a city next door that's losing and that one entity is winning. So again, I support SB 1493 and I thank the author for bringing it back again. Hopefully this time we'll get it to the Governor and it'll get signed.

Thank you, Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Mister President. Members, I rise with an alternative perspective and I'm not going to voraciously argue against this Bill, but I'm going to make a point. And the point I'm going to make is to say this Bill is not about the big guys, right?

This Bill is about what local governments can do with the resources they have. So I'll tell you some of the winners and you tell me if they're the big guys or not. City of Dinuba, City of Fresno, City of Bersed, City of La Palma, City of Tracy, City of Stockton. You know who those folks are?

The little guys that live on that corridor, that breathe that diesel, that smell that gas, that have a lot of our jobs taken. And because we've moved to a different economy, that has to do with distribution center and people buying things online and getting it delivered to their house.

Well, you know where that stuff comes through the little towns up and down the valley on the 55 and 99 corridor. That's where they come from. And that's who's getting those tax breaks. Are we getting a ton? No, but the City of stockings are getting about a million and a half, $2 million a year.

And that's better than we'd get otherwise. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but I'm saying in the system that we have, it gives some of these smaller communities who breathe the repercussions of this model that we've all created and try to get a little bit for our communities, too.

So if that's arguing for the big guys, I'm sorry, but the little guys who breathe the nasty air and have all the health repercussions that come along with it. Some of the lowest education levels in the state, some of the lowest levels of attainment in the state.

I served on the City of Stockton in 2012, when we're the largest municipality in the country to go into bankruptcy because of the lot of the policies, the lack of housing policies.

For my friend from Orinda, or my friend from Berkeley, or my friend who can't vote for bills that have to do with clean air because his air is so clean, we all have different sorts of privileges, but I can't support this Bill today.

Thank you, Senator Roth.

Thank you, Mister President. I've ranted and raved on this floor on this issue before, but I'm not going to do it today. And I have all the greatest respect for the author, and anybody who could stand up and present this again deserves our respect. And frankly, this may be the right approach.

But, you know, I have to say that the ability of those of you to sit on the couch in your living room and pick up your cell phone or your Ipad and order whatever it is that you want to order from Amazon or wherever else, that you order it and receive that order at your front door.

It's facilitated by warehousing and distribution facilities located in many cases in our small communities and disadvantaged areas of our state, often near freeways for sure, where trucks, and often near railroad tracks where trains spew pollution on a daily basis, those communities bear the burden of making sure that we all are able to order from our couches with our cell phones and our Ipads and have the stuff at our front door, often within 24 hours.

But the burden is, as my colleague from Stockton said, the burden may be financial in other areas where you live and you're ordering from your couch, but the burden to these communities is more than just money.

It's a burden to their roads, it's a burden to the environment, it's a burden to the schools and the kids that attend there, which are often located, unfortunately, next to these warehouses and these distribution centers. And it's a burden that often these communities and the residents in them cannot have trouble burying.

I mean, the City of Paris and inland Southern California tried valiantly to put a measure and get it passed on their local ballot to have warehousing pay for the costs of repairs to the streets that the trucks have destroyed. And the ballot measures, through efforts of some, was roundly and soundly defeated.

So while this may be the proper way to handle it and the equitable distribution of tax revenue, we're going to have to figure out, as we do this, we're going to have to figure out some other way to cover the cost of this burden to those communities that make our lifestyle, the lifestyle we want to live in the State of California in the technology saturated era, where we can get whatever we want to get, whatever it costs within 24 hours.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this issue? Senator Nguyen.

Permission to ask a question. Mister President.

Senator Glazer, will you accept a question? Yes to the chair, Senator.

So I was talking to some of my cities and a little bit confusing, so I wanted just to ask for clarification. When you talked about banning and not allowing any more rebate contracts, does that include auto dealerships? Does that include hotels? Does that include parking structures? Because my understanding was very narrow.

But now that, with the discussion here today, I'm a little confused because ours, my district is very like most of ours is very large, but we've got the coast, which, you know, deals with a lot of parking structures. So they would have to ask companies come and build the parking structures and give an incentive and or hotels.

And then we're up in Knott's Berry Farm Area where hotels. And so I just want to make sure that this doesn't completely ban cities from entering into any rebate contracts in the future.

Thank you for the question, Senator. It's a good one. No, I don't believe this Bill affects any of those circumstances in what you just described, because they occur in a jurisdiction. So the existing tax laws are those tax monies go to that jurisdiction, they can rebate, they can negotiate.

Nothing affects their ability to create economic incentives for folks to come in and locate in their communities. So nothing in this Bill affects, as I understand it, any of those agreements or rebates in which you've inquired.

I have one more question, Mister President. Sure. The next question is if I have a store, let's just say, I don't know, Huntington Beach or Garden Grill, whatever, in my district, and I'm not an Amazon, I'm not a big distribution center. I'm just a small. Janet Wynn craft shop.

If someone bought online, does that affect that business or does it, I mean, are we, what kind of business are we talking about in terms of these distribution?

In most cases, it will not affect that business. They're located in that community. That point of sale is their single storefront, whatever that is. Janet Nguyen, crafts and so, no, it wouldn't affect that type of a business.

And that's online purchase.

That's correct, because you have to designate a point of sale. If that's your only location, you're not going to say to Bakersfield. I'm going to assign it to Bakersfield. If you give me half the money, that's not going to work. So it would just come back to that jurisdiction in which you've located your craft store.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mister President. My staff and I have had a robust discussion about this issue and I can understand both sides of it. And the argument over Citus based sales tax distribution is as old as sales tax is. I think it was. Senator Steinberg was advocating for a wholesale change of the practice back when I was in the Assembly.

Would have been very difficult to do administratively, like at a shopping mall with small sales. But the fact of the matter is this exists and communities compete for retail sales tax generators like shopping malls and the like. And I want to thank my friend from Bieber for using a different auto dealer for his example.

But we cannot like that practice. And we can argue philosophically over it's really truly the best use of local resources for economic development. But it is what it is. It's the rules of the game.

And I was opposed to Senator Steinberg's notion back then because it's the rules of the game and you can't change the rules of a game essentially retroactively. And my concern about this proposal is it does just that.

I realize it gives communities that have existing agreements six years, but it changes the rules of the game retroactively six years from now. It is an economic development tool. Love it or hate it, it is an economic development tool. That is the rules of the game in the State of California.

And that's why I can't support the proposal. That to me is more unfair than the unfairness that was stated previously.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item in? Senator Glazer, would you like to close? Yeah.

Well, first let me thank the Senator from Berkeley and from Beaver for their thoughtful remarks let me also thank the contributions from the Senators from Riverside, Stockton and certainly fair oaks for engaging in this spirited debate. We have it almost every year. I don't want to necessarily call it fun, but it's spirited.

And let me speak to some of the issues that have been raised. First, in terms of the warehouse issue, the communities in which there are warehouses and their impacts. In every one of those cases, the communities cite those facilities and the ability to impose impact fees. It happens in every development.

If there's going to be an impact, the community that's giving the permits and the authorizations and the zoning or what have you can go through with that company and say, hey, here are the impacts. And they have every right under the law to make sure that whatever those impacts are, that they can be compensated for them.

So I recognize the sensitivity of this issue of shipping and distribution centers to communities in our state. But I would say it's irrelevant in regard to this Bill because that's within the control of the city, and presumably they're making good and thoughtful choices in that regard.

I want to address the issue of the small communities that are affected, and I mentioned earlier about how they can be baited by these companies to say, hey, we got a deal for you. Come on over.

And as I was coming over here today, I was trying to think of a good metaphor to sum up this Bill and the circumstances in which those small cities find themselves. And I came up with the thought of Patty Hearst.

Now, I don't know if everybody on the floor here knows who Patty Hearst is, but she was the media heir of the Hearst fortune. And in 1974, she was kidnapped. She was kidnapped by the Symbionese liberation army.

They went to her apartment with guns blazing, blindfolded her, threw her in the car, and they called her a prisoner of war. And they threw her in a closet, I guess, as news media reports, for a number of months, and asked for ransom and all the rest. So what happened to Patty Hearst?

Well, a few months after she was kidnapped, she appeared in a photograph with Members of the Simbienese Liberation army robbing a bank, holding a gun, robbing a bank. She joined the gang that had kidnapped her. And when I think about the small communities of California, you know, we have been robbed.

The public bank has been robbed by these companies, and we have communities that have been baited and coerced to join in that robbery. They're complicit to that robbery. They have made the deal with the devil. And yes, are they gaining? They're gaining.

But it happened under, in many ways, duress, their own economic circumstances or whatever you want to call it. And, you know, there are syndromes that they talk about for folks like this. And I think it applies to some of our smaller communities. What could they do? What could they do but join the gang?

Join the robbers and understand the consequences? Over $1.0 billion of public money go into the robbers because of those deals. This measure corrects or wrong? Yes, it is the tax system. We wish it wasn't that way, but we can correct it. We can make it better.

