Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and happy Committee New Year. We're happy to be back. Welcome to everyone. We have a total of three measures on today's agenda. First, a few usual housekeeping items are going to allow for two primary witnesses each for support and opposition. Each witness will have two minutes.

Any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name affiliation and your position on the bill, sometimes referred to as #MeToos. We have no measures proposed for consent today. I'm not sure if we can establish a quorum. It doesn't look like it. So we will come back to that. Per our agenda.

We would be starting off with SB220. And yes, the author is here, so we're going to be doing that. If Senator Allen is ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Members. So the Legislature created the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority back in 1992.

Is that microphone on? Okay.

Jesus. Now it's on. Wow.

That was very intense.

Okay, all right, thank you.

All right. So the Legislature, the Legislature created the LA Metro board back in 92 and it was done to streamline transportation planning in LA County by unifying competing transportation agencies.

There was a lot of pushback when the Legislature proposed to do this, but there was a recognition that it was a necessary thing to do and I think it's generally served the region well. Metro is now the second largest public transit operator in the country. It's got over 300 million riders per year.

It's responsible for over $9 billion in taxpayer approved funding for the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of the county's transit and highway projects. We have played a big role in helping that process along. You know, our gas tax, as you may recall, includes over half a billion dollars a year just for transit construction and development.

That was something that several of us worked on to make sure happened. And a lot of that money is going to help with LA Metro and this big build out. Now right now the authority is governed by 14 Member board of directors. It consists of all five Members, the County Board of Supervisors.

There are also various council Members from different cities representing smaller geographic sub regions of the county. So they give. They basically split up the county into several regions and then each of them have a council Member rep. That represents the cities.

And then the city of LA has its own city of LA City and Long Beach have their own representation. So that's the current system. Now in the 2004 election, the voters of LA County did something very bold. They voted to create a. They voted for measure G, which was a measure that was sought to improve representative governance.

And it expanded the Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles county from 5 to 9. And it also created a new elected county Executive with the responsibility of representing the entire county. So existing law requires LA Metro to provide the Legislature with governance reform plan after the number of county supervisors increases.

And Measure G did indeed stipulate that There should be five new supervisors that will be elected in 2032. After the 2030 census, there should be a redistricting and then a creation, an expansion of the board with new maps drawn. It also, however, created this countywide Executive.

And the existing law does not currently account for the creation of the new county white Executive that will be elected in 2028 in just two years.

So under the existing timeline for Metro's report to the Legislature, the County Executive will not be considered for membership of the board or have a voice in the county's transportation goals for at least four years.

And this is a position that's going to be elected to represent the entire region and look out for the needs of the entire county. So. This Bill seeks to expedite the timeline by requiring LA Metro to provide their report with recommendations to update the membership of the Board of Directors by July 1.

There is also a kind of a parallel track where the county has set up Measure G Task Force to talk about implementation of Measure G that we'd also like to incorporate in. I think there's some other things really into Measure G that we may want to incorporate into the bill, but basically this is.

Now, this does not delineate a particular path toward Metro governance. All it says is that the folks in the community should come back to the Legislature which created this board in the first place with some proposals as to how to best incorporate the passage of Measure G in the governance structure over at Metro.

So there's no specificity in terms of how to do it, but we want to get their ideas and plans as part of this kind of proposal.

I hope you don't mind me sharing, but the Chair has agreed that this Committee will hold a hearing on this topic of Metro governance sometime during this calendar year, hopefully in LA if necessary here.

But the central point is that with the voters having passed Measure G, we have to now take some steps to try to figure out a plan for Metro Governance that incorporates the reality of the passage of Measure G. And it's an open minded spirit and I certainly hope that the. I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any witnesses today? I don't believe so. Okay. I don't believe so either. We will ask if there's anyone in the Committee room who wishes to speak in support. If so, come forward. You can indicate name, affiliation and support. All right. Do we have opposition and are you listed as an opposition witness with the Committee?

Yes. Yes. All right, please come forward to the table. Welcome. You'll have two minutes each in whichever order you prefer.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and Committee Members. My name is Madeline Moore. I'm a Deputy Executive Officer from LA Metro. I would like to start by thanking the Senator, Senator Allen, for the dialogue on this bill. However, Metro remains opposed to this bill.

While Metro recognizes the importance of considering governance structure in light of the evolving county leadership, this Bill is unnecessary and undermines an existing locally driven process already authorized by state law.

Following the passage of Measure G In November of 2024, the LA County Board of Supervisors established the Governance Reform Task Force to oversee the implementation of sweeping changes in the county, including governance changes to the LA Metro Board and other boards and commissions where the county is represented that also exist in state law.

In addition, in light of the upcoming changes to the LA County's governance structure, the Metro Board Chair has created an ad hoc Committee to review and consider pot changes to the composition of the Metro Board.

This Committee will consist of both board and non board Members and have public meetings in Los Angeles to discuss possible changes to the Metro Board composition. Metro has always focused on a bottoms up process of engaging our stakeholders that include cities, councils of governments, labor and other transportation stakeholders.

This bottoms up process and local buy in is how Metro was able to successfully pass four ballot measures to invest local doll transportation. This Committee will begin meeting next month and will collect an array of community and stakeholder input. It will conclude with recommendations to transmit the plan to the Legislature no later than July of 2026.

Given that this local process has been created and will finish ahead of the timeline currently in SB220, we do not believe this Bill is necessary. We look forward to a robust local conversation with community Members and transportation stakeholders.

We would welcome the Legislature and our LA County delegation Members to participate in this local transparent public process and provide feedback in the coming months. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next witness please.

Mr. Chair, Members Andrew Antwih with Shaw, Yoda, Antwee, Schmelzer and Lang here today on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. I received direction from the Mayor of Los Angeles to show up in Committee today to voice opposition to SB220 Allen.

We thank the Senator for his many years of Thoughtful work on issues related to transit and climate change. But on this issue of local board governance, especially in the wake of Measure G, we think this proposal has changed a lot and may change again.

And it basically some way will have an impact on the local conversations that have to take place and that are already set to take place without this legislation.

A reminder that the earlier version of this Bill modified the board composition, added supervisors, added the county CEO and then it changed to establish a due date on a report that is already required to be submitted to the Legislature by LA Metro. The Mayor is a voting Member of the LA Metro Governing Board.

We have a very direct interest in having the fully vetted conversation locally without influence from Sacramento. There is the capacity to have this conversation locally as evidenced by the testimony from that just preceded me.

Relative to an AD HOC Committee that's been established by the Metro board to look at Metro Governance, LA County itself is in the process of working through a task force to look at LA Metro governance and governance where LA County has a footprint on many other boards and commissions, including some created by the state.

That's happening without this legislation. So it begs the question of this bill and this necessity. The Mayor believes that this bill is a stalking course for additional changes that would happen later. I'm not a voting Member of this Committee and neither is the Mayor.

But I think a fair question is is this bill going to stay in the same form or is it going to change? And if it is going to change, why move it now? Why not have the real proposal in front of this Committee? For those reasons, the Mayor is asking for a no vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express an opposed position? If so, come to the microphone. You may so indicate. See no one come forward. We'll come back to the Committee or their Committee. Comments? Vice Chair Strickland, thank you.

Look, I respect the center, but I think this bill is here too early. I believe in local control and that we should have the locals led process to this issue. It's very important on the Member makeup of Metro and so. But I think we're pretty. We're doing this too soon. We have until 2028.

As said, there's an ad hoc Committee already going to report back to the legisl. I'd rather have the people of Los Angeles and Los Angeles county make the determination and then come to us. Because I believe in local control, I believe in local driven, especially when it comes to Metro.

And it says something that the Mayor of Los Angeles and Metro are Coming up opposed to this bill because, again, we have the time, we have until 2028 to get this right. And they're doing hearings locally.

And I think it's important that they go throughout the whole county of Los Angeles, have those hearings through locally and then come back with those voices from our constituents in LA County and then come to the Legislature with their proposal on the makeup of Metro moving forward. For those reasons, I oppose this bill.

And if any legislator believes in local control, they would be opposed to this bill at this time.

Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank my colleague as well for bringing this forward.

I think that, you know, we've talked about it very briefly, but I think this definitely needs more conversation coming from Long Beach, which is the second largest city in the county of Los Angeles, which has no voting opportunity, constantly has to fight with my smaller cities, which are Southeast Los Angeles.

About 10 cities there feel that they have no representation. And so they often feel, as we know, that the county always has more representation than the city. And it's just an ongoing battle politically. I think we need to have those discussions.

Excuse me, I'm a little sick in Los Angeles first to be able to start figuring out what the next steps might be. You know, here we're all very ambitious in terms of, you know, ensuring that Sacramento has their say.

But I think on this one, I really do feel that we need to take a step back and really allow our locals to be more involved and also understand what the real inequities are. Because there are a lot of regions of Los Angeles county that are not being served right now with the current makeup of the board.

Like I said, Southeast Los Angeles, Long Beach, we also have Catalina Island. And although they don't have a direct connection because there is, you know, some waterway between them, their voices also matter, too. As you know, you both, you and I have both represented the island.

So with that, I will not be supporting the bill today, but I do look forward to, you know, ongoing conversations with you and how we can make this better from an LA collective.

