Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present. Would the Members and our guests beyond the rail in the gallery please rise? We will let in prayer this afternoon by our chaplain, Michelle Gorman, after which remains standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

So as we gather today, we pray with the words of Abraham Joshua Heschel, who said, prayer cannot bring water to parched fields or mend a broken bridge or rebuild a ruined city, but prayer can water an arid soul, mend a broken heart, and rebuild a weakened will.

Gracious and loving God, who sees deeply into our souls and hearts and wills, we trust in your desire to refresh the dryness of our souls with the moist breath of your spirit. Our hearts are broken by so many circumstances in our lives.

Heal us with the tenderness of your mercy and strengthen our wills to find creative solutions to the many problems confronting us daily. As we live with awe and wonder at the inconceivable surprise of living, we ask this in your name. Amen.

Now to recite the pledge I pledge allegiance to to the flag of the United States of America. So the last meeting that I presided over, we had, we were finished in about a half an hour. Let's see if we can break that record today.

We'll have to move awfully quickly, and I have one birthday to announce today and only one. Senator Archuleta's birthday was yesterday. For what reason do you rise, Senator Jones?

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure that you did that properly. So a point of parliamentary inquiry, please.. If you could cite for me within Mason's manual or the joint rules, whichever they are, on the proper method of announcing a birthday. Would you be able to do that for us, please?

I could recite the quote of Oliver Wendell Holmes on the west side of the law school at Berkeley, but I can't do that.

Well, sir, then I will just close my parliamentary inquiry in saying to you, happy birthday, recognizing that today is your birthday also, and I understand that there is birthday cake in the Members lounge in celebration of today's birthdays, is that I'll present that as a parliamentary inquiry.

Is it true that there's cake in the Members lounge to celebrate the birthdays of today.

Well, Julia Childs once said that a meeting, a party without cake is merely a meeting. So we can make this a party. I suppose. But I heard that it was Ice cream. Maybe it's both. Or as Yogi Berra said, pie a la mode with ice cream.

I appreciate that, sir. Thank you very much for answering my parliamentary inquiry almost accurately. Thank you.

So, moving on, trying to break that half hour record. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. And without objection, the Senate journals for May 27 through May 30 will be approved as corrected by the minute Clerk.

Now on to motions, resolutions and notices. Just in case anybody wanted to seeing none. We will move with consideration of the daily file. Second reading. Secretary, please read

[Second Reading]

Now moving to Senate, third reading. First up, file item 32, SB 22. Senator Laird, are you prepared?

Yes.

You may. Oh, Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 22 by Senator Laird, an act relating to consumer protection.

Thank you, Mr. President, and happy birthday. And as one of the three people that are older than me in the state Legislature, I'm very grateful every time you have a birthday.

I am the youngest of the three oldest Members of this body.

Well, we just got more out of you than the minority leader did in his comments, so I'm very grateful for that. But I am here to present Senate Bill 22. It will look familiar to me. To you. A version of this comfortably passed the Senate last year.

The Legislature in 2007 adopted a Bill that allowed gift cards to be redeemable up to $9.99 for the unused value. It has never been changed since then. The real goal of this Bill is to catch up with inflation, which would put it at about $15. The.

There's been animated discussion about this and we actually had a tentative deal at the outset of the session that the advocates walked away from. So for those of you that say, I won't talk to people, that is not the case.

There have been discussions going on and I would like the chance to work on this in the Assembly. I think at the bare minimum, we should do an inflationary increase from where it was 18 years ago.

And we can talk about whether there's a future inflationary increase or anything else, but basically this catches us up on this and I'd like the chance to continue to work on it. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Seeing no microphones up. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Laird moves the call. Next is file item 33, SB 386. I see Senator Limone is standing. I presume you are ready. Secretary, please read.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 386 by Senator Limon, and act relating to health care coverage.

You may proceed.

Thank you, President and colleagues. Dental plans often contract with third party companies to issue provider payments to dental practices and using virtual credit cards.

This Bill requires dental plans and virtual credit card companies to provide notice of any fees associated with accepting payment by virtual credit card, along with other details on alternative payment methods. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no microphones raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Senator Limon moves the call. Next up is file item 36, SB 594. Senator Padilla. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 594 by Senator Padilla, an act relating to solid waste.

Senator Padilla, you may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Members, I rise to present SB 594, which would bring additional sunshine to new proposed landfills occurring in heavily polluted regions of the State of California.

As we well know, too often, hazardous developments such as landfills and waste disposal sites are disproportionately placed in low-income communities and communities of color that are—already face higher levels of pollution from a variety and in a variety of existing environmental burdens.

In these areas, toxic and hazardous waste disposals compound. Can have a cumulative effect exposing residents nearby to increased health risks, including respiratory issues and water contamination, diminishing their quality of life and decreasing their property values. These communities often bear the burden of facing multiple environmental stressors. They have few resources and political connections to advocate effectively for themselves.

In some cases, and it appears to be the trend and has been in my district, residents are often intentionally shut out of the decision-making process.

Senator Padilla, our attention.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 594 would give communities like mine that already face and excessive levels of pollution an opportunity to have their voices heard. This Bill requires the local enforcement agency to hold a public hearing to certify that the landfill will not disproportionately harm an environmental justice community.

This is an extra, and I would argue appropriate, layer of discretionary review for environmental justice communities, and I would respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Seeing no mics raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Padilla moves the call. Next, file item 42, SB 5. Senator Cabaldon. I see he's ready. Secretary, please read

Senate Bill 5 by Senator Cabaldon, an act relating to local government.

Thank you President. SB 5 brings together two distinct state instruments. So I'm going to get a little wonky for a second. The Williamson Act is one of the state's principal ag land preservation farmland preservation laws.

And it works essentially by saying government will provide a lower tax assessment and therefore lower taxes in order to make farming still economically viable on a piece of property. And the exchange is that local government gets less money than it would have otherwise.

The state gets less money than otherwise would have in order to the property not to be developed for a non-agricultural use. Williamson Act has been a feature of California law for generations.

Second is laws around tax increment financing. The principal one being the Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District, but also Farmland Security Zones and those Districts have a separate intent.

And those, the intent there is to make investments, private sector investments, that lead to improved property values for a development district so that you can improve sewer, water, transit, roads, parks, and schools and other essential features for development to be viable. These are very distinct tools.

There are, there's only one Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District in California that has issued bonds thus far. I was the chair of that. We just issued bonds last week for bridge. But this is a different context. EIFDs are for urban areas. Farmland security zones are to avoid farmland development.

Some of you may be aware, I know the Senate Agricultural Committee two years ago held an extensive informational hearing as we were trying to figure out who was buying up 25% of Solano County. Who was it? It turned out to be a group of just over a dozen billionaires who were proposing to rezone a large proportion of the agricultural land in the county to development.

Whatever you think of that project, hidden in that project was a proposal to convert Williamson Act land into Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts. This is not peanut butter and chocolate. These things do not go well together.

Because essentially what this meant was all of the revenues that the government has lost in order to maintain the value of property so it's not developable, in order to protect farmland, would now be captured by the private development.

So SB 5 simply says that before land in the Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone can go into a Tax Increment Financing District, you must first rezone it for its new use. You can do it. The Bill does not ban that. You know, some of the opponents suggested you couldn't use it for this purpose.

You can use this important tool for infrastructure development, but you must do it at the assessed valuation of residential, commercial, industrial, whatever the land use is going to be, not at the artificially deflated assessed valuation that was there for the agricultural use.

So this, this, the only places that this has become an issue in California so far has been in my district in Solano County. But it's pointing to a flaw in these two laws that have never before joined together.