So we can go back to our communities and say, yeah, nobody likes paying taxes. But at least we're going to do our best to make sure it's fair and honest. And that's what this Bill does. And I hope it deserves your support today.

Thank you. All. Debate having ceased. Secretary, please call the roll on file item 28.

[Roll call}.

All right.

Okay, Members, we're going to move now to file item 27. This is Senate Bill. Shh. File item 27. This is Senate Bill 1348 by Senator Bradford. He is prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1348 by Senator Bradford, an act relating to post-secondary education.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mister President. This Bill would create a state-level designation recognizing colleges and universities in California that make significant commitments to enhancing Black student success and enrollment. Historically, Black students are underrepresented on college campuses, and the statistics for Black college students achievements are concerning. National data shows Black student enrollment declined by 22% from 2010 to 2020.

Data also shows that Black students are more likely to delay attending college after high school. They either go part-time, they usually do not earn a degree, or more likely take on greater student debt than their counterparts. But the news is not all bad.

There are colleges and universities in California that are distinguishing themselves through their investment and commitment to Black student success. SB 1348 will create a method to recognize those innovative colleges and universities by awarding them a special designation of serving Black students.

This recognition would be similar to the designation currently awarded to Federal Government for minority-serving institutions, such as the Hispanic-serving institutions and the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions. Black student-serving institutions will focus on expanding educational opportunities and improving the academic outcomes for Black students.

This recognition would also help students and their families in identifying colleges and universities in California that deliver a high level of services. Those students. This Bill is supported by the UC's and CSUs and the California Federation of Teachers. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Does any Senator want to be heard on this measure? Senator Niello?

Thank you, Mister President. SAC State has established a program similar to what you're talking about, and I'm going to be meeting with Luke Wood, who is the. I lose track of where they're chancellors versus presidents. So, at the state colleges, he's a President.

So, I'm going to be meeting with President Wood about this because I'm very interested in it. The reason I'm interested in it is when the resolution was initially presented a couple of months ago, I rose and was frustrated that the resolution didn't state anything with regard to education.

And in my opinion, that is the largest challenge to our African American community because the achievement gap is so huge. The lowest achieving cohort in California are African American students, and it's not their fault. We disserve them tremendously. And I think the key to the future is education.

And so, while this Bill may not be perfect, I like the idea. I am going to vote for this Bill, and I urge you to join me.

Members, any further discussion or debate? Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none, Senator Bradford, you may close.

Thank you. And I want to thank the Senator from Sacramento for highlighting SAC state, because President Wood is a strong supporter of this measure, as well as President Parham at Cal State Dominguez Hills, and community college presidents as well, such as Keith Curry. And it's important, again, to change the paradigm of African American success rate in colleges many people don't understand.

At the turn of the century, African Americans were more HBC universities than any other college in this country. And we were graduating more individuals from college from the early 1900s until the mid-fifties than any other college. But that has quickly changed because of integration.

Some of those universities aren't as welcoming or embracing as they could be. So, this helps us identify those colleges that clearly are embracing to cultural diversity. Whether it's our Hispanic brothers and sisters, our Native Americans, our African Americans. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, we do have a Senator off the floor, so we're going to go through the role just once. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Senator Bradford moves a call. We're gonna move next to file item 30. This is Senate Bill 962 by Senator Padilla. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 962 by Senator Padilla. An act relating to public employee pension benefits and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mister President and colleagues. SB 962 allows the port of San Diego to eliminate the five year waiting period on an existing plan on a prospective basis and provide existing and new employees with pre 2013 reciprocity. The opportunity to accrue service credit upon implementation of the measure while still maintaining employer costs below that of the standard Pepper plan.

2008, the port and Teamsters Local 911 developed a new plan for the Port of San Diego, creating a hybrid retirement plan, including both defined contribution and smaller defined benefit plans as a way to share costs and risks between employees and employer. The plan included a waiting period.

An employee would accrue service credit once five years of employment was completed. Unfortunately, this requirement to accrue credit after five years has rendered the plan less competitive when compared to other regional public agencies, making it difficult to attract and retain employees.

By enacting this change, employees will begin participating and receiving credit - service credit upon their first day of employment. Instead of waiting five years, the change will make the port's retirement benefits more competitive with other agencies in the region, and enhanced recruitment and retention for these public service jobs is completely pepper compliant on both axes. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Discussion or debate? Senator? ...

Question to author, if I may.

Can we take a question?

Will.

Okay.

In reading the Bill, I just want. The question I have is that are other agencies that are close by that are competing for these jobs, are they at a five year or are they at year one? So my concern would be they would draw them away from the other agencies. They'd be in the same boat that you're in now.

Mr. President, if I may? If I understand my colleague's question in terms of a cascading effect, I'm not aware of that dynamic at play, and I think the hybrid model is distinct here. That was agreed upon between the parties as of now.

Thank you. I will be supporting the Bill.

Thank you Senator Dahle. Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Padilla, you may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call].

Ayes 35. Noes 0. On the urgency. Ayes 35. Noes 0. Measure passes. Up next, we have file item 31, followed by 32 and 33. Senator Blakespear is prepared.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 1077 by Senator Blakespear and accurately into coastal resources.

Senator Blackspear. Thank you. President and colleagues, I rise to present SB 1077, which will require the Coastal Commission to coordinate with the Department of Housing and Community Development HCD to court to discuss the issue of guidance on how coastal local governments should update their accessory dwelling unit ordinances to conform with state law.

I have worked with the opposition on earlier versions of this Bill, namely the Coastal Commission, to address their concerns with amendments, and they are now neutral.

This Bill directs HCD and the Coastal Commission to develop guidance for local governments to update their ADU ordinances and their lcps in a way that resolves conflicts in mandates between the Coastal Commission and HCD. I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Colleagues, do you have any discussion or debate? See none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Please call the apps and Members.

[Roll call]

Ayes. 35 no zero. Measure passes. Senator Perdilla, are you prepared for five item 32? He is ready. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1070 by Senator Padilla, an act relating to state government.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. Access to intellectual talent, especially in emerging science and technology fields, is crucial for California's government and the economic growth of our state. California has taken important strides to keep our technology workforce competitive, but there continue to be challenges.

By one recent count, while 60 percent of new PhD graduates specializing in artificial intelligence chose to work in industry and about a quarter entered academia, less than two percent decided to work in government. In 2023, nearly eight in ten state chief information officers said they lacked the workforce necessary to meet their current needs.

In short, technological expertise is concentrated in our universities and our companies but not in our government. SB 1070 would address this expertise gap by leveraging an existing model of talent exchanges between government and higher institutions of education to provide state agencies with access to the deep wells of experience based in California's world class universities and community colleges.

This bill would clarify that both public universities and nonprofit private institutions of higher education are eligible for participation in these talent exchanges, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank the good Senator from Imperial Valley for raising--I got that right, right? San Diego. In San Diego for this bill. It came through Committee and is so important in terms of addressing some of our shortages. My question, if I may ask a question?

Would the author take a question?

Yes.

In Committee, we talked about potential amendments for us to have a disclosure process for these individuals who will be coming largely from academia and stepping into this public civil service role.

Are you willing to continue to work with me on ensuring that there is a disclosure for us to understand what university research units they're coming from and whether we can see some of the annual reports that are produced by those particular research units so that we know that we are building the workforce, but we're building the workforce with expertise that wants to ensure that we have a strong civil service program and public sector overall?

Madam President and Senator, absolutely. I know that our offices have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue at the staff level with different versions of broader language than is currently required by law, some of the most broad that could be, and I am committed to continuing to work together to try to get at that concern.

Thank you so much. We want to make sure we're not outsourcing jobs, but that we're bringing in folks who want to continue to build the public sector, and thank you. With that, I'll--I don't know what I say at this point. Thank you. We'll work together with the Senator on that.

Thank you, Senator. Is there any further discussion or debate on File Item 32? See none. Senator.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Do we have any objection? Ayes: 36; no: zero. Measure passes. As we heard before, there are certain items that have a specific timestamp. We have done all that we were able to do so far. So after this, we will be recessing until 4:15. We are in recess--until 4:15. Please stay on the floor. We are not able to leave. There is pie in the break room. Yeah. I was told there was pie.

Members, the Senate is back in session. Our first bill up is a bill by Senator Stern. This would be file item 33, Senate Bill 1283. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1283 by Senator Stern an act relating to pupils.

Senator Stern, the floor is yours. Members, please give Senator Stern your attention.

For those of you here, a few Members of you here, you can consult the video footage if you'd like. This is a really important piece of legislation. Social media use among young people is nearly universal. Now, if you're not on it, you're left out. You're not a part of the conversation.

Now, there might not be actual physical conversations going on in real life, but the conversation is all happening on Snapchat, on your Messenger app, on Discord, and it's begun to completely displace human relationships. We know the stats, but I'll repeat them to you.

