Senate Floor

Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

We have a quorum and we are ready to begin our day. Would 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.

So let us pray today that we will heed at least some of the advice given by Walt Whitman in these few lines from his poem Leaves of Grass. This is what you should do. Love the earth and sun and the animals. Despise riches. Give alms to everyone that asks. Stand up for the stupid and crazy.

Devote your income and labor to others. Hate tyrants. Argue not concerning God. Have patience and indulgence toward the people. Re examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book. Dismiss whatever insults your own soul and your very flesh shall be a great poem.

So gracious God, grant that our lives may be a poem that gives glory to you in all of creation. Amen.

Please join in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag.

[crowd says the pledge]

Privileges of the floor, there are none. 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. Motions and resolutions and notices.

Seeing no mics up, we are going to wait just one second because a mic is going up. Senator Jones, for what reason do you rise?

Motions and resolutions, Mr. President.

Thank you. Members and guests, I rise today to make a motion that I think will be very helpful to all of us here on the Senate Floor. I'd like to withdraw Senate Bill 2 from the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and bring it to the Senate Floor for consideration of this body.

Please proceed.

Since the bill failed in committee, the Air Resources Board admitted they ignore how their regulations impact gas prices. By bringing this bill to the floor, we allow every member the opportunity to repeal Governor Newsom's 65 cent gas price hike or defend his higher prices. What's happened since this bill failed in committee is,

many of our members, in a bipartisan manner have called for the resignation of the chair of the California Air Resources Board, based on these comments that were made in an Assembly Committee hearing. And so Senate Bill 2 would give the Senate an opportunity to repeal some of the LCFS regulations that were passed by CARB back in November.

I asked for an aye vote on this motion.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you. I would also concur with our- our leader. One of the toughest parts the Legislature has been talking about, affordability. One of the things that's most unaffordable in California right now is gasoline. In fact, a lot of people across the State of California are having to decide between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas.

High gas prices fall disproportionately on those hard working California families. They can't make ends meet and we can't continue.

Senator Strickland, if you'll stick to the motion to withdraw.

Okay, thank you. Well, I think it's important to withdraw this bill because if you want to talk about affordability in the state and you really want to be serious, the way to do that is by bringing this bill forward,

voting for this bill. Because as projected by USC's Market Research, that said, gasoline can go up to $8 a gallon next year. Members, your constituents can't afford $8 a gallon of gas. And it's about time we bring this bill forward and put it forward and lighten the gas price for all Californians.

And so therefore, I support my leader's motion.

Thank you, Majority Leader.

Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I- I thank you for making sure that we're talking about the motion here. And Mr. President, members, good morning. And I just ask that we request a no vote. Thank you very much.

So we have a request for a no vote from Majority Leader Senator Gonzalez and an aye vote from Senator Jones. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

One moment, members, we are working on a technical issue.

Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

Ayes, 10. Noes, 23. Motion fails. Members, we will move to consideration of the daily file today. We will begin with item 19.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 835 by Senator Ochoa Bogh, an act relating to pupil instruction.

Senator, you are recognized.

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Bill 835 will give Cambridge University's advanced academic curriculum the same standing in the Education Code as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs, the other two internationally recognized providers of advanced academic programs for K-12 schools.

The Bill also offers guidance on the criteria that should be met before any privately developed program, curriculum, or examination can be identified by name in the education code. SB 835 does not place additional requirements on school districts or students.

It simply places the Cambridge Advanced Academic Program in the Education Code to benefit current and future Cambridge international students. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Just to express a few concerns about the Bill, we've had extensive discussions with the author about this in the Education Committee as well. And the Cambridge Program is, is a solid program. The Education Code—sorry, I'm a little under the weather.

The Education Code is—should not be a billboard for private companies with curriculum packages. It is true that we have, for many, many years, had the Advanced Placement tests and International Baccalaureate programs in the Education Code, but those came after they were already widely adopted by school districts throughout California. So, I raised the concern with the author.

I know she's working on—she's continuing to work on this issue, that it's just not—the right process here is not for a couple of schools to do something and come to us, to have us tell educators what a good program is. We've always done it the other way around.

What, what do teachers and schools believe, at scale in California, are the right programs, rather than us telling them and putting an Ed Code section that is basically a billboard for a single, a single institution. So, I know the author understands this. I'm hoping that we'll continue to work on it in the Assembly and that this program is.

There's nothing wrong with it, but the—but the Education Code shouldn't be a bus stop billboard for individual companies, and we should have education—educators—do this first and bring it to us, rather than us tell educators what they should be teaching.

Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Ochoa Bogh, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. For those reasons, addressing some of the concerns that my good friend and colleague and member of the Education Committee expressed, I added intent language to clarify that in order for any privately developed program, curriculum, or examination to be identified by name in the Education Code must be specified, must have specified criteria, including it's already offered by a local education agency within the state, has been approved as meeting the A-G admissions requirements of the University of California and the California State University.

It includes a comprehensive standardized examination that has been evaluated and recommended for college credit by the American Council of Education and is supported by professional development and training for teachers and school site staff offering the course set of articulated courses or exam. With this, I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Ochoa Bogh moves the call. We will now move to File Item 22, SB 403 by Senator Blakespear. Seccretary, please read.

Senate Bill 403 by Senator Blakespear. An act relating to public health.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise today to present SB 403, which removes the sunset for the End of Life Option Act, which is California's Medical Aid and Dying Law.

Medical Aid and dying gives mentally capable terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live the option to request from their Doctor a prescription for medication that they can then decide to self administer and die peacefully in their sleep.

For the last nine years, we have had this legal protection that allows for individuals with a terminal illness that will lead to their death to have medical autonomy in determining their end of life. Nine years of data shows the law is working exactly as lawmakers intended.

And medical aid in dying is being safely practiced in California, even for people who don't take the medication. It provides peace of mind for people who fear a painful death and know that they have an option.

The latest report shows that in 2023, 1281 terminally ill Californians obtained prescriptions for medical aid in dying, and 884 of these patients, 69% took the medication. In 2023, the aid in dying medication was prescribed by 337 unique physicians.

The looming sunset date can cause undue stress and fear in people diagnosed with a disease that will in several years be the cause of their death. Many Californians want to know that they will have this option. There is no other medical aid and dying law in the country that has a sunset date.

Removing the sunset does not take away the right of legislators to reevaluate and amend the law at any future point. SB 403 removes this sunset, making the End of Life Option Act permanent. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Grayson. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I get to speak from a very personal perspective. First of all, I'm rising in support of SB 403 and thank the author for her thoughtful bill.

I rise to only support the bill simply because of the very stringent guidelines that have been built into the framework of this bill and the very rare, rare occasions that this option would ever be used in a person's life.

I say that because I can remember the occasion in which my father arrived home just in time to keep my mother from taking her own life because of the pain that she was in.

And the latter part of her life, the end of her days started with her losing her toe, then losing her foot, then losing her leg below the knee, then being cut off half thigh, then her organs shutting down and then her eyes going blind to where she couldn't see her children. The pain was excruciating, terribly excruciating.

And I realized at that point that the many, many, many prescriptions that she was taking was not so she could live. It was to simply keep her from dying.

And for that I rise today, for us to make sure that we deal with this sunset so that people in very rare cases and under very strict guidelines may have a choice to not become an experiment with drugs, but to be able to have some type of dignity when they exit this life and enter into the hands of our Lord.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Becker, you are recognized at your desk.

I thank my. My colleague from Concord for sharing that story and for the colleague from Encinitas for bringing this up. I want to just share a personal story because this had always been very theoretical for me and we went through this last year with my friend's wife.

And, you know, fortunately towards the end she was still quite in good spirits. But the prognosis was extremely clear and she took this medicine. It was a very intense experience. I could tell more stories sort of around it that I heard from my friend and he shared with all of us.