But if we don't close this loophole, they threaten to not just weaken the Williamson Act, but to turn it upside down and plant a flag on every Williamson Act parcel that here is a deflated value parcel that you could capture the entire value of what government and the taxpayers in that local community have done order to protect farmland. I ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no microphones raised. Here's to chocolate and peanut butter. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Senator Cabaldon moves the call. Next is file item 44, SB 470. Senator Laird again. Please read.

Senate Bill 470 by Senator Laird, an act relating to state government.

Senator Laird, you may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senate Bill 470 removes the sunset in the Bill Senate Bill 544, which was adopted in 2023. This applies to Bagley-Keene just for state boards and commissions. Bagley-Keene was originally adopted in 1967 before there was any digital democracy, before there was the Americans for Disabilities Act.

And I think we have upgraded it with this. It is working. It would expire with a sunset on January 1st. This Bill removes the sunset. The Bill gives a choice. State boards and commissions could take existing Bagley-Keene law and just use it for their meetings.

Or in the alternative, they could have a majority quorum present. They could have people participate remotely. It removes the address requirement as a security measure for those remote ones. If the system goes down, it requires the meeting to pause. If you accept remote participation from even one member, you have to accept remote participation from the public.

And, and in essence, this Bill has worked. And it is a way to require a majority quorum and present and then be flexible going out. It is sponsored by organizations that represent seniors and represent people with disabilities. I think the system has worked. This gives us a chance to continue it. I respectfully request an aye vote.

And seeing no microphones raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Senator Laird moves the call. Next up, file item 46, SB 670. Senator Cervantes, are you prepared?

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 670 by Senator Cervantes an act relating to adult education.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. California is home to a vibrant and diverse population of over 10.6 million immigrants, representing 22% of the nation's foreign-born residents.

Immigrants often represent a substantial portion of participants in adult skill programs, frequently accounting for a large minority or even a majority of those enrolled, particularly among individuals who do not have a path for a high school diploma or its equivalent. SB 670 establishes a clear definition of immigrant integration, outlining its objectives.

The definition aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how immigrants can effectively adopt and contribute to their new communities, emphasizing the importance of social, economic, and cultural integration. This Bill seeks to support adult education programs by establishing a responsive and integration-centered framework that guides them through the various available services.

The clarifying terms in this Bill seek to enhance the adult education program's effectiveness in supporting immigrants as they navigate their transition and promote inclusive—inclusivity—in our society. This legislation acknowledges that effective integration relies on both English proficiency and active civic participation, along with economic inclusion. I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote on SB 670.

Seeing no microphones raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 36 noes zero. The Bill passes. Next is file item 49, SB 436. Senator Wahab appears ready. Senator. Excuse me, Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 436 by Senator Wahab an act relating to civil actions.

You may proceed.

Thank you. I rise to present SB 436, Keeping Californians Housed Act, which will extend Californians three day notice for renters to either pay or move out with a 14-day notice.

Under current law, tenants may avoid eviction for non-payment of rent only if they are able to pay all of the rent demanded by the landlord within three business days of a notice to pay rent or quit.

Once the sun has set on the third business day, the tenant's right to preserve the tenancy and avoid eviction is extinguished. I do want to highlight that many people who end up in the hospital or unable to pay for a wide variety of reasons.

Maybe their employment has stalled or they did not receive the money in their bank. Many of these different issues can happen within three days oftentimes. Also, many cities and other organizations provide some type of support, but it takes more than three days to receive the type of support that they need to pay their full rent.

The state's three day notice is far too quick for families to make up past due rent, receive legal or financial assistance, or even find a new place to live. Beyond immediate displacement, the negative ripples effects of an eviction often extends to the loss of possessions, access to work, healthcare and transportation.

Credit reports and public court records show that can last for years can allow landlords to discriminate against renters, thereby preventing them from remaining in neighborhoods where their children go to school and where transportation exists for them to go to work or services they rely on.

Extending the notice period to 14 days allows a tenant more time to pay before being taken to court. The landlord is paid their full rent and is able to avoid the lengthy legal process as well. It's in the public's interest to solve the issue of homelessness by reducing unnecessary evictions and keeping people housed longer.

We have addressed opposition concerns through Committee amendments in Senate Judiciary and remain open to conversation going forward. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no microphones raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Wahab moves the call. Now. Item 54, SB 838. Senator Durazo, you appear to be ready.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 838 by Senator Durazo, an act relating to land use.

You may proceed.

Thank you Mr. President. Colleagues, the Housing Accountability Act was created to increase housing production by providing benefits and incentives to projects that build homes. But recently, some developers have begun using this law to fast track hotel projects. Even when that means cutting housing units or building in a fire prone area.

That undermines the purpose of our housing laws. SB 838 is a targeted pro-housing measure that protects the integrity of the Housing Accountability Act and keeps our most important housing streamlining laws focused on building homes.

Yes, hotels are important to our tourism economy. This Bill allows hotels to be included in mixed use projects, but requires transient lodgings to go through local review. And to strike a fair balance, any project already deemed complete by January 1, 2025 is unaffected. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And seeing no microphones raised, Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Senator Durazo moves the call.

Next file, item 55, SB 307. Senator Cervantes. Are you prepared? You appear to be prepared. Secretaries, please read.

Senate Bill 307 by Senator Cervantes, an act relating to public post-secondary education.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 307 is a critical measure to protect the educational future of our undocumented students in California. This Bill requires that the California State University implement additional precautionary measures for undocumented students who are subject to federal immigration orders. It also requires that the Regents at the University of California adopt similar measures.

These precautions include the establishment of a system-wide policy that addresses course grades, administrative withdrawals, and re enrollment for undocumented students who are detained, deported, or unable to attend classes due to actions taken by immigration officers related to federal immigration orders. With approximately 410,000 undocumented college students, California is home to the largest population in the United States.

We recognize their potential. Our higher education systems must go beyond merely designing specific spaces or personnel to support undocumented youth or make reasonable accommodations. It is imperative that our higher education institutions establish comprehensive policies that not only facilitate support, but also provide tangible resources for Dreamer Resource Center liaisons.

By fostering a supportive and secure educational environment, we can help ensure that undocumented students can thrive and achieve their dreams despite the challenges they encounter by securing continuity in their education. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And. Oh. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen, I did want to share some comments on SB 55, and I want to thank the author for bringing this forward.

In light of today's concerns about the Federal Government and immigration, I think this is a great opportunity to discuss where our students lie, especially our students who have been offered an opportunity to gather their education here in the United States in which students are entitled to have an education.

But on this, I just want to just comment on the fact that it's important to note that this is for students who have to leave the country in the midterm at any point during their educational system and want to make sure that when they arrive, they have an opportunity to come back, that they're able to resume their studies and they're not penalized based on the fact that they're.

They're being compelled to leave the country for X, Y and Z reasons.

So I just want to ensure that we understand that this is for students who are pursuing their education here in California, that for one reason or another, are compelled to leave the country and have the ability, when they return, to be able to continue and not be penalized based on their need to leave our country.

So I just wanted to emphasize that that's all it is. And it would be great if we could actually extend that grace period or that grace opportunity to other areas, such as folks in the military or any other student that may be subjected to having to leave the educational system in our state.

So I rise in support of this measure, and I'm grateful that the Senator from Riverside brought it forward.

Thank you. And seeing no other mics raised. Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, there is. Oh, excuse me. Senator Cervantes, you may close.

