Assembly Floor

The Assembly is now in session. Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer notices the absence of a quorum. The Sergeant at Arms will prepare the chamber and bring in the absent Members. The Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful, Almighty God. As this Assembly convenes, we turn to you, the fountain of all wisdom. Grant us clarity to see the path ahead, empathy to understand one another and resolve to pursue what is right in this gathering.

May your spirit of unity prevail, binding us together in common purpose. Guide our discussions and decisions that they may be guided by justice and compassion. May the work accomplished here today be a testament to your guiding hand and a blessing to all whom it serves. Amen.

Thank you. Please. Assembly Member Grayson will lead us in the pledge.

Please join in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of. The United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God and invisible, for the liberty of.

Thank you. You may be seated. Reading of the previous day's journal.

Assembly Chamber Sacramento Thursday, May 2, 2024 the Assembly met at 09:00 a.m. the Honorable Jim Wood

Assemblymember Flores seconds that the reading of the previous day's journal. Be dispensed with. Presentations and petitions there are none. Introduction and reference of bills will be deferred. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments deemed adopted. Messages from the Governor there are none. Messages from the Senate? There are none.

Moving to motions and resolutions. The absences for the day for medical leave. Assemblymember Mathis for family illness. Assemblymember Weber moving to procedural motions. Majority Leader Aguiar Curry, you are recognized for your procedural motions.

Good morning, Mister Speaker. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 118 A to allow Assembly Members Boerner and Nguyen to have guests seated at their desk and to allow Assembly Members Reyes and Bains to have guests in the rear of the chamber today .

Without objection, such shall be the order.

Pursuant to Assembly Rule 96, I request unanimous consent to re refer the following bills to Committee.

SB 59 Skinner, from the Health Committee to the Transportation Committee and the Utilities and Energy Committee, SB 284 Wiener from the labor and Employment Committee to the Utilities and Energy Committee, SB 347 Newman from the Education Committee to the Local Government Committee, SB 370 Gonzalez from the Revenue and Taxation Committee to the Insurance Committee, SB 380 Limon from the Appropriations Committee to the Education Committee, SB 393, Glazier from the Natural Resources Committee to the Judiciary Committee, SB 424 Durazo from the Health Committee to the Communications and Conveyance Committee, SB 532.

Wiener, from the Appropriations Committee to the Transportation Committee and the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, SB 720. Durazo, from the Natural Resources Committee to the Utilities and Energy Committee, SB 735. Cortese, from the labor and Employment Committee to the Housing and Community Development Committee, SB 898. Skinner, from the Transportation Committee to the Public Safety Committee, SB 1143.

Allen, from the Natural Resources Committee to the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, and then back to the Natural Resources Committee, SB 1428. Atkins, from the Appropriations Committee to the Health Committee and SB 1440. Laird, from the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee to the education Committee.

Without objection, such shall be the order. Moving to our guest introductions and announcements. First of all, before I forget, and I know everybody will be anxious to leave at the end of session, happy Father's Day to all the fathers out there. So coming up on Sunday, Assemblymember Reyes, you are recognized for your guest introductions.

Thank you, Mister speaker. I'd like to first introduce our young legislators up in the gallery. Our young legislators are here. This is a 2024 class from Assembly District 50.

These young legislators, along with my district field representative, Maria Bruner, who directs the group, and my district Director, Maha Rizvi, traveled here from the Inland Empire, from the beautiful Inland Empire all the way to our beautiful state capital.

These students have met once a month for the past nine months to learn about state government services and the legislative process. They've also worked on building their leadership skills. Members, please help me welcome our students here today. I'm very proud of every single one of them.

Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes, you have additional guest introductions.

Thank you, Mister speaker. I'd also like to introduce to you a few guests who have joined us here today from Rolling Start, including the Executive Director, Lisa Hayes and the Systems Advocate, Christine Burke. Rolling Start was one of our distinguished nonprofits of the year in my district.

They educate and empower people with disabilities to achieve the independent life of their choice. As a Center for independent living, rolling start cultivates a powerful community for people with all types of abilities. Lisa and Christine, very good friends.

I've known Lisa for so many years and has done such a magnificent job putting together fundraising and finding ways to help our community. But they lead such a wonderful team also who provide these critical services that empower the independent living. Members, please join me in welcoming Lisa and Christine.

Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes, and welcome to your guests moving to business on the daily file. Second reading file items one through 11. The Clerk will read

[Second Reading]

Mister Muratsuchi you are recognized.

Thank you very much. AB 2268 is back for concurrence support support Senate amendments were technical in nature ask for an aye vote and immediate transmittal to the Governor.

Seeing and hearing no further debate the Clerk will open the roll all those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote the 54 votes Members this requires 54 votes Members Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes I's 54 no zero on the urgency ayes 54 no zero on the Bill amendments are concurred in or the concurrent concurrence in amendments.

Thank you moving on to file item 15 AB 2748 by Assembly Member Flora the Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 2748 by Assembly Member Flora an act relating to irrigation districts

Assembly Member Flora you are recognized.

Thank you Mister Speaker I accept the seven amendments that are technical in nature. This Bill has no opposition. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing you here no further debate. The Clerk will open the roll all those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes.

Ayes 59 no zero amendments are concurred in we are passing temporarily on file item 14 should have mentioned that. Moving to file item 16 AB 661 by assemblymember Joe Patterson the Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 661 by Assembly Member Joe Patterson an act relating to mobile home Parks

Assembly Member Patterson you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker Members I'm here to present AB 661 we only have technical changes taken in the Senate. No concern has ever been expressed on this Bill other than I was the author. With that I ask for your aye vote

Seeing and hearing no other objections the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote all those vote who desire to vote Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 55 Noes zero amendments are concurred in moving to file item 17 AB 2397 by Assembly Member Maienschein the Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 2397 by Assembly Member Maienschein an act relating to child support.

Assembly Member Maienschein, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members. AB 2397 allows courts to order child support to be paid into a special needs trust. This protects a supported child with disabilities from losing their SSI benefits. Amendments in the Senate were technical in nature. Thank you and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 60 no zero. The amendments are concurred in moving now to Assembly. Third reading item number 24 HR 93.

House Resolution 93 by Assembly Member Bains and others relative to Saka Nakodar.

Doctor Bains, you are recognized.

Good morning colleagues. Thank you all for joining me today and welcoming my community to the chambers. The Sikh community California is home to more than half of all Sikh Americans who call cities like Bakersfield, Fresno, live Oak, Sacramento, San Jose, Stockton and Yuba City their home.

Today I am presenting a resolution recognizing Saka Nakodar, a barbaric incident in the Sikh history. In 1986 in Nakodar, Punjab, four unarmed Sikh students were brutally murdered by state police while engaging in the free exercise of their religion. Ravinder Singh, Baldir Singh, Multani, Jilman Singh and Harminder Singh died protecting the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, a holy scripture in the sikh faith. To make matters worse, the Indian government has swept this event under the rug for more than 30 years.

This resolution is to call attention to this horrific event and to honor those who died in Saka Nakodar and the Sikh genocide. We must advocate for the democratic and human rights of all people and stand in solidarity with the families of the victims of the Nakodar incident and the Sikh international community in their pursuit of truth and justice. Thank you, everyone, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Assemblymember Ortega, you are recognized.

Good morning, colleagues. I rise in support of my colleague from Kern. county. As a representative, I have the privilege of representing Assembly District 21 of the most diverse districts in the state. That includes many Sikh Americans. Many have shared their stories with my colleague and I of this horrific incident, and this resolution advocates for not just their voice, but again, the truth and justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ortega. Seeing and hearing no further debate, we'll take a, we'll take a voice vote on the, on the resolution. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Ayes. Have it. The resolution is adopted. And Doctor Bains, you are recognized for your guest introductions.