But ultimately it was a really beautiful thing as well and glad we have this in place. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Menjivar you are recognized.

Thanks Mr. President. You know, I rise in my capacity of health chair and I can't as eloquently share personal stories as my colleagues have. But I do want to share that this- this program has been working as intended to bring peace of mind to terminally ill individuals.

And and in the committee, the author took an amendment to address some of the concerns of the opposition. The opposition was asking for more data on this program which I think they are within their right. We should have more data and we do collect almost more data than any other state that has this program.

But we don't distribute all that data. So the amendment that she took is to have the department come together with stakeholders on determining what more data can be pulled that is already accessible to make public.

But I respectfully asked for an aye vote on extending the sunset because this is a program that is needed for a lot of terminally ill individuals.

Thank you Senator. Senator Laird, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of this bill. And if you just look at some of the facts, 94% of the people that have utilized this are in hospice or palliative care. It is really a clear delineation. And if you-

We don't operate out of polls, but 75% of the public polled in California supports this effort.

And there was an op ed in the Sacramento Bee a few days ago that ran in other places in my district that this morning from Dan Diaz who was on the with together with his wife was on the front page of I believe it was People Magazine at the time.

She had to go to Oregon and deal with it before this was in the law. And it is a very, very powerful reason that we need to do this.

I also would commend to you there's a story in the New York Times last fall, Shmuel Thaler, who's a well known Santa Cruzan and prize winning photographer, his mother chose in New York to end her life. She was known because her brother was Ed Koch, the mayor of New York.

And the New York Times covered a long accounting of how the family gathered, how she chose to do it, what her affliction was, how it was a blessing for the family that- that she was going to be out of her pain.

But it was a way that in an adult manner people gathered around in the family there's even a humorous anecdote because she called the New York Times and said she was reporting an obituary, and they said, whose? And she said mine, because she was calling before it happened.

And I think that if you read that, you get the full flavor of why this is necessary, how it's handled responsibly, how family members can step up. And for those of us that lived through the intensity of the AIDS epidemic, this would have been so important to have in place.

I cannot describe the number of people I was with when they were in excruciating pain. There wasn't much hope for their life being extended and there was nothing we could do. And they fully had their capacities. They were fully aware of the pain and the suffering that they were experiencing, what was going on.

They could have made a responsible, legally viable, under this law, decision that would have spared them that and spared their family and friends what it was like to be there, to go all the way through it. And when I was in the assembly, I was there for very often unsuccessful attempts to do this.

And there were these strong arguments. And I think the experience of this law being in place has refuted almost every one of those arguments. There is no abuse. There is nothing being forced on people. There is not this as an out for somebody with a disability.

And so I think it is time that we remove this sunset and that we continue to compile the data that has proven the need for this law. And so I salute the author for bringing it forward. I know it's a difficult decision, but voting for this bill is the right decision.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Valladares, you're welcome.

Thank you. Colleagues and I rise in respectful opposition. This is deeply personal, obviously, to a lot of us here in this room. And it's hard, but it's important, especially as we consider whether or not to remove the sunset on California's assisted suicide law. In 2012, my mom was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

By some miracle, it was caught early and she had massive surgery to remove it. And after months of brutal chemo, she went into remission for nearly six years. But in 2018, the cancer came back, stage four. The prognosis, six to 18 months. I'm now brought back to that moment in that oncologist's office. I was a new mom.

My daughter was barely walking. And here I was being told that I would lose my mom. I became her full time caregiver, her advocate, her voice. I fought with hospital staff, with doctors, with nurses, paper pushers to demand better care. I pushed for pain management. And the pain.

My mom's pain was so unbearable, I could see it in her face all the time. But I fought for her. Not because I had special access, but because I refused to let her die without dignity. I had to. She was my mom. But here's what I learned.

Unless you have the time, the resources, or someone to fight for you, our system does not offer the same level of care, especially not at the end of life. Poor families, immigrants, people of color, and rural Californians too often face limited options, inconsistent care, and unbearable suffering. That's why I oppose removing the sunset.

Not to oppose the law, but because the least we can do is require regular reporting, review, and accountability. We owe that to our communities, who are most at risk of falling through the cracks. When systems fail, it's always the underserved who suffer the most. This isn't theoretical for me, it's deeply personal.

And if we want to lead with compassion and equity, then we must be willing to revisit and refine this law, not lock it in permanently and walk away. I respectfully asked for a no vote.

Thank you, Senator Valladares. Seeing no other mics raised, Senator Blakespear, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I- I want- Really want to thank those of you who stood today and shared your personal stories and to recognize the richness of the experiences that people have around death.

I come to this topic having practiced estate planning law for many years, which is- which is why I was having conversations with people about their end of life.

Because people who come in for estate planning are drafting their wills and trusts and their advanced health care directives, and they're asking about what they have control over, what they can give control to an agent for and what they can't. And the reality we all know is that we will all die.

And we- we face the death of our parents and our grandparents and our loved ones around us, and we all have a different experience with- with the variety of different ways that people die.

And one of the things that has been so clear to me when I've started to work in this area and have talked to countless people about this, is that people would like to be together with their family members as they are approaching death, to not be constrained by some of the laws that they fear.

So, for example, if somebody has a terminal illness and they see the end and they see the degradation of their quality of life and they see the suffering, people will resort to types of suicide, and they want to protect their family members, so they will do it in ways that create waves of trauma in families.

And people, so many people have said, I wish I had helped my mom or my dad when they came to me. I wish I could have been with them at the end. But we didn't want to risk any legal consequences. There are- There are innumerable stories that are like that. And this is not.

It's really important to distinguish that this medical aid in dying is not suicide, because suicide is when people want to die. But medical aid in dying is people who are deciding they don't want to suffer. They know that they will die, but they do not want to suffer.

And so medical aid in dying is the, the end of life option. It's deciding at the end of life what it is, how it is that you will have your final exit.

And seeing those nuances in the differences between- between- between what the law is and what people fear, it's really important to just recognize that, because- because we know that having- having the beginning of life, having your full life, having the end of life be something that's under your control, that you choose, that's your personal autonomy, that's your path.

Ultimately, that is the core of self determination. That is the core of saying that we give you the autonomy to decide. And- And I think nine years of data show, and we are collecting an enormous amount of data. It shows that this law is working. There are 11 other states that have this law in effect.

None of them have sunsets. And the reality of a sunset is that people get diagnosed with something that they know will eventually lead to their death, but they're not within six months right now. But they think, what happens when I get there? Will this law be in effect when I get there?

And that's what's driving the removal of the sunset, is to say, we want people to have the peace of mind, to know that they will be able to make that choice when they get to within six months of death. But right now, the law is very limited.

It is only applicable to people with a terminal illness who are within six months of death. So- So just recognizing 1,200 people in a year who are accessing it is relatively small. And I- I- I want to recognize my colleague who spoke against it.

We would like to make it so that there's more education, that everybody understands what is available to them, that all doctors are aware of the choices that they are- that they are freely communicating with patients. You know, the concerns that she raised were- were about the fact that not enough people know about it.

And I think that is something we need to continue to work on. But this is solely the removal of a sunset. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

Ayes 25, noes 6. The measure passes. We will move to item 23. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 433 by Senator Wahab. An act relating to health and care facilities.

Senator Wahab, you are recognized.

Thank you. I rise to present SB 433, which establishes room and board rate protection for participants in the Assisted Living Waiver and CalAIM Assisted Living Facility Transitions Community Support Programs. The ALW and Assisted Living Community Supports Programs, both Medi-Cal funded, allow participants to live in residential care facilities for the elderly, RCFEs as an alternative to nursing home placement.

Under current law, RCFEs may not charge Supplemental Security Income, or Social Security, recipients more than a standardized monthly rate for a room and board. State regulations require the standardized rate, established by the Department of Social Services, to leave those residents with a monthly personal needs allowance of $179 for 2025.