Thank you to my colleague for the support on this measure. Again, we want to provide opportunities for all students in California to continue their dream of a higher education. Respectfully ask my colleagues for their support.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Cervantes moves the call. Next is file item 63, SB 376 by Senator Valladares, who is now prepared.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 376 by Senator Valladares, an act relating to taxation to take effect immediately. Tax levy.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. I am always prepared. Today I rise before you to present SB376, a straightforward and necessary measure which clarifies how certain types of trusts are defined within California tax law.

Under current California tax law law, the state addresses how incomplete gift non-granter trusts, or INGs, are taxed for income purposes. The Revenue and Taxation Code also mirrors a federal provision and was intended to ensure a smooth a smooth process in how INGs are taxed across California.

While the intent of this code section is clear, there has been confusion on if charitable remainder trust, or CRTs, that also qualify as INGs are subject to the same taxation rules.

SB7X- SB 376 will eliminate any confusion and reinforce that CRTs are not subject to the same rules that INGs are under California's tax law.

This will codify how Franchise Tax Board has consistently interpreted the law up until now and will provide much more-needed clarity for tax professionals, estate planners, and will prevent any unintended tax consequences.

It promotes fairness, legal clarity and efficiency throughout California. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no microphones raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Senator Valadares moves the call. Next is file item 68, SB7. Senator McNerney. I see he is prepared. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 7 by Senator McNerney, an act related to employment.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 7 is called the No Robo Bosses act. And I want to give you a little background. They have these systems called automated decision making systems. They help in hiring, they help in judging work performance, they help in promoting, they help in firing, and they help in predicting future performance.

So if you want to help with those things, then you've come to the right place. But what SB 7 does, it adds common sense guardrails to using these ADS's in the workplace. This Bill is narrowly focused.

It's an AI Bill that requires notice before using AI in employment-related decisions such as hiring, firing, and disciplining, and ensures humans make key employment decisions. Let me ask. No human should ever be hired, fired, or promoted by an algorithm. There always has to be a human in the loop.

So who would want to have an algorithm deciding your future in the workplace? It also prohibits using AI to predict future behavior of employment actions. So you want an algorithm to be deciding or estimating what you're going to do and make decisions based on that. So that's prohibited.

We have had some amendments that streamlined the notices requirement and narrowed the access to concern or to address concerns. AI should be a tool, not a boss. It does not prohibit using automated decision making systems, but it requires humans to be in the loop.

And there's still some concerns about this Bill. I'm committing to working with colleagues in improving the Bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no microphones raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Senator McNerney moves the call. And now for a McNerney doubleheader. Item 71, SB 24. Senator McNerney.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 24 by Senator McNerney, and act relating to electrical and gas corporations.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. And it's my pleasure to present two bills in a row here this morning. SB 24 will close legal loopholes and strengthen California law.

And the purpose is to prevent the investor-owned utilities from using ratepayer funds to pay for political campaigns and political advertising and using ratepayer money to lobby against local efforts to create a public utility.

So basically we want to make sure that the public utilities don't use ratepayer months to advance their cause. California residents already pay the second highest utility rates in the nation. At the same time, these utility companies have been raking in record profits.

PG&E, which covers my district, received six rate changes last year in 2024 alone. Earlier this year, PG&E asked for another rate increase. This time to quote, adequately compensate investors.

Our utility bills should be sent on service, spent on services. Not political advertisements and commercials. Since 2019, Southern CalGas used at least $36 million of its customers money for political lobbying. Last year, PG&E charged customers for an ad promoting the company.

Additionally, the investor owned utilities have spent large sums to stop local efforts to form a public utility. For example, PGE spent over $10 million against SMUDD's attempted expansion into Yolo County. Southern California Gas and Electric spent almost 400 million to Responsible Energy San Diego who opposed an effort to form a public utility in San Diego.

SB 24 does not infringe on the IU's ability to advocate and ensures that these costs will not be borne by ratepayers. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise in opposition to this Bill. It's overly broad in definition in terms of communication. For example, this Bill would not allow the investor-owned utilities communicate with local officials or their customers. And I also want to say Members, sometimes there's bills on one end and another end.

This one says that they can't communicate with their customers, the investor-owned utilities. But there's other Bill that came before Energy Committee that said if the investor-owned utility did not communicate in terms of shutting down the power on how soon it can come back up. that they would get fined and they get penalized.

So which is it Members? You tell, you say one Bill that says you can't communicate with the customers and then on another end you say you have to communicate with the customers.

I just think that, you know, too many times we have too many bills going on here where either way it goes, you now have a problem where the investor-owned utilities is going to violate state law if you pass both these laws.

So with that, I wish the author of this Bill would talk to the author of the other Bill and get on the same page. So with that, I ask for a no vote until they do so.

Senator Gonzalez, you're recognized.

Thank you, madam- Mr. President, Mr. Birthday Boy President, I appreciate that. I want to thank the good Senator from the San Joaquin Valley for bringing this forward because I believe in the spirit of affordability, as we've been talking about so much in this chamber over the last week.

That it's important that we have our eyes on the prize to protect the most vulnerable, which is are the ratepayers. We've talked about that. And not only that, to prohibit certain political influences, activities, and advertising as said by the language in the Bill, by electrical or gas corporations, and expand the authority of the Public Advocate's Office.

Why would we be against that? Why would we be against more transparency and allowing the ratepayers justice? That is exactly what this, this body, should be fighting for. And for that I respectfully asked for an aye vote on this Bill.

Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I too rise in opposition of this Bill because it appears that we're trying to limit the political activities or political speech of one group, one agency, and believe me, they are. They're trying to advocate on the part of their investors. That's why they're investor-owned utilities.

And at the same time everyone else, or other agencies, unions, everyone else is allowed to use the full force of their investors' money to be able to rail against what they feel is politically against them. So if we're going to do this type of activity, we need to do it across the board, not just for one sector.

Because otherwise what you're doing is you're putting the thumb on, you're silencing one group and just allowing us, the people out, the voters, to hear one side of the story. It's up to us to hear all sides of the story. If we're going to silence one, we need to silence the other t00. I'm not in favor of doing either. Thank you.

Senator McNerney, you may close.

Again. I thank the President, I want to thank the Majority Leader for her comments and I want to address a couple of issues that were raised. The gentleman from Huntington Beach mentioned that there's two different kinds of communication. And I want to say that that's true.

One kind of communication is to inform customers of public safety, power shutdowns, and the like. And they should, well, I was about to use this where I didn't, to their, they should, well inform their customers.

But the other type of communication is when you use advertising. Now if you want to use the investor money for advertising, that's just fine. But if you want to use rate payer money to advertise, then that's what this would prohibit. So the law is already there. This just closes some of the loopholes.

And again, I just want to iterate that it uses, that we are prohibiting using ratepayer money, not investor money. They can do all the advertising, all the communicating they want with ratepayer money. I mean with their shareholder money.

We just don't want them to use money that's coming out of our pockets to pay for these overly expensive bills. And I think I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Ayes 27, noes 10. The measure passes.

Next is file item 72, SB 32. Senator Weber Pierson. She is ready.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 32 by Senator Weber Pierson, an act relating to healthcare coverage.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, fellow Senators. I rise today to present SB 32, which requires clear time and distance standards be established for labor and delivery, or L and D units, in Medi-Cal and commercial plans.

As we all are very well aware, we are currently facing a dire maternal health emergency, with over 50 hospitals that have shut down or suspended their labor and delivery services in the last decade.

These maternity care deserts force expectant mothers to travel long distances to reach hospitals equipped to safely deliver their babies, sometimes for over two hours or more than 100 miles. I cannot emphasize more that this delay is anything but dangerous.

Lack or delayed access can cause significantly higher rates of premature births, untreated hypertension, and maternal mortality, especially among rural and minority communities. Currently, plans must meet time and distance standards for providers and hospitals, but there are no enforceable standards for labor and delivery units specifically.

