Assembly Floor

The Assembly is now in the second extraordinary session. Assemblymember Nguyen notices the absence of a quorum. The sergeant of arms will prepare the chamber and bring in the absent Members. The Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, a quorum is present. We ask our guests and visitors in the rear of the chamber and in the gallery to please stand for the prayer and the flag salute. The day's prayer will be offered by Assembly Member Addis.

O God, you have bound us together in common life. Help us as we struggle to serve the people of our state, to meet one another without bitterness, and to work together with mutual forbearance and respect. Make it so that the barriers that divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatred cease.

That our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace. In your name. Amen.

Thank you, Assembly Member Addis. Please join Assembly Member Chen as he leads us in the flag salute.

Members, please put your right hand over your heart. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

Assembly Chamber, Sacramento. Friday, August 30th 2024. Assembly met.

Ms. Aguiar-Curry moves Mr. Flora's 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.

To our guests and visitors today, state law prohibits persons in the gallery from interfering with legislative proceedings or disrupting the orderly conduct of official business. Persons disrupting legislative proceedings are subject to removal, arrest, and/or other appropriate legal remedies.

Moving to motions and resolutions, the absences for the day will be deemed read and printed in the journal. Majority leader Aguiar-Curry, you are recognized for your procedural motions.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 45.5 to allow Assembly Members Irwin and Lowenthal to speak on adjournment and memory today.

Without objection, such shall be the order.

I move to suspend the rules to allow authors to take up item one, AB 1 Hart, and item two, AB 9 Petrie-Norris, today without reference to file for the purposes of a third reading.

Mr. Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Withhold consent and ask for a roll call vote.

Mr. Flora is withholding consent. Do you have a second for that, Mr. Flora? Members, a motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. It takes 40 votes. Ms. Aguiar-Curry's motion is to suspend the rules. It is being seconded by Mr. Santiago. Mr. Flora is objecting. The motion to suspend rules is not debatable.

The motion takes 40 votes. The Clerk will open the roll. This is a procedural vote. Members, Ms. Aguiar-Curry, asking for an aye vote. Mr. Flora, asking for a no vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes, 49. Nos, 15. The rules are suspended. The motion carries. The rules are suspended. Mr. Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules to allow Assembly Member Gipson to take up ABX 2-8 without reference to file for the purpose of third readings.

Members, Mr. Flora is asking for a motion to suspend the Constitution and the House rules, to waive the three readings, and take up a Bill without reference to committee or file. The motion requires a second. Seconded by Mr. Mathis. The motion is not debatable and it takes 54 votes. 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. We are asking. Mr. Flora is asking for an aye vote. Ms. Aguiar-Curry is asking for a no vote. I know that's uncomfortable for some of you. It's a test to see if the button actually works.

Fooled me. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. The Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes, 17. Nos, 50. The motion to suspend the Constitution fails. Mr. Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules to withdraw ABX 2-4 Joe Patterson from Rules Committee and ABX 2-3 Gallagher from Petroleum and Gasoline Supply Committee and order them to third reading to be taken up without reference to file.

Members, motion by Mister Flora, seconded by Assembly Member Sanchez. You can have the next one if there's another one. So, members, this is again a motion to suspend the Constitution and the House rules to waive the three readings. But I need to break this up.

Hang on a second. Could I get your attention, members, please? It's going to be two separate. I need to know. Which bills again?

Do you want to break them apart? Is that what you're asking?

I think we need to break them apart. Okay.

All right. Then I move to suspend rules to withdraw ABX 2-4 Joe Patterson from the Rules Committee.

Okay, we'll start with that. Thank you. So, once again, members, this is a motion to suspend the Constitution and the House rules, to waive the three meetings, and take up the Bill without reference to committee or file. So the motion was made. That's seconded by Assembly Member Sanchez. The motion not debatable and it takes 54 votes.

Listen carefully, members. Mr. Flora's asking for an aye vote. Ms. Aguiar-Curry asking for a no vote. 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, 18. Nos, 51.

The motion to suspend the Constitution fails. Mr. Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules to withdraw ABX 2-3 Gallagher from the Petroleum and Gasoline Supply Committee and order them to third reading be taken up without reference to file.

Thank you, Mr. Flora. That requires a second. Mr. Mathis is going to second that.

One point of inquiry.

Mr. Gallagher, you are recognized.

Yeah. I'm wondering why this is being treated as a motion. Is this a motion to. I'm wondering why this is being treated as suspension of the Constitution. Is this one just rules or the Constitution?

This one is not and that's why we separated them.

Okay. Thank you.

This motion will require 40 votes. Because this has been read into as well. So that's why I separated them. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. So motion's not debatable. Mr. Flora is asking for an aye vote. Ms. Aguiar-Curry is asking for a no vote.

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. We'll close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes, 17. Nos, 52. Measure fails. Motion fails. Motion fails.

Moving to business on the daily file. Second reading file items one through two. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1 and 9.

All bills will be deemed read and all amendments will be deemed adopted. We will now go to Assembly Bill one by Assemblymember Hart. Without reference to file. There are amendments pending at the desk by Assemblymember Gallagher. The Clerk will read the amendments.

Assembly Bill One with amendments by Assemblymember Gallagher.

So may Member Gallagher, you are recognized on the amendments.

Yes, thank you, Mister Speaker.

Madam Majority Leader, you are recognized.

I move to lay the amendments on the table.

Okay, we'll let you open, Mister Gallagher.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister speaker and Members, these amendments are testing the sincerity of the supporters of this Bill. If we are really talking about ensuring that we have a Reserve of gasoline so that we help avoid price spikes as has been purported, then we need more storage. We absolutely need more infrastructure to do that.

Right now, the existing pie only takes us so far. And if you hold gasoline back, prices will spike. They will go up. So we need to have more of a Reserve. We need to have more storage tanks.

We need to have more pipelines so that we can actually utilize a gas Reserve to keep prices from going up when there's maintenance on refineries, we need more infrastructure at refineries.

And for those of you that host refineries, if you truly believe that we need to have more of a Reserve, then you should be willing to build more at your existing refineries. You should be willing to support this amendment. They would build more storage and more pipelines to ensure that we have that Reserve.