However, low-income Medi-Cal recipients without SSI are not protected by an income-based rate cap and are not entitled to keep a personal needs allowance. The population comprises nearly a 45% of the program's participants. So, just think to yourself that if you only had $179 for the full month, what would you do?

Can you pay your groceries? Can you pay your phone bill? Can you do any of these things? So, recently, some facilities have taken advantage of this distinction in the law to compel non-SSI residents and family members to pay out of pocket for rate increases, or face eviction.

Without room and board rate protections, program participants are older adults or seniors, often with cognitive impairments and individuals with significant disabilities, are at risk of losing their homes and care, not only harming themselves, but also impacting their families.

SB 433 creates an income-based cap to RCFE room and board rates that allows all Medi-Cal Assisted Living Program participants to keep the same personal needs allowance. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call absent Members.

[Roll Call]

"Ayes," 31. "Noes," 5. The measure passes. Item 24. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 435 by Senator Wahab, an act relating to residential care facilities for the elderly.

Senator, you're recognized.

Thank you. I rise to present SB 435, which requires residential care facilities for the elderly to have alternative sources of power capable of supporting residents' health and safety for 72 hours during power outages. Since 2022, skilled nursing facilities have been putting backup power power into place for their residents.

By contrast, seniors and disabled individuals who reside in RCFEs remain unprotected from power outages, disasters, and rolling blackouts. RCFE residents, who are often frail or have chronic illnesses such as dementia, are not able to protect themselves without a continuous power supply and rely on equipment and systems powered by electricity.

In 2024 investor owned utilities performed 34 public safety power, PSP, shutoffs. A single PSP event can impact tens of thousands of customers. Approximately 200,000 older adults and persons with disabilities live in RCFEs throughout California.

One third of our senior facilities are in high risk fire zones, many more located in high heat zones, which puts them at risk of power blackouts. Seniors are particularly vulnerable during extreme heat waves. This past weekend, we experienced triple digit temperatures throughout the Central Valley and elsewhere.

Imagine July and August when the likelihood of blackouts will be more frequent. Residents will be endangered and first responders will be overwhelmed. Without mandated emergency power, residents face unnecessary and preventable risks, such as the loss of ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, oxygen machines, hearing aid chargers, and other medical devices. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call roll for absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 38, noes 0. The measure passes. Members, we're going to move to item 26. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 526 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to air pollution.

Senator Menjivar, you are recognized. For which...

I believe I have amendments at the desk on this, on this bill. From friendly amendments.

Yes, but we do allow the author to present first and then throw that mic up. All right. Senator Menjivar, you are recognized to present your bill.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. President, I have a friendly bill in front of everybody, SB 526. Colleagues, in a concentrated area in my district, my community is having difficulty breathing good quality air. In fact, if you were an EQ Committee, you would have seen the photos of cars, homes that have thick layers of dust emission on them as if it was an apocalypse, as if it was an abandoned community. That's my soccer fields.

In an area that for some reason City of LA decided to put industrial aggregate facilities in is inundated with dust layers across the entire streets where communities play, where people live. What I'm looking to do, and I've been working on this issue ever since I was a staffer almost eight years ago, is to change the trajectory of my community members to ensure that they have access to clean water like those that live on the coast, those that don't have industrial facilities right next to their homes.

And SB 526 is looking to do that. What I want to make sure is that South Coast AQMD updates the rule and how they enforce aggregate facilities, a rule that has not been changed since 2006. So in my district, what you see are high rises in a suburban area, 50ft, 60ft, 70ft high piles, mounds of debris, aggregate material that you can see from the 5 Freeway. No other building is higher than this. I know that maybe the Senator from San Francisco would want that to be building and not mounds.

And maybe in this situation I would agree with him because I would take anything but those mounds in my district. What is happening is that however times we've submitted to South Coast AQMD to come enforce, they said that they're not violating anything. But you can physically breathe in that air that will choke you up.

It's so very thick. Now, in conversations with South Coast AQMD, they engaged with me and my office, they visited my district, they came out and they committed to me that they were gonna work on this issue. They asked that they could do it, they said that they could do it on their own.

And so they wrote me a public letter committing that they were gonna address the air quality issues in my district. And I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I want to, there's a high chance that this bill will not move forward in the Assembly because I want to see if South Coast AQMD can fulfill their promise to me and my community that they will address it.

But I want to make sure that as you and all your other bills have it there just in case that promise isn't fulfilled. But for now, I'm excited that I had that commitment from them, and my community members will be able to breathe better in the next coming year. But for now, asking for an eye vote on SB 526.

Senator Strickland, for what reason do you rise?

I rise for friendly amendments I believe been passed out that are at the desk.

Secretary, please read the amendments.

Amendments by Senator Strickland, set one.

Senator Strickland, you may speak on the amendments.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, once again this year, the legislative Democrats at the start of the year said their intention is to address the affordability crisis in California. If you're truly serious about making life more affordable, I urge you in this Legislature to adopt these amendments, which would prevent the South Coast Air Quality Management District from banning perfectly functional natural gas appliances.

Let me repeat, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is attempting to force all residents, homeowners, renters, small business owners alike, to replace perfectly good natural gas appliances with far more less expensive, actually far more expensive electric alternatives. The AQMD is yet another unelected board of bureaucrats with no accountability to the four counties it represents.

This Friday, the Air Quality Management District is considering banning natural gas furnaces and water heaters in favor of the more expensive all electric units by 2026. According to the Cost of Living Council, this could this upgrade to all electric space and water heaters can range from $1,500 to $47,000 per unit per family.

It is never a good idea to impose excessive regulation, especially considering that the cost of living in California is 42% higher than the national average. The AQMD Regional Board is trying to enact this extreme mandate with minimal transparency and input from Californians.

And today, if you are serious about making California residents live more affordable, then support my amendment, which aims to let Californians keep their gas powered furnaces and water heaters. As we all know, former Vice President Kamala Harris and the second gentleman get to use their gas stove for the rest of the year, but will leave us out in the cold, literally. I ask for your aye vote on these friendly amendments.

Majority Leader Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President and Members. SB 526 will protect overburdened and vulnerable communities in Southern California from the public health harms of particulate emissions from aggregate operations to ensure that people don't get things like, I don't know, asthma, cancer, that they're not inhaling formaldehyde or benzene.

For years, communities like the Senator's from the San Fernando Valley, and I thank her for bringing this forward, have had live to suffocated by particulate matter emissions from aggregate recycling facilities, which have led to very high asthma rates and obstructive pulmonary disease.

These amendments, as proposed by my colleague from Orange County on the other side of the aisle, would protect appliances that are far worse for indoor air quality, produce more GHG emissions, and in the long run make Californians feel the burden of high expenses. So, you know, I will speak to those amendments, and we'll ensure that we move forward seeing.

Right. Seeing no one else with their mics raised. Senator Strickland, you may close.

Thank you. To retort, I respect comments from my good friend from Long Beach, my colleague from Long Beach. However, it's very almost like Marie Antoinette, let him eat cake. You know, it's one thing to say, you know, oh, okay, we're going to be able to do this, but I think more importantly, people are having a tough time living paycheck to paycheck, and they can't afford these kind of mandates coming from the State of California.

In fact, I think they would much rather put food on the table and a roof over their head to be able to do this instead of this extreme kind of mandate come from the Air Quality Management District. And for those reasons, I bet a lot of your constituents are going to be very upset when they find out that this regulation came to fruition and you didn't do anything about it. You're going to get calls in your office, I guarantee it. I ask for your aye vote.

Senator Gonzalez, for what reason do you raise?

I move to lay the hostile amendments on the table please.