This leads to plans technically having several OB-GYN providers "in network" and appearing to have access to labor and delivery units but can have very few or even no options for actual true labor and delivery units.

This can lead to some women very late in their pregnancy realizing that they have nowhere nearby to actually deliver their baby safely. Some may argue that plans don't control hospitals' closures, and while that is true, plans don't operate hospitals, they do influence them and also influence access to care through their negotiations.

Adequate and predictable reimbursement enables hospitals to keep units staffed and equipped, and when contracts fail or are terminated, access can suffer immediately, and a mother's health and safety must take precedence over any of these administrative red tape.

SB 532 would require plans to come to the table and put forth good faith, reasonable efforts to maintain networks that reflect these realities, rather than allowing for gaps that push mothers towards unsafe or unaccessible care.

Specifically, this Bill will encourage plans to engage more proactively in sustaining labor and delivery services by requiring the Department of Healthcare Services, Department of Managed Healthcare, and the Department of Insurance to engage in robust, comprehensive stakeholder process to develop time and distance standards for labor and delivery units.

SB 32 won't solve all of the complex factors behind maternity unit closures, but it provides a critical lever to improve access and accountability. All existing processes and enforcement mechanisms will still remain in place, and this just ensures timely delivery and access to labor and delivery care is upheld statewide.

No expectant mother should have to worry about whether she can safely deliver her baby because her insurer's network doesn't include a nearby labor and delivery service. SB 32 is about protecting mothers, newborns, and families, making sure California's healthcare plans do their part in this vital aspect of care.

As a mother and an OB-GYN, I am committed to advancing equity and safety and maternal health, and I'm proud to author this legislation. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote on SB 32. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Though I'm very supportive of the principle of or the premise of the Bill—very, very supportive, because I do believe that we need, definitely, more access to health care.

The concern that I have with this particular Bill and I would love, if possible, give an opportunity through, through the Chair, if you have any response to this.

But I think the number one concern that we have in the state of California, especially when it comes to our rural areas, is the fact that we're not fully reimbursing our healthcare providers.

And without the ability to fully reimburse our health care providers across the state, especially in incredibly low socioeconomic areas such as mine, is the fact that we're going to be punitive but yet not, you know, not whole, and we expect them to be, you know, negotiate and be able to provide more access.

But if they're not fully being reimbursed, then how do we expect them to be able to do that? So, I think this is placing, and correct me If I'm mistaken, Mr. President, you are the expert when it comes to sayings, but I believe this is putting the cart before the horse. Is that correct?

But I think we—I believe that we should actually be ensuring that we provide reimbursement rates, are fully reimbursing our providers so that they can actually provide the care and our hospitals be able to provide the care that we, that they, that are our, our constituents need.

So, I will, I'll be abstaining on this Bill unless I have a great response from the Author on that end.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Weber Pierson, you may close.

Thank you. I want to thank the Senator for her question. I am a strong advocate that we need to increase our reimbursement rates for our providers. I have been yelling and shouting that even before I came into this Legislature, as a provider myself, understanding that here in the state of California, our reimbursement rates are dismal.

And to expect for providers to continue to provide the best of care in all areas without us reimbursing them, that they should be reimbursed, is one of the challenges that we've had, and that's one of the reasons why I said this is one part of the puzzle. It is not going to fix the entire piece.

Reimbursement is one part, yes. However, if you—you can reimburse someone, but if you don't have a labor and delivery available, there is no place for that person or that provider to deliver a child.

So, for example, in my area in San Diego, there were some contract negotiations between Anthem, and I believe it was Scripps or Sharp. They pulled out. And so those particular mothers, of no fault of their own, had absolutely no place to go and deliver their babies because the contract negotiations fell apart.

And even though they have a hospital there that provides coverage for OB-GYNs, because the insurance companies stepped back, they no longer had access to that. We all got notices, I believe, a couple of weeks ago about now, contract negotiations between the UCs and Blue Shield.

If those fall apart, then anyone who has Blue Shield will no longer be able to UC—use UC facilities—for their labor and delivery care. And so, although this does not solve the entire problem, just like, unfortunately, increasing our Medi-Cal reimbursement rates won't solve the entire problem, this is one piece of the puzzle, ensuring that insurance companies understand that they do have a stake in the game to ensure that hospitals and have labor and delivery units for people to actually be able to go and deliver their child safely and we can have a safe mom and safe baby.

That was always one of the things that I told each and every one of my patients. That was our goal. And in order to have safe mom, healthy mom, healthy baby, both alive and doing well, we need to have access to labor and delivery units. That includes reimbursement.

But that also ensures that insurance companies know that they have to have that adequate network that their clients are paying for. And with that, I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote on SB 32. Thank you.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[ROLL CALL]

Ayes 35, noes 0. The measure passes.

Next is file item 74, SB 48. Senator Gonzalez, who is ready. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 48 by Senator Gonzalez enact relating to immigration enforcement and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present SB 48. It implements critical protections to ensure students in California parents, staff, and teachers feel safe and welcome at California schools. About a few weeks ago in my district in South Los Angeles, there were four children that were being seeked after by Homeland Security under the guise of a wellness check.

LAUSD did the incredible thing. They followed the Attorney General's model guidelines, which this Bill seeks to enact or put in statute, and basically says that SB 48 will prohibit school officials from granting information to immigration authorities, whether they are the DEA, Homeland Security, ICE, what have you, to access a campus without a valid judicial warrant and will protect students personal information and educational needs.

Because every student, regardless of their immigration status, should be given the right to a free and fair education. This Bill will also provide additional statutory clarity to school staff on the ground in our communities. And right now, this Bill will also of course be statewide.

Right now, the Attorney General's model guidelines are really all over the place. They're not being applied evenly or equitably across the state. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Alvarado-Gil, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. I rise in respectful opposition to SB 48 today. I appreciate the example that my colleague from Long Beach provided. However, there's no credible evidence of immigration enforcement operations taking place on California school campuses.

This Bill solely creates fear based hypotheticals, not real world threats. As a former educator, I do believe in empowering local leaders, not handcuffing them with broad state mandates.

Local school districts have elected school boards. They're already equipped with protocol to handle sensitive matters involving student and family safety. The iron fist of Sacramento should not be dictating how schools handle hypothetical encounters with law enforcement.

This Bill could force teachers, administrators, and staff to choose between complying with federal law and potentially violating California law. So let's unpack the fanny pack of fear here.

What happens if ICE arrives with a lawful court order or under hot pursuit scenario? Who would be liable if staff comply? This legislation opens the door to confusion, legal conflict, and unintended consequences for frontline school employees.

California's public schools are already dealing with severe learning loss, chronic absenteeism, and teacher shortages. So why don't we keep our focus on academic achievement, school safety, and access to resources? Where is the accountability from the state on learning loss for students and the suffering that they've had?

The 2023-24 results from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, which tested over 300 million students, revealed that only less than half, 47.6% of students passed were at or, at or above the grade level. For reading, 35.2%. Almost a third of those met math standards and less than a third met the science standards.

When are we going to have that real conversation about state caused academic failures? We should not be injecting partisan immigration politics into our school systems. I represent thousands of hard working Hispanic families, many of whom are legal residents or citizens.

They abide by the law and they want safe, thriving schools. Creating fear based laws doesn't protect our children. Focused investment in school accountability and giving parents more control and choices does.

SB 48 is not about student population protection. It's about another political posturing Bill and I urge a no vote on this.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of SB 48 to protect students in our schools from from ICE.

