Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present. Would the members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise? We will be led in prayer this morning by Senator Valladares, after which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Lord, thank you for the opportunity to be here and for the people who trusted us with this responsibility. We ask for your guidance today to lead with wisdom, to speak with honesty, and to act with humility. When we disagree, give us grace. When decisions are hard, give us courage.

Help us never forget that our work here touches real people, real families, and real communities across California. Keep our hearts grounded in service, not ego, and remind us that how we represent others truly matters. We place this day and this work in your hands. Amen.

Senators, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of...

[Pledge of Allegiance]

We are now at privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports from committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. We are now at motions, resolutions, and notices. Not seeing any members with any motions, resolutions, or notices.

We will now move to introduction of reading of first bills which will be deemed read. Senators, we are now at consideration of daily file. We will start with Senate third reading, file item 58, SB 795. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 795 by Senator Richardson, an act relating to horse racing.

Senator Richardson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and members. SB 795 is amended to support the sport of horse racing by expanding the number of out of state horse races that are exempt from 75 races per day importation limit.

As you might be aware, Hollywood Park, in the 35th Senate District, was originally a horse racing track and is now home to the SoFi Stadium and the Intuit Dome. Since Hollywood Park and other venues like it across California no longer supports live horse racing, they do have the ability to host satellite racing venues.

Prior to COVID-19 and the pandemic and the closure of non-essential businesses in California, the horse racing industry has experienced challenges in terms of its attendance and seeing the decline. Because of that, SB 795 can be helpful in maintaining that industry.

This Bill is non-fiscal, has received unanimous and bipartisan support, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 40, noes zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 59, SB 762. Secretary, please call... Read.

Senate Bill 762 by Senator Arreguín, an act relating to taxation.

Senator Arreguín, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. I rise to present Senate Bill 762, which is a district specific bill to address the revenue needs of the City of Hercules. Founded in 1900, Hercules was known as a company town, which later evolved into a residential suburb.

And over the years, the city has struggled to generate sufficient revenue to meet the needs of its community due to its status as a low to no property tax jurisdiction. This lack of funding jeopardizes continuing services, such as neighborhood police patrols, youth and elderly services, and park and infrastructure improvements.

Previous legislation passed by this body allows specific jurisdictions to exceed their sales tax cap. And this legislation would allow Hercules to place on the ballot a sales tax increase of up to 1% to ensure that services and infrastructure maintenance can continue. Ultimately, this gives the voters of that jurisdiction the ability to consider this increase. It does not impose the increase by statute. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 29, noes 10. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 61, SB 505. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 505 by Senator Richardson, an act relating to financial protection.

Good morning, Madam Chair and colleagues. SB 505 is a consumer protection bill focused on strengthening security for money transmitter platforms that millions of Californians use every day.

As more consumers rely upon these growing non-traditional banking platforms to pay rent, send money to family, or to make everyday purchases, these transactions have become a growing target for fraud and unauthorized access.

SB 505 addresses this risk by requiring reasonable security measures, such as the two factor or multi factor authentication to better protect user accounts from personal financial information being leaked to improper sources.

SB 505 requires many transmitters operating in California to use a two factor or multi factor authentication at user login and, importantly, it does not regulate an individual users or require them to have fees with those various consumers. By securing accounts at the login stage of SB 505, it helps prevent unauthorized access and account takeovers before financial harm occurs.

SB 505 includes a delayed operative date of January 1, 2028, so it gives businesses that we've worked with through this process ample time to implement the required security measures. I'd also like to acknowledge staff that's going on to bigger things with the CLBC.

As a Senate staffer who worked hard on this bill to bring it forward to help all Californians, and I'll continue to work with colleagues as other items may be identified through this legislative process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise in support of the bill and also appreciate the author's commitment to continue to work on some of the details. This is a, it's an important breakthrough for consumer protection. Sometimes the devil's in the details, and so we're working through some of those issues. For those of you who've gone through two factor authentication, it's an very, very important security protocol. It can also be maddening.

And so one of the issues around proposals like this is that when you think about somebody who's trying to log into their banking account to pay a bill, for example. And you've got your PG&E, your Edison bill to pay, you log in and you're like, oh, I left the bill in the kitchen. Or where did, where did my spouse put that bill?

You go find it. When you come back, you've been logged out because, appropriately, the system is protecting you against abuse. So you go back in again and now you have to two factor again.

And these small, these very small changes in the user experience, essentially, for the users who get frustrated. What am I doing wrong? This thing, it doesn't work. I'm typing in this number over and over again. And so we have the technology to say, look, you logged in within the last half an hour from the same exact IP address, then perhaps we don't need to require two factor authentication.

So getting some of the details precise so that we're also not interfering with the ability of consumers to be able to use their accounts and to protect their own security is an important part of this. Very much appreciate the author's commitment to do that. But the overall bill is extremely important for assuring security, especially for those most at risk of financial abuse. I'd ask for an aye vote.

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

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. Actually, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objections. Ayes 40, noes zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 67, SB 46.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 46 by Senator Umberg, an act relating to elections.

Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, as much as I would like to see Barack Obama serve a third term as President of the United States, the Constitution precludes that. I think that virtually everyone agrees that the Constitution and its amendments over the last hundred years preclude a third term.

However, there is at least one person who currently holds office that doesn't believe that, and he's supported by Professor Dershowitz and a fellow named Steve Bannon. What this bill does is simply says that if you've already served two terms as President of the United States, you may not be on the California ballot for a third term and the Secretary of State shall make that determination. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Secretary... Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam. I opposed to this measure. It's unfortunate that one of the first bills of the year is based upon conjecture that we just guess he may Trump, President Trump may run, which is not already decided. And is that the State Secretary's role or is that the federal government's Federal Election Commission's job?

Has there been any determination California Secretary of State determines all the qualifications of the Presidency of the United States? This is completely unconstitutional and grants the Secretary of State broad power to determine who is allowed on the state ballot for the federal election. The presidency is a federal office.

The only constitutional qualifications that matter is if the candidate is at least 35 years old and a natural born US citizen. The state government does not have the power to add its own preferred requirements to who they allow to appear on the presidential ballot in California.

This is very similar to SB 27 in 2019, where this body tried adding tax return requirements in order to appear on the California presidential primary ballot. Unsurprisingly, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the bill, as they determined the state does not have the right to exclude candidates from the ballot who otherwise meet the federal qualifications.

In the same way that the state cannot add a tax return requirement for those seeking to appear on the ballot, they also cannot include an other affirmation requirements to those who otherwise would meet all the constitutional qualifications added needed to be on the ballot. For these reasons, I voted against the bill in the committee and I will again vote against it. And I urge your no vote.

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

Thank you. I actually agree with my colleague from Irvine that serving a third term is unconstitutional. And I agree that certain sort of delusional thoughts we should not necessarily take seriously. However... However, two years ago, if someone told me that we'd be thinking about acquiring Greenland, I'd have thought that was nuts.

Two years ago, if someone said, you know what? People born in the United States may not be US citizens, and in fact the administration is going to try to remove their citizenship, I thought, that's crazy. No one would ever try that. So when someone says, I want to serve a third term as President, I do think it's delusional, but I do think we need to prevent it, at least here in California. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Member.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 30, noes 10. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 68, SB 73. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 73 by Senator Cervantes, an act relating to elections and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Senate Bill 73 is intended to protect the integrity and security of California elections. The bill builds on existing law by prohibiting county election officials from allowing federal agents to inspect or access voting machines.

This safeguard is designed to prevent improper federal interference with California elections infrastructure. This bill includes an urgency clause so that these protections are in place for the upcoming statewide primary election and future elections. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 73.

Thank you. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. I rise in opposition to SB 73. You know, we had a situation in Orange County where a dog voted in the last two elections. And here in the Legislature, what you're trying to do is make sure that we don't have transparency on the voter rolls.

The key to elections is making sure our democracy does not work if people don't have faith in election outcomes. Three presidential campaigns since 2000 have called in question the national election. Al Gore, Trump, and Hillary Clinton.

You know, Members, at a time where people across this country want more voter integrity and they want to make sure they have comfort in the election outcomes that we have, the last thing we need to do is have less transparency on the be able to... I think the state and the federal government should do whatever they can.

