Senate Floor

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present. Would the Members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise. We will be led in prayer this afternoon by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman. After which, please remain standing for the pledge allegiance to the flag. Chaplain.

So let us gather again in God's presence as we continue the urgent work of these times. We remember the advice of Pierre Terre De Chardin. He says, above all, trust in the slow work of God and humans. We are quite naturally impatient to reach the end without delay. We should like to skip the intermediate stages.

And yet it is the law of all progress that it is made by passing through some stages of instability and that it may take a very long time. And so I think it is with us. Our ideas mature gradually. Let them grow. Let them shape themselves without undue haste.

Do not try to force them on as though we could be today what grace and circumstances will make of us tomorrow. Only God could say what this new spirit gradually forming will be. Let God's hand lead us and accept the anxiety of feeling in suspense and incomplete.

So, gracious and loving God, help us to discern where we need to wait with patience and where we have waited long enough. Amen.

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

Majority Leader Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Calling a Democratic caucus in the Maddie Lounge immediately.

Members, there is a Democratic caucus in the lounge. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you. There'll be a Republican caucus in room 215.

Republican caucus in room 215. Members, head to your respective caucuses.

Senators, welcome back. And is there any objection to moving to privileges of the floor to introduce our guest for today? Seeing and hearing none, The Senate would like to acknowledge Ingrid Daphner Krasnow, a friend of Senator Blakespear who is visiting the Capitol today. Let's welcome. Welcome to the Senate. Up in the gallery.

And then Senator Hurtado from the Majority Leader's desk. You are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, today I rise to recognize and celebrate the rich history of Pakistani American relations and the many contributions Pakistani Americans have made to the State of California. It is also about acknowledging the ways that Pakistani Americans have helped shaped our state, our economy, and the valley communities I'm proud to represent.

California is home to more than 75,000 Pakistani Americans, a vibrant and growing community that has left a lasting mark on every corner of our state. As a chair of the Senate Ag Committee, I want to pause on a part of history that deserves more recognition.

As early as the 1920s, Pakistani immigrants came to the San Joaquin Valley to work on farms. They came with little more than help, with hope, than hope. But then they brought resilience and determination. With their hands, they helped cultivate the land that feeds not only California, but the entire nation and the world.

Their story is one of sacrifice, dignity and perseverance. It reminds us that behind every harvest are families who gave of themselves so future generations could have opportunities we enjoy today.

That is a story that echoes across the valley, across our state, whether told by farm workers, small business owners, or professionals who work their way up through education and service. As we reflect on Pakistan's Independence, we also recognize enduring partnership between the United States and Pakistan.

That relationship is built not only on trade and diplomacy, but on shared values, resilience, democracy and human dignity. It is my honor to welcome distinguished guests joining us in the chamber today. With me, I have Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States, Rizwan Said Sheikh. Acting Consul General of Pakistan, Mohammed Mubashir Khan.

Dr. Imran Sharif, Chairman, Council of Pakistan, Adnan Khan, President, Council of Pakistan, Itrat Sharif, Council of Pakistan, Ismail Kikibai, Council of Pakistan, Azmigil Council of Pakistan as well. And just as a friendly reminder, we will be having a meet and greet today in room 61 in the swing space.

But colleagues, please join me in extending a warm welcome and our deepest gratitude to our guests for their service, leadership and commitment to strengthening the bonds between our nations.

And Members, if you'd like to join for a picture in the back of the chamber. Senator Menjavar, you are recognized for your guest introductions as well, when you are ready.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, please help me welcome a special group to the Senate Chamber. Central Casting was founded in Burbank by Will Hayes almost a Hundred years ago, December 4, 1925 in an effort to try to address the exploitation and working conditions in Hollywood, especially in background casting.

Since 1925, central casting has served as a trusted and reliable way for background actors, also known as extras, to find work in Hollywood and for studios to hire these actors and directors to find the right talent. You may recognize some of the names of actors who were once on their roles.

John Wayne, Clark Gable, Carol Lombard, John Harlow, Gene Harlow, among many others. From what began as a reform movement, Central Cassidy now sees 20,000 background actors register with them each year and has established itself as a pillar in California's creative economy.

And this body is no stranger to all the impressive work and benefits that come to California from this economy. And to my LA Members, if you're. When you're driving to the Burbank Airport and you're going off the 5 Freeway, you're going to see their industry on your way to the Burbank airport.

They and actors they represent contribute to the cultural fabric of the film and television community and the economic viability of California. Joining us today and behind me are Members of the leadership team at Central Casting, which is located, like I mentioned, in Burbank.

We have the President and CEO, Mark Goldstein, we have Chief Operating Officer Darren Seidel, and the Executive Vice President with casting with 30 years in this company, Jennifer Bender. Please join me in congratulating them on their 100th anniversary and the vital role they play in improving the quality of life for background actors in the film industry. Thank you.

And Members choosing to be background images in the next photo, please feel free to step back. And some extras. They need some extras. Senator Cabaldon could not resist. Senator Caballero from the Majority Leaders desk, you are recognized for your guest introduction.

Thank you. Mr. President gives me great pleasure today, great pleasure and pride to recognize an extraordinary group of young leaders from Senate District 14. These students represent the promise of California's rural communities and innovative spirit that drives our future forward.

We're here to honor Madtown Robotics, also known as FIRST Robotics Competition Team 1323 from the Madera Unified School District. Madera is a community of 69,000 people. In April of this year, Team 1323 captured their third world championship title at the 2025 FIRST Robotics World Championship in Houston, Texas.

That made them three time world champions, previously winning in 2019, 2023 and now 2025. These students designed, built and operated robots that outperformed teams from across the globe. They competed against the best from Silicon Valley to China, Turkey and Canada. And they won.

In 2025, Madtown Robotics posted a 533 match record, one of the most dominant performances in the world. They were undefeated at the Silicon Valley Regional, winning both the tournament and the Autonomous Award for Software Excellence. At the Contra Costa Regional, they won again and received the Quality award for Machine Durability and Design.

At the World Championship in Houston, they went 150 in the Newton Division and earned the Creativity award for their robots designed. They captained the top alliance through the playoffs and ultimately claimed the world championship title. Madtown Robotics is composed of students from four Madera high schools. Madera High, Madera South, Matilda Torres and Sherman Thomas Charter.

It's a unique model of regional collaboration. Students from multiple campuses working as one team. But that's how we do things in the valley. The students come from a rural agricultural region and they are competing at the highest level of global engineering.

They represent the very best of what public education can produce when students are given the resources to thrive. They gained hand on experience in design, computer aided design, fabrication, programming and strategy. They learned leadership, public speaking, project management and real time decision making.

Many of them are first generation, college bound and will pursue STEM degrees and technical career. Madtown Robotics was founded in 2004 by a Madera High math teacher. Starting with just four students and a wooden robot. Today they are globally recognized because of sustained community and district support.

The Madera Unified School District, parents, alumni and industry partners like PGE and Boeing have all invested in this team. One of their sponsors, West Coast Products, was co founded by a Madtown alumnus. So they go on to become business leaders in their community.

The cycle of mentorship and reinvestment is alive and well in Madera and it is empowering the next generation of innovators. Madtown Robotics proves that innovation is not confined to coastal cities, big cities or tech capitals. It proves that brilliance and talent are everywhere, especially in California's Central Valley.

To the students of Madtown Robotics, you have made Madera proud. The Central Valley and the and the State of California. On behalf of the California State Senate, we thank you for inspiring us with your brilliance, your teamwork and your championship spirit.

Members, if you'd like to join for a photograph in the back of the gallery.

Members, we're going to take a picture, a final picture in the back of the gallery. They're ready. Members will be moving to the next guest introduction in just a matter of a few seconds. Senator Limone.

Members, we have another guest introduction by Senator Limone from her desk. Senator Limone, you may do your guest introduction.

Thank you very much. Thank you. President and colleagues. As a Commissioner for the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, it is my honor to recognize the long history of the Commission. For 60 years, the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls has served as a vital voice for equity, access and justice.

