Senate Floor

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present with the Members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery. Please rise. We will be led in prayer this morning by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman. After which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Let us gather in God's presence Today we pray with the poem called this Day by Wendell Berry. Whatever is foreseen in joy must be lived out from day to day. Vision held open in the dark by our 10,000 days of work.

Harvest will fill the barn for that the hand must ache, the face must sweat and yet no leaf or grain is filled by work of hours.

The field is tilled and left to grace the that we may reap Great work is done while we're asleep when we work well, A Sabbath mood rests on our day and finds it good and so gracious and loving God, may we work this day as if everything depends on us and pray as if everything depends on you.

Amen.

Members, please join in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag. We made it through. That we have passed. Well done. Members, today we have a full agenda. I encourage you, if you have conversations, to take them off the floor. Otherwise, while on the floor, let's give our speakers our undivided attention.

And please be on the floor as much as possible to make sure that you can vote. With that, we will move to privileges of the floor. Senator Archuleta, you are recognized with our attention.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and my fellow colleagues. If you look up into the gallery, we've got some outstanding young young men and women. The future of California. So, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to proudly introduce a group of fourth graders from Pantera Elementary School in Diamond Bar with their teacher, Christine Unger.

Parents, Ms. Unger has brought the students to our capitol for over the last three decades and she will be retiring next year. So let's give a warm state welcome to the students and congratulations to Ms. Unger on her well deserved retirement.

Thank you for your service to teachers, to the community, to the children and to the beautiful City of Diamondbar. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you. Please put your hands together and welcome. Pantera Elementary School, diamondbar.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Welcome to the Senate. And also congratulations. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly deep deemed read. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Motions, resolutions and notices. There are none. Consideration of the daily file. Secretary, please read. Second reading file.

[Second Reading]

Second reading file will be deemed read. We will now move to governors appointments. Items 11 and 13. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, today I am presenting these Governor appointments. There's no need for a long debate. Just to let you know we have file item 11 is Alexandre Mackler and Jose Solorio. Yes, that Jose Solorio for the water. The California Water Commission's. And Kelly Dodd and Paul Kelly for the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

They were approved by the Rules Committee on a 5-0 vote on May 7th. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please read. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Grove moves to call. Moving to item 15 or 13. Senator Grove, you are recognized. Item 13.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, file item 13 is a confirmation of following appointees. Steve Juarez for the appointment to the State Teachers Retirement Board. Chief Rick Brazile, Officer Jacob Johnson. And the wonderful, most fabulous Sheriff Shannon Moon for the Commission and Peace Officer Standard and Training. And Joseph Presario maybe for the contractor State License Board.

They were approved on the Rules Committee on May 14 to the 5-0 vote. Again, colleagues, no need for debate. Vote aye, appreciate that.

And seeing there is no debate or discussion. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Groh moves to call Members. We have 50 bills on the file today, 25 support support and 25 non recos. So please, please be ready and be concise with your comments and your presentations. And Members, also, let's make sure we give our colleagues undivided attention. We will be moving to item 442.

This is third Senate, third reading. Beginning with item 42, Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 259 by Senator Wahab an act relating to consumer protection. Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you. Colleagues and Members of the public, I rise to present SB259, the Fair Online Pricing Act. SB259 will limit folks from using specified data from a consumer's device when determining a price. As far back as 2012, the media has been exposing differential pricing schemes employed by companies via algorithms.

For example, a low battery will give consumers a higher price when they use ride hailing apps. Have you ever needed to call a car and get whatever car because of the fact that you're less than 10% on your battery life? Well, I will say that businesses know this and will charge you more.

When a consumer uses the newest model cell phone, they will be quoted prices that are higher because they are assumed to have a higher socioeconomic status just because they purchase the latest and greatest phone. Hotel booking.

Those sites have been found to show higher prices to travelers in the Bay Area based on the location of the device when it's used. Our devices are being weaponized against us in order for large corporations to increase profits. And it has to stop.

According to a January poll by Consumer Reports on loyalty programs, consumers don't even want retailers using this type of data as a consideration for discounts they are given. SB259 simply asserts that your device should not be a determinant of a price you are were offered. I respectfully asked for n vote.

Seeing no discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado. Gil. Archuleta. Aye. Ain I. Ashby. Becker. Aye. Blaspier. Aye. Cabaldin. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Choi. Cortese. Aye. Gally. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. Laird. Laird. I. Limon I. Mcguire. McNerney. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Niello. No. Ochoa. Bog. Badia. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Sierto. No. Smallwood. Cuevas. Aye. Stern.

Strickland. No. Umberg. Aye. Valaderes. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber. Pearson. Aye. Wiener.

Aye. Senator Wahab moves to call Members. We will move back and file order to file item 26. S.B. 844. Rubio.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 844 by Senator Rubio and Accu Lane to horse racing. Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, today I rise to present SB844. This is an important Bill that will support California jobs in the horse racing industry and the sport of horse racing.

California law limits the number of out of state horse races allowed to be imported by associations or fairs for wagering, depending on the number of race races taking place in the state that particular day. This Bill adjusts the limit in order to put the associations and fares in a better competitive a footing on.

On this issue, this Bill has no opposition and passed with bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no discussion or debate, Secretary, please call roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado. Gil. Archuleta. Aye. Adigin. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blear. Aye. Cabaldin, I. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dali. Aye. Durazo, I. Gonzalez, I. Grayson, I. Grove. Aye. Hurtado, I. Jones, I. Laird, I. Limon I. Mcguire I. McNerney, I. Menjibar, I. Niello, I. Ochoa. Bog I. Padilla. Aye. Perez, I. Reyes. Richardson. Aye.

Rubio, Aye. Sierto. Aye. Smallwood. Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Strickland. Aye. Humbert, I. Valaderes, I. Wahab, I. Weber. Pearson I. Wiener. Aye.

Senator Rubio moves the call. Members, we will move to item 52. S.B. 445. Wiener. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 445 by Senator Wiener and according to Transportation.

Senator, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I rise to present SB 445. This Bill initially included detailed provisions that set timelines on specified third party permits and approvals for sustainable transportation project design and construction. These projects are essential for California's future.

But even after they are approved and funded, they often encounter significant delays navigating California's balkanized post environmental permitting processes. Once a transit project has been vetted, approved and funded, it should be very promptly implemented, giving every single jurisdiction it touches, every utility it touches, every cable company it touches.

Effective veto power through permitting delays and obstruction is terrible policy and leads to a waste of public resources. I introduced SB445 to reduce these delays to keep projects moving and get them done for the people of California.

Out of a desire to work more closely with the agencies that deliver these projects, the third party stakeholders whose approvals are necessary for projects to proceed, and the relevant policy committees, including the Senate Transportation and Local Government Committees, I've amended the Bill temporarily to make a minor change to an existing Caltrans Complete Streets Encroachment Permitting Code section and then adding an intent language that we will be rebuilding the Bill in the Assembly.

This is an important Bill for project delivery and Council California. I look forward to working with both the Assembly and Senate Transportation and Local Government committees as we move forward. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senators. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado. Gill. Archuleta. Aye. Araguin. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cabaldin. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dali. Durazo. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson, I. Grove. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. Laird. I. Limon, I. Mcguire. McNerney. I. Manjewar, I. Niello. I. Ochoa. Bog, I. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Richardson. I. Rubio. Aye. Sierto. Smallwood.

Cuevas, I. Stern, I. Strickland, I. Umberg, I. Valaderes. Wahab. Aye. Weber. Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye.

Senator Wiener moves to call. We will move to item 62, SCR 66. Unberg.

Secretary, please read Senate Concurrent Resolution 66 by Senator Umberg Relative to law day.

Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you. Mr. President and colleagues, I rise today to present scr66. I've done many resolutions in my time in the Legislature.