Yes. Members, please join me in welcoming Members of the Sikh community that are sitting right up there. Balib Kor, Baldev Singh, mother and father of Ravinder Singh Latron, the only surviving parents from the four victims families.

Doctor Harinder Singh from Stanford University, Shubaig Singh, Manveer Singh, Telon Mandeep Singh, Sani Prabjot Kaur, Sani Manjeet Kaur, Sukhdev Singh Banwal Prathamjeet Kaur, Mandeep Singh, Harman Singh and Rajwan Singh Chahal from the Santa Clara City Council, who is a Santa Clara City Council Member as well. Join me in welcoming my guests from the sikh community.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bains, and welcome to your guests. Thank you for being here today. Moving to file item 25, AB 20813 by Majority Leader Aguiar Curry. The Clerk will read

Assembly Bill 2813 with amendments by Assembly Member Aguiar Curry.

Assembly Member Aguiar Curry, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. Members, AB 2813 is a companion measure to ACA 1 which the Legislature passed last year. It will only become operative if ACA one is approved by the voters in November. Members, this Bill includes robust guardrails to protect voters and ensure fiscal oversight, transparency and accountability. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

No further debate. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. This requires 54 votes. Members, I'm sorry, sorry. This is a 4040 votes on adoption. We can close the roll now. Eyes 48. The Clerk will close the roll. Tally the vote's ayes 48. noes two.

The amendments are adopted out to print and back on file. Moving to file item 28, ACR 208 by Assemblymember Papan, but presented by Assemblymember Addis. The Clerk will read

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 208 by Assembly Member Papan and others relative to California State Parks week.

Assemblymember Addis, you are recognized.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I rise to present ACR 208, which celebrates the rich diversity of California's state park system and honors the individuals who visit and safeguard these cherished natural resources. California maintains 280 state park units to preserve and protect the state's natural and cultural history.

State parks range from the small to the monumental, from desert to mountain to beach and forest, offering a nearly endless range of opportunities for experiences in the natural world. The tagline for the 2024 State Parks Week is this is where you live.

The tagline perfectly captures how blessed we are in California to live among so many natural wonders. As Chair of the Central Coast Legislative Caucus, I'm especially proud to honor our state parks, such as Big Sur, Montaña de Oro and Hearst Castle, that reflect the historical and environmental and cultural diversity of our parks.

By designating a week to celebrate these remarkable spaces in all parks across California, we reaffirm our commitment to preserving and promoting access to the outdoors for all Californians. And Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote and for the first roll to be open for co-authors.

Thank you, Assemblymember Addis. Assemblymember Papan, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Today it's all about California State Parks. California State Parks are not just natural and cultural treasures, they're vital sanctuaries that nourish our souls and foster a sense of community.

I think it's kind of no coincidence that state parks week falls within the month of Mental Health Awareness, because, let's face it, we can find a lot of solitude and a lot of rejuvenation in our state parks. Even Legislators can find that kind of solace and rejuvenation, I promise you that.

Our parks include sites with preserved evidence of our distant past, the foundation of our state, and true wonders of nature.

State Parks Week at the start of summer is the time to take advantage of programs offered through the State Parks Department and many nonprofit partners that will feature special community events and a blend of in person and virtual programming for all Californians to explore new adventures and deepen their appreciation for these natural wonders.

By celebrating California State Parks Week, we honor the intrinsic value of these spaces in enhancing our collective well-being. The celebration of State Parks Week underscores the significance of inclusion and access, emphasizing that state parks are for everyone to enjoy in their own unique way.

Additionally, this week highlights the pivotal role of partnerships in sustaining enriching these outdoor experiences. Colleagues, as Chair of Water Parks and Wildlife, I respectfully request your co-authorship. And I request and aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember Papan. Assemblymember Alanis, you are recognized.

Good morning and thank you. I wasn't aware we were going to do this, and I was inspired because yesterday we had a state park open yesterday in my district, Dos Rios. I just want to tell you guys a little bit about it.

Dos Rios is located on the confluence of the Tuolumne River and the San Joaquin River in Central Valley where ranch life meets nature. Dos Rios is the largest and most unique floodplain restoration project in California, completed by the river partners. Once farmland now restored floodplain Dos Rios provides the perfect habitat for several protected species.

I won't get into all the details on them, but rabbits and some rats, some hawks, trout and even salmon. I got to take part in it yesterday and go check it out with my wife and I, my staff, and it was just great to see people getting out.

And as mentioned earlier, we need to make sure, especially for mental health as well, people get out in nature and start to enjoy it. A lot of our kids now are unfortunately looking mostly at cell phones or smart devices, and they need to get back out and be part of it. I respectfully ask for everybody's aye vote also, and it also is a wild caucus priority. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Alanis. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also support ACR 208 but I do want to make my colleagues aware of two new pilot programs that our California State Parks are offering for our California families. And again, if you have young children or you are representing families with young children, one program is a California State Park adventure pass.

And this is for all fourth graders and their families. And this is a new pass that provides free entry for fourth graders and their families at 54 select state parks through the state. And in addition to that, there is also the California State Library parks pass free.

And this is if you are a library member, you can go to your local library and they will have state park passes that are free. So again, as we enter our summer months and we look for adventure, let's make it an opportunity to get to these parks and enjoy ourselves. And let's support ACR 208.

Thank you, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Seeing and hearing no further debate, we can take a, without objection, we'll take a voice vote on the resolution. I'm sorry, we need to check that. We need to take co-authors first. So Clerk will open the roll for co-authors. All those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote as a co-author, all those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Aye's 66 no's zero. There are 66 co-authors added. Without objection, we'll take a voice vote on the resolution. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The resolution is adopted.

And I want to thank about this resolution. I have a very large Assembly District and more state parks in our district than any other district in the state. So this is a special resolution for me. So thank you, Assemblymember Papan and Assemblymember Addis. We will now move to Senate third reading.

File item 36, SB 74, Senator Dodd, by Mr. Connolly. The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 74 with amendments by Assemblymember Connolly.

Assemblymember Connolly, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise today on behalf of Senator Dodd to amend SB 74. These amendments remove the current language of the bill and instead will delete the 2029 sunset date on CAL FIRE's Office of Wildfire Technology Research and Development respectfully request your aye vote on the amendment.

Without objection, we'll take a voice vote on the amendments. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. The amendments are adopted. Those out to print and back on file. Moving to file item 38, SB 639, Limon by Mr. Alvarez.

The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 639 with amendments by Assemblymember Alvarez.

Assemblymember Alvarez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for purposes of amending SB 639, the amendments remove co-authors and move the bill from the health and Safety Code to the Business and Professions Code.

The bill would add Alzheimer's and dementia training as continuing education available to physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to treat older Californians. Respectfully request your aye vote.

Without objection, we'll take a voice vote on these amendments. All in favor say aye, opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill is out to print and back on file. Moving to file item 40, SB 445, Portantino by Assemblymember Boerner. Clerk will read

Senate Bill 445 with amendments by Assemblymember Boerner.

Assemblymember Boerner, you are recognized.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker and Members. I rise this morning to present four amendments to SB 445.

These amendments would require the California Department of Education to develop and issue guidance by July 1, 2025 on best practices in translating a student's individual education program, known as an IEP, documents into the native language of the parents who don't speak English.

Amendments would also provide for the translation of a statewide IEP template currently being finalized by the California Collaborative for educational excellence. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on these amendments.