I just want to make. I want to make sure folks recognize. I mean, it seems like the, You know, the opposition. The opposition was raising the earlier version of the bill as a concern. I mean, this is a.

We understood that they didn't want to see the Legislature delineate and Members didn't want to see the Legislature delineate a very particular approach that outlined specific plan for the incorporation of Measure G into the Metro board. And so instead we said, hey, you know, They've got a. They got this.

They already have a requirement to come back to the Legislature with a plan, speed up that process. Thankfully, they've now responded by with a sped up timeline.

But that's in response to the pressure we were putting on because we recognize that we need to have some kind of plan in place in advance of 28, which really is not very far away. It's literally two years from now.

And I think it behoove us to at least get this conversation moving before we know who the person's going to be in the countywide elected Executive. So we're doing this decision based on the structure as opposed to the individual.

And all we're asking, we're actually asking for exactly what you've just described, which is both of you have described, which is a locally driven discussion process whereby.

But everybody knows at the end of the day the Legislature is going to have to write up the legislation to make the changes because this whole thing is authorized by the Legislature. It's a structure that was created by the Legislature.

So the LegisLature is going to have to ultimately sign on or weigh in or rubber stamp or agree to or propose whatever final solution comes together. And so all we're doing here is making sure that they come to us with proposals that there really is a broad discussion in LA.

But I do think it's really important for us to have the discussion. This measure passed two years ago and we really ought to be, we have to be thinking about how to incorporate it into our thinking about Metro board governance. That's all this bill proposes to do.

And you know, Andrew, my friend, you know, is worried that this is something that we're going to try to do some sort of bring it back to the original proposal or something.

Let me just say very clearly, all we're asking for here and all we ever will ask for in this bill are our reports back from the community to give us recommendations and to really start the conversation about what this board ought to look like after the passage of measure G. This is not going to be a vehicle that will delineate the membership of the board.

I want to say that very clearly right now, that's not what's going to happen with this bill. And so please don't take the fear that that may be the eventual goal of this bill to spook you into opposing it.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator. Let's establish the quorum, then I'll make my comments and then we'll see if there's nothing else. We'll give you another opportunity to close.

[Roll Call]

All right, we do have a quorum. Look my vote, with all due respect to the opposition and to a couple Members whose opinions I respect here, I certainly respect Senator Gonzalez comments being domiciled in that area.

And in the middle of the conversation, I see the bill a lot more like Senator Allen sees it as a vehicle that's available to drive this report back and nothing else.

But I've been in conversations with him for two years now because this is a two year Bill and he I think very graciously saw that time was going to be needed during the last year, but wanted to have a vehicle available.

Not to put words in your mouth either or to misquote you, but in case there, there was something that came up out of these local conversations that was going to require a vehicle thoughtfulness looking forward, the bill, this is a, this, this Committee is not this positive in terms of what ultimately happens to the bill.

And I think it makes sense to keep it alive until some more of these conversations.

In this kind of January 13th, last minute letter, although I respect it from the mayor, you know, dropping what she's doing and getting us a letter that, that can be, you know, sort of processed by everybody before the next time this comes up for a vote. That's the way I see it.

So if we were to move the bill along, I think there's plenty of opportunity to continue this debate along the way in Senator Allen, if you can't work it out with locals where they're rallying opposition within the Senate or within the Legislature, then, you know, as they say, that's your problem.

If you can, the bill will keep moving, but I don't think we need to stop it today. That's just my, that's my, that's what the basis of my Aye vote is.

And yes, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. I have a question, a couple questions, but I'll start with the first one given in light of some of the more recent comments that have come forward. And I know several of us on this Committee and Members of the LA delegation that aren't a part of this Committee are getting phone calls.

Am I correct that there might be one more opportunity to vote on this bill prior to the deadline. If the author would concur, I wouldn't want you. I'm only suggesting this because. I don't. Want you to lose your opportunity.

But if there is in fact one more opportunity, I think that gives the Members of the LA delegation, there are several people who actually aren't here yet, and then there's Members who aren't on this Committee.

Isn't it correct that there's one more opportunity this bill could come forward for a vote for this Committee that would give the author a chance to talk to all the Members, make the commitments that he's making today, and then that way more people would feel positive in moving forward if that's the case.

Well, not, not really. Procedurally, this is the day for the two year bills to be heard and then in March we'll take up bills introduced before this calendar year's deadline. So this is, this is really. I just want to. My comments, by the way, are, and I know the author knows this.

I'm not saying this to undercut the author in any way, but I'm speaking as somebody obviously geographically from Northern California is much more familiar with things like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Valley Transportation Authority and San Francisco's Muni and things like that. I'm just looking at it from, not a Southern California lens.

And I respect, you know, hopefully I made that clear. You know, we came into this knowing, to this Committee hearing knowing that this is largely going to be decided, you know, by Southern California folks on this Committee, presumably who have, you know, have their, their own lens on it.

But, but I did, I did want to justify my vote and explain what my vote is. I, if I thought the author was doing what the opposition said, my vote would be different.

But the author started off down a different track, maybe more similar to, maybe with less deference to local control in the written version of the Bill. We discussed it a couple of times. He came back with this, indicated that all along that it wasn't his intention to get into the governance issues from a legislative standpoint.

So I can only take a good colleague at his word on that. That's me. I'm not. My Senate District 15 is not in your jurisdiction. So, you know, as they say, you all have to decide.

Well, let me rephrase my question then. If this is the last day to hear for two year bills, does the author still have the ability to bring it forward as a new bill this year and still work it through the system? Isn't that correct?

I mean, it, there's rules about whether or not you can, you know, you can so called jailbreak rules and so forth. He, he or somebody has a vehicle and it's trying to do something different than what's in print right here today. Presumably that could be done, but I don't know how it saves.

We're talking about 2027-2028 right? And, and 20 in out years. So the difference between what's going to happen now, with all due respect, and what's going to happen in March in this Committee. The arguments will still be the same in this Committee in terms of the timelines, I believe. You know, hey, we talked about this.

January, it's March, nothing has changed. You know, 2027 still out there, presumably in the bill. And these other local timelines are still exactly the same as they were were in January.

Today it's really a question of whether or not people are comfortable with a vehicle being available and moving through the process here in the Legislature While these 2026 discussions are going on. That's the way I see it. And at some point it may make no sense at all.

The author's going to have to figure that out at the time. Sasha. I'm sorry, Senator Perez,

I'm sorry, what? Can I reclaim my time?

Yes. I thought you were done.

No, thank you, sir.

I have to yield the floor. It's yours.

Thank you. Okay, so let me discuss just a couple points and then I'll share my position. I have spoken to the Senator and I've actually also my staff has spoken to the Committee. And initially when the proposal was brought forward, I said that I would commit and support the bill.

What I'm trying to describe is since that time I received a letter of January 9 from LA Metro stating that they were actually beginning to do the very process of what this bill is requesting.

And I shared with the author that I had gone through a similar experience last year with the bill that, you know, sometimes local groups, you know, they step forward, they begin to do the work. We may or may not agree with what they're doing, but they are following their process.

So I brought this to the attention of the author, which he had seen it. And now as late as, since we just walked over from caucus, several LA delegation Members are now getting phone calls and maybe even beyond LA delegation from stakeholders within Los Angeles stating their concern.

And my only concern is that, that if we're going to move forward on legislation that we say we support, it should be reflective of what the communities think. So I'm going to ask the author a very tough question.

Would you be willing to consider bringing it back as a new bill to give your LA delegation Members, which I can show you my phone, is blowing up like crazy, an opportunity to talk to you, to talk about the bill, because people who aren't on this Committee aren't privy to all this information that's happening as we speak.

And I'm not saying I gave you my word that I would support the bill in its current form as you had presented it, but I just really do believe that giving your Members an opportunity, rather than us, you know, dealing with this on the floor, why don't we just deal with it right now in Committee, in the Committee of Jurisdiction?

So I respectfully would like to ask the author, is there any way you'd consider bringing it forward as a new bill? Obviously, it'd have to be slightly different. And then we work and we talk to our delegation because as I've shared with you, I think there is not a collective support in the LA delegation for this.

And I just, I think it's important because it does impact all of us. So my first question is, would you consider doing that? And I volunteer to work with you to call a meeting as a Member of this Committee, bring people forward, you know, get everybody on the same page.

Well, I think the challenge I have with this is that the chair is right. I mean, end of the day, the broader discussion is not going to change much. I mean, now that we're down to basically a study bill, I mean. So. You know, let me.

I guess what I would throw back to you is I would be happy as a full fledged Member of the LA delegation along with you to, you know, if the Bill moves forward today, to now go to the delegation, have us organize a meeting together with all the LA Members and have a really robust discussion.

So present what I'm trying to accomplish here and if the delegation doesn't want us to move forward with it, I'd be happy to pull the bill. But I don't know that it makes sense for me to pull it prematurely right now when it's the vehicle that I have for this.

But we can pull it if there's really, if the delegation doesn't want us to move forward on the bill, all we're asking for here is just report backs, which again, under pressure, they've decided to comply with. You know, I'm happy about that. You know, I do think there's one.