This is the most important resolution that I have ever done because it recognizes and underpins what we do as legislators, because it recognizes the importance of the rule of law on one specific day, and That's Law Day. May 1st.

Law Day was first established by President Eisenhower to juxtapose it to the celebrations that went on, particularly in communist countries in the Soviet bloc, because they recognized May 1st as their sort of International Workers Day, which was a combination of what would be our 4th of July and Christmas and Thanksgiving.

And so President Eisenhower decided that what we should do is we should revere and recognize the rule of law. Now, that's been true of virtually every President until the current President. The rule of law, as I said earlier, underpins what we do as a democracy.

Unfortunately, we've not done a good job of communicating the importance of the rule of law. I recently had a constituent tell me the rule of law does not pay my mortgage. The rule of law does not impact the price of eggs. That's not accurate. The rule of law basically makes it so that we can buy eggs.

Without the rule of law, we have no eggs. We can see what happens when the rule of law evaporates, whether it's Russia with an authoritarian regime or it's Venezuela or with a socialistic authoritarian regime or any other country, any other country that adopts authoritarian rule.

We have currently the chief Executive who is attempting to undermine the rule of law in a variety of ways. And I won't speak to all of them, but one of the ways in which he has determined to undermine the rule of law is by attacking those who would defend the rule of law.

Specifically law firms who he does not like. Law firms that represent clients that he does not like. Law firms that stand up to the chief Executive, as lawyers and law firms have done since the beginning of our republic. There are certain law firms that should be recognized for their determination, their resiliency, and their passion to fight back.

Perkins, Coie, for example, Jenner, Block, Wilmer, Hale, Sussman. They've all been the target of Executive orders in order to put them out of business, in order to keep them from representing causes that the President does not like, using the sort of the subterfuge of saying that they support diversity, equity and inclusion.

Now, some of the law firms we should be particularly proud of. I'm particularly proud of Morrison Forster. I'm an alumnus from Morrison and Forster and Cooley. My daughter is an alumna from Cooley. And other law firms have stood up to the President.

Kecker and Van Nest and Peters have actually not just led the effort, but they have invested their own time, passion and energy into defending other law firms who would stand up to the present to enforce the rule of law.

Even the Chief Justice of the United States, even the Chief Justice of the United States has said that the current Administration, by attacking judges who rule against them, by suggesting any judge who rules against the Administration should be impeached, undermines the Independence of the Judiciary and thus undermines the rule of law.

Our current President said the following, quoting, or at least apparently quoting Napoleon Bonaparte, he who saves his country does not violate any law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And so today we recognize Law Day and we recognize those law firms who have stood up at their own risk, at their own peril, at their own economic risk and peril. To the President of the United States. I urge an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Niello, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I support the idea behind this resolution of Law Day, the rule of law, but I can't support this particular proposal because it's imbalanced. I do not necessarily disagree with some of the specifics that my colleague from Orange County includes here, but it's incomplete.

It does not include the violation of the rule of law that was behind the political motivation of much of the legal action taken against Donald Trump in. Between his two terms.

I am not a Trump defender necessarily, but if you're going to be consistent about the purity of the rule of law and a criticism of a violation of that, you should have included a few of those cases also.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this Law Day resolution. And as a recovering lawyer, I still have my bar license, so maybe I'm not fully recovered. I am just very grateful.

And when I first started as a baby lawyer back in the 1990s at a large law firm, I did a lot of pro Bono work representing low income renters who were facing eviction, representing asylum seekers, representing a young man who is developmentally disabled and was illegally deported by ICE's predecessor INS at the time to Mexico, even though he was not deportable.

And these individuals all had legal representation because we as lawyers felt like we could go up against the government. And that was very powerful for these individuals who otherwise had no voice, who were some of the most marginalized, at times, invisible people in society.

And they were able to have legal representation and have good resolutions against the government.

And that's why it is so terrifying what this Administration is doing and targeting law firms to try to send a clear message that if you as a lawyer take on the United States government to enforce the law, that you're going to be destroyed, that your firm will be destroyed, your livelihood will be destroyed, you will no longer be able to succeed economically as a law firm.

And that is illegal. It's unconstitutional, and it's vile. And I also just want to say, and I said his name a few weeks ago, and I'm going to try to say his name on the floor as much as possible.

We know that even though it's less in the news today than it was a month ago, there's still a large number of folks who were, some of whom were legally in the US who were deported to a gulag in El Salvador. And if they're still alive, they are still there today.

They may not be in the news as much as they were a month ago. That's the nature, unfortunately, of the way this Administration is operating. But one individual in particular, Andre Jose Hernandez Romero, a young gay man who came to seek asylum in this country from Venezuela from that horrific authoritarian regime.

And he was greeted in the US by sending him to the gulag in El Salvador. I hope, I pray, that he is still alive. If he is, he is still there. And I want to say his name. He has a lawyer.

And for these folks who have been disappeared by our government and sent to this gulag, they need legal representation, too. Lawyers play such an essential role. And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Thank you. I do want to join my colleagues and thank my colleague from Santa Ana for bringing this resolution. I agree that this is incredibly important. There's nothing more important to our country than the rule of law. Nothing more important. And when this President has sought to intimidate law firms, intimidate justices, it erodes the rule of law.

None other than our Chief Justice, Chief Justice Roberts, rebuked the President's call for impeachment of a federal judge recently. And the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, obviously appointed by a Republican with well known conservative credentials, felt a need to speak out and rebuke the President for calling for the impeachment of a judge.

That shows how serious this moment is. And we've seen arrests of judges, which we never thought we would see in this country. And many of these law firms that were mentioned by my colleagues have offices in my district. I commend the firms mentioned.

I have former law school classmates at Kecker Van Ness, one I ran into this weekend. I want to commend Perkins Coie for standing up and everyone who signed all the firms that signed the Mikas brief supporting them. This is an important time. And this President is known as a bully, and he's ruling by intimidation.

And he's tried to intimidate law firms and tried to intimidate judges. And we all need to stand up for the rule of law. So I thank my colleague from Santa Ana for bringing this resolution and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members. Mr. President, I rise in concerned confusion this morning because I so highly respect and appreciate the author of this resolution, but so strongly disagree with the resolution. I agree with the General arguments in favor of the resolution, but disagree with the actual specifics of this resolution.

Saul Alinsky, in the book Rules for Radicals, one of the favorite authors of the left in America. Permission to read, sir. Mr.

President, without objection.

Thank you. Granted. Saul Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals wrote, accuse your opponent of what you are doing to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt. Mr.

President, I rise an objection to Sr 66, which needlessly injects partisanship into what would have been a straightforward resolution recognizing the legal community's role in upholding the law and seeking justice. We support the many attorneys who fight for justice every day, but this resolution is not a neutral recognition of the legal profession.

It is a partisan statement aimed at one political figure while ignoring other very serious abuses of power by those currently in office. If the authors of this resolution are truly concerned about Executive overreach and silencing of dissent, they should look into their own party.

Where was this concern when Governor Newsom issued more than 500 Executive orders during the pandemic, many of which had sweeping impacts on civil liberties, religious freedom, and small businesses in all of our districts? Where was the outrage over the Biden Harris administration's directive to investigate parents simply for speaking out at school Board Meetings?

Or its coordination with social media companies to censor speech that didn't invite any platform rules? The resolution also conveniently ignores President Biden's unprecedented use of pardon power to shield his son Hunter and others with close personal and political ties from serious consequences.

The rule of law is supposed to be blind, not a tool to punish political enemies and protect political allies. Why is it the role of this Legislature to take up the cause of wealthy, well connected law firms through an official resolution.

If there's any group capable of defending their own interests without help from California Legislature, its $1.0 billion law firms with vast resources and powerful influence. And I think, I would argue today that all of these law firms that have been spoken about and are concerned about, I think are still in business today.