Without objection, we'll take a voice vote on these amendments. All in favor say aye, opposed say no. The ayes have it. Bill is out to print, back on file. Moving to file item 45, SB 577, Senator Hurtado, by Assemblymember Calderon.

The Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 577 with amendments by Assemblymember Calderon.

Assemblymember Calderon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendments to SB 577 by Senator Hurtado make changes to correct errors in existing law and remove repealed sections. Corrections are necessary to establish consistency with related statutes in the insurance code. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Without objection, we'll take a voice vote on the amendments. All in favor say aye. I can't hear you, folks. Thank you. Opposed? Say no. That was good. Ayes have it. Bill is out to print and back on file.

Members, pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2, I am re-referring the following bills to Committee item 36, SB 74, Dodd to the Emergency Management Committee. Item 38, SB 639, Limon to the Business and Professions Committee. Item 40, SB 445, Portantino, to the Education Committee and item 45, SB 557, to the Insurance Committee.

Moving now to item 42, SB 154. The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 154 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review when applied to education finance and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Mr. Gabriel, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I am pleased to present SB 154, our Education Funding Budget Trailer Bill that will protect school funding now and in the future. Importantly, this bill adopts an approach, consistent with the recent agreement negotiated by the Governor and education stakeholders, that will suspend Proposition 98.

But our budget provides additional funding for education. In so doing, SB 154 will lock in a constitutional guarantee that schools will receive essential funding now and in the future. And let me be clear. This bill does not reduce classroom funding.

On the contrary, it increases per pupil spending to over $24,000 per student and provides a guarantee that schools will receive even more critical funding in future years. That is why this approach is supported by the strongest champions of public education, including our classroom teachers.

We have said from the beginning of the year that protecting classroom funding is a top priority for Assembly Democrats, and this bill honors that commitment. For that reason, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 154.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel. Assemblymember Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. Prop 98 allocated spending for education. The only reason we need to fix the education funding this year is because the budget this body blindly relied on the governor's wildly overestimated revenues last year, and we have over appropriated funds for Prop 98.

This should teach us, teach this body a huge lesson. In the words of Ronald Reagan, trust but verify is something that we need to keep in mind. The Governor has proven we need to verify his numbers before taking his word on them.

State revenues have decreased since Prop 98 was passed, and now we have a school, a Public School Reserve account, to address a shortfall. So why are we suspending Prop 98? This bill is dangerous because it kicks off a complicated shell game of suspensions, deferrals, and the creation of maintenance factors to balance education funding.

In January and May, the Governor proposed a solution without suspending Prop 98. The Legislative Analyst Office also offered alternative solutions without suspending Prop 98. This can be done without suspending Prop 98 by using reserves without manipulating Prop 98 formulas. I respectfully ask for your no vote.

Okay. Thank you Mister Flora, Mister Joe Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. Members, it's hard to follow in the Vice Chair's footsteps after that ending statement. I rise in opposition to this for two reasons. One is that was highlighted by our Vice Chair.

It suspends the minimum guarantee funding for Prop 98 and it creates this maintenance Fund to pay back, and it could take up to 15 years to pay back. And every time we've done this, it hasn't worked out very well. And so basically we're taking a loan out on the backs of our students and that's wrong.

Secondly, and most importantly, and I will recognize the Legislature has rightfully determined that it doesn't work for the Governor. And one of the things it did is it resoundingly rejected the governor's proposal to Fund electric buses with $395 million from inclusive preschool programs that are dedicated to kids with disabilities. So that's a positive thing.

However, it still takes the $395 million, takes a substantial portion of that, and puts it into the Local Control Funding Formula. In other words, there's no guarantee that districts are going to be funding these preschool programs for kids with disabilities.

We have a responsibility to make sure that happens, and this budget proposal misses out on that promise to those students. So with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mister Patterson, Mister Murtsuchi, you are recognized.

Thank you very much. I rise in strong support of this measure. As a former school board Member that survived the great Recession and all of the budget cuts starting in 2008.

You know, I was afraid when we were looking at the massive budget deficit projections earlier this year that this year was going to be the year that we were going to have to cut classroom funding.

But thanks to our legislative leadership and the Governor, working with education stakeholders, we are, as our budget share indicated, we are protecting classroom funding and we are protecting the integrity of Proposition 98, which is important because, you know, the suspension is necessary in order to be able to pay back the maintenance factor over time.

What the bottom line for school districts is that this provides stability and predictability for all of our school districts. That was the design and the intent and the purpose of Proposition 98, to be able to provide that stability of funding with this maintenance factor being guaranteed, being negotiated to continue to support the minimum guarantee going forward.

That is why this measure is so significant. I also want to emphasize that the only reason why we're able to protect classroom funding, protect our schools from budget cuts is because of the Proposition 98 rainy day Reserve Fund. If we didn't have that rainy day Reserve, we would be cutting classroom funding.

And so, for all of you that are going to be here in the Les lecture longer than I am, please keep in mind the importance of the rainy day Fund. Both the Proposition 98 rainy day Fund as well as the General Fund rainy day Reserve, because now it's raining.

This is the time that we're drawing from the rainy day Fund, thanks to all of our, you know, putting monies into the rainy day funds over the years, you know, during the good budget years.

Now it's time to draw on that, but that the reign of Fund is the reason why we're able to protect our classrooms, our schools, from budget cuts. Respectfully ask for a. I vote.

Thank you. Mister Murtzuchi. Seeing and hearing no further debate, would you like to close, Mister Gabriel?

Yeah. Thank you, Mister speaker. I want to thank our colleague from Torrance for his very thoughtful comments.

Just to address some of the concerns raised by the opposition, I will say I come at this not only as a Legislator, but also as a father of children in California public schools, of two soon to be three young boys in Los Angeles unified.

And part of the reason that I feel very strongly about this proposal is that it increases per probable funding. And I think I heard somebody say that somehow this is balancing the budget on the backs of our students. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That is why the approach that we are adopting today is one that is urged by the California Teachers Association, by education stakeholders, by the people who are on the ground and want funding for our kids in our classrooms.

And I think what people in my community want is not some complicated understanding of the constitutionality of all this, which we are very much on firm constitutional footing, and that's why we're doing this. But what they want to know is, is money coming back to my community?

Is there going to be money in a school district to support my kids? And I'll just give you this statistic, because I think this tells the entire story. Not only are we locking in a constitutional guarantee to Fund schools in the future, last year, our budget funded students at just a shade over $22,000 per pupil.

This year's budget will be over $24,000 per pupil. We are doing right by students, by educators, by parents in the State of California, and on behalf of all of them, respectfully request your. I vote on SB 154.

Thank you, Mister Gabriel. And with that, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. I 60 noes, 14 measure passes. I'm sorry.

Ayes 6014 on the urgency. Ayes 6014 on the bill. Without objection, immediate transmittal to the Senate. Moving to file item 43, SB 167 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. The Clerk will read

Senate Bill 167 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review on related to Taxation and making an appropriation, therefore, to take effect immediately. Bill related to the budget.

Senator Gabriel, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to present SB 167, our Revenue Trailer Bill, which includes provisions that are foundational to our ability to deliver a balanced budget.

To do so, SB 167 adopts the Governor's proposal to delay and adjust certain tax credits and deductions, including the net operating loss deduction.

In response to feedback from the business community, this bill includes intent language that we will provide refundability for certain business tax credits, as well as important protections to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on small, local, independent businesses.

SB 167 also clarifies existing corporate tax apportionments to conform to past practice on the attribution of corporate income for multinational corporations, and adopts other revenue proposals advanced by the Governor in his January and May budget proposals.