When a dog votes in an election over the last couple elections in Orange County, you have a problem. And no, it wasn't anybody. The reason why she got caught is because she bragged about it on social media and had an I voted sticker on her dog.

Members, that should concern everybody on this floor. And then move forward and have less transparency on our elections? Remember, Members, that's not good for democracy. If you believe in democracy, and you believe in transparency, you would vote no on SB 73.

Thank you. Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Again, I rise in opposition to SB 73. I believe this bill is, again, unnecessary. Inflame election related tensions with the federal government without actually improving the California election process. Federal guidelines already prevent the Department of Justice from obtaining voting machines and other equipment for inspection without a federal grand jury subpoena. So this bill is completely unnecessary.

The author's statement reports that President Trump has made false statements regarding our voting machines. Would it not make sense for the state to partner with the federal government to ensure accurate voting machines? The best way to debunk false claims is by letting the truth come out.

Yet this bill implies that we have something to hide by unilaterally banning the inspection of our voting machines. I believe that there are plenty of issues with our voting system that require a wide array of solutions.

Banning state and local cooperation with the federal government is in regard to ensuring accurate voting machines is not one of those solutions. I voted against this bill in the committee due to the concerns, and unfortunately, they were not addressed. For these reasons, I urge you to vote no.

Thank you. Senator Caballero, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I agree that we need to make sure that our voting systems are... That we trust them, that they're being appropriately handled and managed in a way that gives the public confidence that we're doing the right thing.

But here's the thing, is that the only thing this bill does is it requires a federal court order in order to be able to look at the device or to inspect the voting machine. And in order to get an order, you have to give facts.

You have to be able to say, here are the facts and here is my basis for my belief. And I think we've seen over the past couple of years that in this administration, they don't care about facts. They rewrite the facts and they do whatever they want to do.

And all this does is say, look, if you're going to come in and you're going to inspect and look at machines, you got to get a court order. And if a judge thinks that the facts would support a court order, then the inspection can move forward. So I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Just earlier this month, the New York Times released an interview they did with the President in which he says that he regrets not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states in the days after the 2020 election.

The President is already telling us what his plans very well could be for the midterms elections that are taking place this year. It is clear that he is willing to violate every constitutional norm to stay in power. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senators, this does have an urgency clause. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will now move to file item 71., SB 327. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 327 by Senator McNerney, an act relating to public utilities.

Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to present SB327. This bill, SB327 is basically identical to a bill that passed this floor last year. It was SB24 then. This bill included a small drafting error which is fixed in this bill.

SB327 will help protect ratepayers from abuses by investor owned utilities by prohibiting IOUs from using rate payer money to lobby against efforts to create a public utility. And it strengthens oversight of the IOUs by providing public advocates office the necessary authority to discover information about IOU spending. Hey, this is common sense.

We want to protect the IOUs interest here because there's so much anger against those entities right now that the better we can improve their image, the better off they're going to be in this state. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Saying no. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Question of the author.

Will the author take a question?

If it's a good one, yes.

You may proceed.

I just am curious about. Doesn't the CPUC already have the regulatory authority to do that or. And then the Public Advocate's Office, is that a, an appointed position? I'm just trying to understand this bill as we move forward. So is it an appointed position or how is.

How do we as the legislative body have some type of authority over the Public Advocate's Office like we do with the CPUC under rules like we appoint those people, we ask them questions on all of our colleagues behalf or is this person just hired by who? I'm just interested in the. In the individual who we're giving this.

Extended this authority with. And I'm being serious. Who are we extending the authority to?

I understand the question. This is an important position. Basically we went with SB 327. We want to clarify the lines between the CPUC and the Public Advocate's Office so that they'll know in statute what they're allowed to do and what they have the power to do.

Thank you colleagues. I realize that, you know, again, I've said I've looked at bills on energy continuously and I realize that rate's going up and affordability is a huge issue. And that we have the highest utility rates in the entire nation, the highest gas prices, and we do need to do something to address that.

There are solutions out there that we don't fix. We could all have 6 cent a kilowatt energy if we would just embrace it and it can be available to all of us in eight months. It would power data centers, thousand hours of battery storage. It's really an incredible new technology that's out there. And we just.

We won't embrace it in this building. So it looks like we're going to lose that to Texas. And that is disturbing. But I. And I. So I agree in coming up with solutions to fix this problem that we have. I just don't know who has the authority over this Public Advocates Office. Does CPUC hire this person?

Do they have some type of regulatory. Do we have some type of oversight over it? Like I said in rules, we ask the questions on behalf of all of you guys on rules. When you want questions asked to CPUC or any other regulatory agency out there and who's.

Who's over this individual that we're extending this power to, that's my question. I appreciate the author's response. I don't feel like it was answered to my satisfaction. I still didn't. I don't understand where the power of this individual is. You know, who oversees this individual was the question. But thank you.

And disrespectfully asked for an aye vote till we can have clarity. Or, excuse me, a no vote till we can have clarity.

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

Thank you. I appreciate the senator's concern, but basically we need to make sure that there's an entity that can investigate, has the authority to investigate the IOUs. They're the ones that found some of the abuses that have happened in the past. And with that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 31, noes 9. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 72, SB501.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 501 by Senator Allen, an act relating to solid waste.

Senator Allen, you are now recognized.

Thank you, Members, Madam President. This Bill would expand California's extended producer responsibility program for loose batteries to include medium format batteries, such as those found in E bikes, outdoor lawn equipment, and portable power systems. Batteries are a significant source of household hazardous waste, and they pose significant safety risks when improperly managed, including fires and even explosions.

And that's one of the reasons why our waste haulers are so interested in making progress on this issue because the fires that take place in their trucks and their facilities due to batteries. Currently, consumers often face inadequate access to convenient collection options from their local jurisdiction, which can increase the chance of improper and dangerous disposal.

Local jurisdictions are also facing significant fiscal burdens from the cost of proper collection and disposal of these products. Back in in 2022, we passed AB 2440 by Jackie Irwin, which established an extended producer responsibility system to promote the safe and proper collection and management of small loose batteries.

Now, medium format batteries were not included in the Bill at the time, but, but you know, many medium format batteries are actually designed to be easily removed by the consumer, similar to other loose batteries and they've been increasing in both the marketplace and waste stream as products such as E bikes and electric scooters and portable power systems become much more popular.

A number of states, both Democrat and Republican, have included medium format batteries in recent enacted EPR programs for batteries, allowing for efficiencies in distributing costs for program administration implementation.

By closing this loophole in our current battery system, this Bill seeks to increase producer responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, reducing safety risks from improper disposal of batteries, and improving battery recycling. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 30. Noes, 10. That measure passes. We are now at file item 73, SB 608. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 608 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to sexual health.

Thank you, Madam. Senator Menjivar, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, SB6008 is the second time you're hearing this on the floor. This bill is looking to ensure that the funding we allocated last year to include and allow schools to distribute or make available contraceptions in their schools is fulfilled.

To ensure that retailers do not ask for an ID when requesting to purchase these at stores, given that there is no state law requiring for an ID and to ensure that the CYBHI program can enforce and ensure that all schools across California are making this accessible. With that respectfully asking for an aye vote.

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

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 29, noes 8. That that measure passes, we will now move to file item 74, S.B. 691.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 691 by Senator Wahab, an act relating to body worn cameras.

Senator Wahab, you are recognized.

Thank you. SB 691 will require law enforcement agencies to update their body worn cameras to include a process for EMS professionals to request redaction to of recordings prior to public release when patients are receiving medical treatment. This will ensure we protect the privacy of patients undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation, treatment, or procedure.

The protection of a patient privacy is critical, especially when the provider of care needs to collect information vital to delivering appropriate treatment. By requiring agencies to update their body worn camera, we will ensure that we have a clear policy to protect patient privacy while also preserving the important role these cameras play in the field. Thank you.

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

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 32, noes zero. That measure passes. Senators, we are doing extremely well this morning. We are halfway through the bills that we need to get done this morning. So I think before we hear the next bill, this is a good time to wish a very happy birthday to two of our Members.

Senator Gonzalez, who celebrated her birthday yesterday, and Senator Reyes, who is celebrating her birthday today. I hope you both enjoy your very special day. All right, back to the file. File item 78, SB 288. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 288 by Senator Seyarto, an act relating to taxation, to take effect immediately, tax levy.

Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to present SB 288. This measure is similar to one which passed off this floor unanimously last year, but was unfortunately held in the Assembly. Prop 19 passed in 2021, changed the rules for transferring family homes and limited when families can keep the property's Proposition 13 tax base.

Under Prop 19, a recipient must move into the home and claim it as their principal residence and file for the homeowner exemption within one year of receiving the property. Individuals who inherit property through probate may be unable to take possession within the required one year time frame and therefore lose their Proposition 13 protected tax valuation.

SB 288 will clarify that Prop 19 calendar year for individuals who are undergoing a probate process starts when the home is legally tax declared to be theirs. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senators, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no opposition, ayes, 40, noes, zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 79, SB 381. Secretary, please read.

Senator Wahab, an act relating to vital records.

Senator Wahab, you are recognized.

Thank you. In California, adoptees do not have access to their own original birth certificate because the certificate is sealed at adoption, making it inaccessible to adoptees. However, 16 other states, both blue and red leaning states, current—currently—provide access to an original birth certificate to adoptees to ensure adopted adults are treated equally under the law.

SB 381 simply authorizes the disclosure of an original birth certificate to an adopted person or descendant of an adopted person when they are 18 or older. Preventing access to an original birth certificate has potential negative health implications as an adoptee does not have access to information related to their birth family health history.

It could also lead to mental health and identity issues as it potentially prevents an adoptee from knowing their race, ethnicity, heritage, and cultural affiliation. This Bill establishes a process to request an original birth certificate from the county or state registrar and requires the state registrar to create a non-binding contact preference for the available birth parent.

This Bill also removes the ability to request an amended birth certificate that omits the city and county of birth or color and race of the parents. There is large bipartisan coalition of support from this Bill and it has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President, Just briefly, my District Director was reading this Bill and she said, I don't know where you're at on this Bill, would you please support it? So, she has an incredible story, just like I'm sure the ones the author is trying to bring forth.

She found her biological parents and her brother and two of her sisters just five years ago, and she's my age, she's 61, and she has established such a great relationship with them. And what was interesting about the whole fact is the father did not know that she even existed.

And so, I think that this Bill will allow those type of stories to continue and have an opportunity to restore families that you didn't know you had. But I think that will be a lot of great experiences that come out of this Bill. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Stern, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Sorry, I'm just catching up on this. But when we were in Judiciary Committee, we did discuss the idea of that initial form being a place where you could document, say, medical history, you know, a history of rare diseases, things that might be significant even if you were checking the box of do not contact.

I just wanted to get a sense from the author, either now or in your close, openness to working on that. It seemed like a reasonable compromise just to get meaningful data to the adoptee, but also trying to still have some respect for how that most difficult decision the parent goes. So, openness on that form, expanding on it?

Just wanted to get a sense—I could pose as a question to the author or in the close.

Will the author take a question?

Sure.

Are you open to that?

I'm open to it. I want to be very clear when we're talking about contact forms, as even the previous Senator that spoke discussed this, there are some parents that have already passed away. Right?

And again, this, you know, we had witnesses that came and testified that were in their 80s and being able to go back to their original birth parents and say, hey, fill out this form, it's not realistic. And as, as concerned as I am, as many of you guys are, we share the same values.

I'm open to continuing to work on this Bill in the next House, but I also want to just be realistic of what we are talking about. It's not for forward moving, but it's also backwards and giving people closure.

And I will say if people are coming in their 80s to this building and literally, as witness testimony have stated, that they were here 40 years ago, asking for the same rights that everybody else has, it's incredibly important for them to get this closure of what is the original birth certificate.

So, like I said, I'm open to all of the discussions and continuing to improve this Bill, but I respectfully ask for an aye vote too.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you very much. So, I'm living proof that it is valuable information to be able to go back and look at records to find your biological parents.

My biological father, his—I found out, after doing much research and finally being able to obtain the information through other means, that my grandfather passed away at 45 from a heart condition and my biological father had an MI and heart surgery at 47.

As a firefighter, I was having some kind of some issues and, and they were able to diagnose and get that, because of that information. So, in this day and age, there's a lot of ways to get this.

This is just another way to make it easier for people to obtain the information they need to perhaps survive or at least understand what their medical history is, regardless of them being adopted or not, so that they can take the measures to stave off that. And happily, I was able to do that.

So, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this. Thanks.

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

Thank you. Again, this is a very personal issue, and I know we've had a lot of discussion on this particular Bill. It's a very simple bill. It allows any individual the right to receive their original birth certificate.

And I want to highlight this because after much discussion, we have spent millions of dollars for people to understand their lineage. We have spent millions of dollars to preserve historical data and historical paperwork of descendants of different communities from different countries, including books at Ellis Island and much more.

This is a right that every human being deserves—to know who their birth parents are. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote because this provides significant closure to people that have been adopted, that do not know where they come from, that just want to know, who are my parents, where did I come from?

So, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Senators, this is eligible for a unanimous roll call. Seeing objection, we will take the role. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Aye is 35. Noes, zero. That measure passes. We are now moving to file item 81, SB 492.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 492 by Senator Menjivar, an act relating to the Youth Housing Bond Act of 2026. By providing the funds necessary therefore through an election for the issuance and sale of bonds of the State of California and for the handling and disposition of these funds and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Menjivar, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, we all know that we're going to have various conversations about the bonds. We're going to be elevating as a body what we want our voters to vote come November. This is one of the vehicles included in the conversations.

My ask is to keep the vehicle moving as we continue to have discussions on what bonds are going to be placed on, if any. But this specific one, SB 492, is regarding youth housing. A bond to create housing for our individuals under 25 who are at risk of becoming unhoused, who are foster, were foster kids in the system.

If you ask somebody who is chronically homeless, older, 50% of them will say that they experienced homelessness before the age of 25. Years after years, we put so much funding into addressing adult homelessness and it cost us so much money. I'm a firm believer that we invest early on.

It is both beneficial for us as a state financially, but also can prevent a lot of the issues we're dealing right now when people become of the older age. This bond is asking for $1 billion, 90% of it to do housing for the said youth. 10% for the infrastructure of youth housing centers to ensure they have a place to go to get jobs and connected. This housing is interim.

This is for those under the age of 25 to get them back on their feet so they themselves can purchase their own unit after they get to 25. We all know foster youth, once they get out of the system at 18, the help should not stop there. They need continued support to be as successful as possible.

Right now, colleagues, I'm asking for this bill to move forward. The ultimate goal is hopefully the Senator from Yolo will absorb this and further conversations will absorb this part in the greater housing bond.

Thank you. Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, my colleague from the San Fernando Valley, a noble goal here. I'm working with the former Speaker of the Assembly Robert Hertzberg on something similar.

But the difference here between this initiative and Hertzberg's initiative is that Hertzberg's initiative has private sector. Look, when we talk about the state of California where indebtedness is massive and at a time when we had $18 billion shortfall to put our people and our future generation more in debt.

Noble goal, but I think Hertzberg's way of doing it in that initiative that I'm co-authoring with him is a better way to go because it has private sector bonds, doesn't indebted our state, and allows for those who want to be first time home buyers to take advantage of that system.

And it's all done in a private way that's also supported by the California Realtors Association. So I agree with the goal of my colleague from the San Fernando Valley. I just think a better way to do it is former Speaker Bob Hertzberg's initiative that I believe is close to being qualified and it will actually help more people across the state of California get that first time home dream.

And so for those reasons, I'll lay off on this bill because I think there's a better way to do it. I understand that this is part of many different proposals that are before the Legislature, but I do believe former Speaker Bob Hertzberg is the best for the people of California moving forward. So for those reasons, I'm laying off on this bill.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Hi. Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm going to be opposing this and other bonds as well because I think there is, like my other colleague had said, a better way.

If we took what the interest will be on this bond and just take it out of our General Fund and put the whole thing toward what we want to accomplish, by the time we get through our environmental process to actually start building something, we'll have accumulated enough money to do exactly what you want, but we won't have an interest payment at the end.

So there is a better way for us to spend our money to be able to get this. The other point I want to make is this. We have made it so expensive to build anything in California. That there was a perfect example of this was a fire chief the other day was lamenting they had $120,000 grant that they were able to get to be able to do some brush clearance. They were going to do 300 acres.