I don't think they've been closed down. Since when did the majority party Democrats become the party of defending millionaires and billionaires? If this Legislature is going to use floor time for partisan messaging, then we should expect and welcome an honest debate that tells the whole story, not just the version that fits the Democrat narrative.

I urge a no vote on SCR 66.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution would have been better, as my colleague from San Diego just pointed out, if you pointed out and you were consistent. There is a Yiddish word for this. It's called chutzpah.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution would have been better, as my colleague from San Diego just pointed out, if you pointed out and you were consistent. There is a Yiddish word for this. It's called chutzpah.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to talk about one Administration and not look at the other Administration that we just had. In fact, President Biden's abuse of the legal system has been far more egregious than anything President Trump has ever done.

In fact, when you look at President Biden exerted pressure on social media companies to censor and remove content that his Administration found to be a threat to his policies.

Mark Zuckerberg even said in the hearing in Washington that senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain content in order to have one side of the story be told. I don't see that in this resolution.

What I also don't see in this resolution is the fact that President Biden's FBI issued a memorandum targeting Catholic Americans, simply an account of their perceived beliefs. I don't see that in this resolution.

What also I don't see in the resolution is President Biden's FBI and Treasury Department coordinating with financial institutions to conduct mass surveillance on many millions of Americans just simply because they disagreed.

If you were exactly honest with yourself and you actually believed in what you put in this resolution, you would be consistent and you would put in a lot of the abuses that the Previous Administration had that were far more egregious than the current Administration has now.

So I also say, like, yes, we need to have the rule of law, but when we talk about a resolution, that's just one side of the story and we want to politicize it.

The fact of the matter is you need to look at the entire record of the previous Administration and call them out for far more egregious atrocities than this current Administration. I asked for your no vote.

Thank you. And Members, please make sure you keep your comments through the presiding officer on the desk up here. Thank you very much. Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam President, I rise in support of SR66. And I want to thank my colleague from Orange County for bringing it forward and recognizing the importance of the rule of law as foundational for the United States of America. I 100% rejected the comments that we just heard from another Senator from Orange County because they're really.

I reject the notion that there really is any comparison between what the previous Administration was doing and what the current Administration is doing.

So we are facing the reality that the Administration is threatening law firms, targeting them, intimidating them and threatening them by denying them access to federal buildings, to terminating their government contracts and deterring them from representing certain types of clients.

There's an effort to co opt the brightest minds in our country and have them work on his pet projects. And that is something that should be anathema to all of us who believe in the rule of law and the separation of powers. The law firms that are resisting should be recognized.

And I'm so grateful that my colleague brought this forward today because these are unlawful Executive orders. And the law firms that are disbanding and reforming to get out from under this or who are flat out rejecting and resisting, they are doing that at tremendous peril in the same way that Harvard University is doing that at tremendous peril.

But we should be grateful to them because they are standing up for principles. They are the foundational principles of this country and they are the right to free speech, freedom, the. The pursuit of the things that they care about. And they are rejecting the overreach from our government.

So I'm very much in favor of this and I'm very grateful. And I urge all of you to support it today. Thank you.

Senator Ashby. You are recognized.

Thank you to the presiding officer and thank you very much to the Senator from Orange County who brought this forward today. There is nothing in our country's founding principles more important to the long term success of democracy, nor more fundamental than the concept of separate branches of government.

In order for the great experiment that is this country we all love and serve to be successful, the law must always stand separate and distinct from the Executive and congressional or legislative branches. For me, earning my law degree was one of the proudest moments of my life. And I won't recount for you how difficult that was.

Suffice to say it was a challenge. Choosing to use that education to help form policies in an amazing place like this, to better the lives of my neighbors, friends, children, and your neighbors, friends and children, has been my way of using that law degree for good. Serving on this August body's Judicial Council is a true honor.

One that for me is deeply humbling every time I sit at that daisy. Law is not now, nor has it ever been about the lawyers. It has always been about justice. That is as true today as it was in 1789 when the Supreme Court was founded.

I am not only offering my full throated support of SCR66 this resolution, but I am suggesting that the idea that in any way there is some justifiable defense to the current federal attack on our judicial system's integrity is without merit.

There is no level of defensibility to the idea that our Executive branch should in any way be able to control or intimidate our judicial branch. And if we don't stand for that, then we don't stand for justice. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. You are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. President and colleagues, I rise in strong support. I want to thank this good Senator from Orange County for bringing the resolution forward.

And I add my voice to my many distinguished colleagues with a legal background who love the law and who understand its rightful place in guaranteeing so many of our liberties. I think it's important that Mr.

President and colleagues to articulate the obvious, or what should be obvious to our friends on the other side of the aisle who conflate and fail to make the distinction between a set of laws that may be repugnant to some, may have great disagreements among different Americans, but to which we are all required to adhere the distinction between that and acts which are clearly and unequivocally and without any serious contention outside of the confines of the law, extrajudicial deportation of citizens of people with lawful status or even whose immigration status is in question without due process of law.

The verbal and public suggestion by a sitting President of the United States that U.S. citizens could be subject to punishment for violations of our laws in the prisons of foreign nations. The suggestion, indeed the action by a sitting President of the United States to suggest that persons born on American soil are truly not American.

I think it's easy to say, at least in my lifetime, I. I have never witnessed, nor did I dream in a million years that I would witness the recent actions of the sitting President that so contravene not just decency, but the very idea of constitutional principles and. The rule of law.

I think I am reminded of another time in modern history when some of these principles were tested to a great degree and in a turbulent time. But I don't think even approaching what we experience today. But I thank Mr.

President and colleagues today the words of former President John Fitzgerald Kennedy at the time of the great civil rights movement when the University of Mississippi refused to admit James Meredith. His words are probably in good order here today. Permission to read without objection. Thank you.

Our nation is founded on the principle that observance of the law is the eternal safeguard of liberty, and Defiance of the Law is the surest road to tyranny. The law which we obey includes the final rulings of the courts as well as the enactment of our legislative bodies.

Even among law abiding men, few laws are universally loved, but they are uniformly or should be respected and not resisted. Americans are free, in short, to disagree with the law, but not to disobey it.

For in a government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent or powerful, and no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law.

If this country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men, by force or threat of force, could long defy the commands of of our court and our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, no judge would be sure of his writ, and no citizen would be safe from his neighbors. Mr.

President, colleagues, I strongly urge, and Aye vote.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the good Senator from Orange County for bringing this forward for us to recognize Law Day. And, and I want to take a moment to point out that my friends from across the aisle have talked about a number of things.

They've talked about social media, which is not covered within this resolution, despite the fact that President Trump has created partnerships with ByteDance TikTok, after trying to ban them, has then utilized his relationships with them and his role as the President to have them do free advertising for him.

On TikTok, they've brought up nepotism, which is also an issue. But miss the fact that President Trump assigned his son in law, Jared Kushner, to take up leadership roles within his own Administration. All things that were left out. But I also want to highlight that nepotism, social media, those issues are not covered within this resolution.

Now we what is covered. One of the things that I think is so egregious about what this Administration has been doing is the impeachment of judges, judges that are upholding the law.

And I imagine that if we had a Democratic President in leadership that was weaponizing and targeting judges that disagreed with them and painting them as far left activists or far right activists and condemning them for their work, that we would probably hear a lot of criticism from folks on the right, and yet we don't.

So, you know, I'm really concerned by the fact that we even have to have this discussion. And I just want to highlight again, for a President to be advocating for the Impeachment of judges who are upholding the law is something that I think we all need to be concerned with.

As was mentioned before by the good Senator from Sacramento. You know, this is one of our three branches of government that we have to fight to protect. It is part of the balance of powers that we have near, not just here in the State of California, but across the United States.