The only thing that I would, that I think needs to be also considered for inclusion in the bill beyond what's in Here now is the Measure G task force that's been created specifically to look at the implementation of Measure G by the county.

And again, in the end of the day, if all we're asking for is reports back where people are weighing in on this important question and there's no action required, if it turns out that, you know, people don't feel as though the reports back are adequately representative, they're unhappy with where things are, we don't have to take action, we're stuck.

You know, we just stay with the status quo. All we're trying to do here is promote a real dialogue on this, on this question. And it's strange to me. I mean, I guess I am. We don't delineate any. We don't push this in any particular direction. I understand there were folks that didn't like the original proposal.

Again, that proposal is off the table now. When you talk about the will of the voters, Senator Strickland, this was a measure passed by the voters of the county of Los Angeles. So I'm just. I'm trying to incorporate the local voice into, into the. Into the conversation here.

This thing passed, so we gotta figure out how to incorporate it. And I'm just trying to figure out a way to make sure that conversation's happening.

Reclaiming my time back.

The issue is, and having served in local government, state government and Federal Government, the issue is that now that they've decided to do that and so just out of basic respect, we don't like it when we're suddenly told, oh, we have to implement something by whoever, and we're, you know, forced to do it in a particular.

We may already be moving in that direction, but we don't like it. And the federal. No one likes it. Everyone likes to do the work in their lane.

And I think where it, where it began to turn south was due applauding you, due to your efforts, due to you bringing it forward and saying, you know, this is important, we need to begin to have the discussion. Local government has responded. They did exactly what you asked them to do.

They said, okay, he's got a good point. We're going to agendize this and work on it. So that's the difference. But reclaiming my time, clarifying two things. One, as the author, you're committing to meeting with the delegation if this moves forward, and if there's not an agreement, pull the bill.

The second commitment I'd ask is that if any future amendments are concerned or brought forward or something different, that you would also come back to not Only the LA delegation, but Members of this Committee as well. Absolutely.

Because it's only fair to us if we're tiptoeing into another, you know, body's, you know, rightful ability to do a job.

It's only our responsibility that if it's not right, then we know it and people vote appropriately on the floor, which for me, myself, I may end up for the record, voting differently by the time we get to those points. Okay with that, Mr. Chair, you've been more than generous with your time and in.

Not that he needs defense. He's an excellent chair and has been that for quite some time. He actually sought input, you know, where people were going. The problem was this stuff is literally just coming out as we speak, and that's what's caused some of the concerns. Thank you for the time.

All right, thank you, Senator Perez.

I'm filling in for our pro tem Limon today. So appreciate the vibrant discussion that my colleagues have had around this Bill and received some of the last minute letters that came in in opposition to this Bill as well, and understand that you've made some pretty significant amendments.

I do want to acknowledge the San Gabriel Valley cog, which covers the entire area I represent, including cities like the city of Glendora. I represent over 19 cities, three jurisdictions that are unincorporated areas in LA County.

And, you know, they have concerns with this Bill because if there's going to be a discussion about representation, about expansions of the board, if there's going to be any sort of study, they just want to be included in those conversations. I used to be in local government. I was mayor of the city of Alhambra.

Unfortunately, we didn't have always a positive response when we need to reach out to Metro to request things. And we often felt like the concerns of small cities and small jurisdictions really weren't valued as a part of the discussion.

And Metro's focus tended to be on the City of Los Angeles, which is a huge part of LA County, but it is not all of LA County. And there are diverse needs that we have throughout the San Gabriel Valley and other parts of LA that need to be served.

So, you know, I share all of that because I think that this discussion about board representation, about expansion is a really important one, but it's one that we want to be mindful of for all of the reasons that have been stated already.

But I think, especially when I think about the areas I represent, which is not the City of Los Angeles, making sure that we actually are being included in that process in a meaningful way, because We've felt very much shut out of that process. So I. I think the amendments you've made are good.

They're moving in the right direction. I'm happy that Metro, you know, has committed to moving up their timeline for producing that report.

And I also trust you, Senator Allen, that you'll continue working with Metro and with the city of Los Angeles to deliver something that makes sense, but would appreciate you also taking into account some of our other jurisdictions that are not the city of Los Angeles, that are served by Metro as well.

Yeah. And I welcome your ideas about how to best incorporate them. That will be largely. I'm sure that will be part of our LACD conversation. And I also think. I can only assume that our friends from local government here would welcome their ideas.

As I was listening to you, I was thinking, this is exactly why I wanted to bring this Bill forward. We need to. To bring these issues up. We need to hear the concerns from the folks in the San Gabo Valley and, you know, the southeast cities. And these are.

These are important conversations that have to be brought up in the context of this decision that we're all going to have to make in a couple of years. Okay, Senator.

So I'm looking at the opposition, San Gabriel Valley and the South Bay cities. They're opposed to this bill. And Metro. Yeah, yeah, and Metro and the city of Valley. Yeah. Right. And you were just talking about the San Gabriel city, the Hammer being one of them. How are they opposed to it when.

They should be? Let them. I mean, obviously they may want to expand on this, but. But. I think there's just nervousness about. As I have walked into this conversation, I've learned a lot about deep tensions that exist between the cities, the smaller cities in the city of Los Angeles, the cities and the county.

My original proposal was, okay, we just passed this measure, gave. We got. Let's give representation to the new countywide Executive and let's give representation to the new supervisors. Well, from the city's perspective, that shifted too much power to the county. Now, I don't. You know, it's funny, I don't.

At the time, I wasn't really thinking of these supervisors as the county. I was thinking of them as elected officials representing a million people apiece, whose job it is to look out for all of their constituents. Constituents, as opposed to being instruments of the county. But the cities don't see it that way.

The cities have a, you know, many of them have a contentious relationship with the county and with their supervisors. And I got an earful about that from many people. And so it comes down to. You. Know, nervousness, I think, about any changes in the status quo that might tip the balance in one way or another.

Now, I'm not trying to, you know, you know, I understand that was the original proposal, but we're not at that place now. We're literally now just asking for. For discussion and study. And yet still the nervousness is there at that point. They're already doing that part. Right. The Metro Board has decided to do it. That's right.

Now, that's true. Which I'm happy about. And I guess one of the things I'd like to say is if you really are doing it and you're committed to it, why would you be opposed to incorporating? And we'd give you flexibility. We'd incorporate with a plan.

You want to have to make sure that it gives us some comfort that it's actually going to happen. It's going to happen in a truly representative way.

I'm going to take that as a rhetorical question because I don't want to get into debate back and forth with Senator Sarto.

So that's the logic that I'm approaching. Thank you. I appreciate that.

All right, Senator Gonzalez.

Sorry, just a real quick.

And I appreciate all this discussion back and forth because I do think that, as Senator Richardson mentioned, you should be coming to the LA County delegation and having this robust conversation.

A lot of us, you know, hadn't had that, you know, overall collective, which is both, it's a bipartisan, you know, delegation, which is great to have everyone there. Let me ask you, where did this derive from? Who came up with this idea to be able to do this?

I know Measure G is here, but what was the impetus for doing this?

Just the passage of Measure G and the fact that we knew the board had been creation of the. I've been following Metro Governance as an interest of mine for a long time, and the board was created by the Legislature. And now we had Measure G having passed, we have to figure out a way to incorporate it.

That's literally the concept here. And again, I don't have any regrets in spite of all this tension bringing this up, because I think we have to have this discussion, and I think the. This discussion at the delegation will be really great.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of folks that will call in before the discussion, so lots of representative, lots of voices will be represented.

But I am glad that this has prompted this because I think all of us need to grapple with the realities of this measure having passed, and we got to figure out a way collectively, very much led by our friends at the local level, but.

But certainly very much including our LA Members, to figure out how to best incorporate it. That's the spirit with which I'm approaching this. All right.

Anything else, Senator Gonzale?

No,

Thank you, Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Chair. Pardon my redundancy, but I believe I heard you say at least once, or maybe twice, that if this bill was to pass out of the Committee here today, that you would work with the LA delegation. Delegation.

And that if you cannot build a consensus among the LA delegation, you would pull the Bill.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I don't want one person to be able to veto the whole thing, but, but, but, yes, if there's a. As long as there's a decent consensus.

Yes, you will pull the Bill if you can. I'm hypersensitive. Being from Northern California, I would want. I wouldn't want Southern California to mandate or dictate something. Of course, the Bay Area and I've been on this Committee likewise. I don't want to do the same thing for la, so I'm deferring to the delegation. Yeah, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah, that's an appropriate. And it's an appropriate ask of the Members. Absolutely. All right. If there's nothing else, you may close. I don't know if there's anything else you can add at this point. No, I just. Listen, I'm glad we're. I'm glad we're. This is an important discussion. We have to have it.

I certainly hope the Committee passes it out today. And, you know, if it does, Senator Richardson and I will be working with the county delegation leadership and the other LA Members of this Committee to host a meeting of the full delegation.

There will certainly be a lot of local input, and we'll talk about what we're trying to achieve here and how to do this in a way that is going to work for our region. You know, the voters pass this measure. It's the new reality, and we've got to figure out a way to incorporate it.