Since its establishment in 1965, the Commission has worked tirelessly to identify and eliminate inequities in laws, practices and conditions affecting California women and girls. The Commission promotes equality and justice for more than 19.6 million women and girls in one of the most diverse states in the country through research, policy development, education, outreach and strategic partnerships.

Through their partnerships with the California Legislative Women's Caucus and the first Partners Office, the Commission has been able to help women and girls in California access opportunities that just one generation ago were unthinkable for nearly half of our state's population. The Commission's work is far from finished.

They continue to ensure policies reflect the priorities of women and girls, that hard won rights are not rolled back, that we lean into leadership in a moment where it is most required, ensuring that women are not an afterthought, but part of all conversations.

I look forward to the Commission's continued accomplishments in the three years, in the years ahead, and applaud its commitment to a more just and equitable California for each one of us. Please join me in congratulating the California Commission on the Status of Women and girls on six decades of impactful work.

I'd like to recognize Chair, Dr. Rita Gallardo good. And our Commission's Executive Director, Darcy Totten. Joining us from the gallery.

And we also have. Welcome to the Senate, Senator Richardson. You would like to make comments, please.

Thank you. I wanted to join Senator Lamone in congratulating the California Commission on the Status of Women. This is truly a pioneering group. The Commission publishes the only statewide report of its county.

The Report on the Status of Women and Girls in California serves as a vital resource for us as lawmakers, educators and advocates to guide policy and funding decisions. They also have a Youth advisory council ages 12 to 19, where the Commission empowers young leaders to shape policy and advocate for gender justice.

This initiative ensures that the next generation is. Is actively involved in not only California's future, but our progress. Finally, I joined Senator Limone in honoring their 60th anniversary. We have to remember that funding also remains a priority. And as you see bills coming across the floor.

The Commission has Co authored two bills this session while supporting 20 bills that range from employment wages, safe reproduction, sexual assault, homelessness and student safety, to name a few. Congratulations.

Thank you, Senator Richardson. Senator Ashby, you are recognized.

Yeah, I just want to rise to thank these two who are really good friends of mine, constituents, hard working women who, if you look at them, they live this every single day. And I'm grateful to the Senator from Santa Barbara for acknowledging them.

But I want to add my personal gratitude to both of you for everything you do for women and girls across the State of California, but especially right here at home. Thank you both so much.

Thank you, Senator Ashby, and thank you for your good work. And welcome to the Senate Members. Is there any objection to moving to Senate third reading at this time to take up file item 46, SCR. 80 by Senator Niello. Seeing and hearing. No objection, Secretary. Please read.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 80 by Senator Niello relative to Frontotemporal Degeneration Awareness Week.

Senator Niello, you are recognized from the majority leader's desk.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today I rise to present SCR 80, proclaiming the week of September 21st through September 28th as Frontotemporal Degeneration, more easily pronounced as FTD Awareness Week.

In conjunction with the observance of World FTD Awareness Week, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration reports that FTD is a terminal and in curable neurodegenerative degenerative disease affecting the frontal and temporal lobes, causing impairments to speech, personality, behavior and motor skills that constitutes truly a major public health concern.

It takes an average of about three and a half years from the initial symptoms even to get an accurate diagnosis of FTD.

With an average life expectancy, tragically of seven to 13 years after initial symptoms, FTD strikes people as young as 21 and as old as 80, with the largest percentage, and this is important, of those affected being in their 40s to 60s, rendering people in the prime of their life unable to work or function normally.

FTD imposes average annual costs associated with care and living with the disease that are approximately double those of Alzheimer's. FTD represents an estimated 5 to 15% of all dementia cases and the most common form of dementia for people under 60 years of age.

Approximately 40% of people with FTD have a family history of FTD or related conditions such as ALS. While there has been a global epidemiology. While there has never been a global Epidemic epidemiology Study or FTD, it is estimated that more than 60,000 people are affected in the United States today.

It's imperative that there be greater awareness, and that's what this is all about, of this serious disease. And more must be done to increase activity at the local, state and national levels. I urge your strong support of this measure.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh, you are recognized from your desk.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I rise in support of SCR 80 because like most Californians, I knew very little about frontotemporal degeneration. This disease is considered one of the most common pre senile dementias, mostly affecting people in their 50s or 60s.

Roughly 10 years before the average Alzheimer's patient is diagnosed, FTD is often misdiagnosed due to overlapping symptoms with psychiatric or other neurological conditions. Those affected experience a gradual progressive decline in behavior and language, with memory usually relatively preserved.

The disease is characterized by progressive atrophy Are the parts of the brain that control Executive actions or functions, including decision making, personality, social behavior and language. As the disease progresses, families and caregivers often face challenges in coping with the patient's behavioral changes and communication difficulties.

Strategies like education, support groups and respite care can help family Members caregivers over the course of the disease. While groups like the Association for Frontal Temporal Degeneration are providing resources to assist FTD patients and their caregivers, more should be done to increase awareness to ensure patients receive the best care possible.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote so we can bring awareness to this little known disease to recognize and thank all those who serve individuals struggling with FTD.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Members, I also rise in support of SCR 80 and I want to thank the Member from Fair Oaks for bringing this important resolution forward.

As the author noted, FTD is a terminal and incurable form of dementia that represents the most common form of dementia for patients under 60. But what makes it so pernicious also makes this resolution so important. Following its onset, patients have an expected prognosis of seven to 13 years.

Yet the time it takes to actually diagnose FTD can be up to half of that time, taking about 3.5 years on average. So because it often strikes patients who are otherwise in their prime, sometimes even as young as 21 years old.

Valuable years of life are spent in frustration due to the wide range of behavioral or cognitive symptoms that can be present before families and physicians identify FTD as the cause. And so we've had countless families across the state, including for one of my own staff, who have experienced the onset and progression of FTD with a loved one.

And organizations like the Association for FTD AFTD are invaluable in providing understanding and resources throughout the process. And I just want to thank them and recognize them for coming from all over the state to talk about their work here today.

By joining in the recognition of World FTD Awareness Week this September, California can broaden its understanding and substantively lessen suffering for patients and their loved ones as we work toward a cure. Thank you. Members, I ask for your aye vote on SCR 80.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no further debate or discussion, Senator Niello, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. As I said, this is about raising awareness. I was not aware of this disease until the folks approached me several months ago. And with awareness comes support. With support, eventually resources and eventually perhaps, efforts to find a cure to this currently tragically incurable disease.

So please join me in Recognizing September 21 through 28 as FTD Awareness Weekend to vote in favor of SCR 80. Thank you. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 36, no 0. The resolution is adopted. Members, we will return back to privileges of the floor so that Senator Niello can recognize his guest. Senator Niello

I have several people on the floor with me who are passionate about this disease because they have loved ones who have suffered from it. We have Emma Hemming Willis, who is representing her husband, the obviously well known and beloved actor Bruce Willis, who is unfortunately a victim of this awful disease.

She is his care partner and advocate for people with ftd. Joining her is Terry Walter, a constituent of mine whose husband also passed of this disease. And also her daughters, Christine and Janine. And I also want to point out we have several Members, supporters, also, on behalf of their loved ones in the gallery above us. So please recognize these people dedicated to raising the awareness of FTD.

Members. If you'd like to join in the back of the chamber for a picture, now is the time. Members, we are going to continue in Senate third reading. Moving to item 38, SCR number 28. Senator Grove.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 by Senator Grove. Relative to Gold Star Mothers and Families Day.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, today I rise to present SCR 28, which recognizes September 28th as Gold Star Mothers and Families Day. A day dedicated to honoring mothers and families who have endured the profound loss of a loved one in service to our nation. Gold Star Mothers and Families Day traces its origins back to World War I.

It honors a tradition of military families displaying a service flag and a blue star for each Member currently serving and a gold star on the flag for each person who has lost their life in military service. When a blue star turns gold, it marks a moment for these families that they will never forget.

It's a reminder of the strength of the United States Armed Forces, that it rests not only on the men and women who put their hand in the air to swear to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that have served our nation, but it also brings recognition to the families who stand behind them, beside them and around them, supporting their decision to serve our country.