Finally, SB 167 provides flexibility to the Department of Finance related to those posts, postponement of certain tax related deadlines in circumstances involving a declared State of emergency. Colleagues since the beginning of this year, we have carefully and thoughtfully considered revenue options which are critical to balancing the budget and protecting our social safety net, classroom funding, affordable housing and other critical priorities.

And at the same time, we have stood firm in our commitment that there will be no broad-based tax increases on individuals or families. This measure honors that commitments and provides revenue necessary to balance our budget. For that reason, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Gabriel, Mister Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill, so no matter what I say at the end, I oppose this bill. So just be that very clear on this. The only reason we have this bill today is because the Governor frivolously overestimated revenues last year and we spent beyond our means.

Now we are scrambling for more revenues to close the budget deficit. Even the Governor stated that we are nowhere there were no new taxes in this budget. In addition to another 3 billion increase in MCO taxes, this bill would increase taxes on employers by more than $18 billion over the next three years.

Increasing taxes on employers is an economy killer and will do nothing to help us in the future. This is the third time that we have suspended the net operating loss deductions in the past 15 years, and the second time we have suspended the research development credit in the past four years.

Our citizens are not here to provide overdraft protections. We can't continue to make up the lie that tax increases are a solution to bad management and to continue to stabilize private sector employees. They are the engine of our economy and I respectfully ask for your no vote.

Assemblymember Dixon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Colleagues. Members, today I rise in opposition before at the end opposition to Senate Bill 167. This measure unfairly targets business at a time when we need business the most. A healthy business climate produces more jobs, which means more workers who make regular withholding income tax payments to the State of California.

This includes workers at all levels, not just the 1%. When the state makes it difficult for business to operate profitably, businesses, and often their employees, are tempted to leave to a more business friendly state, and the General Treasury takes a hit. In 2023, this exodus decreased revenues by approximately $40 billion.

Suspending the use of net operating loss carryforwards makes the California tax system less fair and discourages job creating investments in this state.

Ultimately, it leads to a less equitable tax system, allowing businesses to carry forward net operating losses and deduct these losses from their income over future years allows California companies to smooth their profits and losses such that businesses with similar profits over time pay similar taxes.

Without this smoothing, businesses in riskier or more innovative industries such as technology, motion picture and transportation sectors could end up paying more taxes than businesses with similar but more stable profits.

Approval of this proposal will have disallowed nol net operating loss deductions in nearly half of the years between 2008 and 2027, making it completely unreliable and California a more business hostile state. This year, we had an estimated $73 billion deficit.

Unfortunately, according to tax and business experts, SB 167 solution is a multi $1.0 billion business tax increase. This will notably lead to the cost of goods increasing and potential job losses. California now has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. Unemployed workers do not pay withholding taxes, which is obviously another hit on the Treasury.

Punishing business is not the answer, especially much of the loss in tax revenue can be traced back to lower than expected payroll taxes, and capital gains do not punish the tax producers.

98.8% of all businesses in California in 2023 is small business, defined as businesses with fewer than 500 employees and many, many of these businesses annual tax revenue exceeds tax exceeds $1 million. They're therefore qualifying to be included in the provisions of this bill. The numbers of small business dropped over 2% last year.

This decline is the first in at least seven years and follows one of the slowest annual revenue growth rates in recent years. Another big drop in a key revenue source. Of the 4.1 million small businesses, 3.3 million are one person run and operated establishments.

It's easy for these small businesses to leave California and take their tax payments elsewhere. How do these numbers relate to the budget? It's simply a big hit on this budget, and $20.4 billion of lost tax revenue moved out of California. It's easy to connect the dots to the deficit.

We are clearly seeing that businesses are leaving and paying these taxes in other states, or not paying income taxes in states like Arizona, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Wyoming, and more, with low or zero state income tax rates. And the LAO has documented this data.

The sustained anti-business climate is taking a toll on the revenue base in California, and SB 167 will only add to this. Specifically, suspending the NOL, which is critical for business growth, will have negative consequences for California employers and will be seen, as it is, as a direct tax increase.

It also revises the tax law for corporations to pay more taxes in California. This is folly. Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Going forward, it is likely that the state's revenues will come in under projection and will create a heightened risk that the state will face additional shortfalls next year.

We're just pushing this problem forward. For these reasons, I cannot support SB 167, and I ask that you vote no. A strong no, to protect business and employees and our tax revenues. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Nixon. Members, please, your respectful attention to the debate. Please Assemblymember Joe Patterson. You are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, when the Governor announced his May revise proposal, which this contains a lot of his elements, he said in his press release five times that there were no tax increases. But I think people should know this measure, SB 167, has $18 billion in tax increases.

Members, please proceed.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll say again, we have $18 billion in tax increases in this proposal right here. Well, I appreciate that there's been some working with the opposition. Oddly, this budget measure has zero support. Not a single letter of support, and a very, very, very long list of opposition. Maybe more than I've ever seen on any measure ever.

So with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Assemblymember Davies, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, as our Assemblymembers have talked today, those are the facts, those are the numbers. So I'm just going to talk reality right now. We're looking at basically, what we're doing, if you pass this, you are cutting off the hand that feeds you.

We're talking, we almost lost $30 billion of businesses that have left this state, and yet you're going to get 18, $18 billion over three years. We've cut the fingers off every year. This hand's gone. What do they have left? They have their feet. And trust me, they will leave as soon as they can.

We're going back three years. We're going to do 2024, 2025, 2026 something that they're going to have to go with. You're going to watch unemployment go up because a lot of these businesses are leaving, but those that they employed can't afford to leave right now. The only constitution requirement we have is to pass this budget.

We don't have to pass this Trailer Bill right now. I say, why don't we take a step back and go and come to the table? You guys, this is what we're supposed to do. We have time to do this. Let's look at this Revenue and let's make sure we're not basically cutting off the other hand.

I know we all stand up here and we talk about, you know what? We're business friendly California, really? With $30 billion leaving, that's business friendly? I don't think so. So I'm asking my colleagues right now, we can do this. Why don't we work across the aisle? Why don't we take a step back on this.

Again, it doesn't have to be passed today. We can do better for our businesses. We can do better for Californians. Really, enough is enough. Let's do this. Let's show Californians that we can actually work together and that, you know what?

Small businesses, because you talk about corporations, when you look at the verbiage here, majority of those corporations are still mom and pops. $1.0 million revenue, that's nothing. After you look at what they're paying out, who they're employing. We've lost 10,000 jobs in fast food because of what Legislation has passed.

We can do this and we can do it right. But I ask you, let's come together. Just abstain right now. You don't have to support this. Let's come back. They deserve better. Our businesses deserve better. You want to really bring revenue into this state and turn it around.

This is the only way it's going to go because really, this is the revenue that we're expecting to pay for all those Trailer Bills coming in. So I ask you, common sense, let's work together. Just take a step back.

You've got the opportunity to show those in your district, all Californians, because we vote for all districts, we've got the opportunity. Take a step back. Let's come to the table, let's see what we can do and show that we do have common sense and we care about our small businesses. I respectfully ask for a no.

Thank you, Assemblymember Davies. Assemblymember Gallagher, you are recognized.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, I just want to give you all a view of why this is bad policy and why this hurts everyday Californians. Net operating losses allows you to deduct losses that you've had against future earnings and future income.

And so right now, just two good examples of folks that are dealing with this are small businesses. In this state, costs have skyrocketed. We have retail theft, which we've talked about a lot, theft of inventory that have caused big losses to a lot of these small business owners, retailers, small retailers. Costs have gone up across the board.

Inflation has skyrocketed. So all of their costs are up and they're losing money. And so in future years, under this policy, they're going to be restricted in deducting those losses against future income. Another one, farmers, and I've talked about this a lot. Farmers in the state, a lot are experiencing record low commodity prices.

