Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Once again, good morning, everyone. And thank you so for for joining us today. The Senate Government Organization Committee will come to order. I wanted to just share that there's so many committees happening at the same time and we've already got calls from authors not coming early and members. And so you're gonna see people come in and out.

And so we decided that in order to ensure that the witnesses and everyone has time to present, we're gonna start, as a subcommittee. Once we have a quorum, we'll go ahead with the vote. So at this point, I wanna thank again everyone for joining us today. We will now move to our consent calendar. Oh, I'm sorry.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

There's no quorum.

Yeah. There are quorum. So we'll

Okay. So there is no quorum. So just, for the purpose of information, the consent calendar will consist of item seven, SB 1205. Item 10, SB1387. Item 11, SB1195.

Item 12, SB 1294. Item 14, SB 1398. Item 15, SB 1434. So once again, we don't have a quorum, so we are gonna move as, the subcommittee. So I will invite, the only author I think I see here, in front of us.

So we will start with, item number1, SB 885 by Senator Strickland. We wanna thank all of you for joining us today. And so, mister Strickland, please invite your supporters. Is there anyone in opposition in the audience, just so I know who's out there.

Okay. So I will let you know when time is right. You may commence when you're ready. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you madam chair, members. My bill SB 885 is really a idea that it comes from the affordability crisis. Both Democrats and Republicans at the start of this year said the number one priority is the affordability crisis here in California.

And, as I went through and looked at, you know, kind of what's going on and, where we are as a state, I really saw that a real major issue in towards the affordability crisis is what I call these unaccountable boards and agencies who are making regulations that have deep impact on the economy here in California.

And I get a lot of calls into my office, complaining about some of these unaccountable boards and agencies and so my concern said, well, what can we do because, you know, we can't vote them out. And so I actually came up with this bill last year when the, chair of the Air Resources Board was quoted in the media saying when they made the regulations, they didn't take into account the economic impact of those regulations. Now let this sink in members.

Every bill that comes before us, I know, at least for me, every bill that comes before us, I look at what the economic impact would be for my constituents and for the people of California. And I think it says a loud message when someone says, we when we set regulation, we don't look at the economic impact.

And a lot of these unaccountable boards and agencies had deep economic impact that have really caused a lot of what we call the affordability crisis in California. So my bill 885, the Restore Accountability Act, simply requires us as a legislature to review and approve the most major regulations. Those are expected economic impact of more than $50,000,000 or more. And what we'd do is if that hit that trigger, it would come back to the legislature for approval.

There are only a few proposed regulations every year to rise to that level.

In fact, since 2014, there have been fewer than eight per year. This is very manageable workload for the legislature. Especially considering that we in the legislature have introduced well over 4,000 bills just this session alone. It's not unreasonable that we would annually review a handful of proposals with the economic impact of hundreds of millions of dollars on our constituents, especially in light of California's worsening, affordability crisis.

SB 885 restores accountability to where it belongs with the legislature, and with the legislators who are elected in answer to the people of California.

For those reasons, I ask for your aye vote on SB 885. With me today is Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business and Scott Kaufman with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Thank you. Both of you will have collectively three minutes. I'll let you know when it's a half mark. When you're ready, you may proceed. Thank you.

Good morning. Madam chair and members, Tim Taylor, policy director for the National Federation of Independent Business. Excuse me. On behalf of NFIB and our roughly 13,000 small business members across California, I'm here today to express our strong support for SB 885. A measure that restores oversight, accountability and transparency to California's regulatory process.

Small businesses across the state operate within an increasingly complex and expanding web of regulations affecting nearly every aspect of the economy. California is now home to what can only be described as a regulatory Leviathan with nearly half a million rules, regulations administered by some 230 boards, commissions, agency, and departments. Many exercising significant fiscal authority. What is most concerning is not just the scale but how these rules are created.

Major policy decisions often with sweeping economic consequences are routinely made by unelected regulatory bodies that do not answer directly to the voters.

This lack of accountability has real consequences. Regulations with significant economic impact can be adopted without sufficient scrutiny or full consideration of unintended consequences. For small businesses already struggling with affordability, housing costs, energy prices and workforce pressures. These decisions can be the difference between staying open and shuttering. SB 885 provides a targeted solution.

It requires that any major regulation with an anticipated economic impact of more than $50,000,000 be reviewed and approved by the legislature before it is finalized. This ensures the most consequential regulatory actions with receive the same level of democratic oversight as laws passed through this body. Importantly, only a limited number of regulations meet this threshold each year. Strengthening accountability without overburdening the legislature.

At its core, SB 885 restores proper governance placing decision making authority back in the hands of elected representatives accountable to the people of California.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll go quickly.

Hello again for the record. I'm Scott Kaufman, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. We are proud to support SB 885, which placed a legislative check on the powers of the state regulators and restores transparency and accountability on behalf of taxpayers. Through the regulatory process, unelected bureaucrats and state agencies single handedly shape costly new rules and onerous restrictions that often function as hidden taxes.

Mandates and prohibitions on industry result in direct and indirect cost that are ultimately passed on to the taxpayer in the form of increased prices and more limited options, making California even more expensive.