SCR28 designates September 282025 as Gold Star Mothers and Families Day, recognizing the immense long term impact of losing a loved one in service to our country. For these mothers and families on this day, it's an opportunity to honor the memory of their loved ones. I respectfully ask for. I vote for scr 28.

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

[Roll Call]

Ayes. 35. No. 0. The resolution is adopted. Members, we're moving to item 39. SCR number 61. Senator Archuleta. Secretary, please read

Senate Concurrent Resolution 61. By Senator Archuleta relative to veterans.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise proudly today as State Military and Veterans affairs chair to present SCR 61, honoring military and Veterans Suicide Prevention Awareness Week here in California.

Suicide effects all Americans, no doubt, but data shows that active duty service Members and veterans die by suicide at a much higher rate than the civilian population in the United States.

The Department of Defense annual reporting for 2023 states that military services reported 363 deaths by suicide for active military personnel, 69 deaths by suicide for military Reserve Members, and 91 deaths by suicide for Members of the National Guard.

Although veterans make up just 8.5% of the United States population, they account for 18% of all death by suicide among United States adults. For male veterans, the overall risk of suicide was 18% higher when compared to the United States civilian adult males. For female veterans, risk of suicide was 2.4%.

I'm sorry, 2.4 times higher when compared to United States civilian adult females. The data additionally shows that after adjusting for differences in age and gender, risk for suicide was 21% higher among veterans when compared to United States civilian adults.

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Defense has worked diligently to reduce these staggering numbers through all sorts of approaches, suicide prevention and intervention. They have recently launched a program entitled Be There, offering confidential peer coaching and counseling for active duty service Members, including our National Guard and active Reserve Members and their families.

In addition to the Department of Defense, the VA has undertaken several measures to prevent suicide among veterans, including a 24 hour per day crisis hotline working with mental health professionals, health services for female veterans, expanding the ability to do it, telecommunications, and proactively reaching out to veterans needing care.

Despite these efforts, it is clear that we need to do more. And doing more is so vital for our active duty and service Members and veterans. This suicide epidemic is unacceptable and emphasizes the necessity for increased services care, the respect for the men and women who have selfishly dedicated their lives in public service to our nation.

Our service Members are American heroes and embody the timeless values that makes America strong. Courage, integrity and devotion to greater good. These principles transcend time, inspiring us to uphold the ideals of our national motto and to protect everyone. Our nation was built on that service.

It is our duty to honor, support and advocate for and provide care for for our service Members while they are on active duty and when they come home. We also must come together to address these issues, reduce suicide risk among our veterans.

As I close, I want to take time out to acknowledge the work that our county Veterans Service Officers throughout California they do for our veterans. It is impossible to overstate the work they do to support our veterans. In every one of your counties throughout California, men and women are working to help our veterans.

The county Veterans Service offers the time they give to provide service to these veterans, to our National Guard here in California, the tragedies that happened. But they are there to save as many lives as possible. I thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote

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

[Roll Call]

Ayes 35. No 0.

Secretary, please call absent Members. Ayes 37, no 0. The resolution passes. Members, we are going to move to. Members, is there any objection to moving to adjournment in memory? Seeing no objection. Senator Grove, you are recognized for your adjournment in memory.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues for allowing me to interrupt the schedule and. Do an adjourn in memory of somebody that we should. We will all deeply care about as we get started.

I rise today to request that we adjourn in the memory of Joel Andrew Nelson, who unexpectedly passed away on the morning of Tuesday, July 1, at the age of 78. Colleagues, when we lose a loved one and it's expected they're ill for a long time, they have elderly in years, they've had problems, that's one thing.

But when it happens to be unexpected, it's detrimental and very painful. In this particular circumstance, Joel was on his way back east to pick up his grandson to come and spend the summer with grandma and grandpa. And you'll understand why in a minute. And he died in the Arizona airport.

So not only did Connor not to get to see his grandpa, but Suzette lost her husband on a travel that was only expected to take a couple of days. Joel's legacy is one of dedication, strong work ethic, circumstances culminating a lifetime of contributions that profoundly shaped California's citrus industry.

Born in San Diego, California On September 271945 Joel began his career as a produce Clerk at Lucky Stores at the age of 16. In 1966-1970, he served four tours in. Vietnam. With the US Navy.

After returning home, he earned a degree at CSU Fullerton and he went on to serve as a CEO of the Fresh Produce Council for 10 years before. Joining California Citrus Mutual. In 1982, Joel moved to Visalia and became the President of California Citrus Mutual, taking on that role for 37 years.

Advocating for the largest citrus production in the State of California, across all of our districts. And it was really incredible that he stayed at the helm with his leadership. Skills at that position.

For 37 years, he was instrumental in passing the largest tax relief package in California agricultural history that led efforts to block lemon imports from Argentina, protect our crops from invasive pets and diseases. And his advocacy extended far beyond California, regularly taking trips not only to Sacramento, but Washington, D.C. and abroad, all in.

The service of California's extensive citrus industry. Joel's longtime colleagues often remarked of his commitment of reliability, hard work, dedication. First one there early to rise. And he gave his full effort every single day. And never settled for the status quo.

As after his retirement in 2019, Joel relished the opportunity to spend more time with his wife Suzette, his daughters Nicole and Laura and their grandson. Even in retirement, his commitment to his community endured. During the COVID 19 pandemic, he founded a neighborhood social group in Visalia known as Chick Chat on the Cul De Sac.

To this day, that group remains a local tradition that has strengthened community bonds through regular gatherings and events. Though officially retired, Joe Joel returned to service in 2023 at the American Pistachio Growers request. Asked him to lead the organization through a transitional period. He stepped in as the interim President CEO, continuing his legacy of leadership for.

Another year and brought the American Pistachio Growers, where California is one of the number one producers of pistachios, into a transition period that let them exceed expand their production. Joel Nelson will be deeply missed. But his impact will live on in the people that he mentored.

Empowered through this, through the impact on growers staff, government officials and industry professionals. And his legacy will endure the ongoing work that he inspired. I'd like to acknowledge Joel's wife Suzette. In the gallery as she waves to us. His daughter Laura is with us and her friend and also Louis Brown, who.

Has advocated for Citrus Mutual for a. Long period of time, dedicating his life and working with Joel all these years. He was a great human. He really was. He was an incredible human. He was kind.

He brought all sides together and he worked very, very hard to produce a lot of citrus and make sure that we as California's were leaders in the citrus industry. And I respectfully ask for the Senate to adjourn in his memory.

And thank you again for letting us move that up so the family would be able to have the opportunity to get on the road and go home.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Our sincerest condolences to family and friends. Senator Grove, if you'll bring the name of your adjournment memory to front desk to be properly memorialized. Thank you very much, Senator. Majority Leader Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Calling a Democratic caucus immediately in the Maddy Lounge. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Syrto. We're a Republican caucus in 215. Thank you, Members. You are to go to your respective caucuses.

All right, here we go. Members, we are back in session. Is there any objection to deeming messages from the Governor as read Seeing and hearing no objection. Governor's messages will be deemed read. There are no Assembly messages at the desk at this time. We will move on to reports of committees Members.

Is there any objection to deeming as. Read the reports on authors amendments from the Committee on Appropriations and amendments adopted? We do have an objection. Secretary. Please read the report.

Authors amendments Committee on Appropriations Senate Chamber 08-18-2025 Mr. President, the chair of the Committee on appropriations to was Referred Assembly Bill 667 reports the same back with author's amendments with the recommendation amend and refer to the Committee Caballero Chair.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

I will move to divide the question on these Committee amendments.

Thank you. Senator Strickland, can you clarify? There's nothing to divide that we know of. Senator Strickland,

If there's multiple items on. The amendments, I would like to buy the question on those amendments.

Okay, thank you. Give me one moment for consideration. Senator Strickland, AB 667 only has one amendment.

Just making sure that you're paying attention. So I will be paying attention and seeing the amendments as they come forward as well. Thank you.