Otherwise, it's just a false promise. You're making a false promise to voters and to your constituents. So with these amendments, what I'm saying is put. Put your money where your mouth is.

If you're truly saying today that this is the only way to avoid price spikes, and you're not even talking about it actually lowering gas prices, because it won't. But if you're really, truly mean to avoid price spikes when a refinery goes down or when we have maintenance, whether it's planned or unplanned, then we need more infrastructure.

And you should support these amendments, which would provide a CEQA exemption and streamlining to build more storage and build more pipelines. And I know that you guys aren't adverse to that because you all did it for the capital annex, right? That has now spiked to $1.2 billion of taxpayer money.

So you didn't hesitate to suspend CEQA to build this annex building at taxpayers expense. You should really balk at doing the real work to build infrastructure, to have a real Reserve on gasoline in this state. So I'm going to give you guys the opportunity.

You can vote for these amendments, add it to this Bill, and then we'll actually have a real Reserve of gasoline in California, and we'll have the actual ability to do it with the instrumentalities and the infrastructure in place. So here's your opportunity. I hope that you will vote for these amendments. Thank you.

Mister Kavanagh. Madam Majority leader, you are recognized.

I move to lay the amendments on the table.

That motion is seconded by Mister Santiago. The motion is not debatable. It takes a majority of those present in voting. There's a procedural vote. The Clerk will open the rolls. Majority leader is asking for an I vote. Mister Gallagher is asking for a no vote. All those vote who desire to vote.

All those vote who desire to vote. The majority leader asking for an I vote. Mister Gallagher for a no vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Eyes 54. No. 17. The amendments are laid on the table moving to the presentation of the Bill in chief, the Clerk will read Assembly.

Bill won by Assemblymember Hart and others. An actual aid energy.

Assembly Member Hart, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. Colleagues, we've been called into this extraordinary session to provide financial relief at the gas pump for our constituents. Thanks to the passage of SPX 12, which was passed last special session, the CEC and newly formed Division of Petroleum Market Oversight have gained critical insights into refiner operations and gas price trends in California.

The DPMO revealed that planned refinery maintenance and Low fuel inventory resulted in gas price spikes annually in the early fall. With the exception of the pandemic, gas prices surpassed $6 per gallon last September, costing consumers an extra $2.2 billion. AB 1 is a tool to address fuel's price spikes and price gouging at the pump.

The Bill clarifies and builds on law from last year requiring refineries to submit resupply plans to the California Energy Commission in advance of maintenance or turnaround events. Let me be clear. AB 1 does not prohibit a refinery from conducting important maintenance. Refiners can and should perform the maintenance they need to do to keep their facilities safe.

AB 1 holds refineries accountable to responsible planning ahead of maintenance events. The measure also gives the CEC the authority to open a formal rulemaking process to determine whether requiring minimum inventory fuels levels would benefit California consumers.

A cost effectiveness test is baked in that assesses whether inventory requirements will increase fuel supply, lower prices annually, and reduce market volatility. Legislative oversight is imperative. The CEC is required to submit an annual report to the Legislature reevaluating the needs for regulations and the minimum inventory regulations sunset on January 1, 2033.

The Legislature also has the opportunity to convene informational hearings and oversight hearings throughout the regulatory process at any time. The goal is guarantee that fuel reserves are readily available for consumers during maintenance events and supply constraints.

As a Member of the Special Sessions Petroleum and Gasoline Supply Committee, I worked with many of you as we learned about the complex transportation fuels market. I listened to my colleagues concerns on storage infrastructure, the spot market, and the impact on frontline communities.

I'm proud to present a Bill today that addresses many of our colleagues and stakeholders concerns.

I accepted amendments and Committee that protect frontline communities by prohibiting the construction of additional storage, mandating that workplace safety is the primary consideration when establishing regulations reinstating the stakeholder Advisory Committee, ensuring that industry, labor, and environmental justice have a seat at the table, and including a sunset date.

This Bill incentivizes fuel refineries to plan proactively saving Californians consumers billions at the pump while maintaining profits. This proposal is timely as the Department of Petroleum Marketing Oversight issued a consumer advisory just two weeks ago, citing that California is once again seeing a significant spike in gas prices. Colleagues, I urge you to vote I on AB 1.

Let's take action now to provide relief to Californians who need gasoline in their cars to get to work, drive their children to school, vote and visit loved ones. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Hart, Mister Lackey. You are. zero, I'm sorry. Hang on a second. I'm going to allow Miss Aggie or Curry to speak as the principal joint or the joint author on the Bill. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon colleagues. Today I rise in support of AB 1 2x. Colleagues, I'll keep this short. My colleague and joint author from Santa Barbara has covered the main points very well. This Bill cracks down on refinery price spikes while maintaining important protections for the health and safety of refinery workers and surrounding communities.

I want to take a minute to highlight the thorough public process that got us here. The Assembly could have acted quickly at the end of August, but many of us felt that we did not have the appropriate amount of time to consider a Bill of this magnitude in the last days of session.

In order for us to engage in the kind of thoughtful process the special Committee chair and the Committee on Petroleum and Gasoline supply have undertaken. We have undertaken. We asked the Governor to call this second extraordinary session so we could take the time the public deserves.

I watched the historic amount of testimony from stakeholders and participation by the Members of the Committee during the three days of extensive hearings. Over 14 hours primarily spent on AB 1 2x. But I will also say today that we are not done. Should this Bill pass through the Legislature and be signed by the Governor.

This body very much involved in the development of regulations and oversight that will follow this becoming law. You know, we can rarely make everyone happy with the work we do in this body. But I do feel very proud that the governor's proposal embodied in AB 1 2x, received the attention and scrutiny it deserves.

The many amendments we've taken in this second extraordinary session makes this a significantly better product. I am so proud of all the work those of you that were on that Committee have done, that you listened and you asked good questions. And that where we are today. For that reason, colleagues, I ask for your. I vote.

Thank you Assembly Member Aguiar Curry. Assembly Member Lackey, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. Members, I must rise in opposition to this measure. I'm proud to represent a working class community where many of the constituents drive as many as 2 hours each way to work. Any increase in the gas price inflicts financial pain to these personal budgets.