You know, maybe end of the day, we work out a deal with Metro where their process ends up being adequate. I don't know.

I mean, I think there are some other voices that ought to be part of this, and some of the things that have come up just now is that maybe the Metro process on its own isn't going to be adequate. You know, if you. If you can hear what Senator Perez is concerned. So.

But that being said, you know, I want to. I represent. My district is entirely within the county of Los Angeles. I represent a significant portion of the city of Los Angeles. I'm not at all interested in. I represent six teams, 18 different cities.

So, you know, just like so many of you, I want this to work for our region. That's the spirit with which I'm approaching this. And as for an Aye vote. All right.

Thank you for your close. Let's call the roll call. At this time. Do we have a motion?

I don't think there was any.

We can entertain a motion at this time. Can I exercise the chair's prerogative to move the Bill? I know that's in Robert's Rules of Order, but apparently we don't go by that here. All right. Does somebody want to extend a courtesy motion to the author so we can take the vote? I'll extend it. I'll make the motion.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. And we'll take the roll call vote. Thank you.

The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, we have a 33 Aye's two no's, and the Bill will remain on call for absent Members. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Next up in file order is Senator Archuleta, SB667. Senator, if you're ready, you may present.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much for the opportunity to present my Bill, Senate Bill 667 to the Committee again. Thank you.

Today I'm presenting 667 the California Railway Safety act, which will improve public and operator safety in California heavy rail sector by requiring the railroad to operate a network of wayside detector systems on adjacent or on their tracks.

By mandating comprehensive detention coverage, Senate Bill 667 will significantly improve California's ability to detect potential equipment failures before they result in catastrophic incidents. The Bill specifies spacing of 10 miles for the large Class 1 railroads while providing relief for the smaller short line railroads.

The spacing requirements In Senate Bill 667 mirrors what the railroads already comply with in Ohio, which is another large state with significant freight operations. While the railroads may say that mandating way of detectors is federally preempted, this is not the case.

The Federal Rail System Safety act allows for state laws addressing local safety hazards in the absence of federal guidance. Notably, the railroads have not challenged Ohio's law. Senate Bill 667 addresses critical safety gaps in California's rail system by implementing measures on wayside detectors informed by recent derailments involving and understanding of rail safety best practices.

By focusing only on wayside detectors, Senate Bill 667 takes on a targeted approach to rail safety that prioritizes prevention of catastrophic incidents while maintaining the viability of rail transportation. The wayside detector requirements in the Bill are particularly timely in the aftermath of the East Palestine derailment in Ohio.

Unlike Ohio, California should not wait until we have our own disaster before mandating wayside detectors. Train accidents and incidents represent a persistent challenge to rail safety in the United States, with thousands of incidents occurring annually across the nation's intensive rail network system.

Over the past decade, the United States has experienced an average of more than 30 rail incidents per day, indicating that the scale of the safety concern is now and it should be addressed. California specifically faces substantial rail safety challenges that necessitate robust regulatory responses.

Recent years have seen significant train derailment within the state, including a March 23 incident in San Bernardino where a freight train experienced uncontrolled movement resulting in 55 train cars derailing. This occurred within the national context where the Federal Railroad Administration registered approximately three derailments per day in 2022, totaling over 1,100 per year.

Members, I want to finish this by saying that I am continuing to refine Senate Bill 667 and I am open to working with any stakeholder regarding their concerns.

Many of the Members here today saw this Bill last year in Senate Energy and have been aware of the ongoing discussions on Senate Bill 667 when it was previously before this Committee last year.

In response to those discussions, I have entirely removed the sections of the Bill that dealt with both train length, which was an issue to some, as well as emergency blocking crossings. These provisions, specifically the provisions that limited train length, were the primary concerns from the stakeholders last year. It is not this year.

Regarding wayside detectors, this year we have given exceptions to short line railroads to have larger spacing between the detectors. And we have also allowed the railroads to submit their own safety response plans to the California Public Utilities Commission. So rather than having the CPUC develop their own, the railroads can develop their own.

This will allow the railroads to better control their own operations while maintaining minimum spacing requirements. Public safety should be their mantle. Senate Bill 667 is sponsored by rail unions who know that Senate Bill 667 needs to be done to ensure the safety and viability of rail transit in California, their employees and staff Members to protect their families.

No doubt. The Teamsters Smart Transportation Division and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen support this Bill. With me today to testify on behalf of the Bill are two of the bill's co sponsors. Louis Costa, Smart Transportation Division, California State Legislative Board Director.

And also we have Ryan Snow, Chairman of the California State Legislative Board for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen Keemster's Rail Division. I respectfully asked for an aye vote and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. We'll go to the support witnesses at this time. Two minutes each, in whichever order you prefer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this on? It should be on. They say it's on. Go ahead. You might have to lean in, though.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee Members, Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division. One of the lessons learned from the East Palestine catastrophe was that average spacing of these detectors does not adequately protect the public. The average spacing of Those detectors, the three detectors in question, was 15 miles.

The problem was the first two were 10 miles apart. The third was over 20, was 20 miles away. And in that 20 mile period, that bearing catastrophically failed. And we saw the buildup and the fire that ensued.

That community the chair of the National Transportation Safety Board stated that had that detector been closer, that derailment could have been prevented. She also stated that they had some concerns with the railroad's response to alerts from detectors and the notification to crew Members of issues with defects within their train. That train passed through three detectors.

Between the first and the second, there was almost a three times increase in the degrees the temperature above ambient temperature, the degrees above ambient temperature of the failed bearing. Nothing was told to the crew, Nothing was told to the railroad, didn't tell them to stop and inspect.

In fact, the railroads set their own thresholds for when they are going to stop a train to inspect a potential defect. Nothing was expressed to that crew until it was in catastrophic failure.

This Bill, as the Senator mentioned, will require the railroads to submit their response plans to the CPUC for their approval and to have a stakeholder a public comment period so that other stakeholders can have a say in what those responses are going to be. To have better safety on the freight rail systems here in California.

I wanted to address some concerns that we've heard about the 10 mile per hour portion that's in the Bill.

If the railroads address comply with the spacing requirements, it will not be a slowdown whatsoever of any freight trains or any passenger trains or anything else they will operate as if they're operating today as long as they meet the spacing requirements in the Bill.

And I wanted to touch a little bit on preemption as the Senator mentioned as well in Ohio and I've talked to my colleagues there. They have not had any issues with the railroads attempting to seek preemption on those issues.

In fact, they've not had any issues with the operation of freight trains or passenger trains with the implementation of the 10 mile spacing and the exception for 15 mile spacing. So there is no preemption here. The Federal Rail Safety act specifically allows states to regulate railway safety.

This legislative body has already done that on several occasions in the past few years going back to 2006 and 2015. None of those have been preempted and are enforced today. So with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Next one is, please. Thank you. Chairman Corkeesi, Members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Ryan Snow. I serve as state chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, California State Legislative Board, Teamsters Rail Division. I'm here today as a proud co sponsor of this critical safety legislation, SB667.

This Bill isn't about technology. It's about protecting lives communities and the hard working men and women who operate our state's railroads. It requires railroads to install and maintain an enhanced wayside detector system.

The electronic sentinels that Scan trains for defects such as overheated bearings before these defects become derailments and allow the train crews to immediately notif or allow the train crews immediate notification of the issues affecting the train. This is something that did not happen in Ohio. The crew did not know about the defect until it was already failing.

They should have been notified that the first detector in reality is simple. If you can hear a train's horn even in a distance, you're close enough to be in danger. And in California, that's millions of our citizens. A hazmat train derailment doesn't stop at the tracks. It spreads through the air, the soil and the waterways.

Any community within 25 miles of a rail line is potentially at risk when safety systems fail or neglected. The recent series of derailments nationwide has shown what happens when safety takes it back to the seat for profit.

But California has an opportunity to safeguard its citizens by mandating detecting detector spacing, requiring prompt inspection protocols and setting strong penalties for non compliance. This Bill ensures accountability and prevention. We can't rely on luck to protect our communities. We must rely on law and we we must pass this Bill. I appreciate your time and thank you.

All right, thank you for your testimony of both of you. Are there other folks in the Committee room who wish to speak in support? Please come forward now. You're limited to name, support and affiliation of course. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Committee Members Brian, Mayor Montez with ask me California in support. Scott Brent, Smart Transportation Union Local 1201 Stockton, California in support.

Good afternoon chairmen. Elmer Lazardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Trevor Haddock, Smart Transportation diversion 492 out of Roseville, California in support. Thank you. Good afternoon chair and Members Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California proud co sponsors and support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jeff Sturges, brother locomotive engineers out of Roseville. Full support for this Bill.

Good afternoon. Jacob Young, Division 692 BLET and I support this Bill.

Jared Phills, Smart Transportation, Bakersfield, and support of this Bill.

Nathan Cook, Smart Transportation. Richmond, California. I support this Bill.

James Spalsely, SMART-TD. Oakland, California, in support.

Jamie Paquette, Smart Transportation in support.

All right, thank you. It looks like that concludes the opposition testimony. We're going to. I'm sorry, the support testimony. We're going to call up opposition witnesses at this time. You may stay here or not. There may be questions for you.