Thank you for your honorable service. Any further discussion or debate. On these amendments? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll. We're working on clarity Senator.

Got it. Thank you. And we'll be with you.

Can I ask a question of the chair at this point? A clarification. Are the Members going to receive copies of these amendments as we are. Going to vote on these amendments?

There are. There are copies of the amendments available at the desk.

Are they going to be passed out. To each of the Members?

You are able to come up and. Request a copy

on each one of. These amendments we're doing today?

That is correct. Yes, sir.

If clarification,. Are the authors of each one of these amendments going to present what the amendments are as we get forward on that? On each one of these amendments? Thank you.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27, no 0. The amendments are adopted. Secretary, let's move to the next item on the report. Committee report.

Author's amendments. Mr. President, the chair of the Committee on Appropriations to which were Referred Assembly Bill 62, 561, 586, 740, 863, 1206, 1520 reports the same back with author's amendments, with the recommendation amendment and refer to the Committee. Caballero. Chair.

Members, we're going to take each item up, each Bill up individually. Yes, we will take up each item or Bill individually for an individual vote, beginning with item or AB62. Secretary, is there any debate or discussion on AB62? Singer. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Mr. President, I think it's important when we talk about these amendments, at least the author of the amendment can bring forward to the floor. Floor? What amendment? They're trying to do if they're a floor manager or if it's their Bill. I think it's important for the Members of this body to know the amendments.

Especially since we have to go to the desk and they're not handed out. I think it's important that for the body, that whoever's carrying this amendment forward, at least have a description of the amendment that they want to get adopted.

Pro tem. Senator Mcguire, you are recognized.

Point of order. I want to clarify. These aren't author amendments. These are Committee amendments. There is no author. If you would have done your homework before playing this Shenanigan you would have known that these aren't presented like author amendments. These are Committee amendments. But again, I get it. Doing it by the seat of our pants.

And what I would wish is that the Republican Party would spend more time trying to get Donald Trump from stopping rigging elections and they're doing here tonight.

Thank you, Senator. Point of order.

Point of order. I believe the, the leader mentioned that I would should know this, but yes, it's a Committee Bill. But the historic practice of this House is the Committee chair carries the Committee Bill. So the Committee chair should therefore present. The amendments on these bills.

Senators, these are Committee reports that are coming out of author's amendments that were already approved by the Committee. We are here the debate. Please state if you have a point of order the rule that you are calling into question. Otherwise we will do roll call on the amendment and we will proceed forward.

If, if there is, if there is, if there is no rule that's being called out. No further debate or discussion. Senator Mcguire, you are recognized point of clarification.

I want to state again, these are not author amendments. The Bill in chief is not on the floor. What y' all are wanting to be able to do a show and a circus about tonight are amendments that are literally not on the floor but going to go back to Committee.

The Bill in chief is not in front of us tonight. The chair of the elections Committee or the Appropriations Committee never presents on these type of amendments. Never. Because these amendments are made on the floor, traditionally concurred in and then sent back to Committee. Then when they're tossed out of Appropriations Committee, then we have the conversation again.

I get it. This is a stunt. But when you do a stunt, do your homework before you do, before you bring it to the floor.

Members, may I remind you that these are Committee reports and we have been asked to split these reports up into individual actions per each Bill and amendments that apply to each one. And so with that, the discussion is on the Committee report and the.

And the amendments that are being proposed to go back to Committee as the pro tem has clarified. Senator Jones, you are recognized parliamentary inquiry.

For further clarification, please. So it is my understanding that these Committee, these amendments have been adopted by the committees, which is correct. The House is now taking these amendments up to be processed by the House. Since the House has not seen these, these Committee amendments yet, would it not be proper for the House to debate these.

The amendments definitely are. Are debatable if that's what you're asking. Yes, that's what I'm asking. So amendments are. Amendments are debatable. And that's why we will go through each one individually and you will have your opportunity to debate the amendments on each Bill. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Pro tem Senator Mcguire want to reiterate.

To the body there are no presentations that are going to happen here tonight. There are no presentations that are going to happen by Senators tonight. The reason being is the Bill in chief is not on the floor. I would ask if you're going to pull a stunt like this, do your homework first.

So what's on the floor tonight are bills that are being amended. We all concur on the amendments of the bills and then send the bills back to Committee. Committee would then process the amendments. Then if it's the Appropriations Committee, that Bill is sent to the floor.

So I'm just being very clear based off of the rules that you all know the Bill in chief is not present on the Senate Floor tonight. The amendments that you all want to be able to debate in this stunt are amendments that we concur in and then send the Bill back to Committee. So I just.

I'm going to keep reiterating what's in front of us. There will not be an author because there is no author because the Bill has to go back to the flippant Appropriations Committee to be approved or not. And the last thing I'll just say on many of these amendments, these are cost saving amendments.

I think that we all want to save taxpayer dollars. The amendments that are on the floor tonight, many of them coming from the Appropriations Committee, which we'll hear from our Appropriations Chair. Save the taxpayers funds. Thank you so much, Mr. President.

Thank you for that clarification. Pro Tem McGuire, Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Additional parliamentary inquiry. If the House doesn't have possession of the Bill, how can we take up amendments on that Bill?

It is the custom and process of this House to adopt amendments as we are seeing here and as long as I've been here in, in the Legislature to do so through the action of the House through. Through unanimous consent. Thank you for authors amendments.

The one thing I would, Mr. President, point of personal privilege, maybe just admonish the entire membership of this House that we are debating for the purposes of the State of California. I don't appreciate being when we are trying to hold the House accountable to the proper process being accused of being a stunt.

I think that same thing could be said about the Governor and this entire process of what's happening in our state right now. So let's move through the proper debate tonight and without devolving the debate into stunts and other accusations.

Seeing no other further discussion or debate on AB62. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27, no. 0. The amendments are adopted. And, Members, may I remind you we will be going through these individually. These items individually in which you will have the opportunity to discuss and debate the amendments that are being offered up. We will move to AB 586. Secretary, 5. 561. My apologies. AB 561. Secretary, please read. Oh, is there any debate or discussion on AB 561? The amendments only to 561. Seeing no debate or discussion. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27. No. 0. Amendments are adopted. Next item. AB 586 Members, any discussion or debate on AB 580 on the amendments. On 586, any discussion or debate on the amendments of AB 586, seeing no discussion or debate, Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 knows 0amendments are adopted. AB 740 on amendments, any discussion or debate from Members? Any discussion or debate item740 seeing no discussion or debate, Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no. 0 amendments are adopted. Moving to the next item. AB 863 on amendments, discussion or debate Members, any discussion or debate on the amendments? Seeing none. Members, is there any objection to using previous roll call on this item? We do have an objection. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no 0, amendments are adopted. Moving to the next item. AB 1206 on amendments only. Any discussion or debate from any Member Any discussion or debate from any Member on Item or Bill. AB 1206 Members, is there objection to move or to be able to use previous roll call on this particular Bill? Again, we have objection. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no. 0. The amendments are adopted. Moving to the next item. AB 1520 on amendments only. Is there any discussion or debate? Members, any discussion or debate? AB 1520 on amendments only. Seeing none. Is there any objection to moving previous roll call? There is an objection. Secretary, please call roll. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no. 0 amendments are adopted. Secretary, please read the next Committee report.

Author's amendments Senate Chamber August 182025 Mr. President, the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations to which was referred AB 524 reports the same back with author's amendments with the recommendation amend and refer to the Committee. Caballero, chair

On AB524 on amendments only. Any discussion or debate from Members. Any discussion or debate, seeing no discussion or debate on AB 524. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27. No. 0amendments are adopted. Secretary, please read the next Committee report from Appropriations.

Author's amendments Senate Chamber August 182025 Mr. President, the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations to which was Referred Assembly Bill 747 reports the same back with author's amendments with the recommendation amend and refer to the Committee Caballero Chair.

Members on amendments only. AB747. Is there a discussion or debate? Discussion or Debate for Members? AB 747 seeing no discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no. 0 amendments are adopted. Secretary, please read the next report from Committee on Appropriations.