Those long daily hours in the car working one, sometimes at least two jobs to help put food on the table, pay the rent, and keep lights on for their loved ones. Hard working Californians deserve better than the Governor's experiment.

Even the Governor's own Administration has stated that this legislation could create artificial supply shortages and inadvertently increase gas prices. We all know that families are struggling, and we know that we have an affordability crisis, and especially those in my District who spend such a considerable part of their life commuting to and from work.

These prices are very significant to their budgets. If the goal is to lower the cost of gas to the consumer, we must suspend the gas tax and I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you Mister Lackey, Mister Muratsuchi, you are recognized.

Colleagues. I first of all want to thank our speaker for convening and making sure that we convened this special session so that we engaged in the very thoughtful, very deliberative process that those of us that have served on the special Committee have been engaged in in recent weeks.

This is clearly not only gas prices, but also issues like worker and community safety. Refinery safety is a critical issue that should not be shortcutted. As a representative of three of the nine major refineries in the State that produces our gas, I have consistently prioritized not just gas prices, but worker and community safety.

Because worker safety is refinery safety. I have raised concerns, especially given my personal experience with refinery safety. In 2015, the Torrance refinery exploded, and I lived just a few miles away from the Torrance refinery and saw the significant impact and concerns raised in our community.

And so I have not only the PBF refinery in Torrance, I have the Chevron refinery in El Segundo, Phillips 66 in Wilmington. And again, I raised that point to emphasize that we cannot and should not compromise on refinery safety.

I'm referring to a letter from the United Steel workers dated September 24 of this year that raises concerns without taking a position on the Bill. The letter in the section emphasizing the critical importance of the timing and scope of refinery turnarounds and ensuring refinery safety clearly states, nothing in this Bill should delay or prevent necessary turnaround work.

That is a critical goal that we need to make sure we land, either in this Bill in its final form or in any subsequent legislation.

The letter specifically calls for specific language that would prevent any aspect of minimum inventory or resupply plans from being considered or discussed when workers are faced with dangerous situations requiring emergency turnaround and maintenance work.

That is my request to the authors of this Bill to ensure either in the final version of this Bill or in subsequent legislation, that we make sure that nothing delays or prevents emergency turnaround or maintenance work, including any considerations of minimum inventory or resupply plans.

And with that commitment, I will be voting for the Bill today, and I look forward to seeing what happens with any subsequent amendments to this Bill or any future legislation.

Thank you, Mister Muratsuchi, Mister Bennett, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. California's gasoline prices are higher than gas prices in the rest of the Country. And that's because we fund our road maintenance and our road construction through gasoline taxes. And it's also because we ended the worst pollution, air pollution in the country with our strict air regulation requirements for our gasoline.

But Californians today also, besides these higher gas prices, face price surges that are not the result of our higher gas taxes, they're not the result of our environmental regulations. These unique California gas spike gas. You know, by the way, when I was practicing this, try to say gasoline price spikes over and over again fast, right?

You'll have some fun with that. But these gasoline prices happen even when gas prices are going down in the rest of the country. Prices are going up in California.

Our taxes didn't change, our regulations didn't change, but Californians alone experiencing these price surges now, the Energy Commission presented compelling data to the Committee that these unique price surges are associated and linked to lower than normal gasoline inventories in our State.

And it's really important that we stop here and emphasize lower than normal inventory levels, not focused on one refinery. But for most of the year, gasoline inventory levels industry wide are significantly above the threshold that is associated with these California unique price spikes.

It just makes common sense if we have situations where we have avoidable price spikes that could be avoided simply by keeping inventory levels at normal levels, right. That we should make an effort to try to do that. That's what this Bill is about.

And as my colleague from Santa Barbara pointed out, there are great savings for Californians if we can avoid just these narrowly focused, avoidable price spikes. And in particular, we all know Low income residents suffer the most when they have price spikes that completely blow their budgeting.

The Bill empowers the CEC to develop first. They must be cost effective. So if they are going to cause prices to go up, as some people allege today, they can't go forward with it. And also practical regulations that keep gasoline storage at normal levels.

I want to emphasize this is not an attempt to demand significant new storage or incur significant new costs, but rather use the existing storage wide capacity more appropriately so that we stay above normal levels.

The basic strategy, engage in proactive planning to ensure enough replacement fuel is ordered in advance and or on hand for both planned and unplanned maintenance events, rather than only having market forces determine what the storage levels are going to be in California, we need the public's interest to be represented by the CEC when decisions are made to go below normal storage levels.

And the claim that this is somehow going to raise prices just defies the logical interpretation of the data and facts that they have given us. I want to emphasize the refineries are not the boogeymen in this situation. They are doing what they are supposed to do, which is maximize their profits.

Even if they wanted to, they could not coordinate with everybody else and keep industry wide storage levels up. Right. It's the State's responsibility to protect Californians from those avoidable price shortages. The industry can't do it because of antitrust laws, even if they wanted to, and their purpose is to maximize profits, not avoid these prices.

Your final call, Mister Bennett

Thank you very much. Let me bring this to a close, if I can, with the Committee amendments. This Bill is a good faith attempt to both protect Californians from these avoidable gasoline price surges and also ensure that these regulatory efforts do not in any way reduce worker safety.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Torrance and with the author, as there are many ideas that have come up even over the weekend about how to do both of those things with this Bill and future legislation. I strongly encourage and I vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. Doctor Wood, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Bill, and I want to start by commending the authors for their diligence and listening closely to the testimony in the eight, was it 10 hours of public hearings we had prior to the Bill hearing last week and taking that in and reacting to it.

The worker safety issue, I think, came up over and over again, and it was paramount that that be addressed, and the authors have done that. And there are additional amendments that I think will go forward from there, from what we heard during the Bill hearing itself.

But the authors have been really diligent in responding to the concerns of the opposition here, especially workers. And worker safety is important. You know, it is about supply, supply and demand. It's basic economic theory here. And when the supply is plentiful, the prices remain stable, but when there's a disruption in that supply, that's when things happen.