And I...It is absolutely tragic what's happening in this country right now and in communities across our state and across the country where we basically have secret police wearing masks, not having warrants, not identifying themselves, getting out of unmarked vehicles and grabbing people, separating families just on the street in their own community.

It is horrific. It is creating terror in the community, and it is so self-sabotaging as a society to say, hey, we're going to just put fear into millions of residents of this country. So people don't want to go to work or go to school and just go about their lives.

And the idea that it would in any way be a good thing or appropriate for these secret police to enter our schools and scare the heck out of kids and families. That is just. It is horrific.

And if we are interested in having kids perform well in school and attend school and grow and thrive, the way to do that is not to have secret police in masks entering the school and putting people in fear.

Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all. And it doesn't just create fear among the kids who might get grabbed by the secret police. It creates fear among all of the kids and among the teachers and it makes the educational environment toxic. So this is an important Bill and I urge an aye vote.

Senator Perez, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of SB 48 by the good Senator from Long Beach. It's been 132 days since the Trump Administration eliminated safe spaces, making churches, hospitals, and schools fair game for immigration raids.

129 days that our students, educators, and their families have been living in fear, constantly looking over their shoulder, wondering if immigration enforcement agents are there to take them away. In these 129 days, three students, one who was only a third grader, and their mother were detained by ICE in New York.

In another scenario, ICE agents attempted to enter two Los Angeles Unified School District elementary schools in search of students at these schools. Schools. It's no longer a question of if it will happen. It's now a question of when it will happen again.

And I want to highlight part of what SB 48 does, and the real focus of it is making sure that if immigration officials show up, that they are providing a judicial warrant or a court order to prove why they are there, that they actually have the legal authority to remove this child from school.

I take real issue with us just allowing anybody to show up and claim that they are ICE or claim that they have the authority to talk to children when they in reality do not.

We saw in the Los Angeles Unified School District that school staff and school teachers played a critical role in not allowing immigration enforcement officials to come inside the school because they did not have proper documentation. These are our kids we are talking about.

Nobody should be able to walk up and approach a school and remove a child without the parents permission in any scenario.

And if it was anybody else's kids, anybody in this room, we would be angry about it, and we would be very vocal about it, as we should be, because parents have rights, and part of their rights is protecting their children. School is supposed to be a place that students and teachers feel safe.

It's supposed to be a place that they are safe. That's why both the Senator from Long Beach and I are introducing legislation to ensure access to education and a safe space for all students. Today, I rise in strong support of this Bill, and I urge an aye vote on this measure. Thank you.

Senator Menjivar. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I was a little shocked to hear the Senator from Jackson said that she wasn't aware of any incidents. You know, I'm not naive to think that if I don't hear about an incident in my district, it doesn't happen anywhere in California.

And the Senator of Pasadena even brought up the Incident that in LAUSD in April, DHS individuals came to schools within LAUSD asking to see kids who are immigrant. Luckily, LAUSD was able to stop them and prevented them from entering. But that's because the federal law changed, allowing all these places to no longer be sanctuary areas.

In my district, I'm hearing and having conversations in schools of kids talking about, I don't want to come home because I don't want to come to school because what if I go home and my parents are gone. I don't want to come to school because what if my parents, once they're dropping me off, get picked up?

This is a real fear that is happening. As you talk to mental health therapists, counselors in schools, they're inundated by kids talking to them about this fear. This isn't fear mongering from us.

In fact, this is fear mongering from the Federal Administration that are putting kids between the ages of 5 to 18 in constant fear that they're going to be taken from their families or that once they go to school, their families will be gone.

And over the weekend, if you didn't see the viral video of a kid consoling his mom once she was being taken away from in front of him saying, "Todo va a estar bien" "everything's gonna be okay," that is what's happening.

And I stand in firm support of SB 48 to ensure that those kind of scenarios don't continue to happen and we continue to protect schools and make them just be a place for kids to be, to learn and be successful and thrive, which is why I'm respectfully asking for n vote.

Senator Wahab, you're recognized.

Thank you. I rise in support of this Bill for a number of reasons, and I, I want to thank the Senator from Long Beach for bringing this forward. As a former foster care kid, I want to highlight how important the education system and institution is for every single kid.

Many of these kids that we're talking about sometimes don't even know their own status. Sometimes they don't know their family's status. They are kids. They are kids that we want them to focus on education. And education is incredibly important to all of society.

We can easily point the finger to a number of different countries that don't allow 50% of their population access to education. But here's the reality. You know, I've traveled both at our borders and have seen the crisis at our borders. And honestly, it's very heartbreaking to hear people say that they will not send their kids to school.

Or that they're going to hold off on doing this, or governments even partaking that kids should not attend this school because of their status. The reason why some people even negotiate this with themselves and their families is because they want a shot at being an American.

They don't necessarily want their families broken apart and they don't necessarily want their immigration status to be in question. Now I say this because education is the least that society can provide to every single person. It is incredibly important to maintain that safety and ensure that educational institutions are a safe haven for every child.

We often talk about how kids need to be able to come to tell their teacher what is happening in their home, what is happening in their life, what concerns they may have, and also be able to dream of a good future for themselves.

I will say, when I was in high school, I remember being in the girls locker room and there were several students that were talking about their own status and they shared that they're undocumented. This is the first time I've ever even heard something like that.

And as a freshman in high school, I was so shocked because this was a person I went to school with the entire time. This is by default by every standard and measure, an American, an American that I played with, studied with, went to school with.

And now we want to say to them, hey, raids are allowed to happen. You're allowed to be talked to without the presence of an adult, that is your custodian that cares about you and so forth. And we are promoting fear mongering. We are promoting this sense of they are less than treating them like second class citizens.

And this Bill helps prevent that. This Bill helps people have dignity. This Bill lets kids be able to come to school without fear. And that is what the school system is supposed to be, a safe haven for all people. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you again.

Senator Arreguin, you're recognized.

Thank you Mr. President. I also rise in strong support of SB 48 as a coauthor and thank my colleague from Long Beach for bringing forth this important Bill to ensure that all kids in California, regardless of their immigration status, have a right to to seek a public education in our state without fear of being arrested or their parents being arrested.

And it was referenced in the debate earlier about fear-based policies, that we should not be perpetuating fear based policies. Well, the fear is not the fault of this Bill, but rather it's the fault of the Trump Administration's policies to rescind the long standing directive that immigration enforcement should not happen at schools, churches, or hospitals.

And I have a Bill I'll be talking about very shortly about protecting our hospitals and health facilities from immigration enforcement, making sure we don't divide families or put kids on deportation flights and separating them from their families.

Let me remind you it wasn't too long ago that there were images of kids being locked in cages at the border, separated from their family. We can't go backwards. We have to go forward as a state. And I commend those school districts that have implemented model policies based on the guidance from our Attorney General already.

Not having this Bill codified in state law will create a chilling effect to prevent kids from going to school in California, which will further reduce enrollment, will impact school funding, and will impact access to education in our state.

This is essential to make sure that we fulfill our promise as a state that education must be a right that all kids in California have a right to access without fear of deportation. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. So I stand here as a Republican who is a daughter of immigrant parents and who is actually will be supporting SB 48. I thank the Senator from Long Beach who brought it forward.

But a couple of clarifications that I think must be on record. First and foremost, this Bill as stated, will actually just codify the fact that we want to make sure that we have legitimate federal agents coming into our schools and entering our schools.

But second to that, I want to clarify that under current state law, educational agencies are not allowed to acquire or request any documentation that states a student's legal status in this country. Let's have that on record.

So when we talk about fear mongering and when we talk about making children afraid of, shame on us for allowing students to think that they're in peril because they're at school and they may be undocumented, because we do not know officially whether they are or not.