Author's Amendment Senate Chamber August 182025 Mr. President, the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations to which were Referred Assembly Bill 36246899 reports the same back with author's amendments with the recommendation amend and refer to the Committee Caballero Chair Members.

This is discussion or debate on amendments only for AB36. AB36 discussion on amendments only. AB36 seeing no discussion or debate. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no 0, amendments are adopted. Moving to AB 246. Discussion or debate, Members? Discussion. Debate on amendments only. Seeing no discussion or debate, is there objection to moving previous roll call? We do have an objection, Secretary, Please call the roll on AB246 amendments.

[Roll Call]

amendments are adopted. Moving to AB 899. Any discussion or debate on amendments for AB 899 discussion or debate? Seeing no discussion or debate, is there an objection to using previous roll call? We do have an objection. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no 0 Amendments are adopted. Secretary, please read the next report from Committee on Appropriations.

Author's Amendment Senate Chamber August 182025 Mr. President, the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations to which was Referred Assembly Bill 593 reports the same back with all author's amendments with the recommendation amend and refer to the Committee Caballero Chair.

Members, any discussion or debate on the amendments of AB593amendments only on AB593 Members, seeing no discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll on AB593 amendmenst.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27 no 0amendments are adopted. Members, please give us just one minute to prepare for the next item.

Members, in five minutes, right at 06:35 minutes, we will be serving pizza to the Members. A welcome back dinner to wrap up the last few weeks of the session. 5 minutes. We will continue to vote. We will continue to do business in room 215. You can go pick up your slice of pizza from your favorite place.

Members, is there any objection to deeming as read the report on authors amendments from the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments and amendments adopted seeing there is objection. Secretary, please read the report from Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments Authors amendments.

Committee on Elections and Constitutional amendments Senate Chamber August 18, 2025 Mr. President, the Chair of the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments to which was Referred Assembly Bill 604 reports the same back with author's amendments with the recommendation amend and re Refer and refer to the Committee.

Members, may I. Members, may I remind you that we will be discussing the amendments on item AB 604. The discussion will be limited to amendments Only on item AB604. Any discussion or debate. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Point of order. The amendments are not germane pursuant to rule 38.5 and I'm asking for the germanness of this amendment.

Senator, please hold just for a minute and I will get you a clear answer. Senator Strickland, the answer that I have for you is that pursuant to Senate Rule 38.5, President Pro Tem has determined amendments are germane. So your point of order is not well taken. Senator Strickland, you are recognized. Hang on one second.

I move to appeal the decision of the presiding officer of the floor.

Senator Strickland, puts the question to the body. Shall we uphold the ruling of the presiding officer? You are limited to the appeal itself. The debate is limited to your appeal of my ruling.

Okay. So this Bill went from a majority vote to a 2/3 vote. It went from a residency, a residency confirmation three page Bill to a redistricting 338 page Bill that is not even in print for the Members. And therefore I'm appealing the ruling of the chair and the presiding officer. Thank you.

Members. Any further discussion or debate on the appeal of the presiding officer's decision. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll to to uphold my decision. So, Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote. And Senator Strickland is asking for a thumbs down. No vote.

Senators. This is to uphold the ruling of the presiding officer. So Majority Leader is asking for an aye vote. Senator Strickland is asking for a no vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 27, noes 10. The decision of the chair is upheld. Senator Strickland, you are recognized. What purpose?

For the amendments? A parliamentary inquiry. I would like to know how did this Bill get amended this morning without us being in session during that time.

One moment, Senator Strickland, and we will get an answer to you promptly.

In the meantime, Senator Pro Tem Mike Mcguire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. I think it's really important to make the distinction. The Bill was published, not amendment amended. That is why we're here tonight to be able to move forward on the amendments. Again, it was published, not formally amended, which is why we're here to take action this evening.

Thank you for that clarification, Senator Mcguire.

Presiding officer. If I do.

Senator Strickland,

This is the Bill that. We have and there's no. It was a previous Bill and it's all stricken out. And again, how do you amend a Bill when right now it has no language? It's all strict now that you hand it out to everybody. And how do you amend a Bill when we're not in session? I don't believe that you can, by the rules of this House.

So, Senator Strickland, it's my understanding that the Bill, as was stated by the pro tem, was published, but we have not adopted amendments. And that's what we are doing here this evening, is adopting the amendments to the Bill.

But what you have here, that's in legislative information that you have online is this. It's already been amended. And right here it says the Senate amended it August 18, 2025. If it's already been amended, why are we voting on something that you think has already been amended? Amendments have not.

The amendments have not been adopted. They have been published online, but not adopted. That's the official business of the Legislature, the Senate, in order to be transparent. And so the whole goal and purpose is to exercise transparency before the people and the body, which is why we are here tonight to do the business of amending the Bill.

And before I recognize you again back and forth, I'd like to go to the Senate Pro Tem McGuire.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. Yes. Once again, the Bill is being presented to this body. August 18th is absolutely right. That is today, Monday, August 18th, our first day back. The amendments are in front of us. We are now looking to the body to take action on that presented Bill. That's where we're at.

The Bill is presented and that's what we're going to need to do tonight is take action on that presented Bill.

Any further discussion or debate. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Has this been time date stamped already?

Yes, it has. And if I may clarify to all Members, there is precedent. This is something that that precedence has put in place. So it has been done, seeing no further discussion or we do have, Senator Alvarado-Gil, for what purpose do you rise?

Point of order, Mr. President, for .

State the point of order, please.

The urgency clause on this vote is not necessary because there's no immediate threat to public peace, health or safety as required by Article 4, Section 8D.

This is. This is an amendment. That's part of the amendment. This is not a point of order. So if you would like to discuss the urgency clause as part of the debate on the amendment, then we can open that up for that. Basically, it's not a point of order item.

I retract until it's proper time.

We are in discussion and debate right now. Any other further discussion or debate on the Bill or on the amendment, shall I say. My apologies. Any discussion or debate on the amendments. Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Thank you. I just a quick point of order. Because I. I think you inadvertently went. Back and forth there. So you ruled Senator Alvarado-Gil's point. Of order out of order, but then. Said we are in debate. So I'm just trying to clarify. She can. She now debate? Her. Her.

She can debate her point, Senator Jones, but it's not a point of order. The point was that this is not a point of order.

Okay, then I would ask the presiding officer to defer to Senator Alvarado-Gil for her comments,

which is exactly what I did when I opened it back up for debate and discussion. And now the microphone is raised. Senator Alvarado Gil.

Thank you, Mr. President. I know this is a unprecedented floor discussion that we're having, so thank you for your patience and for your instruction. I would like to debate the urgency, the necessity of the urgency on the amendment, because there is no immediate threat to public safety, health or safety as required by Article 4 of Section 8D.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else would like to discuss or debate. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, we're in an extraordinary time here. As was mentioned, urgency, by the very definition of what we have a two thirds vote on this amendment has no immediate threat to public peace, health or safety as required by Article 4, Section 8D of our Constitution.

And then on top of that, it seems interesting that we're going through this incredibly fast to throw out a nonpartisan citizens redistricting Commission that has full transparency in front of the people of California, as the nonpartisan Citizens Commission does that in public over hundreds of meetings throughout the State of California.

And the goal of this Legislature is take that model that should be the model for the rest of the nation to have a citizens Commission draw District lines and now we're jamming this through without public debate for the most part. And you don't even have the language.

You're rushing it so far that you don't even have the language for the Members to read what you're actually voting on. In terms of the Members, in terms of this body Members, again, this is a Bill that was a non controversial Bill that was a majority vote Bill that had residency information. Three page Bill now is a 338 page.

Senator Strickland, may I remind you that we are discussing the amendments. The Bill will be heard. It's the whole purpose of this for transparency to be heard so in Committee and then the Bill will come back.

I understand more for you to be. Okay, so the Amendment is a 338 page Bill. From a three page Bill, the amendment goes from a resident, a residency confirmation into a total redistricting for the entire State of California and disenfranchise Democrats, independents and Republicans throughout the state.