So you may want to stay here instead of having to come back up. And opposition. You're welcome to come up. Make yourself comfortable. Grab a microphone. You'll have two minutes each and I'll let yourself introduce. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Cortese and Members of the Committee. My name is James Tylek and I am the Assistant Vice President of Passenger Operations at BNSF Railway. I started my railroad career in Boston on Amtrak and commuter rail before joining BNSF 18 years ago. I have been in my current passenger operations role for the last four years.

My team has over site of all Amtrak and commuter rail that BNSF hosts today in shared passenger freight corridors. BNSF hosts more than 6 million Amtrak train miles per year. That's more than any other Class 1 railroad. Amtrak's gold, Runner, Surfliners, Metrolink, all operate on key California BNSF owned corridors.

I ask you to vote no on SB67 today. The Bill will hurt passenger and freight operations arbitrarily. Dictating wayside detector spacing and requiring freight trains to proceed at 10 miles an hour when spacing exceeds 10 miles will certainly cause more train congestion.

Just as slowing down for a work zone on a highway causes traffic jams if freight trains begin traveling at 10 miles an hour. Passenger trains that share those same corridors, often on single track routes, will also be impacted.

Railroads are the safest mode of transportation and a fluid network is necessary to bring more trucks off the highway and onto rail. Operating freight trains at 10 miles an hour will undermine passenger train reliability given the resulting congestion in shared corridors. Rail provides tremendous benefits to California and the nation for freight and passenger transportation.

This Bill will harm both. Please vote, No. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I'm Ross Lane, work for Genesee and Wyoming, handle government affairs and we are affiliated with six shoreline railroads in the state of California. I'd ask you to raise your hand if you knew what a shoreline railroad is, but I think you have some idea.

But think about the local Ace Hardware franchises compared to the Lowe's on Home Depot. With respect to my colleagues from the larger Class 1 railroads, really kind of the birth date of the short line railroad industry is 1980, when the railroad industry was deregulated.

And at the time you saw the larger freight railroad said, thank goodness we don't have to operate these small, unprofitable lines to nowhere.

Well, today, thankfully for some entrepreneurs and holding companies today, we bought a lot of those small railroads back and we made a go and made some tremendous strides in maintaining freight rail service to port facilities, rural communities and other small shippers that then connect to the larger Class 1 system.

So as I mentioned, the economics and operations of short line railroads are just fundamentally different than the larger Class 1. Some of the railroads that are affiliated with GNW, their revenue is measured in below $1 million a year. Short line railroads, again are classified in terms of revenue and they simply can't afford the requirements under this Bill.

And we're thankful to the Bill sponsors for their discussions with us earlier, or, excuse me, last year, but today we still can't afford the wayside detector installation. Even with the changes that were made in the Bill. We're talking millions of dollars to tens of millions of dollars for short to be able to comply.

Well, why does that matter? Well, because of that prior ownership of these short line railroads, we often operate at speeds 10 mph or less and often at 25 mph or less. We spend millions of dollars a year in our own revenue ensuring that we can operate at those standards.

But if we are to make tremendous strides in this state, which is get trucks off of public roadways, reduce congestion, increase economic development opportunities for rural and port facilities. Well, we need to increase the investment we're making in short line railroads.

However, what this Bill would do would force short line railroads to take that capital away from improvements and put it towards wayside detectors and data that we shared with the Committee last year at GNW. Over the last 10 years in California, zero derailments would have been prevented by the installation of a wayside detector.

Nearly all of the derailments that occur on short line railroads occur in what we call other than main track rail yards and often at speeds, walking speeds one to two miles per hour. This Bill, I would urge you to vote no. It's going to make some tough decisions for short lines.

They can choose to either go out of business, they can install wayside detectors while they ignore the other safety impacts at the railroad. We want to be partners in rail safety. We just Feel there are other ways to do it. Appreciate your time.

Okay, thank you. Others here who wish to speak in opposition of the Bill, please come forward now. State your name, affiliation and your opposed position, please.

Good afternoon. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members Skyler Wonnacott with the California Business Properties Association, BOMA California and NAOP California. In respect to opposition.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Brenda Bass of KP Public affairs here. On behalf of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, which operates passenger rail in the state. Thanks, in opposition.

Sarah Brennan on behalf of Supply Chain Federation. In respectful opposition.

Dennis Albiani with California Grain and Feed association and Pacific Agate Poultry Association. We work both with the main railroads. As well as short lines, so we appreciate those comments as well. And we oppose.

Nico Molina on behalf of the California Forestry association and opposition.

Good afternoon. Jon Kendrick with the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposition.

Matt Roman on behalf of the California Business Roundtable. In opposition.

George Kvinta on behalf of the Almond Alliance, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association also in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Peggy Ygbuhay, the senior Director of public affairs for Union Pacific, in opposition. Thank you.

All right. And that seems to conclude our opposition testimony. Comments or questions? Senator Grayson, first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I need to clarify a couple of things. Did I understand it correctly to the author that short line railroads were exempted from your Bill?

Yeah, I'd like Mr. Acosta to go ahead and point that out and how we. We covered that.

If a short line railroad has a Maximum speed of under 10 miles an hour, they're exempted from any provision of the Bill and it changes depending on their Max speed. So it allows for separation of 25 miles and 35 miles, depending on the speeds that, is the Maximum authorized speed for that particular railroad.

What currently exists for short line, as far as the requirements for wayside, they don't have to have any.

They don't have to have any wayside detectors. There's no requirement federally, statewide, other than Ohio and recently New Jersey to require states to have wayside detector systems. There is no, they could have zero, they could have 100. It's totally up to them.

And you just said that if they operate under 10 miles an hour. So it's not 10 and under. It is 10 and under. And so I think I understood that at times they operate up to 25 miles. Is that correct?

Senator, what we're talking about is safety. You can imagine a freight train moving down the track, whether it's 20 or 30 miles an hour. It doesn't matter. What matters, it's moving. And there is a system modernization.

Technology has brought this to us to save lives, to save those employees that work on the trains, and they're able to get home to their families by detecting that those bearings heated up.

And if you heard the testimony from Mr. Costa, he said there in Ohio that the fires began in the wheels, and had they been notified earlier, they would have stopped, slowed down, stopped, and prevented the tragedy. And that's what this is.

Again, last year, go around, you heard me say that the length of the train was an issue. You know, not being able to break it for emergency. All that's off the table. Only what we're talking about.

I appreciate that, Senator Archuleta. I appreciate that. I heard your testimony, and I'll ask you a question here in a minute. I was just trying to get a clarification on short rail and what the differences were. And let me ask if the opposition witness wishes to respond to. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Senator, good question. So track speed is classified in terms of its class, which is speed. So it could be Class 1 track, Class 2 track, Class 3, Class 5. We operate a lot of it at Class 1, which is 10 miles per hour or less.

Class 2 would be 25 miles per hour or less.

Our concern with the Bill is that if we were to make investments in the railroad into the track to be able to go faster than 10. Well, now it just got a lot more expensive, because at Class 1 speeds, at 10 miles per hour or less, no detectors are required under this Bill.

If we go to 25 miles per hour now, we have to install detectors. So in some ways, it acts as a perverse disincentive for a railroad to invest in its infrastructure, because now they have to install detectors.

Thank you for that clarification. In the testimony, Senator, you said that there were 30 incidents a day. Is that 30 derailments a day that we're having, or what does an incident mean?

It means there's several methods of that, and I'll let Mr. Acosta again give you the. Did you use the number 30? Yeah, I did use the number 30 because it's derailment. And also sometimes it's the wheels. So it's not just the train falling over, but anything that happens to move the, the wheels from the tracks.

Mr. Costa?

Yes, I believe that the number was three per day on average over the year that he discussed it. There was 1100 total across the system for the year. So 365 times three. 1100 and some odd. That's I heard from the, from the Senator, but I mean, that's what the reference to us.

So he meant to say three?

I believe so, yes. I don't want to speak for the Senator, but that's what the notes and the information that we were sharing with staff last year was 3 per day in that calendar year that he mentioned.

All right, and just two more questions. Pardon me for what impact would this have. And I'm trying to get. I want to get to a support position. And safety is everything, it really is, as far as making sure our communities are safe. Thank you for your testimony. Because the incident doesn't just stay at the track.

It does go into the air, it does go into the rivers, it does go into the soil. So I appreciate that. That resonated very much with me. At the same time, we have passenger trains, which I believe you stated that passenger trains are now, are they completely exempted out of the Bill.

We're calling freight trains. This Bill pertains only freight trains. Yes, sir, but do passenger trains use the same rails as freight trains? They do, but they operate under different safety standards. And again, Mr. Costa, being the expert, I'd have to refer to him.

It applies to a railroad corporation. That's the language in the Bill. And a railroad corporation could include passenger rail folks that own the line and that lease that back to the railroads for use. Very few miles of that, of that situation are in California. We have been asking for those numbers.

We've tried to get the numbers exactly where they're at to see, you know, what can be done if there is an impact on any passenger stuff. We're in conversations with folks and we're hoping to get some better information so that if we need to move forward, we can, we can move forward with that.

But currently, the elective the San Joaquin’s, for instance, over mentioned here, they all run on BNSF track. BNSF track is a railroad corporation. They own the track.