They can't control the price of their commodity. They don't get to charge more for the food that they are producing in this state. Meanwhile, costs have gone up exponentially for fertilizer, for fuel. That's a big one. Insurance, all of these costs have gone up. They're experiencing record losses. Right.

And you're going to say, sorry, you can't deduct those off your future income that you have in future years. To the tune of $18 billion. So you're taking $18 billion out of their pockets when they've been saddled with these record losses and won't be able to utilize that. That's, to me, that's not fair.

It's not the right way to deal with this. And these are individuals, and these are families that are part of these businesses. These are people that need this money for their families and to support their families and by the way, also to help support their employees. So I just think this is the wrong policy.

It's not a way to, you know, to really kind of take this out of the backs of people who are already suffering quite a bit in this economy and under the regulatory environment that we have in this state and under the high costs that we have in this state, is the wrong thing to do.

So I urge you to vote now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Seeing and hearing no further debate. Mr. Gabriel, you may close.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. speaker. Appreciate the thoughtful comments from our Colleagues. This is something that we have worked very hard to craft in a very thoughtful and targeted way to protect our independent local and small businesses. I will suggest we have a constitutional obligation to deliver a balanced budget.

And this bill is fundamental to our obligation to deliver that balanced budget. We cannot do it without this bill. So with that, I would encourage folks to vote for it. And I'd also just remind them we heard a lot of folks cheerleading against California.

Fortune announced earlier this month that California is now the home to the most fortune 500 companies of any state in the union. And that is the first time since 2014 that that has happened. So I believe in California. I believe in California. Businesses respectfully request your aye vote on SB 167.

Thank you, Mr. Gabriel. The Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. Tally the votes. Ayes 55, nos 18 on the urgency. Ayes 55, nos 18 on the measure. Measure passes without objection immediate transmittal to the Senate. Madam Majority Leader, you are recognized.

Mr. Speaker, the budget bill AB 107 has been received from the Senate. I request unanimous consent to allow Assemblymember Gabriel to take up AB 107 today without reference to file for the purpose of concurrence in Senate amendments.

Without objection such shall be the matter. Moving now without reference to file, AB 107 by Mister Gabriel. The clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 107 by Assembly Member Gabriel and acclaim to the state budget to take effect immediately. Budget bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present AB 107, our legislative budget Bill colleagues. Since last November, we have known that this would be a difficult year for our state budget. We knew that our fiscal challenges would require difficult choices and painful cuts.

Gabriel, you are recognized.

But rather than shy away from these challenges, we decided to face them head on with clear resolve to do right by the hard working Californians we are privileged to represent. We recognize that in this moment, the people of California expect government to tighten its belt and balance the budget like families do every month.

But we also know that they want us to protect core programs and services that are essential to our communities. And that is what this legislative budget does. The process of crafting this budget began almost five months ago.

Our mission, as directed by the speaker, was to make this a transparent and inclusive process that would deliver a budget that reflects the values and priorities of the communities we serve.

I'm grateful for the thousands of advocates and ordinary Californians who made their voices heard in this process and for the 72 public hearings that allowed us to dive deep into many of the pressing issues.

I also want to thank the Governor and our partners in the Senate for their thoughtful engagement as we work together to craft a budget that reflects our shared priorities and for our work together to take decisive, early action to address these challenges.

From the beginning of this process, we have been committed to protecting classroom funding, critical safety net programs, and key efforts to address our housing and homelessness crisis.

Our legislative budget plan achieves those goals with targeted, carefully calibrated investments in safety net programs that protect our most vulnerable it embraces investments in core classroom funding by adopting an approach supported by education leadership and it provides essential funding for affordable housing and homelessness that will be paired with meaningful, fact-based accountability so we can meet this challenge with the urgency it demands.

At the same time, we are committed to tightening our belt and making tough choices. We understand that our efforts to sustain key programs and services must go hand in glove with a clear and unwavering commitment to smarter spending and real accountability.

That is why this budget includes difficult but necessary cuts in many areas, including approximately $1 billion in cuts to corrections, and why our speaker wisely chose to create a new budget subcommittee on oversight and accountability because real accountability must be at the heart of all of our spending.

Finally, this is a responsible budget that limits the use of reserves and leaves a significant balance in our rainy day fund. We cannot predict the future, but we must ensure that California is prepared for whatever challenges may lie ahead.

Colleagues, I want to thank and acknowledge that this budget is possible only through the hard work of so many Members and staff. I particularly want to thank our subcommitee chairs for their very steady and able leadership. I want to thank staff on both sides of the aisle for countless late nights and early mornings.

And I want to thank Members of the Budget Committee who helped us work through these difficult decisions at those 72 hearings.

I also want to acknowledge my Republican counterparts, both the Assembly Member from Lodi, who recently joined us for the last of those two public hearings as our Vice Chair, and our former colleague, Congressman Vince Fong, who was there for the first 70.

I'm grateful to them both for the thoughtful, spirited conversations about how we can work together to protect a state we all love. Colleagues in that spirit and in recognition of the hard work ahead, I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 107.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel, Assemblymember Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill today. We have been provided a budget that is balanced on paper, but is a bill that is incomplete and lacking. It is not the final budget because we're still waiting on the negotiations from the Governor.

What we have before us today is a budget based on overly optimistic revenue projections that the LAO believes are off by around $7 billion. In trying to main a surplus year spending promises, this budget makes nearly $14 billion worth of fund shifts, delays, deferrals and borrowing to maintain past general fund promises. This budget unnecessarily suspends Prop 90.

And creates future obligations that could have a negative impact on other areas of the budget that are already facing deficits. This measure relies on $18 billion of tax increases, primarily made by suspending net operating loss deductions and limiting the use of research and development tax credits.

This budget goes small on wildfire protection and prevention water storage at a time where plenty of water that needs to be stored and rapidly growing fuels in the wildland areas. It directs it redirects gas tax dollars away from building and maintaining highways, streets, roads, the opposite of what was promised to the voters.

Instead, it funds bike lanes and walking paths. In light of everything I've mentioned above and many more things, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you Mr. Flora. Assemblymember Reyes, you are recognized. You are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. Members, I rise to speak in support of AB/SB 107. I would like to thank Speaker Rivas, our budget chair, Gabriel, our budget subcommitee chairs, and all the staff for all the work with the Senate to develop the legislative budget plan. There are three areas that I am very grateful for.

One is the Victims of Crime Act funding. $103 billion. Crime victim services are currently at risk due to a significant loss in federal funding from the Victims of Crime Act, also known as VOCA. SB 107 includes $103 million investment to backfill the reduction in federal funding.

VOCA is a safety net for hundreds of thousands of victims of crime in California, and this investment sends them a strong message. It tells crime survivors that we will not leave them behind and we will support them in the most traumatic moments of their lives.

Another area is Long-Term Care Ombudsman program funding, with an increase of $9.25 million. I am proud of the investment that SB 107 allocates to the Long-Term Care Ombudsman program to ensure that they can meet essential state and federal mandates.

Since I was elected to office, it has been a priority for me to ensure that the Long-Term Care Ombudsman program is properly funded. In 2018, we worked to update the funding formula to account for inflation, and that was the first time the formula was adjusted in 27 years.

There continues to be a need for increased investments in the program, and our local ombudsman are on the front lines every day to ensure that California's older adults receive the highest quality of care and quality of life in long term care facilities.

There are simply not enough staff or volunteers to meet the current demand for ombudsman services in California. June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, and roughly 30% of this funding will go directly towards addressing elder abuse. Finally, childcare rate reform. Childcare continues to be a top priority for many of us, especially the women's caucus.