And then on top of that we go from a majority vote in this amendment, it takes it to a two thirds. And again to reiterate, in order to do that According to Article 4, Section 8D, you need to have a necessity.

The only way it could go is it has to be necessary that right now it has no immediate threat to public peace, health or safety as required by Article 4, Section 8D. So we're violating currently adopting this amendment, Article 4, Section 8D. And for those reasons I ask for no vote on these amendments.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to speak to the urgency here. This is an urgency because of what Texas is doing. California must be prepared. We did not ask for this fight and we did not start this fight.

Senator Cervantes, one moment. Point of order.

There is nothing mentioned any other state in these amendments. And I would encourage the author to not talk about anything that other than the amendments that are before this body.

Point of order taken. Majority Leader. Point of order.

He asked about urgency and she's explaining the urgency right now. So I would just defer to urgency.

Hang on. We will keep order in the House, so have your mic raised and I will call you. Thank you, Majority Leader Gonzalez. And I would ask that Senator Cervantes, you keep your comments to the amendments and what was stated about the amendments as far as the urgency and because the urgency is a part of the amendments.

Please keep your comments to the urgency and the reason.

Again, it was asked about why the urgency. The urgency is about Disenfranchising voters. And we need to respond. California has a duty to stand up and fight back. That is what is before us today.

Thank you, Senator Cervantes. Senator Valadares, you are recognized.

Mr. Chair. So, colleagues, we're here today to debate amendments that are going to rewrite California's congressional maps. Let's be very clear here, though. These amendments don't come from voters, they don't come from our communities. They come from party operatives drafted behind closed doors by elitists, politicians and their consultants, Sacramento insiders.

For years, Californians have demanded fairness and transparency. And that's why voters created the Citizens Commission.

One moment. Point of order, Senator Gonzalez.

I would ask that my colleagues stick to the amendments.

These. These points are in the amendment.

Hang on. You will through the chair, please.

Through the chair.

Thank you. The request is for you to stick to the amendments. Senator Valadares, would you be so kind as to keep your comments to the amendments?

Absolutely. In the amendments. In the 302 page amendments being offered, we are offering maps or. Voters voted for the Independent Redistricting Commission. They voted for this to stop politicians from drawing maps that protect themselves and their buddies. So why now are we being asked to undo a voter mandate? Who benefits from this? From these maps?

From politicians that are taking their pens to the back rooms doing this? The amendments were drawn in, Senator.

Point of order, Senator Gonzalez.

I would ask that she stick to the amendments. If she's talking about. If my colleague is talking about politicians, that has nothing to do with the amendments as it stands.

Point well taken, Senator Valaderis.

The amendments are allowing politicians to draw congressional lines. That speaks to the. To the amendments. The maps themselves. In the maps themselves, 116 counties are split. 145 cities are split more than the current independent maps. Communities like the AAPI community population, eastern LA County are divided and diminished.

A new congressional district in Los Angeles, while the Inland Empire, which is actually grew, loses representation. One district stretches 400.

We have another point of orders, Senator Valadares. One moment. Senator Gonzalez, please state your point of order again.

I will ask that we stick to the amendments. It does. There's nothing in the amendments that states anything about cities or counties being divided. This is not the Bill in Chief. We are talking about the amendments. I'd like to.

Please go ahead. Take and stick with exactly what's in the amendment. Parliamentary inquiry, Senator Strickland, you're recognized for parliamentary.

Is not the amendment the Bill in chief. And therefore that amendment allows us to debate what's before us and what's before us. I believe the Senator is addressing the Bill.

The, the ability. The amendments are not the Bill in chief. The Bill in chief is being amended. What we are discussing the amendment is.

The content of which the Senator is speaking to the content of the amendment that's before this body.

Thank you, Senator Strickland. Senator Valadares, if you may continue with your comments limited to the amendments that we have before us.

Again, these amendments have offered up maps. These are the facts about the maps in the amendment. One district stretches 430 miles bigger than some states. Does that sound like maps designed to respect communities or maps designated to protect careers? I think the latter. And let's not forget about the cost. $200 million. I'm going to deviate.

I'm going to go back to the amendments. But this is a.

Please stay on the amendment. Yes, don't go back.

This is a. This is. Let's just be real here, though. This is a political power grab. It's a sham. It's a shame.

The amendments.

The amendments are a political power grab. Finally, I have to ask is this. If this process is so transparent, why are these maps being forced on voters as a binary take it or leave it choice long after any changes can be made? Senator, it's what the amendments do. That's not democracy. That's gaslighting. I strongly oppose adopting these amendments.

Senator Pro Tem Mcguire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. On the issue, I'm all for disagreement. If we want to be flexible and not talk about the amendments in front of us, it's going to have to work both ways. So here's the choice that this body has right now.

We are either going to speak to the amendments at hand or we'll open it up to give political speeches. It will work both ways. We need to speak to the amendments at hand. I respectfully request all of us, no matter your party affiliation, focus on the amendments. If y' all want to have this debate.

We're gonna have plenty of time on Thursday to be able to do that. But I would respectfully request, per the rules of this House, stick to the amendments in front of us and let's pause on political speeches. Plenty of time to be able to do that as the week carries on into Thursday and committees.

Thank you, Pro Tem McGuire. Senator Ochoa Bogh, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. So with regards to the amendments and with regards to this particular Bill. It. Is our understanding or my understanding that it was drafted without constitutional safeguards intended to promote fair representative district maps. This mid cycle redistricting plan in California based on what is being produced, presented with this.

With this Bill undermines the state's constitution by seeking a voter approved amendment that would temporarily waive key provisions of Article 11, allowing politicians to redraw lines for partisan gain rather than adhering to established democratic principles.

The plan ignores Article 11, Section 1, mandate that redistricting occur only in the year 5 following the year in which the national census is taken under the direction of Congress at the beginning of each decade.

By pushing for changes in mid decade outside of the post census windows, the proposal disrupts the decennial rhythm designed to ensure districts reflect accurate updated population data, opening the door to arbitrary manipulations.

Senator, I want to just make sure you're staying with the actual amendments that are before us tonight. 604.

Okay. Okay. So which part would that not inc. Which part would you say that this does not, what I've stated, include into the amendments or refer to the amendments? So it's for clarification purposes, sir.

It seems like it appears like you were speaking on a Bill that's actually in the other house at this very moment. And so just if you could clarify in your comments, that is reference to the actual amendments that we are debating here.

So it is my understanding that this Bill, AB604, replaces for the next three election Cycles 26, 28, and 30, as long as the voters approve AC8 8 the existing congressional district map established in 2021 by the nonpartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Is that correct?

You may proceed. Go ahead.

So I am correct?

No, I didn't say that. I'm just. I'm waiting for an answer here right now because I had the amendments right before me as well, but I'm. It just appears like you were speaking on another Bill.

So I was asking for you to clarify and make sure you align with the comments, your comments with what we're talking about as far as amendments.

And it is my understanding, Mr. President, with the utmost respect, that this is part of the analysis that I have before me. Second, it waives the rigorous criteria outline. Sorry.

The Plan flouts Article 11, Section 2E's explicit prohibition against partisan gerrymandering, which states that the district shall not be drawn to favor or discriminate against an incumbent political candidate or political party. I believe those are my comments for now.

Thank you for your comments. Senator Alvarado-Gil, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to speak on the matter of urgency, the urgency clause. I now have the amendment in front of me and speaking to the urgency. Clause. It does say in order that the urgency clause is asked is necessary. Sorry.

In order that congressional jurisdiction plans may be implemented as soon as possible and to ensure the rights of all Californians to. To equal protections of the law. So I would argue that currently all Californians have equal protections of the law and it is unnecessary to have these amendments to add to the urgency this that that's being requested.

So the amendments speak to urgency. But talk about equal protection under the law.

Thank you.

Opportunity to ask a question of the author.

Will the author take the question? There is no author. Will the chair of elections be so kind as to take the question?