And for us to weaponize these systems is incredibly, incredibly concerning. So I urge an aye vote. This is very common sense, and I will agree with what was mentioned by my folks on the conservative side. We have to be okay with criticizing our own party.

And that goes for everybody in this room, because we need to call a spade a spade. And right now, what's happening at the federal level is completely unacceptable. And if the shoe was on the other foot, we would be hearing a whole lot from folks on the other side of the aisle.

Thank you, Senator Valadaires, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I. Members, I rise in unfortunate opposition to this resolution. I'll say it plainly. I support Law Day. It is a chance to remind us that the rule of law is the backbone of democracy. But let's not play games here.

This resolution does point fingers at President Trump for overstepping Executive powers, but ignores the fact that President Biden has done the same. And remember the student loan forgiveness scheme that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional? Or the eviction moratorium that defied a Supreme Court ruling? Or the pressure on social media companies to silence voices.

And you know what? That's why I'm thankful for checks and balances in our system. Because no matter who sits in the White House, no one is above the law. And Law Day shouldn't be about partisan potshots. It should be a reminder that the law exists to protect us from overreach from any Administration.

Which is why I urge a no vote.

Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, President. Colleagues, the very foundation of democracy is to be able to speak your mind without retribution, without fear of government retribution. Today, we see not only law firms, but universities and even Republican United States Senators afraid to speak honestly.

Recently, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska, said the Republicans are now afraid to oppose the President for their family's safety. We need to stand up now because we are losing our right to free speech, and that is our democracy. I thank the gentleman from Orange County for bringing this forward. And I urge an aye vote.

Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues, I rise today not to oppose the idea of Law Day. On the contrary, I deeply value its purpose to reaffirm our nation's commitment to the rule of law, the Constitution and and equal justice under law. Law Day should be a moment of unity, education and reflection, not division.

However, I must oppose CR66 on its current form. Why? Because instead of honoring the integrity of Law Day, it strays it into political commentary. Particularly it takes a direct aim at policies from the Trump Administration. Now, whether one agrees or disagrees with those policies is besides the point. The issue is the misuse of a.

Symbolic bipartisan resolution to make a partisan statement. Colleagues, when we begin using commemorative resolutions to score political points, we chip away at the spirit of what these observances are meant to foster respect, learning and common ground. Let us celebrate the Law Day in a way that unites, not divides.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

If we truly believe in rule of the law, let's start by honoring it with fairness in our own words and actions. I respectively urge no vote on CR66, not because of the loading, but because of what this resolution does to it.

Thank you, Mr. President. I too support Law Day, but this resolution is just a complete attack and I listened to my colleagues comments about how things would be happening on this side of the aisle if it was a different President.

But you know, none of you stood up and addressed the issue that under Biden's Administration they misused federal law enforcement resources to investigate and threaten parents who were exercising their First Amendment rights at school boards meetings over concerned about how school lockdowns, masking and vaccinations were taking place in the transition of their children behind their back using different pronouns.

President Biden also had pressure on social media companies to censor and remove the content from administrations from the social media platforms. Formerly Twitter Now X that that threatened what their policies and that Dr. Fauci was putting out during the pandemic.

That was an admission by Mark Zuckerberg, even admitted before Congress in 2021 when senior officials he said, quote, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor COVID 19 content, including humor and satire, and express first frustration at our teams. The pressure was renowned and we complied.

The Committee report further noted that on the third day of the Biden Administration, the White House emailed Twitter again now X to personally demand the White House personally demand that the tweet a tweet from Robert F. Kennedy, now our secretary of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

To remove that tweet ASAP as a directive and was not limited to just rfk. In the same email, the Biden White House asked Twitter to keep an eye on tweets for the same genre and have them removed.

The President, former President of the United States, Joe Biden, used the FBI in a memorandum targeting Catholic Americans, where we have almost 12 million Catholics in the State of California, on racial traditionalists and whistleblowers because they were actually, you know, they were really upset about what was happening in the Administration, and they too, exercised their First Amendment rights under the Constitution, which the attorneys on this particular situation are using their law firms to fight cases that they don't agree with.

But the bottom line is it happens on both sides of the aisle. It's not just one side of the aisle. And so I support Law Day. I am opposed to this resolution because of the way it is being presented here and the information that's being provided in it. This happens on both sides.

When this was happening under the Biden Administration, no one introduced a piece of legislation, or even if they did on our side of the aisle, it may not have even been heard, but respectfully asked for a no vote. And let's make things equal and just.

As legislators, we represent and raise our right hand to support the Constitution for all individuals, not just a few.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. You are recognized.

Thank you. I have to say that a lot of the debate has been very interesting. And I would have to agree that it can be honestly said that both parties have had questionable practices and examples that can be brought up as to what is a violation of rule of law or just merely a conflict of interest.

As well, I do want to highlight that as an elected official, all of us, all the way to the President of the United States, has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, both from foreign and domestic enemies.

And I want to highlight that because the rule of law is the core of any country, it is what helps maintain civility and society. And the core principles is basically, no one is above the law. Laws are applied equally to all government.

Power is limited by legal norms and standards, and that the legal process is fair, public, and impartial. I highlight that because what we have been seeing, and I just want to highlight the fact that American citizens are literally being kidnapped and taken to foreign governments. And this is a clear violation of due process.

This is a clear violation of people's rights and a clear violation of the rule of law. And I highlight this as one of the biggest examples that we can all point to. But I also want to highlight that rule of Law Day should not necessarily be partisan, right? I think that we all agree to that.

I think that one of the considerations that we have to acknowledge is the fact that both parties need to be questioned by us every single day. Every single leader needs to be questioned by the public. We should feel incredibly free to state our opinion, whether it's at the federal level or even within this institution.

There's a lot of conflict of interest that I can point out to. And the reality is that we are supposed to be making society better every single day by the work that we do. And I will highlight that the American people, both Republican and Democrats, are losing faith in the work that we all do.

They are losing faith because things aren't delivered to them, because they feel that their rights are being violated, that their American dream is being violated, that they aren't even sure where their standing is. And I will highlight this again, bringing it back to just the immigration concern.

Being able to be born on this soil like I am very blessed to be, and still being unsure where your future lies, even though you are technically an American citizen, that's being challenged.

And so I support the Rule of Law Day because it is incredibly important to be able to say that again, that this country is only as strong as our society allows us to be in respect to rule of law. We can point to many other countries and say that they are violating their citizens.

They are doing this, and they are doing that. And we in the United States should be able to speak against what we are seeing as violations that are occurring daily, regardless of which party, regardless of which President, and regardless of which violation is happening. We should speak very freely and very comfortably without, again, the fear of retaliation.

And so I respectfully request an aye vote. And again, thank the author for bringing this forward.

Thank you. Senator Wahab, with only a handful left of you to speak, are you sure you are finished with discussion and debate? Thank you for the encouragement, Senator Laird. We have no further discussion or debate. Please. Senator Umberg, you may close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. President. And thank you to my colleagues for discussing and raising this incredibly important issue. Let me respond to some of my colleagues who've raised the issue of what abouts. On the issue of pardons, there have been abuses.

I was critical of a former President who pardoned one of his family Members after a jury convicted that family Member as was appropriate. It does not compare, however, to the thousands of pardons that were issued for those who tried to overthrow the government and attack police officers.

Clearly, there have been abuses on both sides but this is a different time, a different regime and a different order of magnitude. I would stand here and criticize a Democratic President if that President said, look it, what I'm going to do is I'm going to put law firms out of business.

I'm not going to let them enter courtrooms. I'm not going to let them enter federal buildings. I'm not going to let them process patents. I'm going to put them out of business because I don't like them, because they are standing up to me. I would stand and criticize them.