Okay, thank you. And then last.

Capitol corridor runs off of all the unipacific track to Mike.

I'm used to capital Corridor. And so we've been stuck sitting on the train because of a freight train that was in the way. And so I've sat on that track substantial amounts of time.

And so I understand that the impact has there been any kind of a study or anything done on the impact of delivery of goods for freight trains from this mandate?

It's been given to me. No. Okay. I just. Unless Mr. Kostin got an answer on.

That one, I would just say that the. The only state that has mandated the spacing of detectors similar to this Bill. In fact, this Bill came from The Ohio Bill. 10 miles with an exception for 15 miles separation for. For geographical issues. Yes. Spoke with representatives in Ohio again this morning. There has been no negative.

There's been zero negative impact on freight operations or the passenger operations that utilize freight railroad tracks in the state of Ohio since the passage of this Bill almost three years ago. About two and a half years ago.

Okay. And then, Senator, at some point in time, maybe in your closing, would you address. Because you made the statement that the railroads could develop their own. Was it safety plans or something?

I'm trying to figure out what exactly. In other words, we're hoping that they. This opens up a door for other safety measures. It's just not zeroed in one and they're done. We invite them to participate because there could be other plans.

We have a responsibility to keep our passengers safe, the crew safe, and everyone who operate these trains. And whether they come out of Southern California or Northern California, whatever, safety is the main thing. And so we invite the railroads to participate in other methods, and we can embrace that. This is just the bearings that we're talking about.

Thank you, Senator.

And I look forward to seeing the Bill as it goes forward and if it gets out of Committee today, working together between opposition and the sponsors to try to get to a really good rail spot.

Yes, thank you.

I want to go to Senator Perez and then Senator Cervantes.

Yeah. A couple of things. One, you know, Senator Archuleta, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think the disaster that happened in East Palestine, Ohio, was shocking in my district.

Ranajit Sahu, who's a doctor and one of the leading environmental scientists in the nation on hazardous cleanup, led that cleanup in East Palestine and saw how devastating it was for the community.

I think what you're proposing here is a very common sense measure to make sure that we have better systems that are able to alert us if we have another catastrophe like this one.

We know that the systems that were in East Palestine failed, which is part of the reason why we saw such hazardous material waste be poured out into the community and have an impact on the environment. And so what you're proposing here I think is important.

You know, I know, and I recognize we read through the opposition that there are concerns raised around federal preemption. But there is a balance that we have here in California. We have a responsibility as a state to protect the safety of our constituents and to protect the state's environment.

The reality is that if we were to have a disaster like the one that happened in East Palestine here in California, it could take years, potentially, to clean up, and that's millions of dollars that are being spent. So I appreciate what you are doing here. I will absolutely be voting yes to support this.

I think this is a common sense measure. And, you know, I'm happy that you brought forward this Bill. Thank you.

Good. Thank you. Senator Cervantes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author. I certainly support rail safety and the intent of the Bill.

I do have concerns about the potential impact on passenger rail operations, particularly around metrolink in my area, as you do consider enhanced safety measures, I think it's critical that we do strike a balance between safety and operational efficiency.

And so I think I will support the Bill today, but I'm hopeful that you will continue to work with the opposition and potential unintended consequences.

Thank you. Thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward and to our witnesses. Safety is paramount. We cannot let what happened in Ohio happen in California. And I appreciate the work that you've done, listening to stakeholders to make some amendments to this Bill.

I do want to second the concerns, and I have shared them with Mr. Costa that Senator Cervantes had raised around the impacts on passenger rail. But I'll also just say, you know, how this impacts the supply chain. I represent the City of Oakland. The Port of Oakland is situated in my Senate district.

A lot of the produce that is grown in the Central Valley travels along rail lines to be cargoed in and out of the Port of Oakland.

So I have a vested interest in making sure that we get it right in terms of how we balance safety with the impacts it has on our supply chain, which is already impacted because of the impacts of tariffs. In addition, as someone who rides the capital Corridor every single week, I know what happens when a freight train.

Is. Or a bridge is elevated because of, for some reason, how that impacts scheduling and people getting to work, and how that impacts our passenger rail as a means of transportation for people to get to and from different parts of our state. It's an essential part of our state's transportation program.

And so I want to just acknowledge that we did receive a letter of opposition from Capitol Corridor Joint Powers authority, raising concerns, particularly around the impacts on passenger. And I want to encourage you and your sponsors to sit down with those stakeholders to see what we can do to mitigate the impact.

We shouldn't compromise safety, but there's no question that there's a ripple effect in terms of delaying something impacts the ability of a train to be able to move expediently down the road. So I don't know what the solution is.

I will vote for the Bill today to get out of Committee, but encourage you to continue to work with those stakeholders and will reserve my. The right to vote for this Bill when it comes to the floor. I will be looking to see what progress to make in addressing these issues.

All right, I think we've recognized everyone on the dais. No, we haven't.

All right, thank you. So for the author or anybody that can answer the questions, what is the cost per one of these devices and are there, what's the implementation timeline?

Kind of some of those questions about what this would take because I believe if you've taken the system down to redo it, I believe the speed limit for trains is 10 miles an hour period. And that would be extended over a very long period of time. So what is the cost?

Because this winds up being a cost benefit.

As the Senator Perez had mentioned, what's happening in, in her district and everything else, you know, cost of safety. What is the cost of safety?

But to answer your question that I don't know, be quite honest with you, each unit what the cost was and Ms. Costa, I can ask you if you might know and then you can have the others weigh in on that as well.

Yes, it's. It's our understanding that the, the hot bearing detector, which is the detector that will identify a failed bearing, which is what happened in East Palestine, which is what will be required to be every 10 miles, is in the range of 200 to $250,000. That's what our research has told us. So that's what we have found.

But there, if I could just clarify one, there's, there's for, for the railroads to implement this. They don't have to shut down the system. There's going to be a process of implementation that shall be coming. But they already do maintenance on track that requires trains to slow down.

They do maintenance on tracks that doesn't require trains to slow down. It's a process of the operation that they have. When mineral equipment are working on tracks, crews are alerted in advance. Crews contact those workers. The workers work with the trains in order to expedite the movement and get them through.

As 23 years full time conductor, very seldom out of the hundreds of work groups that I went through, maybe thousands did we ever not go through at what our maximum authorized speed was. So nothing in the Bill makes it slow down unless they don't meet the 10 mile requirement.

And there will be implementation time for that process coming. We've been in contact with the CPUC for that implementation and we're working through that process with them.

Yes, please. Thank you Senator for that question. I think from a cost perspective, our estimate was 300 or 500,000 per device timeline. We were thinking 18 to 36 months. I also want to just expand on the passengerail impact that I think was touched on a couple times.

As far as passion rail, I think there's two things that would happen if this Bill were to proceed. One, schedules would have to be elongated because certain trains would obviously be running slower and then the second thing would happen would be a degradation of on time performance. Right.

And I think it's also important to remember as it relates to some of our patients, rail operators, Metrolink, North County, for example, BNSF operates on their trackage in certain territories. So for example, between Fullerton, California and Oceanside, California, we are actually a tenant of Metrolink in that territory.

So we're operating on their railroad from Oceanside down to San Diego. We are a tenant of the North County Transit District. So in those situations, those agencies would also have to invest significant money to deploy these detectors as the Bill is written and also change their schedules to accommodate any location that may not have the desired spacing.

And I would just like to point out, Mr. Chair, that we are trying to get to the point of view from both sides as I invited the other side to go ahead and comment as well. And if I may point out that when we gather again to listen to both sides, that's what we're going to do.

But public safety, safety of, as I said with the crews and the trains and everything else, we'll address these things.

Odell, let's get back to an additional question. What's the science between 10 miles versus 17 miles versus 5 miles? Is there a study that came out that said that 10 miles is the amount that makes it the maximum safety. Or no, there's no study that supports the 10 miles.

After the incident in Ohio, the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, recommended to the Federal Railroad Administration to study the minimum standards and effectiveness of detectors. The association of American Railroads has proactively worked towards the goal of 15 mile spacing across the industry.

We have added detectors, but it is a data approach as far as where the detectors are. We want to make sure detectors are in advance of critical assets, for example bridges, tunnels. We want to make sure they're departing specific terminals to inspect the train as a departure.

We want to make sure that those detectors are at locations where you can drive up to with access so you don't necessarily have to shut the railroad down to maintain those detectors. Those are the things that go into detector spacing and placement. And we want to lean in to technology and looking at new algorithms to detect problems.

The last thing we want is a derailment. So we're doing everything we can to make sure that we continue to lean into safety and avoid derailments before they happen. This Bill does not advance those efforts.

And I would allow the other side to go ahead. What, what studies have you used to determine the 10 miles?

The National Transportation Safety Board has made 81 recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration in the past decade. 81 safety recommendations, five have been implemented. We don't have a whole lot of faith in the Federal Government or a study. The 10 miles came from the Ohio Bill.

The people that suffered through East Palestine, they enacted a Bill with 10 mile separation allowing for 15 miles. In the event of there being an issue with location or geography. That's where it came from. The average spacing there was 15. And clearly 15 was not enough to prevent that from happening to that community.