The US surgeon General, in his 2023 social media Health advisory, cites that children and adolescents who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media face twice the risk of the mental health problems that a kid who doesn't, depression, anxiety, suicide, all skyrocketing.

2022 survey found that American teenagers spend an average of three and a half hours a day on social media, not just on their phone, but on social media. What that does to brain development, body image, personal growth, literacy, it's truly an epidemic.

And frankly, it got a lot worse during the pandemic where we just gave everyone a screen and left them at home and said, good luck. This bill, I actually wish it did ban social media in schools, but it doesn't. This bill merely tells school boards across the State of California that they may adopt a social media policy.

Now, that could include a restriction of social media altogether. It could include a ban. It could just say rules of the road for how you have to behave on social media could be the disabling of certain apps when you're on campus. It does not require them to take away students phones.

And we know for some parents, that's very important and for some, considered a lifeline. So this bill is pretty simple in that it merely makes clear to every school board in your districts that they can adopt a social media policy.

The bill also makes clear that should a school board decide to adopt a policy that does restrict that social media use, that that doesn't give the school principal, the teacher, carte blanche to search every kid's phone, that they still have certain privacy rights under the California Electronic Communications Privacy act doesn't allow them to surveil your kid or dig into places we've talked a lot about outing of young people, and that being an ongoing issue, allow schools to do any of that, but at least has that disclosure that young people do have certain rights.

But the most important thing they can possibly do at school is learn. And not just learn from a book, but learn from each other. And it's very, very hard to be that student whose parents says, zero, you don't have a Facebook account. You're not the one on Instagram. Everyone else in your school is, but you're not.

You're the odd person out. You have to feel that outsider, that pariah feeling that. Are they talking about me behind my back on Snapchat? Why are they all laughing and looking at me? I'm not even on the app.

That fomo, those feelings, that peer pressure that emerges, we want to remove that from the formula, from the equation in schools. And really what we've seen in schools that have taken this leap is initially, there's a lot of concern. Students aren't happy.

They can't take a video of their classmate and post it on snap of something they were doing in class or make a little comment on a side messaging chat about their teacher. The parents are worried, how will I keep track of my kid if I don't see what they're posting?

But what we found in some of these brave pilot programs that are going on because existing law really does allow this. It's just that schools aren't taking that leap. But what we found is that people pick their heads up, pull their heads away from that screen.

Young people start to look at each other, start to go through all those uncomfortable moments we all need to feel as young people growing up, of, you know, feelings of rejection or feelings of praise. Does that that person I like in class want to talk to me or not?

All those tough parts of growing up that kind of make you into a more durable and real person, as opposed to someone who can just hide behind that screen and have it displace all social relationships. I hope with this very simple Bill, we get that conversation started in a hurry.

And I hope school boards across the state beat us to the punch and get going. But I do appreciate California Teachers Association for signing on to the measure. I appreciate our work with the LGBTQ caucus and ACLU to make sure that, again, this won't be used as a tool for outing young people or violating privacy rights.

But more than anything, we want our schools, our teachers to be empowered to do the work that we know they need to do. And that's very hard, is to dig our kids out of this mental health crisis. That's the pandemic after the pandemic and start to be students again. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Stern. Opportunity for discussion and debate. I see three microphones up. Senator Dalhe, Senator Becker, Senator Rubio. We'll begin with Senator.

Thank you, Mister President. Rise in support of the bill. I wanted to just take a few seconds just to maybe give a little perspective. And this bill basically gives the leas the opportunity. And I will say that I have two older sons, 24 and 22, and I have a 10 year old daughter.

And the difference in that 10 years and what we've seen with the social media platforms and everybody has one, we had a policy at our house that you couldn't have a phone until you're at least 13 or you could read a book and give me a book report on it and give a speech to my satisfaction, and then maybe we might give you a phone.

But that changed with our daughter because, Lily, everybody had a device and we wanted to be able to communicate as well. But at school, I think this is a good bill to say. And in some schools, some teachers required them to put it in the cubby hole or whatever and get it after class, and some don't.

And for me, I want my child to get educated when they're there. And that means paying attention to the teacher also working in groups with their peers. So for those reasons, I'm going to support this bill. I think it's a good common sense bill.

I think it allows the school boards to engage and make some good policy around at the local level as well. So thank you for bringing the Bill forward, and I'll be supporting it as well. And urge an aye vote on it.

Thank you, Senator Dawley. Senator Becker.

Yeah, I'll just be quick. You know, I have a son in high school and I just assumed that phones were banned in school. I just assumed. And I would text like, he texted me right back and then like asked him about a baseball game and he's telling, oh, yeah, I saw the score. I'm like, wait.

I just was very confused. I thought they were banned. So I do have a couple schools in my district that are using the lockaway devices that have been successful so far. My book club, we just read "The Anxious Generation," Jonathan Haidt's new book.

And I really hope that we do find a way to do, you know, even go to the next step. But I certainly support this bill and I appreciate the author. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mister President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. I also rise in strong support of SB 1283. I think it's critically important because students should be fully focused in the classroom, and we're finding that they're just not. And I believe the great Senator just stated that, you know, kids are answering in real time.

So what does that tell you? That instead of focusing on the lesson at hand, they're text messaging their friends, their parents, and that's not how students learn.

And I have to say, when it comes to disadvantaged communities, that is a real concern because some of these students go home and they perhaps don't have parents at home that could sit with them, do homework with them, tutor them. They don't have the financial means to later on get a tutor when they're falling behind.

That is the only education they're going to get. They need to be fully engaged, and it's getting harder and harder. I'm a classroom teacher. I know what that looked like. You know, I used to encourage my students to put their phones in the backpack because they were going off every single minute of the day.

And that also takes away from some other child that wants to focus on what's going on in the classroom. So I think that this is a very simple bill that just allows school districts to adopt policies. And the more that we see on the Internet, the worse it's going to get.

The Senator from Santa Monica, I think, or Calabasas just mentioned that. He talked about the hours that students spend on social media, and that is a concern. We're seeing more and more what's happening in social media. I've been tackling human trafficking and other crimes against children.

And this is the platforms where sometimes these predators keep luring our children into doing things against their will and some of them disappearing or never seen. I'm just expressing how dangerous social media is.

At the very least, school districts should be able to put some policies in place where we're keeping our kids safe, at least during school hours, and that they're focused on what school is all about, and that is to learn.

And again, I will argue that, you know, I know that there was concerns by some organizations about, you know, low income communities, and I would argue that those are the ones that suffer the most because they don't have all the resources that more affluent communities have.

And we need to make sure that kids are learning, they go home and understand the material. And I just would urge everyone to consider that this is going to continue to be an even bigger problem. As social media continues to evolve.

I remember as a teacher going to the playground and watching kids gather on the phone, you know something's happening, right? Well, they were viewing an inappropriate picture of another student, and I had to take the phone away. This happens all the time. I happen to catch that moment, but we don't always see that.

So I hope that people really consider that this is important for the safety of our students, for the education of our students. And those that don't have financial means are the ones that suffer the most. With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any other Member wishing to be heard on this bill seeing non Senators turn, you may close.

Thanks for the robust conversation, colleagues. I think before I was a dad, I didn't fully understand. But now, with a two and a one year old, feel a duty to somehow fix the Internet before it's time for them to jump into school.

It may be too high of a bar, but for every parent and student, teacher, school board official, administrator out there, we're hoping that this is the nudge and the authorization to get started. It's not okay to just say it's not our problem and that this isn't our issue. It's all our issue. In that respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Members, we're going to go one time through the roll and then put it on call. We have Members off the floor, so, secretary, I'll debate having seats. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Stern moves a call. We're going to move next to file item 23. This is Senate Bill 936 by Senator Seyarto. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 936 by Senator Seyarto, an act relating to transportation.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Mr. President. I stand here to present SB 936. So, as we all know, car crashes are consistently a top cause of unintentional injury or death for Californians. And each year, thousands of people lose their lives or suffer life changing injuries in automobile collisions.

California traffic fatality surged 22% from 2019 to 2022, while severe and fatal traffic accidents have resulted in $166 billion in economic and quality of life costs for Californians in 2022 alone.

Recently, a devastating crash involved the drunk driver speeding at 104 miles an hour in a 45 miles mile per hour zone, claiming the lives of four Pepperdine University students on the Pacific Coast Highway, also famously known as Dead Man's Curve.

My bill requires the Office of Planning and Research, in coordination with the Department of Transportation, to conduct a study that will, most importantly, identify the top 15 locations with the highest rates of vehicle collisions and identify projects that would improve road safety at each of the identified locations.