It took them so long to get through the process, and at the end of the project, it was 20 acres. And the cost that actually paid for the project was 25,000. The other 100,000 went into process.

If we were going to spend all of our bond money and only have 25% of available money to be able actually build something because of our process, then why not just put the money aside every year, budget for it? We're going to be making the interest payment anyway, and then slowly go through the process.

By the time we get done, we'll have the money we need to build these because these are important facilities. And one of the other reasons they're important facilities is because a lot of kids are starting to go to community colleges that used to go to university because they can't afford that.

And some of those are going to be needing to live on campus. So our community colleges that used to not have to have student housing are starting to see a need for student housing. But this bond is not going to advance that, not for a few years, because of our process.

We need to change that before we can responsibly start borrowing money, start paying interest on that borrowed money to build buildings that cost three times as much as anywhere else in the United States. I would ask that you lay off or say no or direct the money to saving it up every year. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Menjivar, would you like to... Oh, I apologize. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support in Senate Bill 492. I think all of us across the state of California are looking to our youth for the future, for the betterment of the state of California, to be involved and to realize that we are the fourth largest economy in the world.

Consequently, that means what we do for our children today, the youth that are of tomorrow. This shows the state of California that we're behind them. We believe in them, and we have the resources to help them grow and prosper and be part of the community.

And this bill opens that door for those who are underprivileged, those who are seeking shelters, and those who have mental problems. And across the communities, every one of us, in every one of our districts, we have issues with housing. We have issues. But we also have issues with juvenile delinquency. We have issues with the youth. And this will in turn help those young men and women to grow and be part of society. So I strongly urge support for SB 492. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam President. You know, the Senator from Huntington Beach name dropped an individual that's not even part of this body. I think if the ideas of that said individual were popular, he'd be in elected office right now, but he's not.

So given that this body is going to be looking at legislation from a current Member right here, I ask that we vote on issues that are being introduced by current Members right now. The issue of unhoused youth is so important to the state of California.

We should not be seeing 18 year olds, 16 year olds sleeping on our streets. 17 year olds, perhaps who are parents also sleeping on our streets. I know there needs to be a lot of changing to our borrowing and our bond conversation, but this vehicle will allow us to continue having that conversation in the greater scheme of bonds. With that, asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 30, noes 9 on the urgency. Ayes 30, noes 9 on the measure. It passes. We will now move to file item 82. SB 555. Secretary, please read Senate Bill 555 by.

Senator Caballero and equilibrium to workers compensation.

Senator Caballero, you are recognized. Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise to present SB555, the Workers Disability Adjustment act, which ensures that injured workers who are permanently partially disabled PPD secure benefits and are protected from the rising cost of living. PPD benefits have been capped at $1,256 per month since 2014. Over a decade without adjustment.

Inflation has significantly reduced the purchasing power of these benefits, leaving injured workers struggling to afford necessities like rent, groceries and health care. These individuals have sustained injuries on the job and face lifelong limitations on their ability to work or complete tasks while they're working. Workers compensation, as we know, exists to protect workers and.

And to incentivize safer workplaces. The bill before you reflects ongoing negotiations with the opposition and the language addresses concerns regarding implementation. SB555 is about fairness and dignity. Workers who have suffered life changing injuries on the job should not be left behind as costs rise. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll call]

Ayes. 30. noes 10. That measure passes. We are now at file item 84, SB 747.

Secretary, please read Senate Bill 747 by Senator Wiener in equitying to civil rights.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you very much. Madam President and colleagues, I rise today to present Senate Bill 747, the no Kings Act. Because even though Donald Trump thinks he is the king, he is not. This bill stands for the basic proposition that no one, no one is above the law.

That the rule of law still exists in this country even under this brutal, fascist, authoritarian regime. Even as Donald Trump and Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller and Pam Bondi and Greg Bevino do everything in their power to to create a police terror state, the rule of law still exists.

California is not going to let these thugs get away with it. We're not going to let them overrun our communities just because they think they can. They can't.

The no Kings act stands for the very, very basic proposition that if you shoot someone's mother in the face, if you publicly execute an ICU nurse, if you kidnap a small child and hold him hostage to try to get to the parents, if you shoot people in the eyes with rubber bullets and blind them, you're accountable.

You're not above the law, and we're going to make you accountable. Without accountability, there is no rule of law. SB 747 is simple and straightforward. It creates a pathway for Californians to be able to sue any official, federal, state or local who violates their rights under the United States Constitution.

Under current law, if a local or state officer shoots your mom in the face or publicly executes an ICU nurse, you can sue. That's long standing civil rights law. But under current law, it's almost impossible to file that same lawsuit against a federal agent who does the exact same thing. That is both unfair and deeply harmful.

And I want to be clear, it hurts local law enforcement because it creates this air of chaos and impunity that makes it harder for local law enforcement to do their jobs. Colleagues, the behavior we've seen from this Federal Government over the last year is nothing short of horrific.

We saw this past weekend when Border Patrol agents publicly executed Alex Preddy, an ICU nurse who was simply filming and assisting a protester. The Trump Administration immediately lied and branded him a quote, unquote domestic terrorist and lied that he was brandishing a gun at agents when he was doing no such thing.

Two weeks before that, ICE agents shot Renee Nicole Good, mother of three, in the face. Boom. Right in the face. And this Administration immediately announced that they're not even going to investigate that murder. Imagine that a law enforcement officer shoots someone in the face and there's not even an investigation.

That is the level of impunity, lawlessness that has infected this Administration and that it is inflicting on this country. Just last week, ICE kidnapped five year old Liam Conejo Ramos and literally held him hostage to try to get his parents to come out.

Liam, as far as we know, is now being held in a detention center over 1300 miles from home. A five year old child ICE agents recently shot and blinded two people in Orange County. Kaden Rummler and Britain Rodriguez, who were simply exercising their constitutional right to protest. They are blind from these rubber bullets.

Last summer, ICEagents tear gassed and pepper sprayed George Reddes, who was up here to testify for this bill last week. He's a US citizen, a combat veteran. They stopped his car for no reason, bashed the windows out, dragged him out, pepper sprayed him, held him down, held him for three days for no reason.

This is a California resident. AA is now also directing its untrained agents that they can enter anyone's home without a judicial warrant. A blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. And that's what they're being directed.

Just yesterday we learned that since last July there have been at least 2,300 cases in which federal judges have ruled that ICE officials illegally detain people without bond, without due process, and again, total impunity.

It's going to be so hard and potentially impossible for the families of Renee Good and Alex Prede to obtain compensation, almost impossible for George Reddes and Kaden Rummler and Britain Rodriguez and Liam Ramos to obtain compensation for these blatant violations of their rights.

Because the Supreme Court a few years ago destroyed the ability of individuals to sue federal agents for civil rights violations. And the Federal Tort Claims act is almost borderline impossible to use to get compensation against law enforcement. SB747, the no Kings act, puts a stop to this impunity. It's very.

It makes clear that all law enforcement, state, local, federal, everyone is going to be subject to the U.S. constitution, that we're no longer going to allow our local and state law enforcement to be sued when they violate the law, but make the feds completely exempt from that.

That has to stop and it will stop with the passage of SB747. If federal law, if the Federal Government won't hold these agents accountable for violating the Constitution, we will. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President and Members. I rise today as a co author and Strong supporter of SB747 by my colleague from San Francisco.

This bill takes a really important step, as you mentioned, in ensuring that federal officials or those that are unidentified, quite frankly, are held to the same standards as local and state officials and can be sued for constitutional violations. Just in my district of Long beach in Southeast La. It has been so traumatic.

We have been significantly impacted by the atrocious actions of these of this Federal Government. My constituents live in Fear every single day. Just last week, about a few blocks from my own home, agents abducted two men in Long Beach. Working in our community as landscapers. Multiple unmarked vehicles blocked traffic and masked armed agents. Excuse me, this is.

It's very emotional. Violently detained these individuals in front of families and for no other reason than their occupation and the color of their skin. It's violent. Another constituent in Commerce in my district was dragged off the street into an unmarked black SUV by mass agents just last week. Kidnapped, disappeared.

Border Patrol agents use plastic explosives to blow off the front door of a family home in Huntington park, narrowly missing a mother and her children. Individuals engaging in their constitutional right to protest have been permanently blinded, have been maimed and lost fingers and have been gassed with impunity. We have due process in this country for a reason.