If a President of the United States said, look it, this whole due process thing is kind of a silly notion, I would stand and say that President needs to be impeached because that's the underpinning of everything that we do, everything that we believe in. Due process is somewhat of an esoteric issue to most folks.

But what it means is if my daughter, who was born outside the United States, were picked up today and deported back to her country of origin, she would have an opportunity to say, wait a minute, no, I'm a US Citizen. An opportunity to be heard.

Maybe not a jury trial, but at least an opportunity to be heard before she was shipped back to her country of origin. Or if I were picked up because my grandfather was undocumented, I would have an opportunity to show, yes, I am a US Citizen. That's all it means. That's what due process means.

Just some process so you can show to some neutral individual that you have a defense. That's simply it. And if a President of the United States said, maybe we should go ahead and obliterate the Great Writ, the writ of habeas corpus, what does that mean? That's very esoteric.

That means simply, you have a right to ask a judge, does the government have an allegation that would keep me in jail? That's all it is. And I would stand here and criticize that President as I've criticized other Democratic presidents. Now.

At the risk of sounding bipartisan, I suppose I need to commend Republicans who stood up to the President, those courageous Republicans. It's easy for me to criticize the President, but it's hard. If you're a Republican, it's hard.

And I need to commend those in the Legislature in Michigan and Arizona who were Republican leaders who stood up to the President in 2020 and preserved our democracy, preserve that election. They have great courage and they need to be commended, just as the Republicans today who stand up for the President.

Let me read a list of Names of folks who we should all be proud of. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez. District Judge Carl Nichols. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher. District Judge Dabney Friedrich. District Judge Trevor Mcfadden. Those are all Trump appointees.

All Trump appointees who have stood up to the Administration and have said, we are going to follow the rule of law, that no President is above the rule of law.

And if a President tries to basically undermine our Constitution, undermine the rule of law, undermine the opportunity to at least present a defense if you're accused of something, they stood up to him. At risk to themselves. At risk to themselves.

So I urge a bipartisan vote on this resolution that simply recognizes Law Day and the rule of law for which it stands.

Members, we are going to be calling for absent Members after the initial roll call. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 27. Noes, 8. The resolution is adopted. Members, we will move to item 63, SCR 69. Weber, Pearson.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 69 by Senator Weber Pierson relative to Behavioral Health Awareness Month.

Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Senators. I rise today as a proud author of this resolution recognizing May as Behavioral Health Awareness Month. Mental health is just as important as physical health, yet it often goes unspoken. Too many people suffer in silence, afraid to speak out, afraid to ask for help.

Today and every day, we must break that silence. We must stand up to the stigma. We must say, it's okay to not be okay. This month is a reminder to check. In with ourselves and with each other. To listen without judgment, to be kind to others and to ourselves. Because mental health is not a weakness.

It's a part of being human. Let us use this time to educate. To support and to advocate. Together, we can build a world where. Mental health is treated with the respect and the compassion that it deserves. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask. For an aye vote on Ser . 69.

Thank you seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 37. No, 0. The resolution is adopted. Item 64, S.B. 47. Umberg.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 47 by Senator Umberg and accolade to the state bar.

Senator, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, this past February, a bar exam was administered that was unlike any other bar exam in the history of California. It was an unmitigated disaster on. On virtually every level. There were proctors who arrived late. There were proctors who gave answers to questions. There were questions that were not understandable.

There were electronic glitches. There were scoring glitches. There were grading glitches. There were all sorts of problems. Lest we ever have this same challenge, the same debacle again, this bill simply provides for an audit of the February bar exam so that we capture the lessons learned and never repeat the same mistakes again.

I urge you, an Aye vote.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I strongly support this bill, and I want to rise in support of it. The reality that our 2025 bar exam was a complete disaster reflects very poorly on the State of California. And like many of my fellow legislators here, I've taken and passed the California Bar as well as the Utah Bar.

And there's no question that the importance of a predictable process that applicants and the public can have confidence in is really important. When you think about the problems that were encountered, they're at nearly every level.

So, inability to log in, unstable servers, bad proctors, delayed prompts, factual errors, and questions, and the acknowledgement that non lawyers used AI to create questions. We also know that almost 1,000 people, of 5,000 people who registered withdrew before the day of the exam because a refund was offered.

And there were tech problems that were reported in the mock exams. So having 1,000 people withdraw from taking the bar exam also shows that there is a major problem. Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky said that the bar was stunning incompetence from an entity that exists to measure competence.

So I urge the California Supreme Court to make immediate changes. This audit is very important.

But it's also important that we recognize that an audit of just this one bar, and then requiring that the next bar exam, which is to take place in July, will be in person only that that doesn't solve all of the other problems that were reported.

So it's important that we ring the bell and say we need to see our California Supreme Court stand up and do better when it comes to administering this very important test in the State of California. And with that, I urge a support for this. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other discussion or debate, Senator Umberg, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. President. What my colleague from San Diego said. Urge an Aye vote.

Thank you so very much. Secretary, please call the roll. I'm sorry. This is eligible for unanimous roll call without objection. Seeing no objection. Ayes, 37. No, 0. The measure passes.

Moving to item 66, SB253. Umberg.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 253 by Senator Umberg and ACC relating to attorneys.

Senator, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. This is the State Bar Fee bill, ironically coming just after the audit bill. Concerning the State Bar, the Legislature shares responsibility for oversight of the State Bar. Supreme Court has primary responsibility. One of our roles is to authorize the State Bar to collect fees fees from attorneys each year.

We have modified the Bill on occasion to require greater oversight. For example, confirming certain key officials of the State Bar. This bill this year does not increase fees. It simply authorizes the bar to collect the fees that were collected last year.

As it moves from our house to the next house, I hope there will be continuing questions asked and we hope responses provided. Urge an Aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing none. Ayes, 37. No, 0. The measure is. The measure passes. Moving to item 70, SB 409. Archuleta.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 409 by Senator Archuleta and act relating to public contracting.

Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is an essential piece of legislation. I'd like to present Senate Bill 409 that it empowers Los Angeles County to respond swiftly and effectively to urgent facility repairs, particularly in the aftermath of the events like the January wildfires.

Senate Bill 409 will increase LA County's force account limit from 50,000 to 125,000 for performing alterations or repairs on county owned facilities. Updating this limit is a common sense measure that ensures LA County can maintain critical infrastructure, safeguard public services and remain responsive during emergencies without compromising services to the residents.

This bill is more important now than ever as it will allow the county to repair and rebuild facilities affected by the wildfires allowed in and allowing communities to recover. There's no opposition on the bill. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no further discussion or debate, this item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Without objection. Seeing no objection. Ayes, 37. No, 0. The measure passes. Moving to item 74, SB 9. Arreguin.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 9 by Senator Arreguin and accurately to land use.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present SB9, which will state that the failure of a local agency to submit an accessory dwelling unit ordinance to state ACD within 60 days of adoption or the failure to respond to a department's findings within 30 days would make the ordinance null and void.

I want to clarify that respond does not mean that you have to amend your ordinance to be compliant. This means to actually just respond when the Department provides comments about your ADU ordinance.

The Legislature was clear that when they required ministerial approval for ADU development and disallowed local governments from adding onerous requirements for development that the goal was to try to streamline the process to get homes built. Now ADUs now make up one in five new homes constructed in the state.

Despite this, some local governments have enacted ordinances that run counter to state law. Additionally, when ACD provides guidance around enacted ordinances, some local governments have not been responsive to that state guidance. SB9 would remedy the situation by adding enforcement power to existing law.

Local governments, as I stated, are already required to submit any ADU ordinance to state HCD within 60 days after that ordinance is adopted and to respond to any HCD comments or guidance regarding that ordinance within 30 days. Clarify response does not mean you have to make conforming amendments.