Last year, we provided temporary rate increases to child care providers. However, reimbursement rates will drop by 25% to 30% next summer unless we take action.

The legislative plan proposes to adopt trailer bill language to require continued reporting on the progress made toward implementing an alternative methodology to ensure that providers are paid for the true cost of care. We also need a clear timeline for the implementation of a plan to ensure that rates do not drop should the administration not be ready to implement a rate structure that accounts for the true cost of the care by July 1, 2025.

In closing, I look forward to the conversations that will occur over the next couple of weeks to ensure we prioritize the needs of Californians and protect the progress we have made in recent years. I respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 107.

Thank you, Assemblymember Reyes. Assemblymember Gallagher, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I do want to start by saying I do appreciate the work of the chair. This has been a difficult budget year, as we all know, with this deficit that we have experienced.

I do think that that, and we've said this before, I think a lot of that was self inflicted by some of the decisions that we've made in past budgets and anticipating revenues that were not realistic in the long term. But realizing this is tough and what we do with this budget impacts people on a daily basis. Right?

And the decisions that are made here, no matter what, some are going to lose and some are going to have those impacts more than others. And so that is a difficult task. But we as Republicans, we cannot support this budget because it doesn't reflect our values and our priorities. And let me add one more thing.

Cause on another positive note, I do want to appreciate that there's been pushback against the Governor and the governor's proposal and saying, look, he was relying way too much on reserves and draining those reserves.

We need to keep those reserves because we don't know how long this is gonna last and we may need those reserves in future years as well. I appreciate that. I think that's been good, pushing back on the shift of money to electric buses. I think that was a good move.

Although, as my colleague mentioned earlier, we still think that there should be investments in those kids. But just a few things just to highlight, I think some of the big ones. I think we unnecessarily suspend Prop 98 in this budget when we don't really need to do so. We also don't have reforms for our kids.

I'm less concerned about our kids driving on electric buses to school and much more concerned about the fact that they're not reading at grade level right now. We can do more on that front without breaking promises. I want to talk about healthcare. Healthcare is a huge issue here.

We are breaking the promise of the MCO tax that we made last year to fully fund and reimburse Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. That means providers aren't getting paid what they need. That means less access to care. That means poor women, especially many in rural areas, are not going to have access to maternal care.

There was an article in the LA Times just last week about the cuts in hospitals to maternal care and the fight that my colleague from Los Angeles has been making on that issue. But this is a problem, like because of Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, we're backing away from that promise. That's what it's going to mean.

And we still haven't done anything about the healthcare minimum wage increase, which, by the way, in this budget, we know that's going to cost us $4 billion in this budget, we only account for $100 million this year and $300 million next year in increased costs.

We know that's not realistic, not unless you do something to rescind that, not to mention what it's doing to our hospitals, putting great strain on them, and they may be shutting down. If we lose hospitals, we lose access to critical care. This is not a good budget for healthcare. It is not.

And it's breaking promises that were made last year. We shouldn't be doing that. This budget still also relies on optimistic revenue estimates. LAO itself said, if the revenue estimates don't come through the way that you all are saying, we're going to have $7 billion more of cuts that we're going to need to make.

So, you know, a lot of big issues here. Again, as was mentioned, we don't make the investments in wildfire prevention, which we've been making and I think are pretty critical. When we talk about critical infrastructure, that's part of it. When we talk about water storage that we need to build, that's part of it.

It's not in this budget. I think that, I think we as Republicans think we should be making the critical investments in infrastructure. So look, these are all things where I feel that, you know, our priorities are just different. And that's why we can't support this budget today and ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Assemblymember Wicks, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I rise in support of this budget. You know, obviously it's a tough economic year for us, and budgets are really about choices.

And when I think about the choices we have to make, I want to talk specifically about the money that was restored with the housing and homelessness funds that were put in this budget. And the budget now that we're voting on does not reflect what we saw earlier this year.

And I'm proud of this budget, even though it doesn't have everything we want. And I think about it from my own personal experience. You know, I grew up in a trailer. Like, my family didn't have a lot, you know, but we had housing security. And some people think, oh, trailer, it's kind of embarrassing.

There's like, I can't believe you grew up in a trailer. Right. That's kind of how I felt when I was little. Kind of embarrassed by it.

But that trailer provided housing security for me, for me to thrive, you know, for me to go to community college, that sent me on a path to go work for the first black president of the United States for six years. You know, that sent me on a path to be an Assembly Member here on this floor because I had that housing security.

And there are families across this state that are facing far worse than my family faced. With the deck stacked against them, with far less resources. And that's when we have to ask ourselves, what is our job here? Our job is to provide that social safety net.

Our job is to ensure that our families not just survive, but thrive. And so restoring those funds on housing, restoring the LIHTC money, restoring the multifamily housing fund, restoring the REAP money and the HHAP money and all those acronyms, what that means is producing more homes for families who need it.

What it means is helping families find those resources that they need. And that is what we are voting on. And that is why I am here on this floor. And I know every single one of you is driven by your own personal experiences.

So think about those experiences and the people in your lives who are touched on housing in this way, because I know you all know them. I know you have people in your lives who are facing that housing security, but that is what this budget is about.

I want to thank our budget sub five chair from Fullerton for fighting for these resources. I want to thank our budget chair from the San Fernando Valley for fighting for these resources. I want to thank our speaker at the Assembly, has held the line on funding for housing this year. I'm proud to be part of this body. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wicks. Assemblymember Essayli, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say, I think this budget is an absolute joke. And I think the process that we've arrived here is an absolute joke. Let's point out about the process. We're here on a wharf without reference to file. We're suspending all our rules. We're not going through Committee.

We're not having any debates in Committee. We're not having public input. We're not having votes. We are jamming this bill down our throats on the eve of a budget deadline. So for the record, don't ever lecture me about our process and rules, ever. I will never be lectured about suspending the rules in this body.

And so let's talk about this budget. First of all, we have $50 billion deficit. Not according to me. According to the Legislative Analyst Office, independent. How are we plugging the hole? I've been asking this question for months and apparently this is the answer.

Now, I was kicked off the Budget Committee because apparently my questions were too probative and embarrassing to the process.

But it looks like we're going to be plugging $50 billion by taking $17 billion in cuts, about $10 billion in tax increases this year, $4.9 billion in delays, $7.1 billion in shifts, $1.6 billion in deferrals and $5.3 billion in reserves, and then we're going to take out $28 billion from next year.

But all this assumes we're not going to have future deficits. We are setting ourselves up for a major fiscal cliff. Let's talk about this budget. Your budget is a reflection of your priorities, and I say yours because it's not mine. I'll be voting no on this.

You will be funding healthcare for illegal immigrants who just showed up to our state. According to the LAO, California taxpayers will be on the hook for $5.4 billion this year for universal health care for illegal immigrants.

The most recent expansion of Medi-Cal coverage added 707,000 new beneficiaries to our already struggling healthcare system, bringing the total number of illegal immigrant enrollees to 1.8 million. How are we affording this in a massive budget deficit year? Well, I'll tell you how. We're cutting critical services and programs across the board.

We're taking money from education and from public safety, and we're further eroding critical access to care for California citizens. It doesn't mean anything to have a Med-Cal card if you can't actually see a doctor or get an appointment. So we have to talk about access to care, not just whether you have a Medi-Cal c1ard.

So while we're doing all that, we are going to be, by the way, expanding the luxury suites at the San Quentin prison. We are going to be, the Governor would like to have a San Quentin rehabilitation center.

We'll be taking on $360 million in construction, with the repayments expected to cost $25 million a year for the next 25 years, at a total cost of $680 million. So that's what's important. Making sure the death row inmates in San Quentin are comfortable. Meanwhile, we'll be cutting from law enforcement.