This motion is non-debatable. Secretary. First of all, Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote and Senator Strickland is asking for a no vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 28, noes 10. The motion, the amendments are tabled, and we will move back to the bill in chief. Seeing no microphones raised, no discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll on... Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I just wanted to rise in support of this bill. I will say that our colleague from Southern California has consistently brought up concerns about her district, the health care crisis in her district. This bill does help her district first and foremost, and you cannot put a price on health. Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Menjivar, you may close.

Thank you to the Senator from Hayward for the final touches on this bill. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 25, noes 10. The measure passes. Item 74. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 645 by Senator Umberg, an act relating to juries.

Senator, you may present.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. SB 645 relates to peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are challenges that counsel exercise in a jury trial where they can disqualify a juror for any reason that is not illegal. Historically, prosecutors in particular, and this is particularly pertinent to criminal law, would challenge folks based on race, based on prejudice, presumptions on biases, based on attributes that counsel would attribute to certain people, based on immutable characteristics.

The law in California is that you may not challenge folks peremptorily or otherwise based on certain criteria and they include include their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or similar grounds. Those are all illegal.

Those are all illegal reasons to peremptorily or otherwise challenge a juror. The bill that was passed in 2020 or became effective in 2020 also says that you can't use a subterfuge to basically disqualify someone for those illegal reasons. That was the law and it is the law with respect to criminal trials. This bill deals now with civil litigation and what it says is that the disqualification characteristics still apply.

You still may not challenge someone based on these illegal presumptions, but that the other procedural elements to the bill do not apply except for and the bill will be amended except for actions that involve civil rights, hate crimes or other issues where racial disparity is an issue. It is supported by both defense counsel and by consumer attorneys and I urge an aye vote.

Senator Weber Pierson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to start by expressing my sincere appreciation for the constructive and good faith dialogue between Senator Umberg, the bill sponsors, and the opposition. These discussions have led to meaningful progress and I acknowledge the importance of their efforts to include protection for civil rights litigation.

In 2020, AB 3070, authored by then Assemblymember, now Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber, represented a landmark effort to confront discrimination in jury selection by addressing both conscious and unconscious bias in the use of preemptory challenges.

That law rightfully recognized that discrimination, whether based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics, has no place in jury selection, whether in criminal or civil trials. SB 645 as originally introduced, sought to indefinitely exclude civil trials from the protections of AB 3070 before they were even set to take effect in that context.

In response to concerns raised, recent amendments to SB 645 have made a meaningful step. They now allow the anti-discrimination provisions of AB 3070 to apply in civil rights litigation and in a few other specific civil manners such as hate crimes and dependency proceedings. This is a welcome change.

Civil rights cases like those brought under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Section 1983, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act must not be exempt from protections against bias jury selections, and I commend the author for recognizing that. However, the amendment still falls short.

Discrimination in jury selection does not begin and end with civil rights statutes alone. Many cases employment discrimination, housing discrimination not brought under federal law. Reproductive justice, disability discrimination, and other statutory prohibited forms of bias are still excluded in this bill.

This bill continues to allow broad carve outs that undermine the comprehensive protections of AB 3070 intended to provide. This raises real concern about fairness and equal access to justice in all civil matters where discrimination may play a role. Jury selection is one of the most vulnerable entry points for bias in our judicial system.

When attorneys are allowed to strike jurors without accountability, communities of color, women, elders, LGBTQ individuals, and others are too often excluded based on identity rather than impartiality. In today's political climate, where judicial Independence is increasingly under pressure, we must be especially diligent in protecting the rights of marginalized communities.

We cannot allow the courtroom to become another form where discrimination is tolerated or overlooked. While I will support today this bill out of respect for the progress that it has been made, I want to be very clear this bill is not yet where it needs to be.

My hope and expectation is for continued and meaningful dialogue, especially if it goes to the Assembly, around ensuring that all forms of statutorily prohibited discrimination are addressed. Otherwise, I will not be able to support it if it comes back on concurrence. So I remain hopeful that collaboration will lead to further improvements.

Again, I want to thank Senator Umberg and the bill sponsors for their constructive engagement and strongly urge that we continue to work for a version of SB 645 that truly lives up to the principles and fairness and equity that AB 3070 embodied. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I am in violent agreement with my colleague from San Diego that peremptory challenges are born of bias. They're born of prejudice. Many states have absolutely eliminated peremptory challenges because that's exactly what they are. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have peremptory challenges because the they are used to craft a jury.

Not a fair jury, but a jury that supports your side. The challenge with that is, while I actually introduced a bill to eliminate all peremptory challenges, is that lawyers on all sides of the issue believe that they are experts in basically figuring out how to use peremptory challenges, including me. I'm often wrong, but I'm certain that I'm an expert. That would be the ultimate resolution. But in the meantime. In the meantime, I would ask you support SB 645 to circumscribe the use of periphery challenges. Urge an aye vote.

Senator, with your violent agreement, we will take a peaceful vote. Secretary, please call the roll. Folks, this is actually eligible for. This item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Any objection? Seeing no objection. Peacefully. Ayes 38, noes 0. This measure passes. Yeah. Okay. We will move to item 25. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 472 by Senator Stern. An act relating to pupil instructions.

Senator, you- you are recognized.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Members, since 1985, the Education Code is required that when we're teaching about World War II in our- in our classrooms, that the largest ever mass slaughter in modern history of people is taught.

The Holocaust is specifically mentioned as requiring particular emphasis in Section 51220 of the Education Code. It's not often that we have to bring legislation to remind people of what's already in the law.

But in this case, unfortunately, given the- the politics of today, there are some people who are simply editing that part of history out and finding it too politically uncomfortable to talk about the Holocaust and the in the context of World War II history or in the context of broader education about genocide and inhumanity.

So this bill would send a reminder out to school districts to remind them that the law does require for the Holocaust to be taught and also provides a grant framework so that those schools who may not have the resources, who may have other reasons that are- that are impeding them from doing so, can not just help with their teachers or their administrators, but also if they want to rely on, you know, nonprofits.

If- If folks from a district that doesn't have any Jewish students wants to go to the Museum of Tolerance and know what that is, that they won't be denied that opportunity. So we think this is important legislation. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise personally and also as co chair of our Legislative Jewish Caucus in strong support of SB 472.

I want to thank the author for his consistent steadfast year after year after year work on making sure that young people in California know what the Holocaust is, in addition to other genocides that have happened. Because we know that if something is not taught, people forget.

And we know that there is an active world of Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism on this planet. We just saw the other day that with- with our President's support, a new President was elected in Poland who was a Holocaust revisionists.

We have seen in this country Holocaust denial, and it's really terrifying and it's so important for our kids to be taught. I also want to say that we've seen from some of the opposition to this bill. I think we need to remember that when other bills are being opposed that they're opposing a basic Holocaust education bill.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Alvarado-Gil, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. On behalf of the California Legislative Hispanic Caucus, I rise in support of this bill. I want to thank the author for bringing awareness to a very important issue- issue of our history. I think identity and cultural heritage is such an important aspect of educating our children.

And we certainly have seen around the world the devastation that has happened to the Jewish people year after year, decade after decade. And so the history is also current time and in coming together to support the very fabric of who we are as Americans. So thank you for bringing this forward. And we ask for a support.

Aye vote.

Senator Padilla, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Colleagues, I rise in strong support just to remind our esteemed body that knowledge is a source of power, evolution and growth, individually, intellectually, spiritually and otherwise.

And we do have a deficit now, globally and in this country that is rooted in a growing chasm of ignorance, an unfamiliarity by the future, our children and our grandchildren about our past.

It is vitally important that we open up opportunities for this country for future generations to understand the difficult truths that must be confronted, lest we repeat them.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

I also would point to recent examples that flow from that ignorance of violence and discrimination proliferate in this country in recent days and weeks targeted against the Jewish community, which I strongly condemn in every possible way. This is the right step in the right direction and arise in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise in support of SB 472 and thank the author for bringing it forward. And I hadn't prepared remarks or wanted to comment on this, but I do want to address something that my good colleague from San Francisco said, that there are deniers and revisionists.