It means just respond and to have a timeline for compliance. SB9 would add that such requirement by stating that the failure to notify or respond to HCD would result in the ordinance, the local ordinance becoming null and void and revert standards to the state ADU law until such time that local government can make conforming changes.

This will ensure that state ADU law, which has been adopted by this Legislature is implemented fairly and consistently across the State of California. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. While I support this piece of legislation, I am a little bit concerned about the comments just made by the author.

I do challenge the author to make sure that as the Bill moves forward that he tighten up the language regarding the respond and this is why his predecessor two reasons his predecessor worked really hard on this ADU language because it is private property, it is your home, and if you want to have an ADU in the back of your house, it's your property, you're paying for it, and as long as it complies with the ordinance stuff, it it should be totally fine and there shouldn't be all these delays.

The reason why I wasn't going to speak, but the reason why I got up and shared this is because being in the Legislature since 2010, we have a lot of legislation that goes through and the comment that the author made and all in I'm just being constructive, not negative in any way is that it just requires them to respond.

So we have you guys actually passed a piece of legislation that required CALGEM to respond. There was a code section in the in the code section for CALGEM that said if you didn't respond within 30 days, then the permit would automatically be approved, especially in The Kern County area where we're the factory floor or for energy.

So now you have a WellStar program where you submit an application for a well permit on an existing lease with an existing well pad and Calgem responds in 29 or 30, you know, 29 days and says thank you for your submission. Then you don't hear from them again for seven years.

So I would be cautious and learn from things that we've learned on that and just tighten up and say they should respond maybe with an appropriate answer or response, additional comments that need to be addressed to approve the adu, whatever needs to be done. But just take that into advisement that that happens quite often.

Senator Menjivar, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President with author. Take a question, please.

Author.

It's a real question.

Oh yes, I'm happy to take question please. Go ahead.

I apologize to the author and Senator from Brickley. I just need some clarity, clarification. I didn't have time to connect with the author on this. Just to clarify, is this allowing cities to impose the owner to live in the primary residence or the edu or removing that?

No. We made amendments in Committee because as many, many Members may know or the past several years, the Legislature did eliminate requirements for owner occupancy to construct and to rent ADUs. That's state law. So there was no need to amend that. That's already state law. What this new Bill does is focuses on enforcement.

So when a local government adopts an ADU implementation or makes changes to their ADU policy, they have to submit that ordinance to state HCD for review to ensure that the local requirements are consistent with state requirements.

When HCD responds to that ordinance and says it's not consistent, they have 30 days to respond to HCD to say this is how we're going to fix it. And I dealt with this issue in my City of Berkeley when we dealt with issues around constructing ADUs and fire severity zones and we had to make conforming changes.

In that instance, we said we do need to make conforming changes. We have to go to our planning Commission. We have to get input. This is the timeline in which we're going to actually fixed it and that met the requirement for a response under state law.

I agree with the Senator from Bakersfield that providing some additional clarity in the in the statute around what that means, it's codified in HCDU guidelines, but it's not codified in state law. That is an appropriate amendment that I'm happy to consider. If this bill goes to their house.

So all this bill focuses on is enforcement and making sure that local governments are adopting local ADU policies consistent with state law. If they're not consistent with state law and state and the state agency says they're not consistent, that they have to respond within that 30 day period.

If they don't respond, the state standards would take effect until such time that the local ordinance is consistent. That's the intent of this bill.

Thank you so much for that clarity.

That sounded really close to a closing. Senator Arreguin, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

And thank the Center for Bakersfield for, I think, a very legitimate point that we will take into consideration as this bill moves forward. And thank you very much.

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

No. Ayes, 27. Nos. 4. The measure passes. Moving to item 75, SB499. Stern.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 499 by Senator Stern an act relating to land use.

Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, for several years now, since the Woolsey fire burned my place down, I've become increasingly wary of new construction in hazardous areas that are impacted by things like wildfires and floods. There's very real risk out there. I've tried to come around in that conversation, though, and recognize that there are ways to mitigate hazards.

And when you're doing new housing in areas that do have wildfire risk, there can be projects that work. And the same goes for flood zones and even high heat zones. There are ways to build houses and communities the right way, but in order to do that, those developers often need to help with the hazard mitigation itself.

If you're building in a floodplain, you're going to need some way to mitigate that hazard.

And so this bill simply requires a clarification in law from a bill last year that took away the ability to assess fees on certain projects from being spent up front to promote housing and to reduce the fees associated with new housing and simply says when projects are looking to use those fees to bolster their safety elements or their hazard mitigation plans by using say parklands and recreational facilities, which is already allowed under the existing law.

But we feel that it needs some clarification here, in other words, that the hazard mitigation and public safety piece that was essential to the compromise from Senator from the Senator from San Francisco's Bill from last year. We just feel like needs clarity.

We don't think that those mitigation projects can wait till after a project because if you're in a hazardous area, you really can't build unless you mitigate that. So so you're stuck in a kind of catch 22.

And we think this is going to actually fix that, facilitate more housing and still respect the framework that this Legislature passed last year. These projects are urgent otherwise we wouldn't be bringing this bill before you right now.

As you know, the fire risks and other risks are serious and urgent and are stalling out projects development and all kinds of safety issues right now. So we think this is a a useful measure and respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. While I support the spirit of what the author is trying to do, the bill in print goes well beyond that spirit.

And so I won't be supporting the bill today and I'm hoping that work can continue in the Assembly and my desire is to be able to support it if and when it comes back on concurrence.

So colleagues, you may recall because this body overwhelmingly passed the bill that we authored that I authored last year to defer some but not all impact fees to the end of construction instead of the beginning. And the rationale is that we want more housing.

It is sometimes hard to make housing financially pencil and when developers have to front impact fees which can be quite significant, including for example in my own wonderful City of San Francisco. And thank you the President for his work on impact fees because it's all over the map.

But when the impact fees are high and you have to pay them at the beginning, that can really create financial issues for the project. And so the idea is to delay them until the certificate of occupancy once the project is done.

And of course for in many cases it has no impact on the city because cities have to reflect falls apart in the middle. Cities have to refund the impact fees as a Matter of prudence.

Cities often do and should be holding impact fees in escrow so that if they have to pay them back, they don't have to scramble to do so.

As part of the negotiation last year, particularly in the local government Committee, we and in working with local government groups, we exempted a bunch of fees from the deferment until the end that if a city has need for that money up front for projects, they can collect those fees up front.

We're not looking to deprive cities of that. But for the many fees that are not for immediate use, the law deferred them until the end. The the author and author did mention this to me last year. So he's been very consistent here.

Wants to ensure that parks that are being used for time sensitive emergency purposes that can be collected up front. And I agree with that goal. I think that makes all the sense in the world.

The way the bill is crafted now goes beyond that and it's going to allow cities, unfortunately some cities to abuse it to classify their whole park system potentially as being for emergency use. And park impact fees can be quite significant. And so that will undermine the purpose of the bill.

So I won't be supporting the bill today, but again, I do hope on concurrence I'll be able to do it. And I appreciate the author's willingness to continue to have that dialogue.

Senator Seyarto, you're recognized.

Thank you. Mr. President. I rise in support of SB499.

And while I agree with a lot of the comments from our colleague from San Francisco in regards to the deferment of fees, the parks and open space fees, and a lot of cities, especially those impacted by wildfire and having a lot of interface areas, those are critical infrastructure for and it's also planned and also non planned.

We don't know when we're setting up a base camp, where the fire is going to be and where we need to set up a base camp. And every time we have a fire we have to look at a suitable facility.

And as we have new communities being built and they're in areas where we have these issues, it is important that those get in first. And there's also another component to this and that's the safe refuge area, open space areas.

Parks and things like that are good open space or they're good for safe refuge areas for people who are unable to evacuate immediately but can be put into an area where it's safe temporarily until the fire blows through and then they can get out. So I do see this as A critical need type of infrastructure.