With this report, the Legislature can examine means of addressing these locations and how to best expedite road safety improvements. SB 936 will provide a plan to address our most dangerous highways while giving the Legislature crucial information needed to help save lives. This bill has earned bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any discussion or debate on this measure? Any Senator wishing to be heard? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a full house now, so we're going to go through the roll one more time. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 35. No, zero. The measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 34. This is Senate Bill 1075 by Senator Bradford. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1075 by Senator Bradford and now relating to credit unions.

Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mister President. 1075 will establish a basic consumer protection for Californians who are Members of state chartered credit unions. 1075 will create new and necessary safeguards from overdraft and non sufficient funds fees by capping those fees at $14 or the amount set by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whichever is lower.

The Bill also requires credit unions to implement a grace period of three business days for consumers to pay back any overdraft amount before fees is charged.

This Bill has been amended to address concerns from the credit unions by reducing the grace period from five days to three business days, removing the limit of the amount of fees that can be charged per month and delaying implementation. For smaller credit unions, overdraft and non sufficient Fund fees disproportionately affect those who can afford them.

The lease and the CFP PB estimates 80% of overdraft fees come from just 9% of the account holders. Industry wide data from the first ever annual report of income from non sufficient funds and overdraft fees was released March of last year. Thanks to my colleague from Santa Barbara's Bill, SB 1415, from 2022.

This report revealed that 28 state chartered credit unions generate 40% or more of their net income from these fees. Additionally, six credit unions generate more than 100% of their net income from these fees. Currently, there's no limits on how much a credit union can charge for these fees.

And right now, some credit union Members can overdraft by $1 and get a $35 charge. Although overdraft is viewed as a financial tool by credit unions, its fees are inherently predatory and targeted financially vulnerable Californians.

As former chair of Senate banking a number of years ago, one of the biggest issues we dealt with was online lending and payday loans and exorbitant fees. These are just as high, if not higher. While the industry says overdraft is a benefit to their Members, it's really a benefit to the company's bottom line.

And we're not alone in tackling this issue again. The CFPB is considering a rule to cap these fees between $3 and $14, but only for institutions that have a $10 billion in assets or more, which to date would only affect only two credit unions in the State of California.

But California should not wait for the Federal Government to take action. That may not happen when we can take action to lead to establish, I should say, basic consumer protection for Members of all state charter credit unions, not just large ones. So on that note, I thank you for this opportunity and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

A question of the author... You mentioned that a couple of the amendments were taken at the request of the Credit Union League. Did they then remove their opposition? No, they haven't. Okay.

Thank you, Senator Rubio, you're recognized.

A question to the author, please. Yes, I just heard the other question from the Senator from Monterey Bay. I hope I got it right. And they did. And can you share some of those amendments that you've taken so we know what those are?

Yes, we eliminated, we reduced a grace period, a waiting period, I should say, from five days to three days. We removed the limits on the fees that can be charged, and we are delaying implementation on the smaller fees. And we're still in negotiations on removing the grace period altogether.

So is it the grace period? Is it something that you intend to remove, or you're still. When I hear negotiations, it feels like you're not quite there yet.

We're getting close.

Okay. So, you know, I appreciate the Senator just being open to discussion and continue to work with the Bill. I know that he's already done a lot of work on this, which really, you know, I'm impressed by. So thank you for that clarification, and that would be all. Thank you.

Any further discussion or debate on file item 34? Senator Bradford, you may close.

As stated, we're committed to working on this Bill is far from a work in completed work. It's a work in progress. We're working with the credit unions to find a workable solution that will especially protect the small credit unions. And on that note, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Please call the roll.

[Roll call].

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call].

Secretary, please call the absent Members one more time.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 23, noes seven. The measure passes. Next up, we have Senator Rubio with file item 24. Is the senator prepared?

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 1054 by Senator Rubio and acclaim to energy.

Senator. Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, today I rise to present Senate Bill 1054. This bill required utility proceeds to be used exclusively for the benefit of consumers.

I am committed to continuing to work with stakeholders and my colleagues to find the best approach in providing support for communities that have historically been left behind.

As we transition to a zero carbon emission building future, our goal is to keep communications open and continue to work with building decarbonization coalition, Natural Resource Defense Council, California environmental voters, and many more to get this bill through and achieve our shared goals.

This bill is critically important as we understand that disadvantaged communities, who most of the time suffer from the most poor air quality, should be prioritized in order to transition to zero carbon emission appliances. We need to provide that support to ensure that they're not left behind. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Rubio. Discussion and debate. Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mister President. I just want to thank the author. I do have concerns about the Bill as it's currently in print, but in light of her commitments, both in her floor statement as well as to the organizations, we just want to make sure that this legislation doesn't undercut the momentum.

We've got to find more equity when it comes to the decarbonization effort that's going on in our building sector. I think there's a fair balance to be struck here, and I'm hoping that that comes together in the Assembly.

I will be giving a courtesy vote in light of that commitment today and look forward to having it come back with full coalition support and in a condition that I can actually support. Courtesy vote today, but do appreciate the author's commitment working for it.

Senators, any further discussion on this matter? Any further discussion? Seeing none. Senator Rubio, you may close.

Thank you. Yes, I want to thank the Senator from Los Angeles, and I will continue the conversation to ensure that everyone, that we all get to a point that they can support. With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

I'll debate having seized. Secretary, please call the roll. Allen O.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

We have a full house, so we're gonna go through the role one more time. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

On a vote of 33 to zero, the measure passes. We're going to move next to file item 26. This is Senate Bill 1414 by Senator Grove. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1414 by Senator Grove, an act relating to crimes.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, today I rise to present SB 1414 regarding the solicitation of children. Members, as you may know, three Members of the Public Safety Committee forced amendments without my consent and watered down SB 1414 by taking out stricter penalties for those who try to buy sex from kids.

Since that Committee hearing, there's been a lot of misinformation shared regarding this bill, so I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few of those points.

My bill language in SB 1414 attempted to make the solicitation agreeing to engage in or engaging in any act of commercial sex with a minor by an adult a prison felony, and a sex offender registration on the second offense.

To be clear, I believe that any adult who attempts to or actually engages in to buy children for sex in the State of California should go to prison on a felony charge. Disappointingly, the hostile amendments watered down the language and excluded 16 and 17 year old children from these additional protections.

The punishment was reduced to a wobbler for those who would purchase sex from kids that are 15 years old and younger. As a point of clarification, a wobbler can be charged as a local jail felony or a misdemeanor, meaning a rich man could purchase sex from a poor girl and just pay a fine up to $10,000 to buy their way out of a crime.

All amendments forced on this bill are unacceptable, but the notion that 16 and 17 year old children are somehow less deserving of additional protections is absolutely absurd. Opponents of the bill, including the Public Safety Chair, have stated that this bill has nothing to do with human trafficking.

Colleagues, the act of human trafficking, or the act of human trafficking, includes sex trafficking. In order to be sex trafficked, one must be sold for sex. In order to be sold, a price has to be negotiated and services have to be solicited.

The one thing all sex trafficking cases in the state of California have in common is they are all involved with the solicitation of services. Let's be clear about solicitation. We're talking about propositioning someone and negotiating terms. In the case of SB 1414, we're addressing adults that are negotiating to have sex with children.

Opponents of the bill state, and I quote, the crime in this bill is about solicitation meaning words only, not about committing the actual act. I'd like to clarify this mistruth. The bill absolutely addresses the physical act of adults engaging with kids for sex. If you read the language, it specifically says engaging in any act of commercial sex with the minor.

Please bear in mind that if you don't include stricter punishments for the negotiation phase during the solicitation, the next opportunity that we have to levy harsh penalties is after the act has already been completed and the child's innocence has been shattered and they have been completely scarred for life.

However, let's talk about words that were used in solicitation. Colleagues, I have a lot of words to choose from that was provided to me from my law enforcement partners. Lots of words.

After careful consideration and consulting with some of my friends on this floor and my law enforcement partners regarding these examples of men soliciting children for sex, I would absolutely love to use these words to give you a complete description of the things that we've had to read through to research and present this bill.

But I have no doubt within the first exchange I would be shut down for inappropriate language used on this floor. And I have no doubt that if any media coverage took place today, it would bleep out every other word that I say. Yet children have to engage not only in these conversations, but in the acts themselves.

These exchanges are graphic, they're sickening, they're evil, and usually they are the last step before a child that is sexually exploited or assaulted by an adult. Recently, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department performed Operation Spring Cleaning, in which they went after online predators attempting to meet or engage in sex with children.

One adult man thought he was soliciting a 10 year old for sex. He showed up at a hotel expecting to meet a small child. He had straps in his pocket to tie the child down. He had child size lingerie, sex toys, and lubrication.

Members, again, I reiterate, we have to attempt to step in and stop these predators before they actually complete the act and devastate the child's lives forever. It's unbelievable that we fight in this building. Protect minors, sometimes up to the age of 21 years old, from tobacco use, vaping, alcohol, and even tanning beds.