This budget proposes a minimum additional baseline reduction of $500 million to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, $81 million cut for the purpose of eliminating 4600 prison beds and another $77 million in cuts to the closure of the Chuckwalla Valley state prison. All of this on top of $15 million already cut in early action.

We're also cutting $97 million from trial courtrooms, $16 million from court reporter programs, and combined $15 million from the Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement and Legal Services. So, on one hand, this body says it prioritizes public safety, and to trust them, we don't need a ballot measure.

But on the other hand, we're taking cuts to public safety and we're closing more prison beds. Remember, the budget is a reflection of your priorities. Oh, don't let me forget. We are also taking on 700 million in bonds to pay for new legislative offices. Fancy new offices for us.

This will double the project's total cost once considering interest in financing.

30 seconds.

Okay, well, let me just close with this. It is no wonder that Californians are fleeing this state. It is no wonder that businesses are laying off employees and closing doors, or that an In-N-Out meal now costs $10 or more.

This body is out of touch, this budget is out of control, and the people are out of money. Vote no on this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Essayli. Mr. Ramos, you are recognized.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I rise in support of SB 107. I want to thank the speaker and the budget chair Member Gabriel and my Senate colleagues for their leadership to get to this point.

And this point in the process to get here is a series of hearings that took place, hearings that we chaired as public safety budget sub six chair. We touched issues, issues that include VOCA. We had a hearing on the VOCA funding on May 20.

We also had a hearing on courts that addressed the liabilities and the legal aspect here in the State of California. On March 4, we had a series of other hearings that took place that got us to this point.

Following the process that has been laid out by our speaker, Speaker Rivas, we continue to hear from those that are advocates, but also those that are drastically affected.

Subcommitee number six conducted eight hearings and discussions and informational, making sure that the voices were there, which we actually opened up for anybody in this body to attend, to stress their concerns, which some took part in that. So this is a process that got us to this point.

There's been process, there's been areas that we've seen and had input from those in our communities. These oversight items include organized retail theft, the Inspector General's oversight of the staff complaints process in prison, and the state's efforts to address the missing and murdered indigenous people crisis here in the State of California.

I'm very proud that the legislative body in the budget plan includes a solution to the VOCA funding gap, which is $103 million in ongoing support for crime survivors.

That shows the willingness that this body has to stand side by side with those in the state of California on what's important to the victims that are there, and ongoing funding for these different areas, for survivors of crime, providing critical services to them during a very traumatic time in their lives.

We also maintain funding for indigenous defense, family visitations in prisons and housing support for people on parole committing and making sure that the state continues to live up to its legal liabilities. All of these things are critical to reducing recidivism, but also looking at the early entry in K-12.

And finally, we included nearly a billion in cuts to corrections to promote efficiency, accountability over prisons. Looking at closing of yards, looking at closing of housing units. We're making sure that everybody has a part in making sure that we're coming together on this budget in front of us. I want to thank my Vice Chair, Mister Lackey.

We went through some tough debates in those areas and heard some tough things, but we stood side by side and our voices were there. That's why we got this funding for those victims in the state of California. We continue to work together to find a balance and an approach that's there.

Making sure that the hearings and the voices of California is being heard at these hearings again. These hearings have been taking place from the beginning of the year. A process that's playing out here today.

We want to make sure that we stand side by side with one another during tough times, to make sure that we can come together and agree on certain things that move forward. That's what's in this budget. Within public safety components of sub six.

We stand together and we thank, thank this body for hearing our voices and adding those components to it. I urge an aye vote on AB 107.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Excuse me. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, you are recognized.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of AB 107 as the budget sub-chair of sub-chair five, which had state Administration under its purview and many, many other areas. We worked hard with this budget to listen to our constituents, to listen to our local municipalities and to listen to our public.

One of the things that we heard loud and clear is that housing and homelessness has been at the top of their list.

As far as how we work with our local governments and the dollars that we bring back to those communities, we were able to fight hard to bring back important programs that they told us make a difference in their communities. We brought back dollars for HHAP. We brought dollars back for our multifamily housing program.

We brought dollars back for our low income housing tax credits for our REAP 2.0. These were the programs that our planning agencies, our local cities, our league of cities told us are vital to helping to house people and keep people off our streets.

We listened to our business community when they said the dollars that are going to be cut in the small business development centers would make a huge impact. And we brought dollars back for those, for those programs.

We brought dollars back for the TAP program, the technical assistance program that the small businesses provide to those small business owners trying to start businesses. We also worked to create and preserve dollars for our labor workers, for the strong workforce construction program. We worked to keep dollars in for programs like our hospitality worker training programs.

We know that there's programs, our farm workers out there that need training on heat awareness. We brought dollars back for this. It was a difficult budget we had to cut and we cut big time. Out of the 10 housing programs, we cut six of them.

We also listened to others in the community that came to talk to us about art programs and how important those grants were to their communities and how vital they are to our economy as far as our actors and our theaters and our museums, making sure that they had dollars still coming to them.

But I do have to correct my colleague from Corona. We had so 72 hearings as a total and my Committee, we had 13 hearings. So to say that we kept out the public is absolutely incorrect. We had hundreds of people coming through our community. We had 2000 letters from the business community on small business development centers.

So it is a false narrative to say that the public was shut out. They absolutely were not. And we listened and we changed the budget when we heard and we will continue to do that. We know that there's places in the budget that we have to refine the NOL, other places.

But to say that this was done in the dark is absolutely not true. And I stand behind this budget when it is a lean time, we had to make difficult choices, and yet we listened. I ask for your vote on AB 107.

Thank you, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Assemblymember Joe Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're talking a lot about funding that was restored in the legislative proposal. Let's just be clear, I've said this a couple times already, except different terminology, but the Governor's Budget was definitely, we can agree, and I know you all do, but it was hogwash.

But what this budget does is it puts lipstick on the pig and it's really restoring funding is just from his draconian cuts that he was making in the first place. They were crazy. He proposed to cut foster care programs. He proposed to cut school programs for kids with disabilities.

He proposed so many draconian cuts that are going to impact everybody. You couldn't do any worse. It was literally impossible to pass something worse than what the Governor handed us. So in one way, I thank my colleagues for actually doing the work and proposing a budget. But this budget is still pretty bad.

And I'm going to highlight a couple things. One thing it does is Californians ought to know that gas tax is going up again in July. Every working class individual is going to be negatively impacted by that starting July. Once again.

And the funding in this budget continues to divert that gas tax to go pay for bike lanes and bus stops, not for the roads. I got rocks hitting windshields in my district. Dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of claims.

Not a single claim has been paid, despite the state of California acknowledging that it was lack of maintenance causing those problems. Also, one thing that my colleague from Corona said made me mad. He made me mad when he talked about the embassy suites at San Quentin. $360 million going to San Quentin.

And yet, just again, I'm going to say it again, $339 million cut from preschool programs for kids with disabilities. That is the decision you're making today when you vote on this budget. So with that, I recommend a no vote. But that's what you're voting for if you vote yes and hopefully you won't do that.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Assemblymember Sanchez. You are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a shameful budget, you often say, and we've heard it quite often this morning, budgets are a reflection of our values and our priorities. While this clearly shows that we are happy to prioritize undocumented immigrants over everyone else. Your budget allocates billions to expand free health care to illegal immigrant adults.

All while cutting funding for students, funding for our foster youth and funding for victims of violent crimes. This budget is heartless. It's divisive and completely detached from the reality and the struggles that Californians are actually facing. I urge you to vote no on today's Bill.