What is really unfortunate in this case is that when one refinery encounters something unexpected, every other entity raises the price across the board. So why should the misfortune of one lead to the fortunes of the other?

And by the way, when the prices go up for them, they go up for the affected refinery entities as well, which helps them to offset the costs of whatever it was that led to this. Consumers pay for that because it's across the board, and that's just not fair. That's not fair.

In my District, we see the gas spikes even more because the gas, there's no pipelines in my District, everything has to be trucked in. So when you have a $6 a gallon price, something spikes to $6 in the Bay Area, it goes to $7 or more in my District.

And that means the cost of everything goes up, food goes up, goods go up, everything goes up when the price of gas goes up in my District, because you got to transport it all there. So any effort to flatten these spikes out is welcome. And I really read every single document that was put before us.

I stayed for every minute of these hearings to listen and take this in. And I honestly believe that this is a good faith attempt to address a real problem in California. And with that, I really urge you to vote for this Bill. We can make changes later if things aren't awry.

Nothing we do in this building is carved in stone, and nothing we do is ever completely perfect. But we deserve, the people of California deserve our best effort. And right now, I think this is our best effort. And that's why I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Doctor Wood. Assemblymember Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and Members, I rise today to urge caution in considering this piece of legislation. Thank you to the Chair of our special session Committee, as well as the Speaker, for convening the session to further discuss the. This really complex Bill.

Without their leadership, many of us, as well as our constituents, would be in the dark regarding the complicated nature of this proposal. Through those discussions, it has been made abundantly clear that there are concerns regarding worker safety, practicality, and actual impact this measure would have on prices at the pump and on working class families.

Last year, the Legislature met for a similar special session and passed SBX 12, which contain multiple major provisions intended to provide consumers relief at the pump. While we stand here today to debate this measure, some of those major provisions from its predecessor are yet to be delivered.

The independent consumer fuels Advisory Committee, which was supposed to be established by SPX 12, has not been formed. Members, we have seen this story before in major provisions of a Bill that require a special session almost two years ago can fall to the wayside.

How will we ensure that the statutes of this legislation are meaningfully implemented and actually benefit Californians with the urgency dictated by this very measure? In the meantime, CARB is actively reviewing and updating regulations to both the cap and trade program and the Low carbon fuel standards.

The results of these changes could potentially drive costs at the pump up for the consumer by up to $0.45. While this Bill intends to take on the issue of price spikes, it does not address the fact that our everyday gas prices are unusually and unnecessarily high.

We may pass this Bill today, but consumers will feel the effects of this changing CARB regulations well before the statutes are implemented, and we will be left explaining to our constituents why prices continue to rise despite the convening of not just this special session, but last year's as well.

The Administration has an immense amount of authority and tools at their disposal, many of which could have an immediate positive impact on consumers and our fuels market. I worry by further ceding the Legislature's authority, we further erode the accountability our constituents trusted us with by electing us in the first place.

I look forward to seeing the promised changes and further discussion on this come to fruition in the Senate, but for the reasons mentioned, I cannot support the measure before us today. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember Rubio. Assemblymember Zbur, you are recognized.

Mister speaker, Members, I rise today in support of this Bill.

I want to first start out by thanking Mister speaker, the Chair of the Special Committee, the Bill authors, the Administration, and all the Committee Members for the thoughtful and extensive hearings that were devoted to probing and understanding steps that California can take to reduce gas price spikes and gas prices overall for California consumers.

I will be voting for this Bill today because the Governor has made a compelling case that California experiences significant gas price spikes and overall higher gas prices that are unique to California and hurting average families in the State.

The Governor presented compelling evidence that price spikes occur at times when demand exceeds refinery supply capacity and has requested that the CEC be granted authority to consider adopting regulations with the primary purpose. The primary purpose to bring down gas prices, which is what California consumers need and want.

The Governor's proposal, if done right, has the potential to save billions of dollars at the pump, and that is the goal. And that is why I'm voting for the Bill today. That said, we need to get this right.

And I believe that the building trades have raised legitimate concerns related to jobs and worker and community safety that have yet to be addressed in the Bill. I'm grateful that the authors and the Administration have promised to continue working on the Bill as it moves through the Senate in an attempt to address the building trade's concerns.

I have confidence that they intend to make good on their promise. And for these reasons and many others, I urge your yes vote. Your I vote today.

Thank you, Assembly Member Zbur, Assembly Member Mathis, you are recognized.

We have decreased oil production in California, and then we blame our locals. Whenever there's an oil spill from offshore, we cut our ability to refine. We just shot down a proposal by my colleague to speed up CEQA so we could actually build more. What are we doing? We hear, zero, this is.

We're going to look at worker safety. We're going to look at this. But the fact is, when you take away your ability and you pull it over here, you're decreasing what's on the market before you're increasing production. That's a fact. Talk about market forces.

The fact is, when you pull some of it away, there's less at the pump so the price goes up. That's a simple fact of economics. Maybe we need to look at economics classes in high school again to make sure we all have the same curriculum. We've had opportunity to do this.

We talk about, zero, more time so we didn't rush this. Remember, as we've been looking at gas prices for well over two years, anybody that's been paying attention to California politics has been looking at gas costs for the last decade. This measure does nothing to reduce the cost to families tomorrow.

It does nothing to reduce it next year, or the following year, maybe 1020 years in the future. The Governor doesn't know because he hasn't answered that question. The fact is, voting on this today will increase cost tomorrow. I ask you for a no vote.

Thank you Mister Mathis, Mister Joe Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker, Members, it's great to see you in this October. I'm sure you're happy to see me as well. I want to read a quote from Governor Newsom that I shared with the Committee.

He said in 2021, I've made it clear I don't see a role for fracking in that future, and similarly believe that California needs to move beyond oil. His intentions with this legislation are obvious. This is the first step to move us away from oil.

If he gets his way over time, starting with this Bill, we're going to see more and more oil come from abroad. That's definitely not going to decrease prices.

And no matter what you do here, the governor's Administration is already moving forward with two regulations that will increase the cost of gasoline and one of them in Committee, it was kind of interesting.

I asked the Air Resources Board, which, by the way, took over four months, to respond to a letter from me and some of my colleagues. But they got it five days after.