But some legislators don't want to include additional protectants for 16 and 17 year olds, a solicitation of sex trafficking. Members , individuals that try to buy sex from kids deserve to go to prison. They deserve to sit there and think about what they've done and hopefully change their life.

But most importantly, we should do everything we can to keep those individuals away from our children that have a right to go to school, to exist in peace. The reality is, even if we reclassify this as a prison felony, the defendant is still ineligible, is still eligible for probation.

Members, I'm attempting to move this bill forward today in the hopes to to work on language in the Assembly. But I truly hope and pray that in this instance, when talking about this very serious, very prevalent issue of adults purchasing sex for children or engaging in the purchase of negotiating sex for children, that we would focus less on protecting the criminals and more on the victims.

We cannot sit idly by while children are bought and sold in California like pieces of meat in an underground grocery store. We must do everything in our power to stop the horrific abuses that are being perpetrated on children every single day. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any discussion or debate on this measure? Discussion or debate? Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Today I rise as a joint author to SB 1414 alongside my colleague from Bakersfield and Merced. Currently, there is a loophole in our system where a person engages in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. And even though money is exchanged and negotiated, the consequences are minimal.

Recently, there were more than 500 arrests at statewide anti human trafficking operations. Compared to the rest of the nation, California ranks first in the number of human trafficking cases reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline. Although as a state, California implements protections and penalties to combat human trafficking, perpetrators still figure out how to violate our children.

We won't stand for our minors getting hurt. You know, I fight a lot to protect children and make sure that not only are they safe from violence, but safe from these sexual predators. And so this is an important bill that I feel we could all get behind.

These perpetrators are getting away with abusing our most vulnerable populations. They're aware what they're doing, and they figure out how to do it quietly and again, the children are the ones that suffer the consequences. In recent months, the Attorney General announced that over a four day operation, 12 suspects were arrested and charged with contacting a minor for sexual purposes.

Let's highlight the fact that social media has made it very, very difficult for parents to know what their children are doing. And we have these predators that continue to lure our kids.

I know of a case recently where a young lady was lured from Chicago and brought over, and she thought she was meeting a boyfriend and was in captivity for several days and forced to do some very inappropriate things that I won't state right now, but this is happening over and over again.

So I think that if we don't send a message that California will not stand and see this happen, it will continue to happen in record numbers. There's so much work to do in this space and with this bill. So I do hope that we continue to have a conversation and continue to move the bill forward.

I am really thankful that my colleague continues to move this bill forward and continues to have conversations, but it is not an easy conversation to have. But our children need us. Our youth need us, and it's up to us to protect them. So I hope that we support this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I see microphones up from Senator Ashby, Senator Eggman, Senator Nguyen. We'll begin with Senator Ashby.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today as a co-author to SB 1414. I know much controversy has surrounded this bill as it's made its way through the Senate, but I'd like to urge my colleagues to support it today on the floor. I know there's more work that needs to be done, and I'm sure more work will be done and more conversations will be had in the Assembly.

I'd like to tell you why I'm a co-author, why I'm supporting, and why I'm grateful to the Senator from Bakersfield for being such a champion for our youngest folks. Not too far from here, in an undisclosed location, but not in my district, are three little girls the same age as my daughter.

Except all three of them--by the way my daughter's 11, she's in fifth grade--all three of them are pregnant from being sex trafficked. All three of them are from different places around the state of California. Luckily, they have made it into the arms of two really amazing nonprofits that know this world well.

One run by one of my best friends. But every day, I get little updates about these girls. Next week, colleagues, I won't be here with you on Tuesday because I'm going to watch my daughter promote out of fifth grade, and I'm really excited. But next Tuesday, each of those girls will enter their second trimester. They're the same age. I urge an aye vote please.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. I'd like to say as a progressive, proud Member of this body for the last 12 years, I'm done. I'm done with us protecting people who would buy and abuse our children. I'm done. I don't want to send more black and brown men to prison. I don't want more people in prison.

But I don't want people buyin girls. I don't want people buying little girls anymore. And I'm tired of saying it's okay and that we have to protect the men who do it. As a mental health professional and as a social worker, I can tell you I've spent my entire career working with people who have been wounded.

I'm not going to say beyond repair, but they have been wounded to their core by the abuse that's been heaped on them, oftentimes by those that they love and look to protect them. And if their parents won't do it, then by God, we should.

Again, I am not arguing that we open the gates to flood our prisons with people, but I am arguing that we have a moral responsibility to say, enough, enough. We have given away enough on this area and we've got to move back into the center or we all look like fools and laughing stocks and what do we stand for?

I asked all of you to watch the documentary that Senator Grove was in, Senator from Kern County was just in that talked about this very place in Sacramento where girls are being bought and sold.

Men are being given a little slap in the hand or a couple days and then they're back out again and they do the same thing. They get caught over and over and over again. And somehow that's okay. It's not okay. It is not okay anymore. And no more am I watching. Like I said, I'm leaving.

But the rest of you who are going to be here for a while, let's get our stuff together and really start focusing on some of the important things. We talk about learning and we talk about being safe. This is like at the core of it. And a lot of these kids can be throwaway kids.

They're poor kids, they're kids of color, but they shouldn't have to live a life determined by what happens to them by others at a very young age and by having the Democratic Party of California say, it's okay. It's not okay. And I'm not doing it anymore. And I hope none of you do, too. We have to be able to draw a line. And for me, I'm drawing a line. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise in support of SB 1414, especially actually the original one that protects all children. And when I say all children, we define children as under 18. We don't define them as under 15. Under five. Human trafficking is the greatest evil in our society. It's even worse when it comes to our children.

And the good Senator from Kern County stated that these individuals should go to jail. I'm sorry, to me, they should go to hell, because they can't. We cannot, as a society, allow them to traffic our children regardless of where they are from, where they come from, who their families are.

And it continues to happen in California and across the world. The amendment that was forced, taken. I hope that we can continue this conversation and make sure that we add that back in, because the 18 year old, the 16 year old, the 17 year old, and the 15 year old should also be protected by us, no matter what. We are their parents.

And like the previous Senator mentioned, they have looked to us to protect them. And if the parents can't, we, as legislators, should step in and help. And so I urge for an aye vote and that we continue this conversation, but not just for those children that are stated in this amended bill, but continue that conversation.

And I thank, again, the Senator from Kern County for continuing her fight for our children and protecting these young girls. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Reminder that we were speaking on the bill in question in front of us today. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I urge you to vote aye on SB 1414. I was in Public Safety. I'm on Public Safety and was there when the bill was amended. I supported the original language in the bill.

As a father of three daughters and a survivor of raising those three daughters, I can assure you that at no time when they were 16 or 17 did I discount their being a minor and they're needing the protection of their mom and their dad.

Unfortunately, for my daughters, they had a dad who had some experience out there and understood that this was actually happening at the level that we are being told it's happening now and it's finally being exposed. This is happening years and years ago, and people just thought it was isolated, an isolated incident in the inner city areas.

It was not. A lot of what you have heard is all true. We have young people that are being exploited. My daughter has had the benefit of having a mom and a dad, and like I said, a dad that understood and a mom that was watching out for them when I was at work.

And they had the benefit of me giving them the knowledge to watch out situational awareness for them to the point of which they thought their dad was paranoid, and I was, because I wasn't paranoid about maybe somebody going to jail for exploiting my children. I was paranoid that they wouldn't.

So I would tell you that 16 and 17 year olds need their parents, and not everyone is blessed with parents that have the knowledge and the ability to watch after them. That's our job, is to watch out for those that don't.

Senator, just a moment. I just want to remind you that we're talking about the bill in question before us.

This bill in question is all about that. The issue that I'm talking about is that 16 and 17 year olds were excluded from this bill. They were diminished.

I just want to remind all Members that it's the bill before us today that's up for debate. So just another gentle reminder. That's all.

Understood. Thank you. So this bill today lacks some elements, but it needs to go forward so we can put the elements that were taken out back in and we can do our job, which is to ensure the safety of minors. And this bill in its current form was mutilated to not do that.

So I would ask that you vote yes on this bill to move it forward so that the author can continue to work with the next house to ensure that that language gets put back into this bill. So I didn't want to do hostile amendments on hostile amendments. So that's why we're doing it this way. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Jones, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I just want to stand in support of SB 1414 also, and just be brief in sharing with the body that I'm very proud of the Senator from Bakersfield and then all the other Senators that also worked so diligently on this bill.

This has been an emotional journey these last couple of months on this bill, and I especially appreciate the speakers that spoke this afternoon in support of this bill. Thank you.

And I hope that every word that was said on this floor this afternoon will be taken serious and into consideration as we all vote aye today and continue to pledge our support to Senator Grove and the co-authors that are working on this bill and that we will make sure that we have the very best bill we can have when it comes back on the Senate Floor. I ask for an aye vote on 1414. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Dahle .