I've shared often on this floor, that my father was not a good man. And part of that was because he was a medic that went into concentration camps in World War II to rescue individuals out of concentration camps. And they had. I have. Actually, my brother has them because I gave them to him.

But thousands of photos of what my father saw that haunted him for the rest of his life or till he died, that are available to anybody who believes that this did not happen. And they are some of the most cruel, horrific looking photos that you could ever possibly imagine.

And once you see them, you can never unsee them. And it's- it's a disgrace and an abomination to humanity that humans could be that evil to other human beings. And so I thank the author for bringing this bill forward and ask for an aye vote.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I rise as the chair of the Senate Education Committee to acknowledge the incredible work that the author has done on this bill, SB 472. This is an important piece of legislation because it would provide an opportunity as well as resources for schools that do not currently provide Holocaust education, those who want to maybe further provide that education, as well as more broadly education around genocide.

We know that there are many different genocide events that have happened throughout history that are relevant to all sorts of our diverse populations throughout California. For myself In Senate District 25, I represent one of the largest, actually the largest Armenian community in the State of California.

I know that my constituents are incredibly supportive of SB 472 because it provides an opportunity for schools and for teachers who want to provide more resources around the Armenian genocide to be able to do so. We know so many of our schools, of our teachers are facing issues with funding, facing issues with resources.

The author's done an excellent job of actually building in a program so to better inform these districts about where they can gain these resources through nonprofits and community groups who want to ensure that history is never erased. And so I thank the author for his tremendous work that he's done around this.

He's worked in partnership with my committee consultants and staff and have been really impressed with his leadership in this space to make sure that we are talking about these tragic events that have happened throughout history, whether it is the Holocaust, whether it is Armenian genocide, the to ensure that we're educating our young people.

So thank you and urge an aye vote.

Senator Arreguin, you are recognized on this support support bill.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief in light of that, but I also stand in strong support of SB 472 and thank my colleague from Los Angeles for bringing this important bill forward. Many of my colleagues talked about why this is such an important bill.

This isn't just around Holocaust education, but education on genocide, which sadly, the genocide of the Holocaust wasn't the only mass genocide that has existed in our humanity or continues to exist in our humanity. And to put this in context, Senator Padilla touched on this.

The unprovoked, violent and vicious attacks against Jewish Americans in our country, the murder of two individuals outside of the an event in Washington, D.C. and the recent attack that happened in Colorado are a prime example why this is important. And just last month we recognized Holocaust Remembrance Day here in the floor of the Senate.

We had Holocaust survivors bravely come to stand with us in recognition of this atrocity and to say that never again should be never again. And they are a prime example that this did happen. So it's important that we educate our children in California about what happened so that this does never happen again.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Wahab. You're recognized.

Thank you. I want to thank the good Senator from, I'm going to say the LA area and appreciate him bringing this forward. I think some of the colleagues that have mentioned that genocides have happened prior to the Holocaust and also after, and it seems like society still doesn't understand from the tragedies of the past.

So I respectfully support this bill. I appreciate and applaud the author. I'm hoping that we can also expand language to include a little bit of information about some of the other genocides that are happening and they are happening today as well. And I want to highlight how important it is to support this bill.

Also because of the fact that we have been seeing a rise in anti Semitism. There is no denying that. When two individuals are assassinated right outside of the embassy, when there are people throwing Molotov cocktails at individuals, when people are spurning hate.

And I want to highlight this because I think it's incredibly important to speak out against all hates of any form to any people based on their identity.

And so I think that this type of education and the support to ensure that we continue to educate and teach younger people to not make the mistakes of the past is incredibly important. I do just want to acknowledge that. I hope that it does expand to some degree.

But I again respectfully request an aye vote and I thank the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Allen, you are recognized.

Just a quick comment. I obviously agree with all the comments that have been made by my colleagues, but I just want to take a moment to just recognize the leadership of our colleague, the author, on this topic. He's been working so hard on this issue for a long time.

We all know this is an issue that's close to so many of our hearts, but it's especially close to his, the son in law of a Holocaust survivor. And he's been just dogged in his work, striking, you know, the right tone, the compromises, the challenges that this bill has faced. He's been just a great leader on this topic and.

And I want to commend him and congratulate him on- on the momentum this Bill. It's a very important bill has and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Doctor President. In committee, we heard a lot of comments about this bill about all the other genocides that should be covered and should be taught. But this is fundamentally- this bill is about education, it's about schools, and there are many former teachers and professors on this floor who understand you cannot teach all of anything.

We make choices. Our curriculum frameworks say that you just can't graduate from a Spanish class without learning how to say mother in law's cousin. Like, you have to know that. But we're not telling you how to say PFAS in Spanish. Right. You make choices.

The Pythagorean theorem, which is probably the only geometry related equation that most of us think we at one point knew, that's not the most important mathematical equation in the entire planet. But we can't teach all the mathematical equations on the planet.

And so what I appreciate about this bill is it's really focused on how the Holocaust, number one, the Holocaust is exceptional. But two, it is also the anchor of a curriculum that helps young people think and make meaning and- and exercise critical thinking about genocide in- in general. It's not about teaching every single one.

It's instead finding- finding the stories that can mean something to young people and that they can then assess and evaluate and judge and participate in society in a way that makes sure that other genocides don't happen.

So I very much appreciate the author's commitment to the issue as the Center for San Juan Convention, but also in doing so in a way that really is attentive to how this plays out for real kids in school that need to learn and need to be able to carry these lessons into the next generation.

Thank you. Senator Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I also rise in strong support of this bill as not only a colleague, but as a Member of the Legislative Jewish Caucus. And I do also want to take a moment to recognize the author.

I know how long this bill has been in the works and how much work we've put into trying to ensure that it's thoughtful and that we listen to people. And I just want to say we know all the challenges that he's had, not only here, but in the other House. But finally it's here.

And I just want to rise also as a teacher, I think it's important that we give teachers the tools. This is about education, doing it in a way that's factual, it's respectful. To me, the biggest line of defense in society against hate and antisemitism and everything else that our kids are dealing with is education.

That it has the information at their fingertips, not what we hear outside. But I just want to say we have to do better. We have to be factual. And I don't want to repeat what my colleague just said, but really we could teach everything. And it's not about everything else, but we can take steps.

But this issue in particular is important, important to all of us. So I just want to say thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

I appreciate all the remarks in my comments. Despite the support support, the fact that the Senate's willing to have this conversation, debate should be a signal to the rest of the state that we're serious about telling the truth in our history.

And that a bill about Holocaust and genocide is not just a bill about what the Jewish people experienced or the Cambodian people experienced or the Armenian people experienced, but it's- it's teaching young people to ask questions about who they are and where they come from.

And it's amazing to have on this floor your father, grandfather, the people who liberated my father in law. We all sort of inherit this shared history. And I think it's going to open up and build different bridges that maybe don't exist right now. Maybe have people realize how much more they have in common.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

Senator Stern moves the call. We will now move to file item 27, SB 569, by Senator Blakespear.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 569 by Senator Blakespear. An act relating to highways.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise to present SB 569, which will direct Caltrans to improve the efficiency of its processes for working with cities in managing homeless encampments on property adjacent to state highways. Currently in my district, the City of San Diego. Thank you.

Receives over 300 complaints a month regarding homeless encampments located on state highways, which only Caltrans has the authority to address. Caltrans response to these complaints is often delayed by weeks and sometimes even months. Cities up and down the state report the same problem.

These cities have made significant efforts to align their encampment resolution programs with Governor Newsom's policy directives. But they run into coordination issues when they try to work with Caltrans to address the encampments on highways that run through the center of their communities.