Cities should be able to ferret out what is critical and what is not. I would hope they don't abuse it. But I also don't think that by eliminating the. I think by having this type of an ordinance or Bill, it helps them be able to accomplish at least the safety components that they need in their communities. So.

So I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Perez. You are recognized.

First of all, I want to thank the Senator for bringing SB499 forward and appreciate the comments that were made by the Senator from San Francisco. I'm hopeful that our Senator, who has represented areas such as the paradise area, can work with the Senator on focusing some of those amendments. Look, I.

I will tell you, I don't think any of us anticipated that we would have a major fire in the middle of urban Los Angeles. Two major fires, both in the Palisades and in Altadena. And our park locations served as evacuation locations until the fires came so far down into Altadena that then those parks had to be evacuated.

So those spaces were incredibly important. Many communities throughout LA County are very park poor. There's very few parks available and it's a very. It is a dense area. So making sure that we have resources not just to take care of these spaces, but also ensure that we can expand these spaces, I think is incredibly, incredibly important.

The author also describes, described in his Bill the importance that parks serve in serving as cooling centers during times of extreme heat. We know that we are in a climate crisis and unfortunately we anticipate seeing more of these catastrophic events, whether it is extreme rising heat or it is major fires across the state.

So as we prepare and we have deeper conversations about, about evacuation plans and ensuring community hardening, I do think that this is a key component and appreciate the Senator for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I share the concerns with our colleague from San Francisco. I think he highlighted some of the concerns on this Bill very well. And in recognition of the late opposition, I think that there will be some more concerns about this bill as it moves forward.

So today I'm going to abstain and hope that when it does come back from the Assembly, it will be supportable. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, you are recognized.

Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I arise. I can't support the bill today in its form. I just want to note for my colleagues through the President that the impact fees for parks are among the most expensive of all fees and that some of them exceed $60,000 per housing unit in some instances.

And when we are forcing the housing creators to pay these impact fees earlier in the development process, the construction of housing for working families will be negatively impacted, thereby exasperating the state's housing crisis. So I just wanted to make note that in California we're trying to build housing to make housing more affordable in our state.

And though this has merited in some cases, as far as wanting to know what the author is intending, the the unintended consequences is the fact that this is going to make it very expensive for our developers to actually go ahead and develop and make housing available for our constituents.

So because of that, I will respectfully not be able to support this bill today. But I look forward to see the future language on it.

Thank you Senator. And seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Stern, would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you for the discussion.

I know we got a lot of work work left to do, but those of you still honing in on this issue, I do want to clarify that existing law under SB937 does allow for park impact fees to be collected and spent up front, provided those public improvements or facilities relate to providing fire, public safety and emergency services to the residential development.

So the framework itself allows for parks that are used for public safety purposes to do up front work. I believe this bill actually narrows that path and actually constrains some of that authority because it says it has to be in your hazard mitigation plan. There's no potential for abuse.

The only potential for abuse actually exists under current law. That's the irony of the late opposition. The current law actually has a much wider hole in it than what this bill would allow.

This bill will constrain current law to say if you're going to put a park forward and say it has to be for these public safety purposes, it has to be in your hazard mitigation plan.

And for those of you who know about emergency management, that's not just some fly by night plan that determines your entire ability to gather insurance. Your entire ability to get qualify for FEMA funds should FEMA still exist. So this is not just some fly by night plan.

The hazard mitigation plan, say this bill weren't to pass today or we were even to shelve this bill, I actually think that there's bigger potential for parks to gather upfront impact fees through the hole in 937.

So I like to think humbly that we're actually helping further the spirit and helping the author get to exactly the result they want by putting. Putting this extra layer on top. So I hope you all will just think that through in your vote. And look, I like parks in general, so let's be clear.

Like, I think we should be building more parks, and I think developers should be helping with that. But that's not what this bill is. This bill is in a back door to create more parks.

If you guys are worried about creating more parks, it's actually to narrow the kinds of parks that can collect those fees under existing law. So with that, I respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Valladares. Ayes 28, noes one. The measure passes. Members, we will. Well, first, before we move to the next item, members, let's give a resounding welcome to Congressman Adam Gray. Welcome to the California State Senate. He is in the back of the chamber. Welcome former assemblymember, now Representative Adam Gray.

We'll give just a few seconds here for those that like him to greet him. Alright, members, we want to get back to our list.

Alright, members, we are ready to proceed with our list. Item number 76, SB 734. Caballero. Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 734 by Senator Caballero an act relating to criminal procedure.

Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today I rise to present SB 734, which would provide due process protections for law enforcement officers whose employment can be impacted by findings from the California Racial Justice Act hearing, or CRJA. The CRJA was enacted to address systematic racism in the criminal justice system.

Defendants in criminal proceedings can raise a claim at any time during their hearing, appeal, or in the post conviction setting.

If a person accused of violating the CRJA is someone who is not involved in the daily activities of a trial, like a law enforcement officer, they have no way to know that they've been accused of violating the CRJA as they are not part of the review and there is no legal obligation to inform the officer of the hearing.

Law enforcement officers accused of bias while on duty, as can be the case during a CRJA hearing, can be subject to decertification proceedings conducted by post, as well as administrative disciplinary actions, such as failure to follow department protocol. While post decertification proceedings include due process protections for law enforcement officers, the CRJA hearing does not.

Because a law enforcement officer is unable to present evidence to refute CRJA allegations at the hearing, and the protections of due process are not provided, such as notice, the right to call witnesses, or the right to confront the accused, a judicial finding that results from that hearing should not be used in a post decertification process or any other administrat- administrative employment process.

This bill simply provides due process protections for law enforcement officers by incorporating a notice provision and- and basically prevents CRJA judicial findings from being used in external administrative employment proceedings for law enforcement officers. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, senator, seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please. Oh, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Would you- Did you want to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

You're so kind. Thank you. This item does qualify. It is eligible for unanimous roll call. Ayes 37, noes zero.

The measure passes, we will move to item 677 which is SB 576, Umberg. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 576 by Senator Umberg an act related to video streaming.

Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. I'm guessing that all of you have been annoyed. When you're watching television, streaming television, and a commercial comes on and it is exponentially louder than the other shows, you see heads nodding aye.

What this bill does is it simply says that- that streaming services platforms need to adhere to the same law that provides that broadcast TV may not elevate the volume of commercials.

So that it's startling. The bill really should be named after Samantha Keller, who is the daughter of my LEDGE Director and his wife, because she's an infant that was awakened when the commercial came on. That was so startling that this young, 3-4 month old baby was awakened. So I urge an aye vote on behalf of Samantha Keller.

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

The volume differ- difference is for Senator Umberg. Item or ayes, 37. Noes 0. The measure passes. Senator Caballero, you are recognized.

Thank you. Mr. President, I've been asked to ask for a reconsideration for SB 734, the bill that we just took up previously.

Without objection, item 30 or item 76. SB 734. Ayes, 37. Noes, zero. Reconsideration is granted. Senators, we're going to call the roll. Once again. On File, Item 76, SB 734. Caballero. Secretary, when you are ready, please call roll.

[roll call]

Ayes, 35. Noes, zero. The measure passes. We will move on to item 82. SB 617. Arreguin. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 617, by Senator Arreguin an act relating to employment.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present Senate Bill 617.

Current law, also known as the Warn Act, mandates that certain employers provide notice to employees and to the chief elected officials a local governance of any mass layoffs, including notice to local workforce development boards 60 days before the mass layoff via a worker adjustment and retraining notification letter. Warn letter.

SB 617 would require an employer to include as part of that mass layoff or relocation notice information for impacted workers on services that they are eligible to receive through their local workforce development board.