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I too rise as a co-author of this bill. And just want to add one thing. I do have a 14 year old daughter. And I actually watched the documentary last night as well, and realized that in this city, right here, where my daughter goes to school, is one of the roads that where sex trafficking and abductions happen. And just last night was the graduation for the school that she attends.

And she was actually there at the graduation and stayed the night with a friend and was going to walk to the store, and I said no because of the abductions for sex trafficking that happened in this area. So for those reasons, I want to applaud the author for never giving up and working towards protecting our children. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1414.

Thank you, Senator. Any further discussion on this measure? Any further discussion? Senator Caballero, the hidden microphone back there.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. As a co-author, I felt compelled to stand up as well. You know, when we're dealing with legal language and making, differentiating between different crimes and different punishments gets complicated. Gets complicated.

And I want to make sure that I tell the good Senator from Bakersfield how proud I am of her and how much I appreciate her tenacity. I'm proud to be a co-author on this bill for the exact same reasons that my good friend from Stockton stated. It's time. It's time.

And you can have young children from good families all the way to absent families that have the potential to be abducted, to be tricked, to end up going someplace and not understanding how dangerous it is. I mean, I shudder to think.

I was an adult when I went away to college, but I did some pretty stupid things that could have gotten me in trouble. But I had friends around, and I was lucky in that regard. So it is incumbent on us to do everything possible to protect our children, our children and the children of everybody else.

I pledge that I will continue to work with the good Senator from Bakersfield if this moves to the Assembly, because it needs work. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Bradford.

Thank you, Mr. President. President, I, too, want to rise in strong support, but more importantly, commend this author for her commitment and passion to this issue. This is not a Democratic issue. It's not a Republican issue. It's a human right issue. It's one that impacts all of us.

And just this morning on the news, it was a story of an individual who was online soliciting sex with a 10 year old and had a miniature lingerie and all this stuff, all prepared to meet her. So these are individuals who are sick, sick, who deserve to be locked up.

And I'm not a big proponent of throwing away the key, but anybody that preys on children need to be locked up. They're an animal, and they don't deserve to walk the streets. And I'm committed to making sure that we do make some reforms.

And I thank her for the support that she assisted last year and the Ebony Alert, because we saw how black young kids were being sexually exploited and trafficked and listed as juvenile prostitutes when we know a juvenile cannot consent to sex, let alone sell sex. So I commend her for her passion, and I also urge aye vote for this measure.

Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. I rise also in support of SB 1414. And the discussion we've had on the floor today legitimately covers many more issues than are solely the subject of this bill. And it is clear that we have seen a rise in sex trafficking. I don't want to get into the details, but I think we've understood. You know, I've served on the Public Safety Committee the entire time that I've been on in the Senate.

And, you know, we hear from prosecutors, from law enforcement, others about how this reality that for many people, it is easier, they can make more money off selling people for sex than they can for other criminal activities. And that is horrendous. We collectively have acted in many ways to address that, and we probably should do more. In terms of empower. I don't mean empowering, but we're in a deficit right now.

But if, when we do have additional funds, being able to enhance law enforcement task forces that are directed at trying to get at these entities that are preying upon our children, because no matter what law we pass, if we do not have adequate law enforcement resources to really get at this activity, then we can't stop it.

So I think there's clearly more we can do. But to the point of, to the question of whether, and this bill needs more work, I think what we need to remember is, is that this bill, and I appreciate the author's concerns that solicitation, of course, is the precursor to something else.

But laws are funny things, and they are. This bill affects a verbal exchange. That is what solicitation is. It affects a verbal exchange. And so the amendments that were made were trying to make appropriate and increase the penalties. Absolutely increase the penalties for that verbal exchange.

But of course, in terms of the other acts that occur and that we all know are not only horrendous, but in any way, in every way need to be stopped, then, yes, those additional things clearly can be subject to different bills and, or to increasing the effectiveness of, or rather the resources of our law enforcement to get at the perpetrators. But with that, I ask for your aye vote.

All right, Members, any further discussion or debate on this issue? Any further discussion or debate? Seeing none. Senator Grove, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. According to federal law, all children in the sex trade, regardless of age, are recognized as victims of sex trafficking due to the Victims of Trafficking Violence Protection Act of 2000. Under that Protection Act, children are recognized as victims in the sex trafficking industry. Again, there's no reason why 16 and 17 year olds should not be considered children in this case.

If we truly want a safer California that we discussed yesterday, we should start by protecting all of our kids. With this version of SB 1414, we're sending a message in the legislative body that buying children for sex is more acceptable, or, excuse me, is more acceptable for younger children than it is for older children.

And we need to make sure that that gets fixed. I have, some of my colleagues have referenced the documentary that was released yesterday. KCRA Sacramento Local TV station has been focused on this particular subject matter. Escaping the blade.

There's a blade in Los Angeles where my colleague and I do want to say thank you to my colleague, and I'm going to name her: Senator Elena Durazo, where I had a mom that called me because her daughter was involved in the sex trafficking industry.

They tried for a couple of years to get her out, and she actually got killed on the blade down in the good Senator from Los Angeles's district. The perpetrator that killed that 20 year old girl who was involved in sex trafficking from the age of 16 was 14 years old, and it happened at 4:00 in the morning.

The Senator from Los Angeles was very helpful, along with the Senator from Gardena, to help us get her body back home so that she could be properly buried. This industry affects all of us, all across the state of California. KCRA did the documentary that highlights just what happens right here in Sacramento.

It highlights the blade right here in our capital cities. You can drive over there, you can do a drive by, you can have Coop take you out. Excuse me, Sheriff Cooper take you out on a drive by. And you can see these young girls in lingerie just standing around waiting to be bought and sold night after night.

They have quotas to meet. They can't go home without meeting a $1,000 quota and so on. There's rules that they have to follow. And a lot of these are kids. Now, they may be dressed up with makeup and different types of clothes, but they, they're kids. You can tell they're kids.

One instance during the documentary, it was really interesting that the defendant that was being arrested, clearly because of SB 14, he was the seller of the individual or the child on the street. He was the seller.

He's being arrested and he's yelling at law enforcement and he's telling them, quote, he's telling them, how come you're arresting me when all these buyers are out here? In order to address this issue, we have to address the buyers. We need to stand up for our children. In closing, I want to thank everybody who spoke in favor of the bill and in favor of working with me to make sure that we get this bill right.

I know it's going to come back to this house, and I know it will probably be pulled back into Committee, but I think there's things that happened in Public Safety that we need to fix. I want to thank my colleague from Gardena. I used a lot of his data on the Ebony Alert.

He did a lot of research on the Ebony Alert, and it is true, some of the stuff that's in this binder, specifically grown doctors, lawyers, business people, they like young black girls. And I have the messages and the communications to prove it. And his Ebony Alert highlighted a lot of those things.

I want to thank all my joint authors that have stood with me through thick and thin and ups and downs and dead bills and live bills and resurrected bills and everything that's gone on in this industry and trying to fix this situation because it's multifaceted. It is way multifaceted.

My joint authors and my co-authors, again, my colleague from Gardena, Marietta and the Public Safety Committee, who operated in good faith and helped me with amendments that we needed to make. But dang, Suze, my colleague from Stockton, mic drop, girlfriend, mic drop, because you nailed it.

We are 40 elected representatives and 40 million people in the state of California, and we have a serious problem. And I'm telling you, those perpetrators are way ahead of us. You can get this book. Somebody gave me this book because now I'm the human trafficking lady, right? Gave me this book.

It tells you some of the things in this book that we don't even address. And again, I'm not trying to get off subject matter, but it tells you how to become an effective foster parent and how to beat the system so that you can traffic those kids.

We have a serious problem, and SB 1414 only addresses the purchaser who engages in, solicits or engages in solicitation for a minor child for sex. And it's amended to only include a wobbler for 15 and below. And 16 and 17 year olds don't matter. We have to fix this. We have to move forward.

I respectfully ask for the honor of carrying this bill to the Assembly so that we can continue to work on this bill. And I want to thank all of you guys for your support.

Thank you, Senator. All debate having ceased, this bill is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to using a unanimous roll call? Seeing none. Ayes 36, no zero. The measure passes.

Members, a couple of announcements. Number one, on behalf of Senator Wilk, we have some special guests here in our gallery. Councilmember Jason Gibbs and his family. Please welcome them to the Senate. Members, we have almost finished our business today. We're going to need a few minutes to do some paperwork before we continue with our program.

We'd like to ask all Members to stay here on the floor. Please stay here on the floor. And we'll be right back with you in just a couple minutes.

Members, I just want to give you a heads up. We are expecting to begin our session in about two minutes, so in about two minutes, we'll begin again. If you can hear my voice and you're outside of the chambers, please come on back. Okay, Members, we are back from our short recess. Thank you for your patience.

If I didn't say it again, thank you very much for your patience. We are going to move next to file item 36. This is Senate Bill 989 by Senator Ashby. She is prepared.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 989 by Senator Ashby, an act relating to domestic violence.