We cannot and we cannot let this continue. The roaming, anonymous Federal agents act with impunity. Not only was it Renee Goode and Alex Preddy, which were so horrible to see in Minneapolis, Keith Porter, Hebert Sanchez Dominguez, Victor Manuel Diaz Paradila, Luis Beltran, Yanez Cruz, Luis Gustavo Nunez Caceres, Geraldo Lunas Campos.

And I'm sure there will be more that we don't even know about. They deserved better than a Federal Government willing to recklessly sue and weaponize words like a domestic, like domestic terrorist, or calling them a flight risk, which we know is not true.

I personally wrote letters to ensure that, you know, many of these individuals have due process. And the Latino Caucus has been so very pointed in ensuring that. We are writing amicus briefs to support our United Farm Workers, one of which was filed last year to stop the tear gassing of farm worker children.

All of this against our constitutional rights. And on top of it all, we continue to see. We continue to see not just these constitutional rights being violated, but then the audacity for this Federal Government to come after our communities and inquire and investigate their own families. This is wrong. I don't know how anyone can defend this.

The violence in our Communities must stop. SB 747 must be supported, regardless of how many are opposing, and we will do everything in our power.

In fact, just the other day as well, the amicus brief by our own Governor Gavin Newsom, filed against Donald Trump, President Trump, with support of this Senate and with many, many accounts from many Senate staffers accounting of constituents being grabbed off the streets, being kidnapped, being handcuffed and being thrown to the ground.

These were from our own staff who are traumatized right now. It is emotional every single day to come to work. And this is why I support unequivocally. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Becker. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise as a proud co author of SB 747, the no Kings Act. First, I want to thank the Senator from San Francisco for his leadership on this. I had the chance to meet George Reddes earlier this month and I was deeply shaken by his story.

This is again, an Iraq war veteran who was taken from his vehicle, forcibly pepper sprayed, not given any water to treat his eyes or face from the chemicals that were burning him, thrown into a cell for days, no phone calls, no access to a lawyer, and suddenly just released, not even an apology, just released three days later.

Sadly, his story is one of many in our country. This bill is simple, about one principle. Nobody is above the rule of law. The no Kings act is about holding ICE accountable for when it oversteps its authority and violates constitutional rights. The bill creates a civil cause of action, empowering victims to seek some measure of justice.

It's incredibly disheartening that given the deplorable actions of some ICE officers over the past few weeks, this bill is even needed. When the Department of Homeland Security issues memos encouraging ICE to forcibly enter homes without warrants in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.

When ICE agents tear families apart and use children as bait, when they feel they have the full autonomy to attack protesters in violation of court orders, when they injure or kill peaceful protesters who do not pose a threat to law enforcement, and when they block local law enforcement from entering crime scenes and exclude them from investigating the investigations that involve them and compromise or sanitize crime scenes and evidence, then a criminal remedy becomes very difficult.

The only alternative for ICE victims is a civil remedy, and that's what this bill provides for. This legislation is not radical. This legislation does not break new legal ground. This bill simply closes a loophole in state law. This allowed abuses to go unchecked. This is potentially a national model as well. I know other folks are watching.

Other states are watching this right now. Disturbingly, many Ayes agents have been rushed into duty, some after approximately 47 days of inadequate training. And with this government, this White house already committed $28 billion to ICE to create an army of bounty hunters. We have to ensure the highest level of accountability this bill sends.

This bill sends a clear message to Kristi Noam, to President Donald Trump, and to anyone else who prioritizes federal power over human dignity. California will not look the other way. This is about the rule of law. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Perez. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today in strong support and as a co author of SB747, the no Kings act, by the good Senator from the San Francisco. And I want to thank him for the efforts that he's put into this bill. I don't think we could have a more timely piece of legislation come before this body.

But I rise today for something more important. That's actually the Latin phrase that we sits before us every single day when we come into the Senate. It is the duty of the Senate to protect the liberty of the commonwealth. And I can't think of a better phrase to describe the moment that we're currently in.

Over the last couple of weeks, we have watched federal agents target protesters, target legal observers throughout the state of Minnesota. We've seen a mother, Renee Nicole Goode, murdered in broad daylight. We've seen a veteran's ICU nurse, Alex Preddy, be murdered in broad daylight.

And we've watched the Federal Government lie through their teeth about what took place in those instances and try to frame both of these individuals as domestic terrorists. We are living in an extreme moment in history that is requiring each and every single one of this spot, every one of this body to do things differently.

Over the last several weeks, I know so many of us in this room have had to contend with questions that I don't think any of us have ever thought that we'd be asking ourselves. People feel like we are suddenly at war with the Federal Government.

I had a group of students recently ask me, if ICE targets me and harasses me, who is going to protect me? Who is going to protect me from the Federal Government? That is what California residents are asking us today.

And it's this piece of legislation that the Senator from San Francisco has brought forward that helps us to define how we are going to hold ICE agents accountable through lawsuits, allowing for us to be able to sue ICE when they are violating our constitutional rights. It is so important and so critical that we move forward this legislation.

Just last year, this body, we were able to pass my bill, SB805. Senator, the good Senator from San Francisco's Bill, SB627, that would unmask ICE, require them to wear a name ID, require them to identify the Department that they're with. And then the Federal Government sued us to prevent those bills from going into implementation.

We know why that is. They do not want us to be able to identify their agents because they recognize their agents are actively breaking the law. And Violating constitutional rights. But I want to be clear that these events have not just taken place in Minnesota. We've seen protesters here in California be permanently blinded with rubber bullets.

Keith Porter was murdered by an off duty ICE agent. And we need to recognize that these harmful events have already taken place in the state of California. This is the kind of action that we need in order to provide our constituents with a response when they ask us what are we doing to protect them.

And I want to make something very clear to this body. Should the moment come when any single one of us are out there protesting, exercising our First Amendment rights, are out there documenting what is happening in our communities and something happens.

I hope that all of us in this body, regardless of party, will say something when we see journalists being maced and tear gassed, that we will speak up. Because when any one of us has our constitutional rights violated, it's an attack on all of us.

It is our duty to protect the liberty of the commonwealth, to protect the liberty of the people of this state and of this country.

And if we're not ready to respond now and pass this bill with more than a 2/3 vote so that we can get the urgency ordinance that we need in it, I don't know what else and what other evidence we need that this is the kind of legislation we need in this moment.

I urge an aye vote from everybody on this floor. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Durazzo.

You are recognized. Thank you, Madam President. I too rise as a proud co author of SB747, known as the King's act. And I thank the author. Our nation is under attack. Californians are under attack. Our neighborhoods are under attack. We have all heard and seen the atrocious scare and power tactics that ICE is using.

We condemn all of their actions. We also condemn anyone, anyone, any authority that is not following the law. We all sit here and debate about public safety, how important public safety is for everyone, how we all need to be accountable. Everyone demands accountability.

No one here ever stands up and says, zero no, you don't have to be accountable. You don't have to be accountable. You have to be accountable. Nobody would ever do that. All we're asking for is accountability and transparency. We demand it in the name of Renee Good.

We demand it in the name of Keith Porter, in the name of Alex Preddy and all of the many, many others who have been attacked and or killed recently in Minnesota. Actually, I think it was yesterday. The top 60 CEOs wrote a letter saying something has to happen to stop this.

The top 60 CEOs in Minnesota, the first in the nation. We will help to close the gap that exists by creating a civil cause of action against any officer that violates the United States Constitution. We can't get tired of using the phrase no one is above the law. I urge you support for SB 747.

Thank you, Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I rise in opposition to SB747. Let's back up just a second. There's a lot of hyperbole on this floor, but let's go back to the very fact of the matter is it should be a shock to no one that President Trump is enforcing our federal immigration laws.

The fact of the matter is it was a cornerstone of his campaign, one of the main reasons why he has office in the White House, in the Oval Office, because he campaigned on enforcing our federal immigration laws. That's number one. Number two, I would agree with my colleagues on this floor.

No one likes to see what chaos is going on across this country, particularly in Minnesota. No one likes to see this. But I would remind my colleagues that when President Obama was President, he deported 3 million people, 3 million illegal immigrants. In fact, some people call him the deporter in chief.