Caltrans should be linking arms with our cities to address encampments and to be working expeditiously to move people indoors in order to get to functional zero in street homelessness. SB 569 will require Caltrans to establish timelines for responding to requests and to prioritize encampments that pose environmental risks like wildfire. In most parts of the state, cities have existing relationships with nonprofits and service providers. We want Caltrans to easily plug into these systems that exist already in communities.

This bill would make our highways safer for everyone and would create a better relationship between the state agency that is Caltrans and the cities and counties that are on the front lines of homelessness. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Arreguin, you are recognized at your desk.

Thank you, Madam Dr. President. I also rise in strong support of SB 569 and I strongly support this bill based on my own experience as the former mayor of Berkeley who had a long standing encampment on Caltrans right of way. And it took us years to get Caltrans attention, let alone their cooperation to remove this very hazardous encampment that posed a risk to the unhoused people that were living there as well as the broader community.

And so this bill is really essential to one have us single contact for cities that need to need the assistance of Caltrans to address encampments on state right of way, to develop and support the implementation of of department delegated maintenance agreements to ensure that if Caltrans is not going to maintain the right of way, there's an agreement to allow the jurisdiction to do that and hopefully some cost sharing as well.

And lastly, to ensure there's some reporting and accountability about the implementation of this. The governor has obviously said very clearly that he would like to see hazardous encampments addressed on straight freeways and rights of way. This requires a partnership with the state and with local government and with county government as well. I think this bill is an important step forward and respectfully, as for an aye vote and would like to be considered as a co-author when this moves to the Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo, you are recognized.

Yes. I rise to support SB 569, but I want to take advantage of the moment to give a big shout out to Caltrans in my district, District 7, who do a phenomenal job of cleanup and making sure that they respond right away with all of the requests from within our area. And that means a lot to the Californians in my area. So I want to take advantage of the moment and thank them very, very much. District 7, thank you.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise in support of SB 569 and as Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, we work together well with the author on trying to align the bill with Caltrans policies in a way that would integrate with with the local jurisdictions. And I think the balance is there. Author will certainly have a chance to refine that some more in the other House as necessary, if necessary.

I also just want to point out that just as an example, in our county, Santa Clara County, most of which is dominated especially in terms of freeway interchanges and so forth, by the City of San Jose as the county seat, Caltrans has a maintenance crew of four full-time equivalent individuals to do that entire county right to deal with this issue in the entire county.

So on the one hand, it certainly merits looking for partnerships with the locals to try to augment that effort. But if we really want Caltrans to do more, I haven't seen it in any way, shape or form as malfeasance or lack of energy on Caltrans part.

We, we just need in a non-deficit year to beef up that part of the budget and you know, double down on, on the number of FTE that we're giving them so that they can cover all the ground we're asking them to cover. I think at some point that's what we need to do as well. But as I said, I do urge an aye vote on the bill.

Thank you. Senator Wahab, you're recognized.

Thank you. I will be laying off of this bill primarily. I want to highlight a couple of things. Number one, this bill did not go through the Housing Committee, but I also understand the Senator's effort to kind of improve coordination and collaboration in addressing our homeless crisis within the agencies and jurisdictions, which tends to be a problem.

For example, in my district, oftentimes people complain about the underpass of a free way and that's all Caltrans responsibility versus, you know, our local cities. So there tends to be mix ups and misinformation, spread and misunderstandings.

The concern that I have primarily is I do believe that there needs to be a little bit more change of language and I'm hoping that the author will consider that as it moves into the next house regarding Caltrans working with personnel also of the cities, not just focusing on the policy because there are some cities that may not have a policy.

And so what is the default, right, and being able to set some again minimum standards when we are dealing with different jurisdictions, as I've always stated in California, and giving dignity to the homeless population, which I think is incredibly important. So I will respectfully lay off today, but I'm hoping that this bill comes with those adjustments. Thank you.

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

Yes. Thank you. I very much appreciate the comments of my colleagues on this bill. I mean what it shows is we have someone who came previously just months ago from being the mayor of the City of Berkeley and his experiences doing that and another Senator who said that her Caltrans district is doing a great job with encampments and another concern about cities that don't have any encampment resolution policies.

I mean what it really reflects is and as well the good Senator from San Jose reflecting on his experiences as well, what it reflects to me is the great variety of responses from this executive branch agency that is Caltrans.

And it's notable that the governor stood stands on the Caltrans right of way and does press conferences that say cleaning up trash, saying this is a crisis, dammit, act like it. And then we have such unevenness between districts around the relationships with cities and also how encampments are managed.

Now I recognize that Caltransit's main mission of course is transportation. It's not homelessness management. But this is one of our top issues in the State of California. We which is what voters tell us, which is what polling tells us, which is what the floor debates in the last two days also reflect.

And so it's very important that this major agency of Caltrans, which is in a lot of ways the public interacts with the state agency of Caltrans because they drive on the freeways every single day. So it's very important that we establish relationships that are positive, that are working toward the same goal, that are aligned. And so this bill is aimed at trying to create a framework for that. And of course I'll continue to work on it to make it as acceptable and as proactive as possible. And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Senator Blakespear moves the call. Senators, on behalf of Senator Allen, please welcome Rosa Serratore with the California Mathematics Council. Rosa is Senator Allen's former 8th grade teacher. Welcome to the Senate. Okay, what grades did he get? No, I'm just kidding. All right. We will now move to file item 28, SB 596 by Senator Menjivar. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 596 by Senator Menjivar. An act relating to health facilities.

Senator Menjivar, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, for over two years, the State of California, over two decades, I apologize. The State of California has had nurse patient ratios. SB 596 is not looking to add a new policy, but is looking to strengthen this two decade old ratio.

And then back in 2019, this Legislature passed a bill to impose fines on hospitals if they were violating those nurse to patient ratios. Again, SB 596 is not looking to add or increase those penalties. Those already exist in our statute. What SB 596 is looking to do is define the phrase on-call list.

So back in 2019 when the penalty bill was passed, this Legislature considered that, hey, we should give hospitals an ability to avoid a penalty if they exhausted the means to fill the their nurses to maintain the nurse to patient ratio. So the body said, okay, hospital, you won't get a fine if you call an on-call list.

However, we never defined what an on-call list means. So a hospital could say, oh well, I don't need, I can't get the penalty because I called my on-call list. And that could be just one nurse. I don't think that's exhausting the on-call list intention of 2019.

So SB 596 wants to define that to say that the hospital needs to call 10% of their nursing staff to be considered a waive for the penalty. The 10% right now can include the entire staff of the hospital. And that's not my intent. That's a really, really long list. So just last week, I submitted draft amendments to CHA to say my intention of the 10% is to mean 10% of the nurses that were scheduled on that day within each hospital unit. It is the last remaining concern of CHA.

Once they agree and they're meeting with their legislative body tomorrow, we are going to be moving in the right direction. And that will be amended in the Assembly. And that is their last outstanding standing concern with this bill. So, again, nurse patient ratios exist already in California. Penalties already exist in California.

This bill is looking to just define what an on-call list is, and it's that 10%. Once we get here, back from CHA, if they're good with the language, we'll move forward with it. If they want to tweak it again, we'll move forward with that.

Because I have already committed that I don't want to increase the burdens to our hospitals. I just want to make sure the hospitals, nurses, and our departments know what the definition of an on-call list is. With that, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

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

[Roll call]

Senator Menjivar moves the call. Senators, we will now move to file item 29, SB 614 by Senator Stern.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 614 by Senator Stern. An act relating to greenhouse gases.

Senator Stern, you are recognized.

Thank you, Dr. President. This bill seeks to resolve an issue that we thought was going to be sorted federally. But at this point, we think it's important to establish some minimum state safety standards for how carbon dioxide can be transported in this state.