Senator Ashby, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present SB 989, the Domestic Violence Deaths Act. SB 989 enhances investigation protocols for domestic violence-related deaths. This bill also expands rights to immediate family Mmmbers to obtain information about their deceased loved ones, particularly when they believe the death to be under suspicious circumstances.

Experts estimate that around 1200 hidden homicides occur annually, often disguised as staged crime scenes, leading to inaccurate death certificates such as suicide and accidents. Research has identified 10 evidence-based factors that should warrant thorough investigation into suspicious death. This bill ensures law enforcement training includes these factors.

Some of you may have met Joe or Patricia in one of the committee hearings. Joe is the brother of Joanna and Patricia is the mother of Joanna. Joanna is one of those 1200 hidden deaths that occur every year. Patricia, Joanna's mom, has never missed a hearing on this bill, including this one today. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. Any discussion or debate on this measure? Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Today I rise as a proud joint author on this crucial piece of legislation. One of my goals when I got elected to the State Senate was to support legislation that protects victims of domestic violence, that protects children and families experiencing domestic violence in the home.

And I'm really honored to partner with the great Senator Sacramento to do this. We need to do better and uplift legislation like this that supports survivors and their family. Many times when victims of domestic violence are gone, the families left to try and figure out how to pick up the pieces.

Existing law does not adequately address suspicious death cases with a history of domestic violence. Family members in suspicious death cases often struggle to obtain information, even access to services unless the case is determined to be a homicide.

The legislation is intended to address this gap in suspicious death cases in California and support survivors of domestic violence and their families after the facts so together we can help these victims. And once again I want to thank the Senator from Sacramento and I am a proud joint author on this measure. And with that I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any further discussion on this measure? Any further discussion? Seeing none. Senator Ashby, you may close.

Thank you. I urge an aye vote.

Members, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objection to using a unanimous roll call? Seeing none, Ayes 36, noes zero. The measure passes.

We're going to move next to file item 38 by Senator Min. This is Senate Bill 1078. Secretary, please read.

Senator Min, the floor is yours.

Senate Bill 1078 by Senator Min. An act relating to language access.

Thank you, Mister President. I'm proud to rise to present SB 1078, which would create an Office of Language Access within California's Health and Human Services Agency, Cal HHS, to provide oversight, accountability, and coordination across Cal HHS's Department and offices. When it comes to existing mandates related to language access, this Office of Language Access would help ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency would receive meaningful access to programs and services. For nearly 6.4 million Californians who have limited English proficiency. Language barriers pose a significant challenge to accessing quality healthcare coverage.

Studies show that the absence of culturally and linguistically appropriate care results in negative and inequitable health outcomes for those individuals with limited English proficiency, resulting in increased clinical costs, longer hospital stays, and hospital readmissions. This is bad for their health. By providing improved language access through interpretation and translation services, SB 1078 would close the gap for Californians seeking a broad spectrum of health services and allow the state to meet its statutory required language requirements. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Min. Does any Member want to be heard on this Bill? Any Member want to be heard? See none. This is eligible for unanimous roll call. Without objection. Ayes 36. Noes 0. The measure passes. Next up, Members, is file item 25 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This is Senate Bill 1282.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1282 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, an act relating to crimes.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Mister President, and good afternoon, colleagues. I rise to present SB 1282. This is a crucial piece of legislation to expand prosecutor initiated diversion for theft offenses and to expand a judge's ability to offer diversion in limited felony offenses.

This Bill is simply expansive, and organizations who currently offer diversion programs will continue to be able to do so. We have taken amendments, and so many of you have been in conversations with me on this Bill today.

We simply want to clarify that judges who we trust to levy punishment and conviction also have the power to choose diversion. That is simply what this Bill is saying and that judges should consider before deciding to offer diversion, a person's underlying circumstances, the criminal history, the facts of the case at hand, and the potential risks to safety.

The Bill also requires judges to prioritize diversion programs with a history of working with people with criminal offenses. And I want to be clear, I want to be very clear with everyone that the Bill in print today already excludes all sex offenses. I want to repeat that it already excludes all sex offenses and all violent felonies.

And I want to make sure that you all know that I am fully committed that if there is any ambiguity in terms of how it affects all sex offenses, all violent felonies and human trafficking and human trafficking, that I am committed to making sure that if there is ambiguity, I will make sure that it is corrected and that we have a law that represents our values.

I have also committed to taking amendments to clarify that this Bill would not allow diversion for theft, over $100,000, for vehicular manslaughter, for drive-by shootings, for felonies that result in great bodily injury, and any felony that involves the use of a firearm. SB 1282 does not require that any eligible offense be diverted.

It simply provides judges who are elected and sworn officials another tool to advance justice.

And we can hold folks accountable and we can advance justice at the same time by providing people with mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment and other necessary services to address the root drivers of crime for our safer communities that we all believe in. And let me repeat that diversion is never mandatory.

Judges have complete discretion to deny diversion in any case. They don't think it's appropriate or safe, regardless of eligibility. So, if a judge believes a person poses a danger to themselves, others or our community, they do not have to offer that person diversion. Additionally, diversion programs are not the same as dismissals. Very different.

They are a court ordered program which require a person to adhere to specified conditions or risk their case going to trial. People in diversion programs are monitored by social workers, by judges, and by community-based organizations. Judges can and frequently do require people on diversion to appear before the court and to display their progress.

Judges can terminate the diversion program at any time and carry on with a criminal trial if they are not adhering to the conditions of the program that they have been committed to. These instances, however, are few and far between, and this is evidence-driven work that we're doing here.

And with diversion programs having a completion rate of as high as 95% in LA County and virtually no recidivism, currently, people convicted through the traditional criminal justice process have about a 60% recidivism rate. This is compared to re-arrest rates as low as 4% for diversion programs.

Even with our existing diversion programs, which allows judges to offer diversion to all misdemeanors, the decision to offer diversion is not one that is made lightly. Again, we trust judges every day to make hard decisions to determine sentences, putting themselves and their reputations at risk.

Judges know that if they make the wrong decision, they will be challenged and recalled. But when they decide that diversion is necessary, the outcome saves lives and ultimately, dollars. We know that crime is driven in our community by homelessness, poverty, and unemployment, particularly when we start thinking about nonviolent property crime.

These underlying circumstances only become worse when someone is put behind bars. People in our state are leaving the prison and jail system in deeper poverty, less likely to be employed, less likely to receive a quality education, less likely to qualify for housing. The outcomes which ultimately make them more likely to re-offend and more exposed to violence.

More exposed. So. diversion is another tool in our justice systems toolbox to get to the root drivers of crime, which we know through evidence, lowers recidivism rates and for better outcomes.

And as we consider ways to address crime in our communities, we must expand solutions, and we must get to the root cause of the problem, and we must know that we can hold folks accountable, but we can also ensure justice when appropriate. And with that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Senator. Are there Members who want to be heard on this issue? Any Members like to be heard on this issue? Senator Umberg and then Senator Alvarado-Gil. Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister President. I'd like to ask the author a few questions with your permission and with the consent of the author.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, would you take a question?

Yes.

Senator Umberg.

Thank you very much. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, we just passed SB 1414 by our colleague from Bakersfield, and as I understood you to say, that this is already, that should it become law, as I expect it to, anyone convicted would not be eligible for diversion. Is that your understanding as well?

Yes, it is.

And should there be any ambiguity, it is your commitment in the Assembly to make sure that ambiguity is resolved?

Absolutely. This law already excludes sex offenses, violent crimes, human trafficking, and should there be any ambiguity, as I promised and said earlier, I absolutely will work to ensure that that crime would be excluded from diversion.

All right. And also other questions, if you're okay. And if.

Take another question?

Yes.

All right, let me just. The Bill in print does not have several provisions here. You and I have had some quality time this week on various issues, so let me just be clear.

We're making legislative history here that someone who steals, in essence, over $100,000 would not be eligible for diversion. Is that right?

That is correct.

And someone who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person would not be eligible for diversion. Is that right?

Correct.

And someone who assaults with a deadly weapon or a firearm, I suppose it's the same in some respects. They would not be eligible to version, is that right? And a person who maliciously and willfully.

Senator Umberg, if you could summarize all those. I don't want to have the back and forth.

All right, I will.

Summarize all your questions if you can.

Thank you.

And then give her the chance to answer.

I think that's a better process. Thank you, Mister President. So, a person who maliciously and willfully discharges a weapon at an inhabited building, vehicle, aircraft, other kinds of dwellings would not be eligible for diversion, is that right?

Correct.

And someone who engages in.

And again, please ask all your questions and then we're going to give the author a chance to answer all of them. Okay.

I stand corrected. Thank you, Mister President. As well as someone who's charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Please ask. Is that the last question you have?

I just want to say. I said that in my earlier statement, answers to all of your questions. Is that the final question, Senator Umberg? I just wanted to say that is correct, yes to all of those answers.