Bill Clinton did over 800,000 under his watch. Donald Trump's number, less than 200,000. What is the difference between President Obama, President Clinton, what's going on right now with this chaos going across this country? Well, I'll say one of the main reasons is because we have something called sanctuary city and sanctuary state laws.

Unlike on the Obama and Clinton Administration, our local law enforcement are not working with our federal authorities. They're not working in hand in hand to make sure they're more precise, to make sure they're getting the right people and deporting those people who, who we want to all, I believe, send back to their countries who are committing crime.

Drug traffickers, sex offenders. It's not precise. Because we have these sanctuary state and city laws, we wouldn't have this chaos. We didn't have it under Obama or Clinton because we didn't have these sanctuary city and state laws.

And so it'd become all of us if we dial down and start talking with each other and be able to work and coordinate with each other, because no one likes to see what's happening in Minnesota. No one wants to see that coming to California.

And so I asked my colleagues to repeal sanctuary city and state laws so we can have our local law enforcement work in conjunction with our federal authorities. Now, my good friend and colleague from San Francisco said. And I want to make sure I quote it right. This bill helps law enforcement.

Well, Members, I would go to the analysis. I think Law enforcement knows what's good with Law enforcement. I've never seen more Law enforcement opposition to a bill other than another one that my colleague authored in the previous session. But La, LA Deputy Sheriff's a Lads is against this. The Highway Patrol is against this.

California Police chiefs are against this. LA Police Protective League is against this. Orange County Sheriffs, California sheriffs. In fact, the California State Sheriff's association argued that existing state law already protects what my good colleague from San Francisco is trying to do under the Tom Bain Civil Rights Act and allows action to be brought to persons.

And PORAC also says it's within section 1983 for constitutional violations. So we already have those protections in our laws today without SB 747. Now, I do believe a lot of the reason why we're seeing SB 747 is a lot of colleagues here want to start attacking the Administration. I get it. It's politics.

But Members, at some point we have to say, okay, we had an election. We have a new President. You don't like this President. I get it. We have an opportunity to have a new President in 2028. We'll argue those as we go down the line.

But then the day we have serious issues here in California and we need to start focusing on California specific issues like gas, the gas prices in California, the electric costs, the affordability crisis. There are so many bills that have to do with the Federal Government. And I get it.

Some Members are running for Congress and I get it. But it's time to focus on issues that face Californians. And as I said, and don't take my word for it, as all the law enforcement officers said in our analysis, we already have the ability to do what the center from San Francisco is trying to do.

I think this is a little bit more about politics and a little less about policy. And I get it. No one likes to see what's going on in Minnesota. And you want to make sure that doesn't happen here. Nobody, nobody on this floor wants that.

So my advice to you is repeal the sanctuary city and state laws and let's work with Federal Government. And therefore, we didn't see this happening under President Obama or President Clinton, and we wouldn't see it happening under President Trump if we repeal those laws. For those reasons, I ask for your no vote.

Thank you, Senator Mcguire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much. Madam President and Members of the esteemed body rise today in support of Senate Bill 747. And thank the the Senator from San Francisco for his work on this today. I rise today not just as a Member of the Senate, but as a dad. Eric and I's son Connor turns five years old next month.

Five years old. And like so many parents across this country, I watched in disbelief last week as photographs emerged of ICE agents literally kidnapping a five year old in Minnesota. A child named Liam Conejo Ramos. He's nearly the same age as Connor.

They didn't kidnap him because a child had done anything wrong, because they wanted to use him as bait.

As bait. They took a five year old, terrified and confused, knocking on his damn parents door, still wearing his Spiderman backpack from school, and used him to lure out his dad and then arrested him. You want to stand up here and defend that, go right ahead. That's not who we are as Americans or as a country.

But it doesn't start or end there. Like millions of Americans, we watched with horror this past weekend as ICE agents murdered Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Let's call it what it is, state sponsored violence. Just under three weeks ago, we watched as Renee Good was murdered by the secret police.

Right now there are kids across America, right here in Sacramento and across the state, who are too afraid to go to school. Parents across this country who won't go to work because they don't want to be separated from their kids and deported. You talk to doctors and nurse practitioners.

Parents aren't sending their kids to the doctor anymore because they're afraid of being deported. Not because they are criminals, but because they are being targeted by the color of their skin. It's called racial profiling and it's unconstitutional. This is not the America that we fight for every day. This is what we should be fighting against.

It's called fascism. And look, I think it's easy to be scared and angry right now, but we have to turn that anger into action. And that's how we stop this. That's what we're doing today with Senate Bill 747, the No Kings Act.

We're making clear that federal agents who violate constitutional rights will no longer be shielded from accountability in this state. No secret police. And if you violate someone's constitutional rights, you can be held accountable in a court of law. Just like all of us. Just like all of us in the California State Senate.

So let's show the rest of America that California will not be silent. Being silent at this point in time in our nation's history would be immoral. We would be complicit. We will not be intimidated. We are better than this in this country and together we're going to prove it. I recommend an aye vote on Senate Bill 747.

Thank you. Senator Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I also stand in strong support of SB 747 and also as a co-author to this bill. This bill is about something very simple and very foundational. In this country, no one is above the Constitution and everyone is bound by it.

And I want to be very clear on the outset that this bill is not anti-police, which is what's called going to be stated over and over again. It is not anti law enforcement. It is not about second guessing officers who act lawfully, respectfully, professionally, and in good faith to keep our communities safe.

Accountability does not weaken our public safety, it strengthens it. Because we want everyone to have confidence in our public safety officers and in our communities. And we want people to have confidence to go to law enforcement when they're raped, assaulted, violated. We want people to come forward when they see murders.

We want people to want to be part of this judicial system and not be afraid that they're going to be murdered for coming forward. Today Californians already have a clear path to seek justice. When something is being violated, our local officials have access. But right here there's a glaring gap and that is our federal partners.

Today when a federal officer violates someone's constitutional rights, there is often no meaningful remedy. And we see it over and over again. As a result, we now live in a moment where federal officers push women down, pepper spray everyone who is doing their due diligence to record, document, and try to stay safe.

We have seen over the weekend how they shot a man in the back while six to eight men jumped on him, one of them hitting him in the head with a canister. And he simply stepped in when they were violating observers' rights. They pushed a woman down.

And his instinct, should be all of our instincts to step in and try to protect this woman. That should concern everyone, regardless of party or ideology because it could happen to any of us at any given time. The good Senator from Huntington Beach just stated that this is politics, that Obama and Clinton deported people too.

But we're missing the point here because this bill is not about immigration. It's about civil violations, peoples' civil right to assemble, to document, to protest. This is about the egregious violation of people's rights and the murders that we are witnessing more often now. SB 747 does not create a new right, does not expand the Constitution.

It simply ensures that there's a path to accountability when we see rights being violated. My communities are being hit over and over again. This is not normal. This is not about politics when we see an elderly man, 85, on the ground with eight men on top of him and just hitting him over and over in the head.

I challenge my friends to think of their fathers, their grandparents. They are taken, bruised, beat up, and bloodied. It is not politics. It is a violation of their rights. This is about dignity. This is about human rights. I don't know who can sit back and watch an elderly woman be pushed down, again, bloodied and bruised.

This is not about politics. This is not about immigration. This is about human decency. I saw an image of a woman who was bound, her hands tied in front. I could only imagine she asked permission to go use the restroom, and a federal agent walks her into a porta potty and then walks in with her.

If her hands are bound, I ask all of you, who do you think took off her clothing? No agent has any business going into a restroom with any woman. This is not about immigration. This is about the blatant violation of people's rights.

And I still want to know who's holding that man accountable who walked that woman into that restroom. What happened while there was an officer outside watching? That is a violation of a human right, and it has nothing to do with immigration. We also saw a veteran who was taken.

And I also had the privilege of speaking to him personally, who said that he tried to tell him he was a US citizen, a veteran of war, and they still took him. He shared with us that they stripped him, they swabbed him for DNA without his consent.

They wouldn't let him take a shower for three days while his body burned. He wasn't allowed to call his lawyer, which I believe is our right. Wasn't allowed to call his family, which again, is our right. And after three days, they just threw him out. No apology, no consequence. So, again, what this bill does is very simple.