I asked them where the letter was, by the way, I asked them how much the Low carbon fuel standard adds to gasoline right now, and they said eight to gallon, and they're redoing that again. And their initial estimate said 47 cents a gallon. Now, they walked that back as soon as they could.

I'm sure they got a call from the horseshoe and said, you can walk that back. But we know for sure the Low carbon fuel standard is going to increase prices. We know cap and trade is going to increase. My constituents can't afford the policies of the California State Legislature.

Instead, what we're going to do here today, and by we, I mean not me, but what this body is going to do is exactly what the Governor is telling them to do, which is pass a measure that has shown nothing to actually decrease the price of gasoline. And we also keep hearing about the profits of oil refineries.

This Legislature actually mandated that they have to report that information to the Energy Commission. And so this is on a website that everybody here can see directly from the State of California. There are many months per year where refineries are actually losing money.

Well, look, I'm not going to cry about the profits of refineries, but what would make me sad is if we add more negative months of profits to the refineries that they actually leave the State of California, and then we get more oil from abroad, and then prices aren't going to go down, and there's going to be a breaking point.

These are private industries. There's going to be a breaking point where they say, I no longer want to operate in California. So what we're doing right now is we're passing something that the Governor has told this body to do. And when that passes, it's going to Institute a PUC style regulatory scheme on the oil industry.

And I don't know what kind of calls you get in your office, but one of the calls that I get in my office on a regular basis is how expensive utilities are.

And if the PUC does the same, what the PUC does to the utilities in jacking up the rates to Institute policies of this body, by the way, the clean air policies, all those sorts of things. Again, my constituents can't afford that.

I don't know about the wealthy districts in this state, but my district can't afford it, can't afford the utility rates that are as a result of policies coming out of this body. And they also will not be able to afford the gas prices that are a result from this policy that is soon going to be voted on.

With that, I ask for a no vote.

Thank you Mister Patterson, Mister Jones-Sawyer, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. You know, I won't be here as if this measure passes and we need to make adjustments to move forward. And I've always believed that this body needs to get the most information to make an informed decision.

And I want to thank individuals who've gotten the information, especially since over the weekend I went to go visit my son in Denver, Colorado, and his mother and I were like two old people talking about the gas prices in Denver where it's $2.99 a gallon, while in south central Los Angeles where I live, it's $5.65 a gallon.

Let's just keep it very simple. And when I asked what is the Delta? What is the difference? What is going on? I was a little dismayed that the first answer I got was that the CEC can get back to me. But it's a very complicated formula and it's very complicated to get to the answer.

At first I wasn't sure if that was a comment on me and my intelligence or a comment on you and not understanding what is going on. I think it's very simple to find out. Even when you do a cost of inflation, a calculus, a five step calculus, which I did.

Look, I'm probably one of the few in this room that remember when you could buy gas at $0.25 gallon, you get all your buddies to put in one of the few to remember when you couldn't pay $10 a gallon to buy gas during the Jimmy Carter days.

So it's as I looked through all the different spikes, wars, recessions, all of the things that internationally played havoc on our gas prices, there was something there. Even if you do a cost of inflation, compared to 1974 to 2024, it's 25 cents a gallon to about $3.25 to 350.

So when I look at Denver at $3, make it easy. And what I got from the industry that our taxes may be about $1.38. If I'm doing simple math, even if I take that number higher and say it's $1.50 plus three, that's 450, where's that other dollar that my people are paying for in South Los Angeles?

And who's going to find out what that is and why is that, are we calling that a spike? Are we calling that what, what are we calling that? And what is it? Where does that money go? Is it coming back to our coffers? No, because we already said that's embedded in the price.

So that's what's been confusing to me and why it's been so hard for me to make a decision about where to go. Because I need to know that once I leave this chamber that we don't ask for reports.

And I've been here for 12 years, where you ask for a report and sometimes you get it, sometimes a little more time, and sometimes they just blow you off as a body and they don't respect you and bring it back to you.

And so I'm hoping that in this legislation and other things that we do have the teeth to ensure that people in South Los Angeles will be protected and that people will understand what we're doing today makes a huge difference in people's lives. But most important, there's transparency. I think at the end of the day, everybody wants transparency.

And I think it will work for both sides if we have transparency. And then you can make an intelligent decision on how to move forward, on how to, I'm gonna use that nasty word, I regulate this industry so that everybody can take care of their constituents in a way that we don't look back and find out.

These spikes get even worse. But hopefully it gets better so that everyone's lives becomes better and they're not spending all their money or all their savings or all of their income into gas prices. Thank you.

Thank you Mister John Sawyer. Sun May Member Cottie Petrie-Norris, you are recognized.

AB Thank you Mister speaker. Thank you Mister speaker. Members, I rise today in support of 1. I was proud to serve as the chair of the special session Committee on petroleum supply.

And I wanted to share a little bit about what we learned throughout the course of the last month of hearings that we've had as part of this special session. So we convened this special session really as an opportunity to do a couple things. Number one, thoroughly vet the governor's proposal.

Number two, build on that and improve on the governor's proposal. And then number three, identify additional opportunities for us to improve market liquidity, to combat supply shortages and ultimately to save our constituents money. And so I want to thank the speaker for his leadership and I want to thank everyone who served as part of this Committee.

I want to touch, I think, on a couple things that have come up and the one issue I think that keeps coming up is the argument of the opposition that this is going to raise prices.

And certainly for everybody here, whether you're from the north or the south, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, my God, the last thing that we want to do is anything that's going to raise prices for our constituents.

And so I think a lot of us went into these hearings with kind of a healthy degree of, and I think, really mindful of potential unintended consequences. And we said to the agencies, we said to the CEC, show us the math. Show us the math. Make the case. And you want to know something?

In the course of the, I think it was 16 hours of hearings that we had, they made an incredibly compelling, very detailed, data driven case for all of us and for all of our constituents. So what they laid out is that the status quo, the status quo, these price spikes today are costing Californians $2 billion a year.