Thank you, Assemblymember Sanchez. Assemblymember Bryan, you are recognized.

Thank you Mr. Speaker and colleagues. First, I want to thank all of the budget Subcommitee chairs and our chair from Encino for their incredible work on this proposal. We had some difficult decisions we had to make this year, some of the most difficult decisions California has ever had to make.

And I would fervently disagree with some of my colleagues who would say that this budget is heartless. This budget is the work of a lot of compassion, a lot of thought, a lot of care. These might be the largest cuts to corrections the state has ever had. The reason being because we had choices.

Lower our per-pupil spending, take away our housing dollars, impact our social safety net, and leave open prison infrastructure to fill all of those gaps that we've created, or do the responsible thing, the right thing to look across the board at where there's bloat, where there's waste, where there's unnecessary resources going to infrastructures that are not getting us the rate of return that our constituents deserve.

That's the work that this House is doing. That's the work that our budget team, that the speaker has done this year. I'm proud of this proposal that we've put together. I think there's more work we can do. Make no mistake about that. We're not perfect. We work pretty hard, but we're not perfect.

But what this budget reminds me is that we aspire to be more perfect every time we go and do the work that our constituents have sent us to do. So I am proud to vote for these housing dollars. I am proud to vote for a per-pupil spending that is higher than it was last year.

Even though we have this budget deficit. I am proud to vote for this budget that protects some of our human services dollars, that protects money for our foster youth. I'm proud to vote for this budget that cuts nearly $1 billion in correctional spending, but maintains critical reentry, rehabilitation services, and three-day visitations on level four yards.

We looked at the things that impact real communities, real people. Those are the things we fought for. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Mr. Bryan. Seeing no further debate, Senate Member Gabriel, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I want to thank all of our colleagues from across the state who got up and spoke. And, you know, we certainly have had a lot of debates as we have crafted this budget over the 72 hearings that we have had.

I want to acknowledge, I think, the comments from our friends on the other side of the aisle and from my good friend, the Republican leader. There's a lot of tough choices in this budget, and that's what this moment demands of us. And there's certainly cuts in this budget that I think are difficult for many of us.

There are challenges in this moment that we have had to step up to the plate and meet, and that's what this tough moment requires. And we know that families across the state are sitting down at their kitchen table working through their finances and they have to tighten their belts. And that's what we've done.

And so we had to make some difficult choices and some difficult challenges. But we have done that in a way that we have been laser focused on protecting those core priorities. We are insistent that we will not balance this budget on the backs of the poor.

And I want to thank our Subcommitee chairs who have done the hard work of looking through those essential safety net programs to make sure that we are protecting our most vulnerable communities. And when you actually sit down and grapple with the moral weight of some of the choices that we were confronted with, it's a lot to bear.

And I know that we had conversations that kept me up at night, and I know that they kept many of our Subcommitee chairs up at night. But I am proud of the work that we have done to protect our social safety net and to protect our most vulnerable.

We have also been insistent on this budget and looking towards the future, protecting our most important resource in the state, which is our people and our children. And that's why we have striven to protect public education.

And I want to thank our Subcommitee chair from San Diego, who has worked so hard to protect public education, fought so hard for public education.

I want to thank all of our colleagues from across the state, our subcommitee chair from Fullerton, our appropriations committee chair from Oakland, others who have come together to fight for critical housing and homelessness dollars. We hear over and over and over again from people in the state of California that this is a top priority.

And so we have chosen to protect that funding, but to do it in a way where we are going to be laser focused on accountability. And we've done this also to try to protect programs that we have heard a lot about that are essential in this moment.

I want to thank both of our colleagues from San Bernardino, our subcommitee chair from San Bernardino, our former majority leader from San Bernardino for their incredible advocacy on behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in our state, people who have been victims of human trafficking, of domestic violence, of sexual assault, the way in which we are restoring essential funding for victims of crime.

That is a budget that is leading with heart and is leading with compassion. And certainly we've had to make tough choices and tighten our belt to find that funding. But the work that they have done in mobilizing our house and our Legislature around that will change the lives of many of the most vulnerable people in the state.

And we have done that with an eye towards the future, towards also protecting reserves. And that's hard. And that has forced tougher choices. Rather than spend through all of our reserves at once, we have been mindful about preserving those reserves because we don't know what lies ahead.

And then we have done all of this work with a new, renewed emphasis and focus on accountability. And I want to thank our budget subcommittee chair from Budget Subcommittee number seven, who has led that effort. And finally, I want to thank our speaker.

Because in a moment of incredible challenge, I don't believe any of us sitting in this room has ever lived through this kind of budget or served, certainly served in the Legislature during this kind of challenge, but has made us understand that we can do two things in once we can protect our most vulnerable, we can protect the programs that we know are essential to the communities we serve.

And we can also do so in a way that is responsible and holds the line on spending so we can meet future challenges.

So on behalf of all of the hard work that went into grappling with those choices, to grappling with the moral weight of those choices, I want to again thank all the Members of the board Budget Committee respectfully request your aye vote on AB 107.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel. And with that, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 59, nos 14 on the urgency. Ayes 59. There is no urgency.

Just seems like there's an urgency. Ayes 59, nos 14 on the bill. Measure passes and amendments are concurred in. Assembly Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, you are recognized.

Mister Speaker, I move to suspend Assembly Rule 96 to withdraw ACA 10 Aguiar-Curry from the Rules Committee and order the measure to the third reading file for Monday.

Assemblymember Flora, you are recognized.

We withhold consent and ask for roll call vote.

Okay. This is a procedural motion. It's not debatable. It takes 40 votes. Clerk will open the roll. Majority leader is asking for an aye vote. The Republican leader is asking for a no vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 57, noes 15.

The measure is ordered to third reading. Members, we will now move to the second-day consent calendar. Before we vote, we will first take up resolutions on the consent calendar for the purpose of adding co-authors. The Clerk will read the resolutions on the consent calendar.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 196 by Assembly Member Ta relative to lung cancer awareness and Assembly Concurrent Resolution 207 by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry and others relative to Sacramento Valley Ecosystem Awareness Week.

The Clerk will now open the roll to allow any member to add on as a co-author to the resolutions. Members this is a vote for co-authors.

All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote as a co-author. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll. There are 30 73 co-authors added. Moving to a vote on the consent calendar. Does any Member wish to remove an item?

Seeing none and hearing none, the Clerk will read the second-day consent calendar.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 196 by Assembly Member Ta relative to lung cancer awareness.

The Clerk will open the roll on the consent calendar.

All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote on the consent calendar. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. The consent calendar. Ayes 75, noes zero, consent calendar is adopted. The Clerk will read the remaining items on the consent calendar.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 207.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Bill 994.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Bill 1048.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Bill 1515 with urgency.

Ayes 75, noes zero on urgency. Ayes 75, noes zero on the bill.

Senate Bill 1516 with urgency.

Ayes 75, noes zero on the urgency. Ayes 75, noes zero on the bill.

Senate Bill 1517.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Bill 1278.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 110.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 119

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 124.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 131.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 139.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 141.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 144.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 147.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 148.

Ayes 75, noes zero.

And Senate Concurrent Resolution 149.

Ayes 75, noes zero. Moving to announcement, session schedule is as follows.

Friday, June 14th, no Floor session, no check-in session. Monday, June 17th, Floor session at 1:00 p.m. All other items will be remaining will be passed and retained. All motions shall be continued. Seeing and hearing no further business. I'm ready to entertain a motion to adjourn. Miss Aguiar-Curry moves.

Mister Flora seconds that the House stands adjourned till Monday, June 17th, at 1:00 p.m. The quorum call is lifted, and the House is adjourned.