It allows California courts to provide a remedy when federal bad actors violate constitutional rights while acting under the color of the law, just as our legal system has always done. This is about checks and balances. This is about equal justice under the law.

And, yes, it is about keeping our community safe and restoring the trust with our local police officers. Because communities are safer when people trust the system. And right now, in this moment, trust is being eroded along with democracy.

And I want to reiterate, our communities are only going to be safer when people that have the word police on their chests, who are not local police officers, stop beating up on people, breaking windows, stomping on people's heads, putting their knee on their neck, and beating up elderly people. That is not going to help.

When all this is said and done, our communities are going to be fragmented, and the trust will take decades to restore. SB 747 draws a very clear line. Lawful conduct is protected. Unconstitutional conduct is not. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Valladares, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. We can all agree that civil rights matter. Accountability matters. No one in this chamber has disputed that. But accountability only works when it's fair, when it's predictable, and when it's grounded in the rule of law.

Not when it expands liability in ways that create uncertainty and deepen division. Today, officers are already facing face liability in federal court for constitutional violations. That system already exists.

So the question before you is not whether accountability should exist, but what creating a second overlapping state system actually adds, other than more litigation and more risk for those on the front lines. This bill applies retroactively to March 1st.

And that means officers who were trained and acting under the law at the time, at that time, could now be judged by standards written later. Would any of us accept being judged tomorrow by rules written today? No.

This bill also does something like add costs and attorney fees and expert fees, knowing full well that even weak cases, which are very often in this line of work, become expensive to defend. And when that happens, who really pays? Not Washington, not Sacramento. Our local communities pay.

They pay with fewer officers, they pay with less training, and they pay with less law enforcement presence on our streets. I just want to say that this issue is personal for me. My family and close friends are law enforcement. Members of my family have taken bullets in the line of duty on the streets defending our community.

They serve in jails. They risk their lives every single day. And as family, we want them to come home. But we sign up for that sacrifice too. We are also serving our community. In my district, we've lost. We've buried officers like Ryan Clinkunbroomer, Dave March, Andrew Nuñez. Their names aren't talking points.

They're reminders that this work carries risk and real life consequence. This bill is going to jeopardize, make the risk and liability even harder for families and law enforcement. Members, we're living in a very deeply divided moment in our nation. Tone matters, rhetoric matters. The way we talk about law enforcement sends signals far beyond this chamber.

When those signals are careless, one sided, it puts real people in danger. Protecting civil rights and supporting law enforcement are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, this bill offers a false choice that is going to do nothing but hurt our law enforcement communities and the communities we were elected to represent. I strongly urge your no vote.

Thank you. Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. Our constitution is a 237-year-old promise. A compact between the government and its people designed to limit the reach of federal power, protect individual rights, and preserve the sovereignty of the state so that they may ensure the safety and welfare of their residents. When the federal government oversteps those limits, it breaks that promise.

No government agency or elected official is above the law. Federal agents must be held accountable when they violate people's rights, no matter who they are or where they come from. Justice and liberty are not privileges reserved for some. They are the rights that belong to everyone.

And we cannot allow the federal government to continue to act with impunity and hide behind the Supremacy Clause. A government that follows the Constitution must respect the rule of law and answer to the people that it serves. When power goes unchecked, our freedoms erode the trust of our institutions.

Federal authority exercised without restraint or accountability is not merely a policy failure, it's a constitutional one. Senate Bill 747 will provide us yet with another tool to protect Californians, to defend the Constitution, and to end the reign of abuse that ICE and CBP and has inflicted on our communities. And I want to thank our colleague from San Francisco for bringing this forward. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. It was shared on this floor that this is a political stunt, that we should be focusing on policy. This is about people. How can I work on housing affordability if the people in my district are getting kidnapped and they're leaving their housing empty?

How can I work on childcare reform if parents are not taking their kids to childcare because they're scared that they won't be there when they come back? How can I work on worker protections if people are not going to work because there are raids at places of work?

I can't focus on other issues when the people in my district are disappearing. You can't work on anything else if the basic human rights are not being met. This is an emergency that requires all our attention. This is why we're focusing on this. It's not a political stunt.

It's not political stunt because I can't work on higher education education issues when I have kids getting kidnapped from my district outside of school. So let's bring it back to California because sometimes we disassociate because it's not happening in front of us. This is happening in Minnesota.

Let's remind this body that in just my district, a kid was walking at his dog before high school started, a week before high school started, and was kidnapped and his dog left. Let me remind this body that a kid was going to Arleta High School in my district.

A kid with autism and was detained outside of his high school. I can't work on education issues. I need to make sure I protect my constituents. Let me remind this body that an elderly woman, a vendor in my district, was shoved to the ground and got a heart attack. I can't even focus on health care issues.

I need to focus on just making sure she can survive on the street first. These are dire situations. And I'm gonna be one of the first to say I respect someone in uniform. I grew up in that environment. I was a police explorer, a fire explorer.

At one point, I thought I was gonna be a police officer. I wore a uniform for seven and a half years in the Marine Corps. I have the utmost respect for people who wear a uniform. But what we're seeing on the street are not trained officers.

This has nothing to do with our local law enforcement that get the training needed. And still in there, we fall short. Even in there, we fall short. But they have one of the highest trainings.

What is happening is that every Joe Blow who failed to be a police officer, who failed to be in the military, be armed now and is trigger happy. Who is getting triggered by just a bird chirping next to their ear and then they shoot. That is what's happening right now. We need accountability for that.

There are independent investigations in our state for every single local law enforcement. I'm dealing with one in my district right now because the LAPD officer shot a trans woman and killed her. There's an investigation into that and results are coming out today. None of that exists. Minnesota doesn't have that. The Governor is asking for that.

There's no accountability for federal agents. What is different right now? Because that was another question being asked. What is different right now with this administration in the previous dem administration is that right now there's a green light to go door to door asking for people's paper. We never saw that.

Right now, what is happening, what is different is that if my Spanish accent sneaks out in front of a federal agent because I still stutter with some English words, they're going to ask me where I'm from. That did not happen in the previous administrations. That is what's different now.

And you also know I'm first to criticize both parties. I do not shy away from criticizing my own party, but that's the fairness. I criticize anybody who locks kids up in cages, regardless of who you are. So I feel right in my place to say if I did that then I'm still doing this today.

And this is wrong. We are very limited power in what we can do as state legislators. We get that. And the small things that we can do, I am thankful that we have Members in our body that are leading in that.

Because what is different today is that people are getting executed in cold blood and they're denying what is happening, what we're seeing with our eyes. This is why we need an aye vote on SB 747.

Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. We are told we are a nation of laws. And the most basic of those comes from our Constitution. Due process. People taken off the streets without due process, people being deported without due process.

First Amendment right, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to protest, equal protection under the law, all guaranteed under the Constitution to all of us. But now we're seeing unlawful actions being taken against citizens, inhumane action taken against our neighbors.

Most recently, we saw the murder of poet, Ms. Good, and the murder of our VA nurse, Pretti, and others, as was noted by my colleague, the Chair of the Latino Caucus. And then the lies that come without a single... A single effort to investigate. Calling them domestic terrorists.

I heard one of my colleagues say, what are we going to do about these weak cases that are going to be filed? Do we call the case against the murder of Ms. Good a weak case, or the case against the murder of Mr. VA Nurse Preddy a weak case?

If we can begin and say those are not weak cases, then we're headed in the right direction. Question was also asked, what is the difference between the deportations of Obama and the current deportations? Indiscriminate terror, fear, and daylight murders, to name a few.

Another big difference is that we have a cancer growing and it's growing in D.C. You all know that I was diagnosed the end of last year and I did what any person does when they are diagnosed with cancer, they immediately go to the best. And you have surgeries, they can last 12 hours, 14 hours.

You will do everything you can to eradicate that cancer. That's not going to be enough. You then have to go to the very strong chemo to get rid of whatever else is left there and then you do your maintenance chemo to make sure it continues to stay at bay.

This cancer is growing and we better do something about it. We have to do something about it. We have to recognize that it exists and it is not going to go away. Cancer does not go away. You must eradicate it and then take every effort, make every effort to keep it at bay.

This Bill gives us the ability to sue ICE, just as we have the ability to sue anybody else who tramples on our rights, our constitutional rights. We hold our law enforcement accountable for any action they—they take—that is against one of the citizens. Yes, we do have an absolute right.