The school has no knowledge that they are undocumented in this state. So first and foremost, we don't have that information on file. Schools should not have that. So they are not in peril of being taken apart, taken away by federal agents.

Number two, clarification. If these students are asked to be seen by our federal agent, it's most likely probably that their parents or their caretaker are requesting and have actually given the information to the federal agents to pick these children up.

And it could be very much well because these parents are probably going to be deported and they would rather take their children with them than leave them behind in this country without their parents.

So let's be very, very fair and very clear. Federal agents are not going to pick up a child just because they're undocumented, because the schools have no information on that.

If they are being picked up, it could be because the parents are requesting that these children be picked up. So our kids are actually safe in our schools. They are safe because we don't know their legal status. We don't have it on record.

Second, or another point that I would like to make, my screen. When we have anyone, and this is for my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, when someone enters the school, we always want to make sure that they're official, that they're actually been vetted and we know who they're coming.

So putting a statute, knowing and asking whether or not somebody has a warrant or have the official capacity to enter the school is really a no brainer. It really isn't. So it's nothing out of the ordinary that they would be asked to show a requirement for them to enter our school campuses.

Let's see. And all this Bill is doing is actually just providing clarity and as to what we already currently have been stated as procedures by the Attorney General in our state, all it's doing is clarifying, putting a code and a standard practice for the state.

So based on those couple of points that I've mentioned, I am going to be supportive of this Bill. I was supportive of it in Education and explained my concerns and my support points on it. And therefore I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 48.

Senator Alvarado-Gil, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I know it's not customary to speak once I've already kind of spoken on the floor. But being that the Senator from San Fernando Valley quoted me on an issue I'd like to be able to clarify.

I am not opposing this Bill because I don't believe that we have a problem in this state. I definitely believe that we have a problem in this state and we exasperate the problem by continuing to instill fear in young people. When we talk about ICE agents and masks and instill fear that way, we are doing a disservice to the educational system.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has a dress code and in that dress code it does not talk about wearing scary masks. When we talk about ripping children away from schools, we have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away. Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.

I want to thank the Senator from Yucaipa's comments, and although we're on opposite sides of the vote here, she so very eloquently spoke about the problem that we have in California in a way that doesn't exasperate the truth, that doesn't add fear and pointing fingers at the problem that we have here in California, but simply to say our schools in California are safe for our kids.

We have laws to protect our kids. Those laws distinguish between documented and undocumented children. So what this Bill continues to do is elevate the message of fear and continues to add fiction to a problem that is very real.

So my commitment to the issue of immigration here in California is to base my decisions on the facts. And ripping children away from their families through schools by people with scary masks is simply fiction. This law does talk about prohibiting schools from cooperating unless they must do so by law.

My main point of contention here, and if the author would wish to address this in their closing, is how are we going to protect the employees from following state law orfollowing federal law?

That is the concern that I have with this Bill, that if we are essentially creating law that contradicts an already federal law, how are we going to enforce that? And how are we going to give security to employees, administrators, and even family members that are volunteering on campus?

So this is not about scaring kids and ripping kids away from their homes. This is about further enabling that California schools are a safe place for learning and that are a safe place for teaching and are a safe place for community. Thank you.

Senator Rubio. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I also rise as a proud coauthor of SB 48. And I think it's important to highlight that, that I believe the general idea sometimes is that only immigrant families are impacted by what's happening in our schools.

But I want to remind all of us on this floor that this is something that impacts all children in our school campuses. Number one, we are starting to see students not showing up to school because of fear. And it's not just immigrant children. It's our entire community that's being traumatized and in a state of panic.

Schools are losing the average daily attendance because they're not getting all students showing up to school. What does that mean for the rest of the class is that we're not getting the necessary materials and tools and whatever we need to teach because we're losing funding.

I think anything that we can do to keep our children engaged, learning, healthy. It's a good thing. It's a good thing. As Californians, as neighbors, as human beings, I think we would want our children to not feel fear as they're going to school. We want them focused on what we need them to focus on. Learning, curriculum.

That's what we want. Children that are going to be well read, well studied, and that could grow up to be productive citizens. What we're seeing now is they're not showing up to school. That's only going to harm our entire state as a whole. And we are seeing friends of those that are immigrant children that are also traumatized.

It doesn't matter what the immigration status is. So anything that we can do again to show that our schools are safe is a good thing. And I'm really just surprised that we're having this debate.

I think that as a teacher, it's hard enough for us to teach our kids when they're coming to class hungry, stressed, sleeping in cars. Why do we want to add something more to these poor individuals who are just trying to learn?

So I am wholeheartedly supporting this, again as a coauthor. And I think that we need to really just understand we're dealing with children. We're dealing with children. Adults have a hard enough time dealing with trauma. Let's not do that to our kids. Thank you.

Senator Gonzalez, you may close.

Thank you Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues, all who spoke in support of this Bill. We, we all come from different backgrounds, but I will tell you, as a mother of a soon-to-be fifth grader in public schools, he himself is terrified. He sees what's going on in the news and he's terrified.

I think as a Senator from San Gabriel Valley, as both of them mentioned, one is a teacher. We know that kids, even if they are US Citizens, have been deported under this Administration. So I think it is misinformation and irresponsible, quite frankly, to say that this is not happening. It is absolutely happening.

And I would beg that some Senators go to speak to the parents of the South LA children that were bugged and basically asked as fourth graders, my son's age, to go to the front office because you need to talk to Homeland Security agents, multiple Homeland Security agents who were in vests, masks, and had guns beside them.

Would you not be afraid as a fourth grader to go to the front office under the guise of a Wellness check? So SB 48 absolutely says no. We need to put protocols in place and it can't just be the LAUSDs and the San Diegos of the world.

It has to be every school district, whether you are in rural or urban California to be able to protect children. And a vote against this is basically saying you don't protect children. It's saying that you don't care about public education. It's saying that you don't care about business because parents are being taken away at the farm as farm workers.

Restaurants in San Diego were being, you know, deporting all the cooks out there. I mean, you're, yhat's what you're saying. So with that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote. And this is not, should not be political whatsoever. Thank you.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

On the urgency, ayes 28, noes 7. On the Bill, ayes 28, noes 7. The measure passes.

Now we move on to file item 75, SB 52. Senator Perez. She is ready.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 52 by Senator Perez an act relating to housing.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'm here to present SB 52, the End AI Rent Hikes Act. SB 52 will make using algorithms to collude and artificially inflate rental prices illegal in California.

California is facing a severe rental housing affordability crisis. In the most expensive state to rent, the average Californian would need to earn an hourly wage of $47.38 to afford a two bedroom apartment. While the rental housing affordability crisis is not new, what is new is how landlords are using AI to inflate rents beyond what is fair.

AI companies are using algorithms to set rent prices based on rental data from thousands of landlords and other sources. These AI driven rent setting algorithms and websites turn competitors into collaborators, facilitating a seemingly unlawful information sharing operation that manipulates the housing market for an anti competitive gain. Algorithmic rent pricing has become deeply embedded in our housing markets

across the country. Although existing federal and state laws set precedents defining illegal antitrust business practices, the use of AI backed revenue rent setting algorithms continues. Landlords are still sharing and compiling competitive data through this and other platforms in a backroom collusive manner to fix prices well beyond market rates.

While federal and states have begun taking legal action, local government officials have already begun taking action because we cannot afford to wait for the courts when landlords are coordinating to raise rates and setting commercial terms that are worsening the affordability crisis now.