And today, three years, almost three years coming up, a month away, they're still suffering. They're still monitoring the air, they're still monitoring the water, and they're still having people suffering from inhalation that they experience.

I don't doubt at all the safety implications. What I'm trying to get at is on a cost benefit. Well, you're looking at the benefit is increased safety.

But if there's not a study that shows what the increased safety is between 5 and 15 and we're going to spend a half a billion or half a million dollars or thereabouts on each one of these devices that half a million dollars.

In the context of our discussions about additional cost of living in California and those things, all of that adds to that cost of living because then the railroads have to charge more for what they're transporting and the goods that are inside those box cars cost us more to be able to pay for that.

And if we're not getting a substantial, substantially proven safety benefit, that concerns me. The other thing that concerns me is the process While they're going through this. I don't know if anybody has had the benefit of actually being on a train derailment, but I have. They're no fun.

But it's also no fun sitting on the wrong side of the tracks trying to respond to a medical emergency or a house fire with your lights on because the train can't pull over. And if they're going 10 miles an hour, it's going to be a long time.

And you can't race down the road trying to beat the train to the next thing in the fire engine. So you're losing some public safety there while you're trying to implement something that we don't know is any safer at 10 or 15 miles an hour. I don't think the Palestine incident indicates that.

That's not a study that says that wouldn't have happened if it were at 10. We don't know that. If a bearing goes out, a bearing goes out, it could go at the right after the 10 mile mark and be hot at the 5 mile mark and do exactly what you're talking about and what happened in Palestine.

So, you know, those are the things I'm concerned about is I want to make sure that if we're going to add pile on costs that there is a proven benefit to that and that benefit has to be real, increased public safety, not just perceived. Thank you. Okay.

Seeing that everyone now has been recognized, I wish to speak before the author closes. I just want to thank the authority, the sponsors of the Bill, but also the opposition for working closely with the Committee on the Bill, not just recently, but over the past year.

Certainly it's true that concerns that we had at the Committee level last year were taken into account. I don't see those concerns existent in the Bill anymore. Doesn't mean that there aren't remaining concerns.

I think we've heard here today legitimate concerns and I think they're important because we're dealing with a major trusted partner in commerce in the state. I mean, we.

All those of you who work in this space and those of you who represent those who own the equipment in this space are all doing California a tremendous service to keep things moving, keep freight moving and keep passengers moving. So I think, you know, there's a sensitivity.

This is not a new program or a new product that we're standing up, that we're debating. We get those in here all the time. This is something that, you know, but for the safety issue that has been brought before us today is an industry that's working quite well.

So I do think it's incumbent Senator Archuleta, on you and sponsors, you know, to keep, first of all, you know, doing whatever legal analysis you need to do on the federal preemption issue to make sure that that doesn't end up delaying everything.

I understand that hasn't been a case out of state, but certainly while this Bill is moving through the process, the checking case law every other day is probably not a bad idea in getting legal opinions on that. The costs are iffy. But this, you know, this. This Committee doesn't really take jurisdiction over cost per se.

I think it's important, though, in terms of what I said earlier about keeping things moving, that we're not doing something that is, at some level, so costly, so costly that it, in a state this big that it essentially creates an obstacle to the entire system.

So I know that the sponsors and the author will keep working at that, but I just want to acknowledge those as legitimate concerns. I came in here with more concern about than I have now about the frequency and location of the detectors. But. But clearly that's an issue that there's time to keep working on.

If there's a little bit of a better mousetrap in terms of how to set up that formula, I think all diligence should be used, you know, in that regard.

And I think all of that is important, again, because it's such a vital part of the industry here in California, transportation system here in California, that votes could be lost, gained or lost along the way if it gets out of Committee today.

I don't think that's an absolute assurance that, as you know, we've run a lot of bills. Senator Archuleta, I just. I think on a Bill of this. Of this gravity, everything's got to be right. Everything's going to the Senate. The rest of the Legislature is going to demand that.

So with that, you'll have the opportunity to close, and then we'll take a roll call vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I'd like to point out to the Members and the Committee that California has a reputation of putting the people first, safety first. You know, we just addressed the fires in the other Committee.

How had we invested or pushed a different entity to invest a little bit over years, maybe things would be different right now in Pasadena, Altadena, those lives would be different in the Palisades if we would have just pushed a little bit. Well, guess what?

California pushed for safety belts way back when California pushed for helmets on motorcycle drivers. California has pushed with so many bills to protect our Children, our workers and everything else. And I think that's the spirit of California, not the dollar. I think the investors in the railroad and those who run it, we'll find a way.

Is it 200,000? Is it 300,000? That's not our issue. That is not this Bill. This Bill is public safety. This Bill, hopefully will open other doors to get the railroads to join in with additional safety that they might have knowledge of. And we can bring those back. But I will tell you this.

I will work with the opposition to go ahead and have a good, solid Bill when it does hit the floor. So when it does, we can all come together to think about California first, safety first. And make sure that our transportation system is doing the right thing. So with that, I urge an aye vote. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have a motion? Who was that? All right, Senator Perez, move the Bill and we'll take a roll call vote.

[Roll Call]

We're at 7 to 2. And the bill will stay on call for absent members. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all being here. Appreciate the robust discussion. I have to go upstairs to another Committee to vote. I'm sorry. To present my own bill and to vote. I just wanted to say. Come on up, please.

Assemblymember Kalra, on the resolution, the Little Saigon Resolution, I just want to explain to the folks here, because I know there's folks from out of town, not just Sacramento, that I will be back. The Committee knows that I'm an eye recommendation on this resolution.

So my vote is a yes vote, but I need to go do my job in the other Committee and the vice chair is not here presently. I asked.

So I'm sorry, you get me.

I asked Senator Gonzalez, the past chair of the Committee, to, you know, conduct this last item preside. Thank you very much. I will be back.

All right, Assemblymember Kalra, you have ACR71 on the list, so go ahead and present. Thank you and welcome.

Thank you so much. I'd like to thank Chair Cortese. We share San Jose and this particular location in our. In our districts, overlapping districts, ACR 71 would designate a portion of State Route 101 in Santa Clara county as the Little Saigon Freeway.

The city of San Jose is home to the largest Vietnamese community in any city in the United States. Recognizing the significance, in 2007, the City of San Jose officially designated the area along Story Road as Little Saigon.

This area serves as a major cultural, social and commercial center with businesses ranging from supermarkets, shopping malls and jewelry stores, as well as cultural festivals and parades celebrating holidays like that. But Little Saigon isn't just a commercial hub. The name Saigon really stands for freedom and represents the resilience of Vietnamese history and heritage.

Last year we commemorated the 50th anniversary of Black April and the solemn reminder of the immense sacrifices made by millions of Vietnamese people who fled their homeland in search of safety and dignity.

And as we approach the Lunar New Year, let us take this opportunity to honor the many contributions of the Vietnamese community that have enriched not just San Jose, but all of California.

The journey of the Vietnamese boat refugees and the Vietnamese American community is the history of of America and certainly an important fabric and history of San Jose. By designating the Little Saigon Freeway, ACR 71 will ensure future generations can honor the name Little Saigon with respect and pride.

With me to testify and support are Van Le with the Eastside Union High School District and Tru Ha, President of the United Vietnamese American Community of Northern California.

Thank you. You can please come forward and sit down. Thank you for being here. Welcome.

Honorable Chair [unintelligible] and Member of the Senate Transportation Committee. My name is Van Le. I'm Board President of ISA Union High School District and a longtime community advocate in San Jose.

We are here in strong support of ACR 71, authored by Assembly Member Ash Kalra to highlight the history of Little Saigon in San Jo and want to thank you for all your leadership on issues that recognize and support our communities.

In 2007, as the Vice President of the Lilo Saigon San Jose Foundation, I worked with Dr. Barry do and the Vietnamese American community in Northern California to secure official recognition of Lilo Saigon, including names, its banner and directional signage.

I continue this work today advocating for Lilo Saigon freeway signage in Southern California under AB 2689 led by state Assembly Trita.

Building upon the recognition established through ACR 71 for Lilo Saigon freeway signage in San Jose of Northern California, which affirmed the Vietnamese American refugee aspirants statewide, the City of San Jose designated Little Saigon in 2007 with support from local leaders including Dave Kotesi who served on the City Council at the time, supported this recognition.

State Assembly Ashkara has continued its commitment at the state level to ACR 71, which honors the Vietnamese American community and recognize the historical significance of the South Republic of Vietnam flag. Last week the east side Board of Trustees vote unanimously to support ACR71.

This resolution aligns with ethnic study, teaching students about identity, history and resilience while strengthening their pride, belonging and engagement in learning. Especially for students in San Jose Little Saigon community where 30% are Vietnamese American descent, ACR 71 honors the history and ensures it remains visible for future generation. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Dear Chair [unintelligible] and honorable Members, My name is [unintelligible] and I am the President of Executive Board of United Vietnam, the American community of Northern California. First of all, we appreciate the transportation community vote yet hundred percent for Little Saigon freeway in Westminster.