There are a number of really important projects that we need to get online if we're going to meet our climate goals. We had some major setbacks in the last week where further federal funding was cut to cement and concrete facilities that are trying to sequester carbon while they produce that cement.

They lost several $100 million in funding. So I think the least we can do is start to give this burgeoning industry some certainty about the standards that they'll be subject to if they want to invest millions, hundreds of millions, and potentially billions of dollars in getting our state online.

So this would supplant the existing regulations with the new process from the Office of State Fire Marshal and also include explicit requirement that CEQA, the Water Quality Control Act, and other applicable state, local, and land use laws also apply to new pipeline construction for the transportation of CO2.

That there would be a public process around that, as well as an advisory committee to receive ongoing input and a civil penalty structure that allows the marshal to order a shutdown for violations that pose a threat to health and safety. At this point, there aren't federal regulations on the books.

So if we don't do anything right now, it's a completely unregulated arena. So we think that while there are some concerns outstanding from some in environmental community who might be skeptical of the carbon capture sector, we think that at minimum, California has to set the gold standard for how we do these things. And I believe that it's time. This bill has been an effort in collaboration with an Assembly vehicle led by Chair of Assembly Energy, Ms. Petrie-Norris, and would respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Yeah. I want to thank my colleague for picking up the ball on this. This is a critical piece of legislation. We've been for a couple years now waiting for this issue to get resolved. And again, I appreciate him taking this on. We can't not only capture, we can't do carbon removal if we can't do the transport.

And basically every other state has CO2 pipelines. And this will make California once again the gold standard and create a safe way to do this. And again, it's critical that we do do so, so we have a chance of meeting our climate goals. Thank you.

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

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Senator Stern moves the call. Members, we will be taking a few more bills before we go to lunch. Lunch will only be 30 minutes. And I have also been informed that we are averaging about five bills an hour. So let's please be mindful of our comments and be concise, especially with our support support bills. So we will now move to file item 31, SB 701, by Senator Wahab.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 701 by Senator Wahab. An act relating to crimes.

Senator Wahab, you are recognized.

Thank you. I rise today to present SB 701. This bill aligns state and federal law to allow state and local law enforcement to take take action against signal jammers. Signal jammers block a wide variety of critical communication, including Wi-Fi, radio, Bluetooth, and more. They've been used in burglaries and car thefts across the country. They're also high risk for terrorist threats, which is especially relevant with major international sports events coming to California in the next year.

While they are repeatedly illegal or already legal under federal law and Federal Communications Commission rules, SB 701 would allow local law enforcement to take direct action, reducing our reliance on federal authorities. This bill received bipartisan support and pass Senate Public Safety on a unanimous vote. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

[Roll call]

Senator Wahab moves the call. We will now move to file item 33, SB 777 by Senator Richardson.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 777 by Senator Richardson. An act relating to cemeteries.

Senator Richardson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Well, members, I've learned a lot on this subject with which has to do with cemeteries that I certainly didn't plan on, but I think you'll find very helpful. The Private Cemeteries Act regulates the ownership, control, and maintenance of private cemeteries in the state.

Currently, the Consumer Bureau is the one that's responsible to hold the endowment funds, which include the principal and interest of an abandoned cemetery. And it maintains the contracts for burial, but it is not responsible for the care and maintenance of those cemeteries. Now let me.

I'm going to divert a little bit to save us a little time here. Currently, in the State of California, we have six abandoned cemeteries. Four more are on the list. There are a total of 187 that are possible. What you see in front of you is what's happening in abandoned cemeteries. Grass gets as high as your hip.

Gates are locked, people can't see their loved ones. Gravestones are being removed for metal and horribly, even worse, crypts are being opened, which I showed you a picture of. That's an abandoned cemetery in my district. It's not a movie, it's real. So what we did was we said, okay, we gotta deal with this.

And so I thought, let's give it to the cities and counties. That's where they're licensed. They have Parks and Rec. They should be able to mow the lawn. But it became, it had great objection. And through that I learned that we actually have a process. It's called public cemetery districts.

And typically what happens when a cemetery is abandoned, the consumer bureau notifies LAFCO and LAFCO then works with the city and the county and they review an application. And what they do is they take that cemetery. And now with this bill, SB 777 will now either evaluate it and take an abandoned cemetery and annex into an existing public cemetery district, or they will create a new one.

So what happened was we were able to successfully remove objections from the cities because while we're asking them to do, which is the current process, which is refer to LAFCO, who LAFCO then ultimately determines putting it in a public cemetery district, no longer responsible for a city or county for any money associated.

So how are we going to pay for these abandoned cemeteries? The abandoned cemeteries the 6 that we have all have endowments. I believe the gentleman from San Diego had asked me that question. The problem is not all endowments are sufficient.

In my district, a cemetery has $1 million endowment, which means it results in about $3,000 a month in interest. That's not enough to take care of a cemetery. So what we're doing is individuals who run this type of business, people who do cremations, burials, embalming and so on.

We've looked at the fees which hadn't been increased until two years ago for 25 years. We've looked at those fees, increased them. We'll be doing those amendments in the Assembly. And I included a copy of them for you. That money will generate money into perpetuity so that there's money to pay for the ongoing maintenance that's required.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will all be one day, unfortunately, at the behest of hoping that someone like us will make a decision to say it's not okay to have people where crypts are being opened and gravestones are being removed, and worse, our loved ones can't visit us.

Attached in the packet that I provided you is to show you that LAPCO, which is the key to this whole process, has in fact removed their opposition and now is in the position of neutral. And we worked with LAFCO to develop the amendments which we will present in the Assembly. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote so we can now have a process that we can say in the State of California, takes care of the dead. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no microphones up for discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Please call absent members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 36, noes 0. Measure passes. We will move to item 34.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 834 by Senator Durazo. An act relating to criminal records.

Senator Durazo, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 834 is a technical fix to improve implementation of California's automatic record clearance laws. The bill does not expand eligibility. It ensures that people already eligible can access the relief current law provides. This bill prevents one outdated pending criminal charges from blocking automatic conviction record relief.

It requires local courts records to be updated to match the State Department of Justice records, and it establishes a clear process for individuals to provide written proof of relief. This bill offers practical, targeted changes that ensure the laws we've already passed function as the legislature intended. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no microphones raised for discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

[roll call]

Ayes 28, noes 9. The measure passes. Members, we will take the Senate Dems affordability package in special order after lunch, so please stay in the building. Lunch is only 30 minutes and the clock starts now.

I would like to thank my wife for 37 wonderful years of marriage. She truly is a survivalist. And members we have. Yes, I'm a newlywed to you.

Senator Niello. Members, we have only gone through a handful of bills and through the first few hours that we've already been here, we need to make sure in order to pick up the pace, we need to make sure we keep our comments concise to the point and speak as needed.

And please be concise on your bill presentations as well. Thank you for your affirmation, Senator Laird. I appreciate that. And we have actually so much time that senators are actually making up graphs on our progress and the line is going down and not up. That is not good.

So having said that, we are going to move to item 35. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 14 by Senator Blakespear. An act relating to solid waste.

Senator, you may present.

Okay, thank you Mr. President. I rise today to present SB 14, a measure that would position California State agencies and operations as a leader for waste reduction in the circular economy. Every day California sends 12,000 tons of plastic to landfills, enough to fill 219 Olympic sized swimming pools.

Across the US only 5 to 6% of plastic was recycled in 2021. Waste that isn't sent to landfills often ends up polluting communities and the environment. Single use plastics are among the most extractive, wasteful and harmful products in our society.

One way to tackle the problem and reduce the enormous flow of waste is to move to a circular economy which is which focuses on recycling products and reusing.

SB 14 leverages the state's considerable purchasing power to support recycling markets by requiring that all state contracts for single use plastic bottles moving forward must be for bottles that have at least 90% post consumer recycled content. Post consumer recycled content is material that has been discarded and is then cleaned and processed and turned into new products.