And this bill in the language is actually very similar to local ordinances that we've seen passed all across the State of California. We need to act quickly to keep up with the speed and scale at which tech is enabling rent fixing and to clarify protections for renters trying to get by.

SB 52 makes it clear that the use of these algorithms are for rent fixing is illegal, while also providing mechanisms for accountability and enforcement for using these algorithms. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no mics raised. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

Ayes, 27. Noes 9. The measure passes. Now item number 77, SB 75, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is ready.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 75 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas an act relating to employment.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, colleagues. And I rise to present SB 75, which creates a structured pathway for formerly incarcerated individuals to secure meaningful employment in the skilled trades, a critical gap in our workforce. As Chair of Labor Committee, I know firsthand the need for inclusive skilled and supported labor force. Yet our reentry system continues to fail

justice involved individuals offering few opportunities for sustainable quality employment for a successful reintegration and contribution to our communities. Having worked closely with vulnerable communities, I've seen firsthand, particularly when we think about women in custody who face a staggering 70% likelihood of experiencing the highest levels of unemployment upon release.

And these are mothers, these are key and so so often the sole wage earner. Yet the state has allocated 7.8 million to a male facility while investing nothing in an equivalent support for female facilities. This disparity underscores the pressing need for an equitable gender responsive re entry resource now. This bill isn't just about job placement.

It's about long term economic mobility, public safety, workforce equity and stronger families. This pilot includes a comprehensive evaluation of employment retention, recidivism, reduction and cost savings with the goal of building a scalable model statewide. SB 75 is common sense. It has bipartisan support and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no vote. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I briefly rise in support of this bill as well and thank the author from Los Angeles for bringing it forward. Obviously I can't talk about this without talking about oil. 70% of the state's oil used to come from my district. But thousands of people are unemployed.

Many people have lost their jobs and their businesses have started to leave our district. But what was really sad is seeing all of our second chancers that had an opportunity to come out of the prison system and get a job in the industry.

Because you can teach anybody to do the job, but you can't teach them to show up on time and to just be good employees. And 30% of the employees who worked in the oil industry, like Jerry Flores or Jamal Williford or hundreds of others that we could, that I could name, lost their job.

And Jerry's story when he came up here to talk to some of you was like, my mama used to get people together for bail money and now I have a house in my backyard where she gets to share the backyard with his kids and her grandchildren.

That house is now gone because he was not able to keep it when he lost his job several years ago. He's been going from job to job. But 30% second chancers are employed in the oil industry. If we have opportunity of permits to employ them, they make excellent wages, retirement benefits.

They're taught multi craft and multi skill because they do multi craft jobs all day every day. And it was a great opportunity to employ these individuals so they had an opportunity for success in the outside world. And this is a great bill and response respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for bipartisan support and supporting our reentry efforts, particularly for those underrepresented populations that need a chance to contribute to communities in meaningful ways. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas moves the call. And now item 78, SB 80. Senator Caballero. She is prepared, Secretary, please read. Technical difficulties. One moment, please.

Senate Bill 80 by Senator Caballero an act relating to energy.

Thank you, Mr. President. And please. Members, I'm pleased to present SB80, which would require the California Energy Commission to establish fusion energy hubs in California. In my district, families and businesses struggle with rising energy costs and an unstable grid during heat waves.

We have to rely on energy sources that can't keep up, leaving us with high bills and unreliable service. We need a solution that offers consistent, reliable and affordable energy. Something that we can depend on no matter what the weather is. And that's where fusion energy comes in. Nuclear fusion has the capacity to address our climate change challenges.

The energy it produces is potentially limitless and does not include the harmful waste Association associated with nuclear fission. To accelerate the development of nuclear fusion, SB80 would direct the California Energy Commission to establish regional fusion energy hubs in California.

These would be collaborative efforts to include a network of national laboratories, national user facilities, local governments, industries and consumers, and would provide grant funding for those hubs to assist in in fusion's technological gaps.

Members, I had a visit from the scientific community at our universities that said, look, we are training young leaders in the area of fusion, but once they graduate, they have nowhere to go. They are leaving to go to other states.

It's a state drain from our state, and we absolutely need to do everything possible to create fusion hubs where the research can continue to be perfected. And that's what this Bill is all about. The Commission is also to prioritize apprenticeships and partnerships and opportunity for skilled training.

The hubs would work to retain top researchers and students and grow jobs in our nuclear fusion sector. The Bill creates the Fusion Research and Development Innovation Fund within the Commission to provide the necessary grant funding and and accelerate the deployment of the new technology. And monies in the Fund would be available upon legislative appropriation.

So we don't Fund it. That's one thing. But we absolutely need to make a commitment and indicate to the market that Fusion. California wants to be a leader in fusion. I respectfully ask for your. aye vote,

Senator McNerney. You're recognized.

Well, I thank the President, I thank the General lady from Merced for bringing this forward. Anytime I have a chance to brag about fusion, I'm going to do it. Fusion is the way of the future. Right now we think of Silicon Valley as a big economic driver.

Fusion is going to be much bigger because it's energy, it's fat wires, and it's going to bring a transformation of our energy system. But it needs work now. California is Already a significant leader in fusion energy.

University of California, San Diego, General Atomics, Livermore Labs, the great universities of this state, the many fusion companies that are already getting investor money.

Investor money, let me tell you, in the State of California, we need to retain that leadership so that we can not only add to national security, but but we can add to economic growth and economic dominance of California in the country and the world. So I want to thank the gentlewoman from Merced.

And our urge is strong support. And I think everybody should stand up and raise their hands and say, I support Fusion. I ask for an aye

Seeing no other mics up, the gentlewoman may close.

Thank you very much. I want to recognize and thank my colleague from Pleasanton. He's really the expert. He studied this way back in the day. And so with that, I would ask for your aye vote.

[Roll Call]

Senator Caballero moves the close, moves the call. Now we're going to file item 80. S.B. 82. Senator Umberg. Oh, Secretary, please read Senate Bill 82.

By Senator Umberg and act relating to contracts.

Danke. All right, so thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. SB 82 deals with an issue concerning infinite arbitration clauses. And what those are are clauses that you agree to in a contract that has nothing to do with the tort that's at issue. So let me give you an example.

So you sign up for DirecTV and you agree to use DirecTV services, and two months later, a DirecTV truck runs you over. You find out that when you signed up for DirecTV services, on your television or on your computer, that you were also agreeing to arbitrate an accident where a DirecTV truck ran you over.

This simply says that the agreement in the contract has to relate with respect to arbitration to the harm that's at issue. I urge an aye vote.

And seeing no microphones up. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Senator Umberg moves the call, moves the call.

Now, file item 82, SB 221. Senator Ochoa Bogh. Will be prepared in a moment. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 221 by Senator Ochoa Bogh an act relating to crimes.

This is where we play the Jeopardy music. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Bill 221 is a reintroduction of SB89 from last year, which passed this House on consent.

SB221 will better protect victims of stalking by amending the state penal code to conform to the federal stalking statute to include threats to a victim's pet as a component of threatening behavior that could be used could be used to establish a pattern of conduct.

The crime of stalking is composed of a pattern of conduct that places victims in fear for their safety or the safety of their family Members or pets.

The standard approved to convict a stalker is very high, the highest of all standards in the law, meaning there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the pattern of stalking behavior to convict the offender. Unfortunately, stalking victims are unprotected by state law when it comes to threats against their pets.

If example if a stalker threatens a victim's pet to instill fear in their victim, this behavior cannot currently be used to establish a pattern of stalking. Pet owners consider their animals to be a Member of their family or to be a necessary part of their lives.

If we're talking about service animals and stalkers should not be used or be able to be used as threats against the animal as a means to harass, manipulate or terrorize the victim. Threats to family Members are already covered under state law.