Repeat the question.

You may ask the question.

Permission to ask a question. Please identify which Californians are being. Let. Me ask again, excuse me. Which equal protections of laws are being violated currently for all Californians that the urgency is necessary.

I will state that this Bill only take effect if other states engage in mid decade partisan gerrymandering of their House seats.

Thank you for your question.

Speaking to the urgency. My question was to the urgency only of this amendment. In the letter of this amendment it says that this is necessary to ensure the rights of all Californians to equal protection of the laws. My question is which equal protection. Which laws of equal protection are currently being violated for all Californians.

Thank you for that question. And Senator Cervantes, are you satisfied with your answer? Senator Cervantes, are you satisfied with your answer as chair?

The urgency continues to remain the dismantling of our democracy piece by piece and the cuts to health care, the cuts to SNAP, the cuts for vulnerable services.

Okay. Thank you for your answer, Senator Cervantes. Thank you for your answer. And please speak through the the presiding officer, Senator Alvarado-Gil. She has answered your question. You don't have to like it, but she has answered your question.

Good point. Good point there. Mr. President. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Thank you. Any other further? We do. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Let me speak first to the urgency clause itself and to the continuing enduring hypocrisy that we're seeing on this floor about whether. About everything that we're seeing on this floor this evening. SB let's see.

SB380 by the Republican leader on this floor includes an urgency clause and that Bill requires that a study be turned in by January of 2027. There's no imminent threat to life or safety or health or anything else? SB 385 by the Senator from Rancho Murrieta deletes a report. I'm speaking to the urgency cost specifically.

Senator Cabaldon, we have a point of order. Senator Jones, would you state your point of order, please?

Thank you, Mr. President. We're debating AB604, not SB380. I would ask that the speaker keep his comments regarding this particular amendments and not amendments or urgency clauses on other bills that are not germane to this discussion. All right.

Senator Cabaldin, would you please continue to make your comments germaine. And to the amendments.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. President. Because the issue of the appropriateness of the. Of the urgency clause is fundamentally a question of the custom and practice of the House, which is demonstrated by our actions. SB385 deletes a report followed by the Center for Rancho Murrieta, a report adoption by the Chancellor.

And this report was done in 2023 and SB810.

Senator Cabaldon, we do have another point of order. Senator Strickland,

I believe the chair has. Already ruled that the. The speaker has to stay to the amendments on AB604 and not another Bill by another Member on this House.

Senator. Thank you, Senator Strickland. Senator Cabaldon, if you're going to reference another Bill, please make sure it's tied to the amendments that we are talking about.

Yes, sir. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. The point here is that.

Thank you. I'm from Murrieta, not Rancho Murrieta, and that Bill has nothing to do with any of the proceedings here.

Yes. So much of what we've heard tonight has nothing to do with the proceedings or the Bill that is before us. And so we have had for decades, and certainly this year, urgency bills for which the urgency is something would it would be great if something happened right now.

But in no instance is a report to the Legislature an action by the PUC to approve a report to the Legislator more urgent than Californians being picked up, kidnapped off the streets and sent to prison in a foreign country. In no instance is it the elimination of three Californians.

Senator, keep your comments.

I believe the Senator, is not speaking to directly the amendments of this Bill.

And let me. Let me just point out for the, for the. For my colleague, is that Mason's manual, which governs this question, makes very clear that we are not each other's gatekeepers. Mason's manual does not prohibit the use of analogy. It does not produce.

Prohibit the use of any other parts of the English language to make the point. It's very clear what the point is here tonight, which is we have an urgent matter. We have an urgency as a country. We certainly have an urgent action to take, and not by our doing. We are here tonight, and these amendments are urgent.

They are urgent because of what is happening in the State House in Texas. It is what is happening in the rest of the country.

Senator Strickland, please state your point of order.

Again, the person speaking before this body is not speaking to the amendments. They're before us right now. And the amendments before us right now have nothing to do with another state. Or the Federal Government. They have to do with the State of California and this Bill.

And I would urge that we stick to the amendments just like you did with our body in our side of the aisle. Stick to the amendments of this Bill.

I appreciate that, Senator Strickland, but I do believe he was talking about urgency and it's something he was addressing. I will ask Senator Cabaldon that you, in your conversation or presentation on urgency, that you keep it to the amendments as addressed before this body tonight.

Thank you, Mr. President. I understand that it is a matter of opinion that this has nothing to do with what's happening in the country or in Texas. But that is very clearly what the purpose of these amendments are, which is to assure that elections are not rigged. We didn't set the timeline.

No one left this building or this floor a month ago with the intention of taking these issues up. Senator Strickland, point of view.

I'll do it. One other. Show me in the amendment where it mentions another state or the Federal Government in the amendments. If it's in there, then I'll stop interrupting. But show me in the amendment where it mentions another state that's before us or anything that's doing has anything to do with the Federal Government.

We're dealing with a Bill that has to do with the State of California. And I urge my colleagues to stick to amendments and arguments that have to do what's before this body.

Senator, is well taken. I hear it. And we are doing everything we can to make sure that both sides are able to get their point across and stay with the amendments as close as I possibly can. Senator, thank you. Your point of order is well taken, and I will admonish.

And make sure that we stick with the amendments. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. And I appreciate you sticking with the amendment.

Okay.

Yes, sticking with the amendments and their declared purpose. Because Mason's manual. Neither Mason's manual or the Senate rules require that you simply read the amendments in order to speak to the amendments. That is the purpose of this legislation tonight.

And let me point out one other thing, and that is that already more than 13,000 Californians are weighing in on these amendments. That they expect to be heard tomorrow in the elections Committee. Over 13,000. And that is before the hearing has begun. This issue will be taken up this week. There is actions happening in the other House.

The only way to assure that the people of California have the right to see every word of these maps is by adopting these amendments tonight. We cannot have transparency about what the people will vote for if we don't adopt these amendments. And we must give the people the right to be heard tomorrow and then again in November.

Mr. President, I ask for an aye vote.

Members, give me one minute. Members, I really appreciate the robust discussion and debate that we are having in the chamber right now. I do want to remind us, according to our rules, that Members are only able to get up twice to speak on a single topic within one day.

So please be reminded that if you've already stood up twice to speak on this subject, you have reached your limit. Senator Niello, for your first time.

Thank you, Mr. President. Parliamentary inquiry. It was. It was asked earlier what the time stamp on these amendments is, and the answer, I believe, was this morning at 8 o'. Clock. At 8am. Without a quorum present of. The relevant body, how could we possibly establish amendments at that time?

Senator Niello, it is our custom of practice that we actually publish amendments because before we adopt them. And so that's what we are witnessing today. The amendments were published this morning and we are looking to adopt them here now, this evening.

So what is the relevant time for which they may then subsequently be brought. Up as a Bill?

So if we adopt the amendments this evening, then.

It is my understanding after conferring it appears like it would be 8am to answer your question, 8am on Thursday not the point at which the amendments are adopted. We are looking for the right answer for you.

According To Item Article 4, Section 8B2, no Bill will be no Bill may be passed or ultimately become a statute unless the Bill with any amendments has been printed, distributed to the Members and published on the Internet in its final form for at least 72 hours before the vote.

Except that this notice period may be waived if the Governor has submitted to the Legislator written statements.

It does not. However, it does not mention anything about actual adoption. So just publishing on the Internet Senator Ochoa Bogh make it good. This is your second time and final.

And final and final yes Mr. President, thank you very much for your time and Members. So in addressing the the concerns by my dear friend from West Sacramento regarding the voting of these amendments to be able to have the public view these maps correct.

I'd argue that this particular these amendments within this Bill that was just published this morning waives the rigorous criteria outlined in Article 11, Section 2, which prioritize geographical and social considerations to promote fairness. These include requiring districts to be geographically contiguous. Criteria three, respecting the integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of interest by minimizing their division.

Criteria 4 and ensuring compactness where practical work practicable. Criterion 5, this rushed map drawing process discards these standards, potentially fracturing cohesive communities and creating convoluted districts that prioritize electoral outcomes over logistical boundaries. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I Members, the reason I cannot support this is because these amendments, you know, frankly I don't even know what's in them. 330 pages.