This notification requirement would be expanded to have employers include in the notice whether the employer plans to coordinate potential services that can be offered to employees also through a local workforce development board. This bill is critical given the current economic uncertainty facing our state.

In California alone, nearly 70 companies have given notices of layoffs expected to happen this year across various industries.

With the current nature of our rapidly changing economy, we must take every step to ensure that impacted workers are protected and informed about the services available to help them and their families seek other employment opportunities and get back on their feet. SB 617 does not have any opposition. With that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[roll call]

Ayes, 35. Noes, zero. The measure passes. Moving to item 84, SB 697. Laird.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 697 by Senator Laird an act relating to water.

Senator, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Bill 697 streamlines and modernizes the Stream System Adjudication Process by allowing the Water Board to utilize modern technology when conducting investigations into water rights claims,

rather than requiring in person field investigations in every piece of every case. We worked with stakeholders to amend this bill and as a result, they removed their letter of concern. There is no opposition. The bill has received no no votes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And seeing no further discussion or debate in the chamber. Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

Ayes 28, noes 1. The measure passes. Moving to item 85. SB 748. Richardson.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 748 by Senator Richardson an act relating to housing.

Senator, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President and members. Colleagues, I rise today in regards to the ERF funds, which stands for Encampment Resolution Funding, which is a grant program for local government to address homelessness. Thus far, the funds have been used to clear encampments to provide shelter and wraparound services. In January 2024, the U.S.

house of HUD, House of- Housing Urban and Development reported that 187,000 people experiencing homelessness. That's a significant number. One in four are residing in their RVs. SB 748 is not seeking additional funds. Rather, to give local government an opportunity to

use the funds in the ways that they see fit, that would be on the streets or in their recreational vehicles. With the support of the chairs of both Human Services and Housing. All previous opposition has been removed. I ask for your aye vote.

No discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[roll call]

Ayes 37, noes 0. The measure passes. Item 89, SB 92. Blakespear.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 92 by Senator Blakespear an act related to housing.

Senator.

Thank you. Mr. President and colleagues, I rise to present SB 92, which will close a loophole in state density bonus law to ensure the law continues to serve its core purpose, which is adding meaningful affordable housing to the state supply.

Specifically, this bill will require that when a developer receives zoning incentives, concessions or waivers for floor area increases under density bonus law, those increases must be used to expand the residential portion of the project, not the commercial portion.

It also gives local governments the discretion to review applications for hotel uses above and beyond what base zoning ordinances allow. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And seeing no discussion or debate, Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

Senator Blakespear moves to call. Moving to item 93, SB 446. Hurtado.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 446 by Senator Hurtado an act relating to personal information.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues I rise today to present SB 446, the Consumer Data Protection and Notification Reform Act. A bill rooted in a simple belief that Californians have a right to know when their data is stolen and to know it fast. Right now, fraud is one of the most important f words across our nation. And for good reason.

A recent 60 Minutes investigation revealed that fraud is costing US government up to 1 trillion a year. Not because of small time scams, but because crime has gone digital with organized cybercrime rings and criminal cyber gangs stealing Americans identities and looting public programs at an alarming scale.

And what makes this even worse is that our systems are slow and vulnerable. Thousands of Californians are victims of identity theft every year, but they may not find out until months or even years later. That delay lets criminals cash in while Californians are left to clean up the mess.

Under current law, companies only need to notify the AG's office if more than 500 residents are affected. But there's no firm deadline, and the loophole is leaving Californians exposed. SB 446 closes that loophole. It requires companies to notify affected customers within 30 days and the Attorney General's Office within 15 days.

Because transparency isn't just good policy, it's a line of defense. 60 Minutes also confirmed what many of us have long feared. Every American's personal data is already for sale on the dark web, some for as low as $2. Social Security Numbers, birthdays, addresses.

With that data, cyber gangs apply for disaster aid, unemployment checks, tax refunds, even FEMA relief using your name. When disaster strikes, Californians shouldn't have to fight both fires and fraud. But as we saw with wildfire survivors in LA, even the most diligent families had their FEMA accounts hijacked. And months later, help still hasn't come.

This isn't just a data problem. It's a national security threat. And the FBI has trace stolen benefits back to shell companies across- across the world. It's $1.0 trillion problem with real human cost, and California must lead where the federal government is falling behind. This bill has bipartisan support because protecting Californians from fraud shouldn't be political.

It's about doing what is right. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Archuleta, you are recognized.

Mr. President, I rise in support of SB 446. Until you've been breached, until you get a call from your bank, your wife, someone calls you and say, I couldn't get into my ATM, I couldn't- I couldn't register the car. I couldn't do anything because the system has been breached.

And I will tell you on a personal level, when you get that phone call that said somebody walked in the bank and, and tried to get $50,000 loan. They had all the information, except maybe the banker said, I don't recognize this individual. And they were able to call the police. Then I got a phone call. Thank God.

Two days later, I get another phone call. They went in, tried to get $5,000 again. And it goes on and on. How about this? And I'll name the company Verizon, where we all use our phones. And all of a sudden, somebody got into that credit card and went shopping, had a shopping spree.

And because of the breach, and early this morning at 6:00, when some of us were just getting up, I was already on the phone talking with the credit agency because somebody had unfrozen my credit account. I had to freeze it so they wouldn't be able to get in. Well, guess what? They were able to unfreeze it.

So I had to call, go through the whole thing all over again until they realized that I was the owner of the account. So it is happening every single day. So my fellow colleagues, bills should come forward. And I will join my fellow colleague in the future to come up with more bills and more safeguards.

Californians, we've lost billions of dollars, if you recall, during the pandemic, even EDD into, what was it, $38 billion. Whatever it was, fraud is there. We've got to do something about it. We should be able to feel comfortable about our daily lives and not worry about our life savings or anything taken out because of a fraudster.

And that's what they're called. When I called. They're called fraudsters. I call them thieves. But I think that supporting SB 446 will go in the right direction and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Hurtado, would you like to close?

Thank you. I respect last for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

Senator Hurtado moves to call. Moving to item 94, SB30, Cortese.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 30 by Senator Cortese. Inaccurate to transportation.

Senator Cortese, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President, Members, SB30 prohibits public agencies from selling, donating or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives with Tier 0 and Tier 1 diesel engines. If a public agency wants to sell donate or transfer equipment with a tier 2 or higher diesel engine, the agency must certify the transfer will have a net air quality benefit.

Under this bill, diesel emissions cause cancers, other physical harms, of course, harm vegetation and contribute to climate change. We're all fighting to decarbonize the same air. And we should not worsen air quality. In other communities as we strive to improve our own. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Cortese moves to call. We will move to item 99, SB 715. Allen. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 715 by Senator Allen and Aquilane to Housing.

Senator Allen, you may present.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members. So, as described in the Arena 2040 report, Butte County Association of Governments was given a nearly 9,000 unit increase to its regional housing need determination to account for the units lost in the campfire.

The COG then directly assigned those units to the town of paradise and the unincorporated county, the two jurisdictions that had just lost the housing due to the devastating fire.

Now, considering the devastating impacts of the wildfires, the lengthy process for which those affected to attempt to rebuild, and the inaccessibility of adequate insurance, this raised questions about the appropriateness of reallocating RHNA to jurisdictions with the continuing risk of losing homes to wildfires, as well as the need to plan for additional housing in nearby jurisdictions that absorb displaced households.

So this Bill ensures that units lost during a declared disaster will not be automatically placed on the jurisdiction that lost the units. Instead, it requires those units to be allocated proportionally across the region based on the approved allocation methodology developed by the COG and HCD that considers climate, population growth and housing needs.

It doesn't in any way affect the ability of folks to rebuild where they want to, and it doesn't have any opposition. I have respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Allen moves to call. We will move to item 101, SB782. Perez.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 782 by Senator Perez an act relating to local government and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.