SB221 would simply update California's anti stalking law by adding threats to pets to the list of behaviors used to establish a pattern of stalking. Current law ignores how powerful a threat to a beloved pet can be.

Not updating state statue leaves victims vulnerable and gives stalkers a method of perpetuating fear in their victims without consequence, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And seeing no microphones raised, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Ochoa Bogh moves the call. Next up is file item 83, SB226. Senator Cabaldon has been ready for a few minutes.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 226 by Senator Cabaldon, an act relating to community colleges.

Thank you, President. This Bill is a district Bill. It applies to one single county in all of California, which is Yolo County, contained entirely within my district. 1960 California birthed the concept of universal access to community colleges for higher education and ordered a couple of years later that every square inch of California be placed in a community college district.

And each community was consulted for how it wished to proceed. In my County of Yolo, the voters of Woodland voted overwhelmingly, 80% not to join the Yuba Community College district. Why would they do that? They wanted to be with the rest of Yolo County. But the prize in Yolo County always was back then, getting the City of Davis and the University of California at Davis.

And so instead, the Los Rios Community College District, which covers Sacramento county and much of the rest of that region, drew a finger through Yolo County, through what would later become West Sacramento, to pick up UC Davis and Davis and to exclude the predominantly Latino communities of Woodland and Winters.

Yolo County became the only county in California divided, carved up, sliced up into four different community college districts in which it is the majority of none.

So we are part of the river delta districts, which in San Joaquin County, Los Rios, Yuba, and Solano. The State Board of Education, sorry, the Board of Governors of the California community colleges in 1972 rejected the plea of Woodland and the rest of the county to stay whole despite that 80% vote, and over the county's objections, placed Woodland into the Yuba Community College District.

What this Bill does is it it allows the State Board of Governors, at its option or at the petition of the local community in Yolo County, to consolidate Yolo into a single community college district, any of the four districts that it is currently divided into...

...so that students in that county, all students, can have the same access to the educational opportunities anchored at UC Davis, which is the preeminent University of California campus in our region, as well as Sacramento State University.

Now, there is a procedure in state law. Some of the skeptics about the Bill might note that procedure has never been successfully used to reorganize a community college district. The two times that community college districts have been reorganized in California both required legislation.

First by Senator Jim Brulte to create the Copper Mountain Community College District out of the Desert Community College District, and second, by Assemblymember Stan Statham to split the Feather River Community College out of the Peralta Community College District. There has never been a successful petition at the local level.

So a Bill like this is absolutely necessary to proceed and is necessary to undo what was the most severe act of educational redlining in the history of the community colleges. Now, there have been some questions about what happens to the labor contracts and to the employees. State law is very clear here.

Every single employee is entitled to their full salary, benefits, everything else that they currently have, no matter what district they are part of, as well as procedures for the property, for the bonds, for the public records. Everything else state law already provides for, a procedure which the Board of Governors would be required to assure has been complied with.

So this Bill simply creates the path forward for that injustice in 1972 to be undone and for the people of Yolo County, all of its people of all racial backgrounds, to be united in a single community college district. Again, this is a district Bill that applies only to Yolo County. Ask for an aye vote.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you. As the chair of the Senate Education Committee, I rise to offer comments on SB 226, a Bill that seeks to streamline the process for transferring territory between community college districts and counties currently serviced by multiple districts.

The Bill raises important issues related to student access and regional equity, goals I fully support. However, it also represents a significant change from the current district reorganization process, which has historically relied on a local engagement, detailed impact assessments, and in some cases, a public vote.

While I definitely support the efforts to improve efficiency and reduce barriers to student success, there are still concerns about this current structure of the Bill and its process. In Committee, I asked the author to continue conversation with stakeholders to resolve outstanding issues.

Although we have not yet seen substantive changes, I am encouraged by the good Senator from West Sacramento's commitment to continue working through the details before the Bill reaches the governor's desk. That commitment is both very appreciated and necessary.

For those reasons, I'm prepared to support the Bill today with the strong expectation that the author will continue to engage directly and meaningfully with the opposition to ensure that these concerns are addressed in a collaborative and thoughtful manner.

So appreciate the good work from the Senator from West Sacramento and I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Senator Alvarado-Gil, you are recognized. Help turn the microphone on.

Will the author take a question, please?

Through the President, the author will take a question.

Yes, thank you. I, I tend to want to support district bills and I just want to be very clear on this. On the summary, it does have a list of other counties that this would apply to.

If we can just get clarification that this would only impact Yolo county because in the summary there are several other counties that it would impact.

Yeah, thank you for the question. The, the, the Bill only applies, and here's the criteria. It only applies to county in which the county is divided into multiple community college districts and it is the majority of none. That definition specifically applies only to one county in the whole State of California and that is Yolo County.

Okay, I'm sorry, the last definition I just didn't hear. I'm sorry.

Yeah, it only Any, any county, for example, that is part of a Multi County district, which I know many of the, of the Foothill and Sierra counties are. Any county which is divided in many, many, many districts like San Diego or Los Angeles, those are automatically excluded. But the Bill, we've checked the numbers.

And everyone has concurred. That definition applies to, to one single county, Yolo County.

Thank you so much.

And seeing no other microphones up, Senator Cabaldon, you may close.

Thank the chair of the Committee for her Comments. And we are certainly committed to working for, working together with the various interested parties as well in order to complete the details here.

But this is an important action to undo the act of educational redlining and to restore educational equity and in our county and our region, opportunities for our students. And I ask for an aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Cabaldo moves the call and next is file item 86, SB 249. Senator Umberg. You may proceed, Not yet.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 249 by Senator Umberg, an act relating to county Boards of Education.

Now you may proceed.

Gracias, Presidente Niello... ...I rise to present SB 249, which simply moves the County Board of Superintendent-, excuse me, County Board of Education elections from the primary to the general. It expands the electorate. These are important positions that play a critical role in the education of our young people.

And it is important that as many voters as possible actually help make that decision. And therefore, moving it from the primary to the general expands that universe. I urge an aye vote.

Senator Strickland, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise in opposition to this Bill, Senate Bill 249, which unfairly targets the local County Board of Education in Orange County. 249 undermines, encroaches upon local control.

Having experienced local government myself and returning back to state government, I can confidently state that that local governments understand what's best for their communities instead of people here in Sacramento.

A one-size-fits-all mentality just doesn't work. What might be good for some people in Fresno or Sacramento might be different for folks in Orange County. And I encourage the body to not vote for this Bill.

This measure is unnecessary because the existing law already provides a process for the Board of Elections to change election date and align with statewide general election if they want to. Therefore, I urge your no vote on this Bill.

Senator Ochoa Bogh. Oh, I thought your mic was up. No?

Yeah, I can.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. And ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I hate to be redundant, but I just want to echo the comments that my, that my colleague from Huntington Beach actually express.

And the fact is that most County Board of Educations already have the capacity to actually change their elections to whenever they seemed it's best for their actual counties.

So I think this is just state coming and having an overreach over what currently can already happen if the constituents of those particular counties are wanting to change and do.

So if it's directed by the local residents, it can already happen. So I don't think that this Bill is actually necessary. I think folks in their local jurisdictions can already do that. And for that, I will be opposing the Bill today.

Senator Choi, you're recognized.

Thank you, President. I also rise in the strong opposition of SB 240. This Bill unfairly targets a local authority of five county boards, including Orange County. Quite simply, local boards of election have the authority to set the date of local elections. This is state outreach encroaching on the local control. I strongly urge your no vote.

Senator Grove, you're recognized.