This proposal, by contrast, again by their analysis, would cost $50 million a year, meaning we have an opportunity to save Californians $1.95 billion. But we didn't stop there. We said, okay, let's give the opposition a chance and an opportunity to refute that. Let's have them show us their math. Let's have them explain why that calculation is wrong.

We invited them to participate in the hearings. They participated, industry participated in four different panels. But you know what? Never once, not once, were they able to present a case to actually rebut that analysis and to actually explain why, zero, no, it's wrong. You're not going to save $1.95 billion. You're actually going to raise prices.

And I said to them in the course of the hearings, I said, if these assumptions are wrong, my God, as we go through the rulemaking process, you'd better do a much better job of helping us understand that, not just for the companies that you represent, but for all of our constituents.

So in the absence of any argument that rebuts the case that has been made as part of our hearings, I believe that we have a proposal before us that is going to save Californians $1.95 billionAB . And so that's why I will be supporting this Bill today. And I respectfully urge your, I vote today on 1.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Petrie Norris. Mister Gallagher, you are recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mister speaker and Members. First of all, why are we here?

Why did we all come back here, taking valuable time, taking taxpayer dollars to come congregate here again? If we didn't come here to actually lower consumers gas prices, then why are we here? And what I'm hearing is that all we're really considering is this proposal from the Governor that doesn't lower gas prices. At best.

In theory, it will stop gas price spikes. But the people that I hear from, and that I'm sure you hear from, your constituents think that the price of gas is too damn high right now. And I think they want to know, what are you doing to actually lower the price right now.

And isn't it strange that we have this big special session, we all come back and there's not one Bill that we're considering that actually lowers the price of gas. Now, we as Republicans had six bills. All of them would have. Only one of them got a hearing.

And I was told, well, you got to take all these amendments that strip out the savings. So what are we doing here? That's the problem. The problem with this Bill, first of all, is it doesn't lower gas prices, and people desperately need that right now. That's the first problem.

But let's talk a little bit about the merits of this Bill. This is really bad policy. And I'll cite the ways, you know, my colleague says that this is going to save us a bunch of money, $1.6 billion or something like that. Who said that? Who told you that that's the case? Government bureaucrats.

Were those the same people who told us that, you know, the annex project was going to only cost $440 million and now it's 1.2 billion? Were those the same people that told us that the high speed rail was going to be a $4 billion project? That's. Who told you that this idea saves money?

Government bureaucrats, this whole idea that we had, all these stakeholders here, all these really smart people, we had the oil industry there, and we had the, you know, the academics and the government bureaucrats who are telling us our analysis is really good, it's going to save everybody money. I've heard that before. You know who wasn't there?

The California consumer, the one who has to pay the Bill. That's the problem with the process, is we hear from all these people who think they know better. But guess what? Gas prices haven't gotten lower since we had the last special session. They just keep going up. This Bill puts workers at risk.

And the people that are saying that are the workers, the workers are saying that. The people who work in those refineries are saying, don't pass this Bill. The language is not right. So the gentleman, you know, from Rancho Palos Verdes, the language you're voting on today doesn't protect workers. And that's according to the workers.

So if you want to vote on this Bill today, you're voting for bad policy for workers. It actually prohibits the building of any new storage, which is counterintuitive because the only way to get more of a gas Reserve is to build new storage. But this Bill actually prohibits it. It's crazy.

And at the same time, the Governor, he's the one who called us all back here, right? Where is he, by the way? Is he here? No, he's out of the country. Right. But he called us all back here because it was so important.

And this same Governor who was calling everybody out and saying the oil companies are gauging us, at the same time he was saying that oil companies, refineries are gouging us. Those oil refineries were losing money. And that's according to the data that you guys all required with SB 12. SB 12 X.

That data has been published monthly. And during that time, refineries were losing money. Not, they were not getting profit, they were losing money. That's the facts. The truth is, the government is the one that's gouging us because we pay $1.28 a gallon, every gallon of gas. That's government taxes and regulation. Those are the facts.

And it's going up 30 seconds because Low carbon fuel standard is about to go up and raise our gas prices another 50 cents a gallon. Where's the Bill that's going to stop that? It's not here. You're not looking out for the consumers? Not at all. And about process.

The language of this Bill was only available to the Committee the morning of the hearing. Legislators literally had hours to review the language. And then during the hearing, all these concerns were brought up on both sides of the aisle. Thank you. About problems and they weren't resolved. That's not a process.

And there's still a lot of things that need to be addressed. Are we going to do amendments? If we're going to do amendments, we got to come back here. Is this our last day? Are we coming back here again?

Because I was told this is the day, this is the final language, so somebody please tell us, are we coming back here? Is the Governor coming back here? Because if he doesn't think it's important to be here today to vote and to focus on this legislation, why are you on something that doesn't actually help your constituents?

That's the question you should be asking yourself. Please vote no.

Thank you. Mister Gallagher, Assemblymember Dixon, you are recognized.

Thank you. I wasn't intending to speak, but I couldn't help share with you today an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. Let me just read a couple of paragraphs.

Jimmy Carter, who turns 100 today October 1, does not get enough credit for the quarter century economic boom from 1983 to 2008 and the underlying resilience of the economy since that year.

Without Mister Carter's deregulation of airlines, trucking, railroads, energy and communications, America might not have had the ability to diversify its economy and lead the world in high tech development.

When our postwar domination of manufacturing ended in the late 1970s, the Carter deregulation helped fuel the economic renaissance and continues to make possible the powerful innovations that remake our world.

The Airline Deregulation act of 1978, the Motor Carrier act of 1980, the Stagers Rail act of 1980 unleashed competition and spawned the invention and innovation that gave America the world's most efficient transportation and distribution system. The cost of flying a mile declined by half, and air travel became a mainstay of American life.

The logistical cost of moving goods shrank as a share of Gross Domestic Product by 50%. The reduction of logistics and that costs in the late 20th century was profound. The Carter Administration began oil price deregulation using its deregulatory powers and set in place the gradual deregulation of natural gas prices with the 1978 Natural Gas Policy act.

And while the deregulation of the communication industry was driven by technological change, court decisions, regulatory action, and finally legislation, the Carter regulatory reform made competition the driving force in the development and economic resurgence of America.