If we feel that our rights have been violated, we have an absolute right to file a lawsuit. ICE agents are not above the law, and they should not have total immunity. You cannot murder with impunity. We cannot allow it. We should not allow it. And right now, we know silence is not an option. We must speak up.

We must vote, and I am absolutely urging you to vote yes—vote aye on SB 747.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to try to tone down the rhetoric because I am not running for Congress. I represent the Central Valley. There is fear across our immigrant community. I represent farmers and farm workers.

I am working a constituent case right now for a DACA recipient who came to this—I just text him and asked if I could share this. I'm not going to give you his name, but he came to this country when he was 5 years old and his parents brought him across the border.

Now, I'm sure this five year old, some people in the United States would think that that five year old should say, hey, wait, mom and dad, this is the U.S. Border, we should probably not cross. This kid has been in this country since he was 5 years old. He's had a job since he was 18.

The employer is trying to help get him to be able to have his documents renewed by the Federal Government because there is a lockdown on these documents being renewed right now.

I am working on a case with an 83 year old Punjabi seamstress, who, for, I think, 53 years, she's lived in this country, and she was exiled from India. She doesn't have a country to go to. And she went to San Francisco to do her annual check in and they detained her.

I'm working on an Argentina case where she's been here for eight years and she's converting a walnut factory into an almond factory and she's an executive. She's ordering the equipment from Italy and she's putting all the pieces together and we're working on these cases.

So, there is an issue with these cases that should not have been affected by what's going on. But we all have to also admit that it was brought up about the Obama Administration and the Biden administrators—or the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration—where they did deportations as well. This Administration, President Trump's Administration, inherited a complete disaster.

We all saw hundreds of thousands of people on top of trains heading this direction in the Biden Administration coming across our borders in droves. This is something that has not happened in my lifetime, that I know of. So, we inherited, or this Administration inherited, a complete disaster when it comes to the immigration issue.

We, in California, passed a bill that says we will not cooperate with ICE. I have had several conversations with individuals before all of this chaos erupted in Washington D.C., that they are looking for the worst of the worst.

And because they have to go back into the community where we release them out of custody, if we could take the murder, the rapist, because they do exist—and if you don't say they exist, then you're not being truthful with yourself either.

If we could go back and do an in custody to custody transfer from federal authorities to the state authorities instead of releasing them back into the neighborhood where they go in and get them and they wrap up other undocumented illegal individuals that are just catastrophic loss because of decisions that are made both by the Federal Government and the state government.

And I see you laughing over there, my former majority leader. The bottom line is, is that both parties are at fault for the disaster that we're facing here in our country today.

And I'm standing up as the most conservative Republican on this floor, most likely, telling you that we both are—both of our parties have a problem with this issue. Okay? Do I think that I should be working casework on a DACA recipient that came here at five years old that has never been back to Mexico? No.

That person has assimilated into the society and they should have a way to keep their livelihood here. I want to talk about the accusations of murder. Three specific high profile cases. Let's take little Liam, five years old. They apprehended or tried to apprehend his father. His father fled. What was the ICE agent supposed to do?

Let that little kid just be left on the street? They fed him, they gave him ice cream. They did go to his house to try to give him back to family, and the family wouldn't open the door. Watch a variety of news, not just one sided.

If you look at Renee Good—I better not say that. I, you know what, I am a CCW carrier. I have carried a firearm for 30 years. I have never had to use a firearm. A law enforcement officer, and these are—I'm offended that you think they are untrained individuals. These are trained individuals.

If you are a law enforcement officer and you are making a split-second decision because somebody who has been doxing you and following you all day long, it's a tragedy that this woman was killed, but she attempted to run over a law enforcement officer. That's what happened. Watch the videos.

If you look at Mr. Priddy, another tragic situation. As a CCW carrier in the State of California, SB 2 does not allow you to carry your firearm in sensitive situations, meaning this building, schools, other sensitive areas, and you are prohibited from carrying that firearm to a protest.

The number one rule of CCW carriers, because he was a lawful CCW carrier, don't go where you think you're going to have to use your firearm. The person who teaches that class says don't go to stupid places and do stupid things.

Don't go to a protest and conceal a firearm and engage with federal or any other law enforcement. That's advice for everybody. Don't do it. Don't do it because you put yourself in jeopardy and other people around you in jeopardy. That was a tragic incident.

But that gentleman should have never been there with his concealed firearm on his waistband. It's illegal in the state of California. I don't know if it's illegal in Minnesota, but you know not to go there. Don't go where you think you're gonna create harm or cause harm or be in harm's way.

Now, go to the protests, but don't take your firearm. Don't engage and interact when there's apprehensions or whatever's going on with federal law enforcement or state law enforcement. Don't engage.

If we would allow our law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities, I'm telling you, we could probably make a deal between all of us and the Federal Government to get our handcuffs back and let's get rid of the worst of the worst. But we inherited—this Administration inherited a huge problem.

No time in history and everybody can agree did we ever see trains and trains and droves of people, that we don't know who they are, coming into our country from several other countries on our southern border. This is a serious situation.

And screaming at the top of our lungs, blaming one side or the other, I think most of us on this floor, if we talked off the microphone and in the back, we would agree that we have to operate within the middle, that we have to figure out how to get good people that have contributed to this society to be able to stay and bad people out.

And I think that we all should take that, that seriously. This Bill, again, my colleague from San Francisco, I know you have a tough congressional race on your hands, but this rhetoric has got to stop and start solving problems in the middle. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. So, I've given a significant amount of latitude during this debate, but what we will not do, because we are so much better than this, is to disparage another member of this body, nor will we believe that we have the knowledge that we can assume their intentions for a particular piece of legislation.

So, let's keep that in mind as we continue to discuss this Bill. Senator Umberg, you are recognized. Senator Stern, you are recognized. Senator Stern, you are recognized.

Thank you to the author for forcing us to have this conversation right now that no one wants to be having, but we must. And my, my, my central issue here will be that we somehow, through these storms, hold on to trust with our partners in local law enforcement so that our communities still feel safe, that there's someone they can go to.

Make no mistake, what ICE is doing to terrorize our communities is making people—it's going to hurt people that you don't see at a protest or is not shot in the face. It's just someone who doesn't call 911 because they're afraid. And there, there's a lot of people who are going to suffer in silence from this shadow that is over us.

And so, I would just hope that as the Bill moves forward, we, we make sure that we're holding on to that trust at the local level and that we're listening to them and trying to come up with solutions. And by the way, not just to local law enforcement, but just to our state and local employees at large.

You know, we want, we need allies right now, but what I don't want to happen is for this Administration to somehow turn this against us and turn us against our own people. So, I just sort of put that word of caution out there.

And again, I know we had really just in depth and maybe, maybe not the same heart—Judiciary is a more analytical, less a place, maybe a less emotion.

But I did think there were some ideas shared and some paths forward that at least when it comes to the state and local employees who aren't sort of wrapped up in this ICE world, how to make sure that they, that they're not sort of caught in the middle of this game and to really focus on what I guess now is a threat that is domestic and that we've sworn an oath to defend against.

So, with that, I'll be supporting this Bill to defend that oath.

Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

Thank you. Madam President, a question of the author.

Will the author take a question? You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. Our colleague from Santa Clarita raised a very important issue, and that very important issue was whether this Bill would impact municipal state liability, number one, and whether it would impact state and local law enforcement. If you would be so kind as to respond to that.

Through the Chair? Thank you for that question. So, this, SB 747, the scope of liability and the defenses and the immunities are identical to what already exists and applies to state and local law enforcement under existing federal civil rights law, Section 1983 of federal law.

So, right now, local and state law enforcement, if an officer violates your constitutional rights, a false arrest, excessive force, false entry into your home, or other kinds of violations, you can file a lawsuit under Section 1983 against a state or local agent, officer, official, but you cannot—Section 1983 omits federal agents.

And so, what we've done in this Bill is we have replicated federal civil rights law Section 1983, including the scope of liability, the defenses you can assert, the immunities—put it in the state law, and apply it across the board.

And so, the duties and defenses and immunities we're creating here are duties, defenses, and immunities that local and state law enforcement already have. So, that's my answer.

If I might follow up, Madam President.

Yes.