And I would venture to bet my pizza in there that not one person in this room has read all 330 pages and is ready to debate the merits of these amendments on the floor.

And so with that it's really difficult for me to call this a transparent process when it's more of a ministerial process that they're hoping we do. And I think that's not something that as legislators is very responsible. It's not a responsible way to address an issue, to rush it through like this. And these amendments do exactly that.

330 some odd pages, folks. I know I didn't have a chance to read them today. I was in appropriations till 5 and then over to here and been here since. So when the heck am I supposed to read those? So with that, I would ask that we don't approve these amendments tonight.

I know that's kind of a moot point for all of you because we've already been told what we're supposed to vote like. So with that, thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, Senator, Senate Pro Tem Mcguire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much. Through the presiding officer would like to be able to discuss two specific items on the amendments that were raised here tonight. First and foremost was the issue of constitutionality. Under the constitution of the State of California, the Legislature has the right to place constitutional questions on onto the ballot.

And people have a right to vote on those constitutional challenges. And the Legislature does this all the time. So we believe that we are, per the amendment, in good standing with California's constitution. And ultimately the people of this state decide on the issue of splits and maps, et cetera.

Number one, the Voting Rights Act in all districts in every corner of California is upheld. Full stop. Number two, there are fewer city splits in the maps that will be in front of us on Thursday than there are in the approved maps by the independent Redistricting Commission. About 33 and a half years ago.

Fewer city splits than what the independent Redistricting Commission had advanced. I think the final item on the issue of the maps per the amendments, as these were advanced, all those minority seats are maintained throughout the state. So would respectfully ask or. And I vote, he just wanted to advance those here on the floor.

Thank you, Senator Mcguire. Senator Strickland,

Was that a close or no? Okay. Anyway, I would like to say that I believe this body is doing actually opposite of what they should because under current law in our Constitution, no Member on this body is allowed to even look at a map or affect a map.

So if you were in anywhere involved in the process of these maps, you violated the state constitution. State constitution's clear that says no Member of the Legislature are allowed to involve themselves in the map. So the way you should have gone forward is by adopting again the authority from the people of California and then adopt the maps.

But if any of you on this body had anywhere or even looked at the map and influenced in any way, you violated the state constitution. And even if you vote on this today, you're violating the state constitution. Seeing no further.

Senator Chu Choi. My sincerest apologies. Senator Choi, you are recognized

Listening to The debate so far. Amendments 338 pages. I would like to see it. This is a moment right now we are debating very, very important future of California. And with this so many amendments in there even before Bill in Chief has not been considered. We haven't had consideration in the committees.

Talking about the amendments and all the maps that you have drawn, I don't know who have drawn those. And then I hear some points are unconstitutional. I think this is really raises many, many questions. We need to table this issue and do some studying in.

We have a point of order, Senator, before we continue. Senator Choi. We have a point of order. Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Mr. President, I'm just asking we stick to the amendments and not talk about personal. Other personal issues.

Senator Gonzalez, your point is well taken. Senator Choi, please stick with.

Yeah, let's talk about amendments. So I would like to see all the amendments in print right now in my possession. And we need some time to digest. So I think this is proper to table it until tomorrow or day after tomorrow. So we will have more study into it.

All the maps that we need to study, we need to hear from the constituents. Not too many people know about what the drawing is, who made these amendments, and even Bill in Chief.

Thank you, Senator Choi. And I believe. Ask and you shall receive. And you now have the amendments in your hands, seeing no further discussion or debate.

Okay. But I cannot digest all of this right now, so I. I need time to study this before we can continue.

We'll be taking up the Bill on Thursday to discuss it on the floor, so you'll be able to.

So I make a motion now to table this second.

All right, we have a motion to table and a second. Senator Choi is asking to lay this on the table. We have a motion and a second. Senator Choi is asking for an aye vote. Majority Leader Gonzalez for a no vote. You are asking for a no vote. Again, Senator Choi is asking for an aye vote.

Senator Gonzalez is asking for. I'm sorry. Senator Choi is asking for an aye vote. Senator Gonzalez is asking for a no vote. Secretary, please call the roll. .

[Roll Call]

Ayes 10 noes 27 amendments are not being laid on the table. With that, moving back to debate and discussion on the amendments. Seeing no debate or discussion, Secretary, please call the roll on the amendments.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 27, noes. 10 amendments are adopted. Members, we are moving to motions, resolutions and notices. Members, is there any objection to the approval of the State Journals for July 14 through July 17,2025 as corrected by the Minute Clerk? Senator Alvarado-Gil, you are recognized. There was. Is there. Are you objecting?

No, Mr. President. I rise under a different matter.

Seeing no objection, the Journal is adopted. And for what reason? Senator Alvarado Gil, do you rise?

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to move SCR 91, file item number A6 from the inactive file to third reading.

With no objection. The desk will note. Senator McNerney, you are recognized. Senator McNerney, if you can hold on one second, we need to clarify. Just to clarify, to Senators of the body here, SCR 91 will be going to second reading and then to third reading. All right. Thank you, Senator. Now, Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. And Members, I rise to request that SB 863 by the Committee on Revenue and Taxation File item number 30 be. Returned to the Assembly to be amended.

Without objection, the desk will note. Senator Seyarto, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask that SB255 be sent back to the Assembly for further. Action.

Without objection from any Member. Such will be the order. Desk will recognize or acknowledge. Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair and the Members, I have a letter to submit to the Journal regarding AB782. Thank you.

If you'll submit the letter. Thank you very much. Desk will note. Senator Gonzalez. Majority Leader, you are recognized under motions, resolutions and notices.

Thank you, Mr. President, I move that joint rule 62A be suspended to allow the Committee on Elections and Constitutional amendments to hear AB604 without sufficient notice in the daily file.

Members, just to remind you there is no debate on this. These are not debatable motions. Senator Jones, you are recognized. For what reason? Thank you.Roll call? It is roll call vote. A no roll call vote. Senator Jones is asking for a no vote and Senator Gonzalez is asking for an aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes. 27. noes 10. The motion carries. One moment, Members. Majority Leader. Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that joint rule 62A be suspended to allow the Committee on Elections and Constitution Constitutional Amendments to hold an informational hearing on the substance of ACA 8 and SB 280 without sufficient notice in the daily file.

Members, this motion is not debatable. Secretary. Well, Mr. President. Oh, Secretary. Senator Jones.

Sorry, I'm objecting to the motion and would accept substitution of the last roll call for this.

Seeing no objection. Ayes 27 no's 10. Motion motion carries. Senator Gonzalez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that joint rule 62A be suspended to allow the Committee on appropriations to hear AB 604 without sufficient notice in the daily file.

Senator Jones, you are recognized. hank you, Senator Jones, seeing no objection, Ayes 27 nos. 10. This motion carries. Senator Gonzalez, you are once again recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that AB 604 be read a second time in order to third reading upon being reported from the Committee on the Appropriations this week.

Senator Jones, you are recognized. Thank you, Senator Jones. Seeing no objection. Eyes 27. No, 10. The motion carries. One more and Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that file item 166 AB 1129 be removed from the consent calendar at the request of the author for purposes of amendments such should be.

The order desk will take note and Senator Gonzalez or Senator Jones had a little outburst there. It's all good. Members, we will pass and retain on second reading file and we will now move to governor's appointments. Senator Grove, you are recognized for items 67 and 11.

Colleagues, regarding governor's appointments this evening. File item 6 is a confirmation of Deborah Gore, the appointee to State Bar of Trustees. She's a credible qualified. She was approved by the Rules Committee on June 18th. And a 5 vote respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes. 34. No, zero. Governor's appointment is confirmed. Senator Grove, you are recognized for your next item.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, Mark Kraus is being Request file Item file item 7. The confirmation of Mark Krause for the appointment to the Public Employees Relations Board. I am presenting these appointments. Senator Laird is not it was a five vote vote. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.