So, in conclusion to all of our comments today, and as our leader just said, what are we trying to do in the State of California? Driving out the energy producers that produce jobs, hundreds of thousands of middle class wage jobs in California.

And as my colleague Mister Patterson said, is the Governor, and we know he said it publicly, trying to destroy this industry. Already one major corporation, Chevron, 180 year old economic producer in California, is decamping to the State of Texas. What are we really trying to do?

Take a tweak here, a regulation there, and destroy this industry and these jobs that have contributed to the growth and economic vitality of California? We've had two important hearings, two days of hearings, and about an hour of discussion today, and we are going to change the economic foundation of this state.

Is this really what we want to do? And I appreciate this editorial today. You might want to read it. It's on the op ed side of the Wall Street Journal, and I think we should all take it to heart. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon seeing and hearing no further debate. Mister Hart, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I also want to thank our speaker for convening this special session to protect consumers from being price gouged at the pump. We're doing really important and meaningful work today to protect our constituents. My colleague from Baldwin park stated that Californians face rising costs. That's exactly the point.

When there's a scarcity of fuel supply in the market, consumers pay at the pump for weeks at a time. We need to address this problem or Californians stand to lose billions of dollars annually. We cannot continue with the status quo. I also want to speak directly to the concerns our colleague from Torrance raised about worker safety.

The health and safety of our workforce is paramount. This Bill does not trade off worker safety for consumer protections. Current law already requires the CEC to consult with labor and Workforce Development Agency and labor industry stakeholders to protect the health and safety of employees and the public. AB one does not prohibit a refinery from conducting important maintenance.

It holds refineries accountable to responsible planning ahead of maintenance events. Refiners can and should perform the maintenance they need to do to keep their facilities and the communities and the workers in their sites safe.

AB one requires that when petroleum refiners conduct long plan maintenance months or years in advance, they come up with resupply plans to avoid shorting the California market. AB one does not prohibit a refinery from conducting important maintenance. Colleagues, I hear your concerns about this legislation and I commit to refining this policy in the Senate.

I'll continue to work diligently with her Senate colleagues to improve this legislation. I'd like to thank my co authors and the Petroleum and Gasoline Supply Committee and its outstanding chair for your hard work on vetting this proposal. AB one is an improvement, with guidelines in place directing the CEC to save California's money at the pump.

As a reminder, we're not voting on the regulations today, but a mandate the refiners have a backup plan in place and approving a regulatory process that meets a cost effectiveness test, saving consumers money as we continue to work on meeting our climate goals and transitioning to a clean energy economy, gasoline is still needed to fuel cars that have internal combustion engines.

AB one AB is supported by SEIU, UFCW, California Nurses Association, local government leaders across the state, environmental justice organizations, including communities for a better environment, and the Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumer Rights stakeholders. I respectfully urge and I vote on 1. Thank you Mister Hart.

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 on tally of the votes. Ayes 44, noes17. Measure passes. Moving now to Assembly Bill nine by assemblymember Petrie Norris.

Without reference to file, the clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 9 by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, an act relating to energy and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, you are recognized.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, as I said in my previous remarks, I looked at this special session not just as an opportunity for us to thoroughly vet the proposal around a strategic fuel reserve.

It was also an opportunity, I think, really, for all of us to better understand the challenges that we face as policymakers as we navigate California's transportation fuels transition; and to identify additional policy options that will improve market liquidity, address supply shortfalls, and ultimately help us lower prices.

So in the CEC's actually quite excellent Transportation Fuels Assessment, they explore a number of policy options to do just that. And what AB 9 will do is really build on that work as well as build on the work that we did as part of our informational hearings. So there's two elements to this bill.

Number one: we are directing CARB to complete an analysis of Ethanol 15, which is a fuel blend that is utilized in 48 other states. We want them to complete their analysis of that to determine whether or not that is a product that can be utilized here in the State of California.

And while this bill does not draw any conclusions about that, I really think that there's tremendous possibility there. There are estimates that E15 could see save Californians as much as $3 billion at the pump on an annual basis.

An initial analysis by CARB suggests that the environmental harms of E15 are actually lower, lower than our current blend of E10. So there's certainly more work to be done there. We want CARB to finish that work so that we can promulgate regulations and begin to save Californians money as quickly as possible.

The second piece of this bill looks at four additional policy options, again, that would expand California's fuel supply. And in the Transportation Fuels Assessment, the CEC did sort of a cursory analysis of these policy options. We want them to finish what they've identified as the additional work and analysis required and report back to us July of 2025.

We want to get that study completed as quickly as possible, which is why this bill has an urgency and was grateful to receive unanimous bipartisan support for this proposal in Committee and respectfully ask for your aye vote today on AB 9.

Thank you, Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. Assembly Member Jim Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I join in strong support of what the Chair of our petroleum committee is putting forward here. The E15 has lots of promise. I think it's important to give CARB a gentle encouragement, and I also think that it's been thoughtfully put together. I voted for it in the committee. I think it went unanimous.

I think everybody voted for it. To my Republican colleagues, I'm going to ask you to join with me in supporting this. Our caucus has a non-recommendation on this, but E15 is a good thing.

I think a lot of Californians--and I'm one of them--tired of driving up to our local gas stations and not being able to use E15. But I think this is a great step forward, I support it, and I think it's going to help for the reasons that the Chair mentioned, and so I'm asking that we join together and I hope this gets more than the 54. I hope it gets unanimous. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation as well. I want to thank the author for bringing it forward. This bill was something, or this idea was something that we worked--a group of us, bipartisan, bicameral, Republicans and Democrats alike--in the Problem Solvers Caucus since really February, and we worked with the Governor's Office to try to get this done in the budget. Didn't quite get that done, but we put this language in together when we had this special session called. So this is a very important bill.

And I think this is one of those moments where we're not allowing perfect to be an enemy of good. And I've said that many, many times. When it comes to CARB, though, I do think there is a little bit of encouragement, like my colleague said.

CARB has actually been dealing with this since 2019 when they started the studies. 2022 is when the studies were complete with all the multimedia studies, and they've been holding on to that draft report. They haven't released it just yet. So I do think it is very important that we put a little bit of teeth in this as we move forward to make sure that CARB does the will of this body, and I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Flora. I do like all the talk about teeth today, so thank you. Assembly Member Papan, you are recognized.