And as I said in the beginning, that this Bill will exclude all sex offended offenses, all violent felonies, and human trafficking.

Thank you. Mister President, on my own time?

Yes, Senator Umberg.

Thank you very much. There have been a number of bills concerning diversion, concerning collaborative courts, and collaborative courts, that process or diversion process is clearly, is clearly in the long run a much better process for public safety.

As our colleague from Los Angeles points out, recidivism rates are phenomenally lower when diversion programs are conducted correctly. When there's a bench officer and there's a process that focuses on making sure that those who are in the program rigorously comply with the program, then they're very effective.

There are other bills that are pending before us that address some of those issues. Some crimes, however, are not amenable to diversion. Some crimes, folks should never be diverted. Some folks should stay, in many instances for the rest of their lives in prison. This Bill does not take away the discretion of a judge.

Irrespective, irrespective of those crimes that are eligible, a judge may still decide that for whatever reason, a person is not eligible. The Bill, I think, as amended, also will include a provision that says a court must take into account any other prior diversions. I think that we've tried to clarify the record as to what's in and what's out.

This is probably not the best way to do business, to discuss amendments, sort of on the fly here. But I know that several of us will be vigilant as the Bill moves through the Assembly to make sure that the intent of those who are supporting the Bill, at least as to one, will be followed and complied with.

And with that, I'll be voting aye.

Thank you, sir. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you, Mister President. I rise today in opposition of Senate Bill 1282 as proposed by my colleague from Los Angeles. Although I understand the intent, this Bill goes too far by expanding the misdemeanor statute of most felonies and would allow judges to exercise their discretion in granting diversion to perpetrators charged with some very, very serious crimes.

There is also an assumption here that that we are one California where crimes and resources in urban settings are exactly the same as crimes occurred in resources and rural settings. That is simply just not the case. This Bill would not take into account any requirements for interests of justice or public safety.

In my district, this means that the father convicted of felony child abuse of his three-year-old in Madera County last year, which resulted in numerous bruises and cuts across his face and body, will now be eligible to enter a diversion program.

Yes, he was physically abused, not sexually abused, so it would not fall within the exceptions of this law. Across California, this means that the 26-year-old Costa Mesa woman who pleaded guilty last month to be an accessory in the murder of a six-year-old, Aiden Leos, who was shot to death in his car seat while on his way to kindergarten, would now be eligible to enter a diversion program.

Aiden will never make it to kindergarten, let alone to walk the stage as a graduate.

This also means that the 18-year-old unlicensed driver who was charged with vehicular manslaughter after killing a 15-year-old girl in April during a high-speed chase in a stolen car in Southern California, would now be eligible to enter a diversion program. I don't stand up here to put more Black and brown people behind bars.

No, this is really about consequences for actions, actions that endanger and harm other people, regardless of your creed, color, class, race, or ethnicity. Under Senate Bill 1282, additional serious crimes that would be eligible for diversion include aggravated assault.

And we know that aggravated assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon and there is an intent to cause severe bodily injury. Injury, gang crimes, including discharging a firearm at a home or in a vehicle, assault with a deadly weapon.

And I mentioned vehicular manslaughter, and I can't talk about vehicular of manslaughter without acknowledging our very own Lily Butler, who tragically lost her life after a negligent driver collided with her head on a state highway. Or the grandmother and her one-year-old grandbaby, who never made it home that day.

I want to emphasize that diversion programs are only 24 months, and that is on a good day that we can get all our administrative work in order. At the end of those 24 months or less, the charges would be dismissed.

The accused would be free to possess firearms and would no longer be subject to a requirement to pay restitution. So, let's get this right. You're in a gang. You make the choice to participate in a drive-by shooting. The judge had discretion to send you to diversion, and you regain your right to own a firearm.

We want to vote on diversion as a Senate body that has put more regulations on lawful gun owners in this state than any other state in the U.S. Yet we don't want to hold people accountable for how they use those unlawful firearms to intentionally hurt and sometimes even take the life of others.

Let's not forget the victims of these crimes who are forced to live with the trauma brought on to them by their perpetrators, their children, and their family members, their loved ones. Because perhaps in diversion, you have 24 months to think about what you did. But as a victim, you're not granted that same luxury.

This Bill would not only reinforce that it's okay to commit certain serious crimes because the consequences are minor, the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. Yes, we must strive for a justice system that's fair and rehabilitative. But Senate Bill 1282 possesses significant risk to public safety and goes too far.

Our priority should be to protect our communities and ensure that justice is served for every victim of crime. And those who choose crime accept the consequences for their actions. I urge my colleagues to consider the potentially significant risks of this Bill and to prioritize measures that truly balance rehabilitation with accountability. These are our schools.

These are our churches, our synagogues. These are our neighborhoods, our community centers. Sometimes it's just the safety of traveling with your child in your car, to the grocery store, or even to school. There's no telling when someone will make a choice to engage in a criminal act and instead take a life. Now, we may call it involuntary.

We might call it manslaughter. We can have all sorts of excuses, because that's what this is. This is an excuse for bad behavior. This is an excuse to diminish life.

And this is an excuse to say that we're a body that cares about lawful gun ownership, but yet not putting that same care to the victims whose lives are taken because of unlawful gun ownership. I urge you no on this.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mister President. I rise in support of SB 1282 and I'm just concerned. We all have the analysis in front of us. We all have it here, you know, on our laptops or whatever you call these screens we just heard. Senator Umberg, I'm sorry.

Our colleague from Anaheim go through a voir dir with the author which clearly indicated that these examples that are being used are actually excluded from the diversion in the Bill. I referenced the, I reference the analysis because the analysis walks through things like any offense involving a weapon, any offense involving domestic violence, stalking, so forth.

But the additional amendments that have been walked through, just as far as I'm concerned, both as an attorney and as a state Senator and somebody who worked on these issues for a dozen straight years as a county supervisor, these questions have been asked and answered.

These examples are not going to be exacerbated by the Bill and in fact, have been excluded by the language in the Bill. And I want to thank the Chair of the Judiciary Committee for working through these issues with the author.

Clearly, the amendments that have been committed to are going to cause the Bill to come back on concurrence. So, we'll have the absolute opportunity when it comes back to make sure that those changes have been made in good faith and anything else that's worked out in the Assembly has been handled in good faith.

I, for one, have no question about the author's good faith, starting right now. And I felt the same way yesterday and the day before and as long as I've been here working with this author.

So, I would encourage an aye vote, give the author an opportunity to make good on all the hard work that's been done, and to come back one more time and show us that truly these issues have been asked and answered in a way that the Senate can support. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Any other discussion or debate here on the floor, Members? Any other Member want to be heard? Seeing no microphones up, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, you may close.

Thank you so much, Mister President. I want to thank my good colleague from San Jose and my good colleague from Anaheim for their thoughtful comments. And my good colleagues, Senator Alvarado-Gil, for her words. But one of the things she said was facts. And so, I want us to focus on the facts.

And I want to repeat this because she walked through gun second amendments and drive-bys and a lot of things in her statements that just were not factual about this Bill, and I wanted to just clarify that this Bill in print today, already excludes all sex offenses and all violent felonies and human trafficking.

I have also committed to taking amendments, working with the Chair of the Judiciary today, all day, to clarify that this Bill would not allow diversion, for theft, over $100,000, vehicular manslaughter, drive-by shootings, and a felony that results in great bodily harm and a felony that involves the use of a firearm.

And as a survivor of sexual abuse myself, I want to say that I take some of the accusations to heart or not some of the points that were made earlier to heart. But I believe that we can hold folks accountable and provide some level of justice at the same time.

I think we can do this in the State of California. I think there is a commitment, as my good colleague from San Jose said, to make sure we watch this Bill as it goes to the Assembly and when it comes back, that it's something that reflects our values, all of our values. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll call]

Please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

Senator moves the call.

Members, we're going to get our paperwork together, and then we'll lift calls. So stay tuned.

Okay, Members. Members, we have four bills on call that will, I think, complete our business tonight. I'd like to ask everybody to return their seats, if they would. Could we get all the Members to return to their seats? Okay, this is the order. We're going to go through these. We're going to start with File Item 28, 27, 33, and 25. First up is File Item 28. We're just going to go through the roll once. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call].

On a vote of 18 to ten, the measure fails. Excuse me. 17 to 11, the measure fails. The author would like to request reconsideration. Is there any--is there any objection to reconsideration? I want to ask it one more time or I'll get in trouble. Any objection to reconsideration? Hearing none, ayes: 36; no: zero. Reconsideration will be granted, and the author thanks you. Alright, next up: File Item 27. This is SB 1348 by Senator Bradford. Would the secretary please call the absent Members?

[Roll Call].

The secretary call the absent Members one last time.

[Roll Call].

On a vote of 33 to zero, the measure passes. Next up is File Item 33 by Senator Stern. This is SB 1283. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call].