It's basically plastic recycled. SB 14 puts state agencies at the forefront of the circular economy, ahead of the statewide goals for post consumer recycled content in plastic bottles that was established in AB 793 by Assemblymember Ting in 2021. The bill is narrow in scope.

The 90% post consumer recycled content requirement for bottles at state agencies does not apply to bottles that are purchased for emergencies, water bottles sold at prison canteens or given to pregnant women in prison milk or 100% fruit juice cartons like milk cartons or boxed water.

And it also does not apply to the CSUs or the UCS which already have goals to move away from single use plastic bottles entirely- entirely. The number of plastic bottles sold at state facilities are just a small fraction of the nearly 12 billion single use plastic bottles consumed in California every year.

However, even though only a small fraction of bottles are sold at state facilities, setting ambitious post consumer recycled content goals for state bottles can help develop and support existing post consumer recycled content infrastructure, which will need to be ramped up to meet statewide post consumer recycling goals.

Companies like Coca Cola already sell 100% post consumer recycled content bottles here in California and in fact right here in the state capitol. And SB 14 will help create a predictable market for these bottles that already exist today.

In addition to setting ambitious post consumer recycled content requirements for plastic bottles in state facilities, SB 14 also requires state agencies to take more measures to reduce waste and to recycle plastic and organic material as part of the Integrated Waste Management Plan.

Right now, each state agency is responsible for developing an integrated waste management plan to to divert 50% of the waste generated at state facilities from landfills. SB 14 advances the goal of the State Agency Waste Management Plan to specifically achieve 50% reusable foodware by 2030 and reducing paper purchasing by 30% by 2030.

SB 14 also updates the Integrated Waste Management Plan to require actions to provide adequate educational tools to inform state agency employees on how to properly sort materials for composting and recycling and ensuring that recyclable and organic materials reach responsible end markets so that they don't end up in the landfill when they're not supposed to.

Additionally, it prioritizes reducing and reusing products where feasible. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no- Seeing a microphone up. Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm rising to talk about this bill a little bit. Basically, we've heard a lot of input on this and there's a concern about how it's going to affect prices and all, but there's too much plastic in the oceans. There's too much plastic in our landfills. We need to start being more thoughtful about this.

I've talked to the author of this bill and I want to thank her for bringing this up. And I think there's willing to compromise on how to make this more practical.

And because of that, I'm going to support it with the understanding that when it goes to the other house and comes back, we'll have something that I think a lot of people can support. So I thank you for bringing this forward and I ask for an aye vote.

Senator Cortese, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I do rise in support of SB 14. If the author would be willing and the presider would allow, I'd like to ask a question.

Sure.

Yes.

One of the things that we've heard here, which does make some sense to me is that this could cause a logjam in terms of procurement or downstream impact in terms of- of looking at the entire state system. We've even heard that community colleges or, you know, entities outside of the main administration of state government could be impacted.

Yes.

Could you speak to that? I just would like to get clear on the record as to what the bill will do in that regard or not do.

Yes, thank you for the question. The CSUs are excluded, as are the UCs. They each have their own single use plastic and overall plastic management approach. And we're not the goal- the goal of this bill is not to have to create a separate stream or the creation of a different product that is not currently being made.

It's these products are being made and there are, you can buy in the grocery store now 100% recycled plastic water bottles or Coca Cola or Pepsi sell them and they say 100% recycled plastic on there. So the product is being made and there is an entire system for getting recycled plastic into those bottles.

So it's just to make it more ambitious.

Just a follow up question. So you are confident that the procurement schedule that you have in the bill can be met?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Valladares, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I just rise in respectable opposition of SB 14. This is going to likely dramatically increase the cost of the contracts to the state at a time when the General Fund is already upside down.

And as we're talking about cutting programs, we shouldn't be passing bills that are going to increase the cost to the state. And I respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. As the chair of the Budget Subcommitee that oversees the state agency and the procurement processes, I want to acknowledge that the author is- has been committed to solving these issues. We don't have the money for radical- for radical changes in the amount of money that we're spending on these beverages.

But as Coca Cola said that all of their 20 ounce versions of every product will be recycled plastic. Smart Water is moving to 100% recycled plastic.

We'll be working together with the author in the coming weeks in the assembly to assure that we get the details right, to assure that doesn't result in significant, any significant state costs and instead that we're able to help use the state's market position to leverage the continued evolution of the market. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senators. Seeing no other mics up for discussion or debate Senator Blakespear, you may- you may close.

Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues for their comments and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

Senate Senator Choi?

Choi, Aye to No.

Senator Blakespear moves to call. And we will now move to item 37. Secretary please read.

Senator Ashby, you are recognized.

Senate Bill 50 by Senator Ashby and act related to connected devices.

Mr. President, I rise to present SB50, victims digital safety Act. The bill adds a crucial layer of protection for victims by requiring tech companies. To swiftly cut off an abuser's access. To Internet connected devices. The bill enjoys bipartisan support and no opposition. Respectfully asked for an aye vote and.

Seeing no microphones up for discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Ashby moves the call. We will move to item 38. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 84 by Senator Niello. An act relating to disability access.

Senator Niello, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB84, which provides small businesses an opportunity to fill fix construction related Ada violations before penalties can be applied. This Bill gets to the heart of the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Finding deficiencies in buildings, building construction, and providing for the entity to actually fix the defect and thus making the facility more accessible for all. Here's the current situation. Opportunistic. Thank you, Mr. President. Opportunistic lawyers often target businesses in marginalized communities with large populations of immigrants whose first language is not English.

These individuals are generally less familiar with the American legal system, have less trust in it, and are highly likely to settle these frankly meritless cases out of fear. Fear. Regardless of whether they actually violated the Ada, they simply believe they have no other option. Here's some additional some interesting statistics. In 1921.

Excuse me, I went back a little bit too far. When my grandfather opened up his Packard dealership. In 2021, Ada litigation in the U.S. district Court for Northern District of California tripled from 2020. Of the suits filed, nearly 85% were from one law firm.

It's estimated that this firm's earnings on the ADA litigation was over $60 million 2018 through 2022. That's about $12 million a year.

This problem is evidenced by there being more disability access suits filed in California than the rest of the other 49 states combined in 2021, with just a handful of plaintiffs filing thousands of suits and the problems getting worse.

Existing law requires a plaintiff attorney to submit construction related disability access complaints and pre litigation letters to the California Commission on Disability Access. The most recent published data from 2023 showed an increase of over 1600 complaints than the year before for approximately 4600 total cases alleging more than 10 violations.

The trend, unfortunately, is going in the wrong direction. SB84 provides a reasonable solution to small businesses, 50 employees or less, targeted by unscrupulous bad actors for a path to improve their business, if a defect even exists at all. The claim that businesses will not have the incentive to be proactively compliant is without merit.

Businesses not only want to serve many as many customers as possible, they also will face quick backlash if their facility is inaccessible. SB84 strikes a balance between protecting the rights of the disabled to have physical access while also protecting the rights of business owners to have meaningful access to justice, equal representation, and being protected against meritless litigation.

Small businesses are hoping for a chance, a chance to improve access for all over closing their doors. A chance to fight meritless lawsuits and settlements instead of handling handing over their hard earned dollars because they were an unsuspecting target of a shakedown. A chance, quite frankly, to pursue the American dream. I respectfully ask an Aye vote.

Senator Ashby, you are recognized.

Thank you. I rise in support of SB84. I think this is an incredibly important bill. Small businesses, as we know, represent at a minimum 40% of our workforce across. The State of California. They are one of the backbones for jobs across the great state. I think it is a carefully crafted bill by the Senator from Fair Oaks.

I urge an Aye vote.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you. I also rise in support of this bill and think it is very reasoned. It is important that we recognize that there are a number of small businesses.