I'll try to add teeth into my remarks, Mr. Speaker. Bear with me.

Please do.

So I rise today in support of AB 9, and my staff says here, 'so that CARB will finish their report on E15 that was started a number of years ago.' As my colleague just noted, it was five years ago. Not to mention that 48 other states are using E15.

So I call this the 'get the job done bill.' And I can't say--I mean, had this report been completed prior to the most recent price spike, we may have had--we may, no guarantee here, and this bill does not mandate any particular outcome--but had we had the work done, we might have had other tools at our disposal to address the issue at hand.

A big takeaway from both the Committee and CEC's Transportation Fuels Assessment report, all 70 pages of it, is that there is a host of policy options available to us, not the least of which is--might be E15.

So I'm grateful to my colleague from Irvine for her leadership in introducing such a prudent measure and ensuring that CARB and the CEC evaluate all of the policy options, stabilizing California's fuel supply, including E15, and lowering prices for our constituents. If we fail to plan, we will certainly see continued supply imbalance and price spikes.

This bill is an opportunity for us to be proactive and take action on another potential option, E15, before the next crisis. I respectfully request your aye vote on this 'let's get it done bill.' Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Papan. Seeing and hearing no further debate, would you like to close, Assembly Member Petrie-Norris?

Just thank you to my colleagues for your statements of support and also for your partnership and the work that you did serving on our committee over the course of the past month. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you, as my colleague from the Bay Area said, to get it done. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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; tally the votes. Ayes: 67; no: zero. Measure passes on the urgency. Ayes: 67; noes: zero on the measure. Thank you.

Members, we will now be moving to adjournments in memory. The quorum call is still in place. Please give your respectful attention to those who have been granted prior permission to speak on an adjournment in memory. Quorum call is still in place. Assembly Member Irwin, you are recognized for your adjournment in memory.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with profound sadness that I rise to acknowledge the passing of Thousand Oaks resident, Thomas Ronald Gregory. Tom, as he was known to his family and friends, was born in Lexington, Kentucky, and later attended Indiana University at Bloomington, where he earned a bachelor of science degree in business.

After college, Tom moved out west to California where he began his professional career with the 3M Company. Along the way, Tom met his wife, Debbie, and the two of them were happily married for over 40 years. Tom was an active member of the community who sought to improve conditions wherever he could.

Toward that end, Tom served on the Thousand Oaks Traffic and Transportation Commission for 13 years, having been appointed by four different council members. He served as both President and Landscape Chairman of his Homeowners Association in addition to coaching several Little League baseball teams over the years.

Tom and his wife, Debbie, were very active in veterans organizations and at one point founded a website as a resource for veterans looking for jobs, job training, or support. Tom also worked with the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in support of the many programs they hosted for veterans and their families.

Tom worked alongside Debbie to help produce America Salutes You, the nationally televised events that pay tribute and raise awareness of mental health challenges faced by veterans and first responders. Tom leaves his wife Debbie, his son Jason, his daughter-in-law, as well as their two grandchildren, Isabella and Thomas. I ask that we adjourn today in the memory of Tom Gregory.

Thank you, Assembly Member Irwin. Assembly Member Lowenthal, you are recognized for your adjournment in memory.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, today I rise to adjourn in the memory of Dr. William Bill Weber. Bill, Professor Emeritus of History at California State University, Long Beach, died suddenly on August 8th in the hospital in Los Alamitos, California.

Born in Rahway, New Jersey, in 1940, he grew up in Littleton, New Hampshire, where his father was the minister of an Episcopal church. He received a scholarship from the Phillips Exeter Academy, went on to Harvard for a bachelor's degree into the University of Chicago for a PhD in history. In 1968, he began teaching at CSULB, where he spent his entire career, entering into a phased retirement in 2003 and a full retirement in 2007.

Bill's dissertation research took him to Austria, England, and France and provided the basis for his first book, 'Music and the Middle Class: the Social Structure of Concert Life in London, Paris, and Vienna Between 1830 and 1848.'

In the years following, Bill worked on numerous publications, including 'The Musician as an Entrepreneur, 1700 to 1914: managers, charlatans, and idealists,' and the especially successful 'Great Transformation of Musical Taste: concert programming from Haydn to Brahms.'

In addition, Bill contributed numerous articles and essays to journals and edited volumes published in the United States, England, France, and Germany, and he made many presentations at conferences on both sides of the Atlantic.

Throughout his extensive scholarship run the themes of the social, economic, and political contexts of musical life, as well as the question of when and why certain musical works become classics or canonical, why other works faded away. On top of his substantial scholarship, Bill maintained a longstanding interest in the teaching of history.

He often accepted the assignment of observing student teachers in Southern California classrooms and long served on the editorial board of the History Teacher, published at CSULB. From 2001 to 2004, he was the Vice President of Teaching Division in the American Historical Association. He was also active in the American Musicological Association and the Society for French Historical Studies.

Bill is survived by his wife, Linda Clark, daughters Katie and Claire, grandson Knox William, and son-in-law, Frank Areola. He is truly missed. Members, I respectfully ask that we adjourn in the memory of William Bill Weber.

Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. Members, please bring the names to the desk to be printed in the journal. All requests to adjourn in memory will be deemed read and printed in the journal. Seeing and hearing no further business, I'm ready to entertain a motion to adjourn. Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry moves. Mr. Lackey seconds that the House stands adjourned under call of the speaker. Quorum call is lifted and the House is adjourned.

Motion to suspend the rules. Ting, from aye to no.

Vote change. Assembly Member Ting. Motion to suspend the rules. Aye to no.

Petrie-Norris. Motion to suspend the constitution. Aye to no.

Vote change. Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. Motion to suspend the constitution. Aye to no.

Rodriguez. Vote change. File Item Number Three: X2. Motion from aye to not voting.

Rodriguez. Vote change. File Item Number Three: XB--X2. Motion: suspend the constitution from aye to no.

Vote change. Assembly Member Rodriguez. Motion to suspend the constitution. Aye to no.