We would like to sincerely thank Chair Kotiji for bringing ACR 71 forward and Assembly Askara for authoring Principal Coordinator Cheetah and Coordinator Assembly Member Aaron and Nguyen this meaningful and historic legislation. Vietnamese American across California stand united regardless for where we live. While we are proud Americans, we also honor but preserve our cultural heritage.

Many Members of our community are refugees who fled Vietnam after Vietnam War and our shared experience of sacrifice and resilience continue Connect us. We are deeply honored. That section of Highway 101280 and 680 in Santa Clara county will be designated a Little Signal Freeway. This recognition is far more than a size.

It symbolizes the struggle, perceived reference and contribution of Vietnamese Americans since arriving California. After falling off Saigon, San Joaquin was once more agricultural community. Today, Sanguaji is the 10th largest city in the United States and home to largest Vietnamese refugee community in the world. Our community have grown throughout California and across the nation.

And regardless of the geography, we celebrate our shared history and collective achievement. For this reason, we proudly support the Little Seagull freeway destination. We stand united, not a rival, but as one community, working together to build stronger families and community.

On behalf of the united Vietnamese American community of Northern California, I respectfully urge your support for acr71 today. Thank you for your time and your leadership.

Thank you very much for your testimony at this time. It doesn't look like you have any registered opposition at this time, so we'll take anyone in the room who'd like to come forward to Support or oppose acr71. Please, please state your name, organization and your position on the resolution.

Good afternoon Chair Gonzalez and the Committee Member. My name is Hiep Nguyen. I am a resident of San Jose. I am also the senior congressional advisor to Congressman Rukhanna. Actually, Congressman Rukhanna sent me here today to express his support the Vietnamese community, Vietnamese American who are in his district and he's fully support and sir, we're.

Just taking name organization. We thank you for coming on behalf of the Congressman and then whether you support or oppose the bill.

Congressman [unintelligible] and I fully support the bill. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate you being here.

Good afternoon, Chairs and all. I am Colleen Nguyen, the resident of San Mateo county, actively involved with the Vietnamese community in Silicon Valley San Jose and currently I'm teaching Vietnamese and Bible at the Lady of Our Lavan Church in San Jose next to the City Hall of San Jose.

Thank you all. Thank you. And name organization and whether you support or oppose the bill. I support the bill. ARC71. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. I am the Long Den. I'm leaving San Jose. I am [unintelligible]. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good afternoon everybody here. My name is Therese Horn, I live in San Jose and I would like to Support the Bill ARC71 relate to Little Saigon freeway. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon all. The Senator, my name is Gan Nguyen, I live in Haywood. I need you to support Earth RCR71. I need your support. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Tien Nguyen. I am a resident of San Jose. I would like to thank the United. States for welcoming us and allowing us to build a new life in beautiful and freedom land. And I come here today to Support the registration ACR17UP Assemblymember Ash Kalra and Trita. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Wing Tran, resident of San Jose City. Today I came here to strongly support the Bill ACR71. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. My name is [unintelligible]. I'm resident of San Jose, California. I'm here today because I want to support ARC71 and I wish everyone vote yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon Committee. My name is Long Tran, come from San Jose. I come here to support the ACR71. Even the name little second point to a little bit of 101 freeway. This is the owner of our community, the refugee Vietnamese refugee community in Northern California. And it's also the.

I'm sorry sir, we're just taking name organization and whether you support or oppose the bill. So we're just equal with everyone. Sure.

I support the bill.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon gentlemen.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name the Phong Mai. I am come from Stockton, San Joaquin County. I'm so focused Stockton. Appreciate. Thank you. God bless all you. Thank you.

[unintelligible]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Transportation Committee. My name is Jung Lee and from San Jose I want to support the bill of ACR [unintelligible]. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name John Nguyen. I was a captain in Vietnam before 1975 and after eight years in the jail, I'm lucky to be here today. Okay. And I'm in San Jose resident right now. And I was the President of the Vietnamese Republic of Vietnam. And now.

Okay, we are very happy to be here and I hope you can support us. Okay. And we are very strongly to support for the Bill ACR 75. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. ACR 71. That's okay. We know what they're talking about. This is great. ACR71. Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name [unintelligible], I live in San Jose, California. I support ACR71. Please. Thank you.

I am Jimmy Fan, resident of San Jose. I am very happy to be here. I hope I'm here to support ACR 71 that sponsored by state Assemblymember Ash Kalra. I hope that would be true with the audio truth. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good Afternoon. My name is Chen Yung. I live in San Jose. I support ACR71. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Isela Bravo with Cruise Strategies on behalf of the City of San Jose in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room who'd like to support or oppose ACR71, please come forward. Okay. See? None. We'll take it back for discussion with Members. Senator Richardson.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to commend the author for bringing this forward. I had a similar experience in the Chairs area when I was on the City Council, and we brought forward Cambodia Town in Long Beach, and it was of much discussion. So I certainly understand the need and commend you for it.

I fully support this bill. My only ask is that you will also consider working with the southern area, because we do have a Little Saigon. I believe it's towards the Westminster Area. And sometimes when you have two areas and two events, we figure it out. I mean, there's Chinatowns all over.

Over the United States, so it certainly can be done. And that's why I fully support. But I would just urge you to work with that representative to make sure we can hopefully find some synergy and build on things as opposed to groups feeling, zero, it's up in, you know, one area.

It's down in my other, that the communities will work together, because we did see that, for example, in my area. So just word to the wise, but congratulations and look forward to this bill passing.

Thank you. And if I could, Madam Chair, the Orange County and San Jose Vietnamese communities are very close, the two largest Vietnamese communities outside of Vietnam. And I was there in April on Interstate 405 in Westminster with seminary Member Treetaw.

And actually many of the Members from San Jose that are here were actually there in Orange County as well when we did the unveiling of the Little Saigon freeway signs in Orange County.

So this is absolutely a way of connecting Orange County and San Jose not just physically with those signs, but it's really a cultural connection that's very beautiful. So I really appreciate your comments.

Thank you. And we can tell you're from Northern California. You said Interstate 405 instead of the 405.

Yeah. We don't put the. No, no.

Very clear now.

I'm. Hello from the bay, clearly.

Okay. Those are nice words. Senator Richardson, any other comments from Members? Okay. See? None. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

I do want to entertain a motion.

I'm sorry, to this as well. Go ahead, Go ahead. And we'll entertain a motion afterwards.

I Want to thank first of all, Chair Cortese for his long standing leadership and support of the Vietnamese community in San Jose. We've been good partners in trying to represent the community there. I certainly want to thank Trustee Le and President Ha Chu for being here as well, as well as the many other Members of the community.

I've known many of them for many, many years. They give so much to the community in many different way. And I think this is a small token of appreciation to the resilience and the long standing friendship. I oftentimes say that you can't have San Jose without the Vietnamese community. They're intertwined inextricably.

And so it's a great honor for me to have the opportunity to author this legislation. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Okay, we've closed on those notes and I will entertain a motion, I think. Senator Richardson, would you like to motion the resolution? All right, we've got a motion by Senator Richardson and we'll go ahead and call the roll, please.

[Roll call]

Okay, the bill has 10 votes. It is on call. We're waiting for our chair to come back. Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you so much for being here. Okay, we will, I believe, be in recess in the moment as we have Senator Cortese, our chair, about to come back.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. All right, let's lift the call in the meantime. So we'll go through the file. The first one is file item SB220, that is by Senator Allen.

[Roll call]

Number guy, are you waiting for me?

Okay, this is 72. It's on call at the moment. We'll go on to file item 2, SB667 by Senator Archuleta.

[Roll call]

Okay112. The bill is on call and we'll move on to our Third file item. ACR 71. Assemblymember Kalra.

[Roll call]

110. The bill is or the resolution is on call. All right, we'll go ahead and recess for the moment to wait for Senator Cortese to come back. Thank you.

For absent Member votes roll call, Please follow item one.

SB20 by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 7:2 with the chair voting I and the vice chair voting no. Senators Archuleta, Cervantes, Dali, Gonzalez, Menjivar, Valladares.

Seven two. All right, so seven to two. And we still have an absent Member, as I understand it. So we'll leave that no open. Are we closing it out? But it's open and filled.

It's open and filled because it has to go.

I can't hear you.

So you have. Do you want to keep builders?

Yeah. So 220 is on call. All right.

File item two. SB667 by Senator Trolletta. The motion is do pass with Committee on Appropriation, Senator Strickland. Validaris? No. Validaris, no.

All right, that's 11 to three. That Bill is out. Yeah.

[Roll call]

I am here. I'm sorry. Okay. One second, sir. So we're doing 70. Okay? I haven't. I haven't. Okay. Concluded it. Okay. Archuleta, this is a Little Saigon resolution. Okay, let me go back.

So 171.

[Roll call]

And I'm off. Right. The resolution's out. 140 row.

Okay.

She's going to call you.

File item one. SB220 by Senator Allen. The current vote is seven to two. Senators Archuleta.

I'm not voted.

[Roll call]

All right, Seven to two. That measure fails. All right. And we'll go to 667. And that was already out. I'm sorry. So that concludes our. Our hearing today. Thank you all very much. Thank you, staff for the preparation for today's Committee meeting, and we are now adjourned.