These regulatory proposals may be rooted in authorizing statutes, but are often much more burdensome in their approach than would be necessary to fulfill the legislature's intent. For example, just last month, legislators on both sides of the aisle called for CARB to redraft proposed updates to cap and trade regulations due to the unintended impacts on the state's fuel supply economy and working families. While we understand the need for regulatory framework in many areas, existing processes lack sufficient vetting and sufficient oversight of pending regulations.

Taxpayers deserve answers when the when the state takes action and increases costs. SB 885 ensures that the buck stops with officials that they elected to office.

Thank you. You did go over so I will also give the opposition the same time Sorry. For your testimony. It's it's quite a right. So at this point, I wanna invite the opposition witnesses to to join us up here at front as well.

And you would have the same allotted time. Please state your name, and you may proceed when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Elmer Lizardi, with the California Federation of Labor Unions. We are opposed to SB 885, which would require explicit legislative authorization before any major regulation can be adopted in California. Currently, state agencies already follow a robust and transparent process to receive stakeholder and expert input whenever a new regulation is proposed for adoption, including extensive economic analysis for major regulations through standardized regulatory impact assessments.

SB 885 would add an additional layer of approval, which in practice will only create significant and unnecessary delays for important regulations without providing additional important regulations without providing additional benefit to the process, especially those aimed at protecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace. A perfect example is the indoor heat standard. The work on the standard was catalyzed by the legislature itself in 2016 with the passage of SB 1167.

It called on the Kalosha Standards Board to propose a standard that would protect indoor workers from heat illness by January 2019. The surrea for the standard was not completed until 2021.

The final vote to approve the indoor heat standard did not take place until unions and worker advocates fought for eight years and the standards board leadership saw it through in 2024. In that time frame, we saw eight of the hottest years ever recorded. And in 2023 alone, over twenty three hundred people died of heat related illness in The United States. Requiring an additional legislative approval for a regulation such as this would further delay the implementation of life saving protections for workers in high risk environments.

And additionally, as the analysis aptly points out, legislative action is always an available option already.

At its best, this new hurdle will simply approve highly vetted proposals and still delay protections for workers for a year, but at its worst, it risk halting vital health and safety protections for workers altogether. For these reasons, we must oppose and we respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I would like to now invite, members of the audience. Anyone wishing to speak in support, you may do so at this time. Please state your name, your agency, and your position only. Thank you.

Madam chair and members, Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Adam Quinones, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District in support.

Thank you. Another opportunity, anybody wishing to speak in support. I will now move over to those wishing to speak in opposition. Once again, please just state your name, your agency, and your position.

Good morning. Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in opposition.

Judy Yi, State Building Traits in opposition.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition.

Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in opposition.

Thank you. Once again, giving anyone the opportunity to speak. Now, I will bring it over to our members on the dais. Anyone wishing to speak?

I will turn it over to, Senator Akilah Weber.

Thank you, chair. Good morning. Thank you so much for bringing forth this bill. Thank you to those who've come out also, to speak either in support or in opposition. I completely understand the rationale behind this bill.

I think that, you know, certain actions in the past in terms of giving away certain authority has come to show that that may not have been the smartest decision. But I also understand I understand what the opposition is saying and so there may need to be some considerations of a carve out in that situation. But my first, thought was that we often move very slow in the legislature. And so, how do we prevent that from happening, Right.

To say, okay, if it comes back to us so that we can have the final say, how do we ensure that that gets done in a timely manner fashion and it doesn't get caught up in the politics of Sacramento. And then I saw the amendments, the committee amendments, which would have required some time frame. It's interesting because I like put on my notes when I was reading it like we need to have something. But then those aren't those amendments are not being accepted.

So I'm just wondering what the thought process is of not accepting the committee amendments to ensure that we do what we're supposed to do within a certain time frame and not just give us like carte blanche to do it whenever.

First of all, I think the committee amendments go to your point about the legislature moving slowly. If if I accepted those amendments, it would move much slower than what my proposal has before you right now. That's number one. Number two, I think when you talk about something with $50,000,000 impact, we should take a deep thought. Because $50,000,000 again, as I said in my opening, we're only talking about eight different pieces of legislation at most since 2014.

And when you're talking about something with that major of economic impact, I do think that we should have the ability to have more eyes on it because of how deeply it does impact constituents that you have and I represent. And the last part is accountability.

You know, at the end of the day, people elected you and they politely elected me and the voters and the people of California have the accountability and say, if we don't like what has transpired, we have to go, all of us have to go before our constituents and answer to those constituents. And again, the reason why I brought this forward is because of the statements made by, you know, the chair last year, the Air Resources Board.

When they admitted that they said, we don't take into account the economic impact when we set the regulation.

So all this does is puts it doesn't stop any regulation from happening. It comes back and it's meaningful. It gives all of us in the legislature ability to take a look at it on something that impactful. Think about this members. We have over 4,000 bills that we look at this year, but we can't look at a extra eight bills that have 50,000,000 or more impact.

I think this is a sensible measure. In fact, the amendments that were brought forward to me actually slowed down that process of what you mentioned, Senator. That's why I didn't accept those amendments.

Thank you. So if not, a sixty day requirement, what kind of requirement in terms of when by the time we would need to act?

It comes it's simple. It just comes back to us. Like, we do approvals all the time for judicial appointments and other appointments to commissions. It comes right back to us. And if we have a determination that we like this regulation, we move it on really quickly.

And if we don't like the regulation, at least there's some accountability where if we vote for some, now we have our voices that are attached to it.

No. I completely agree with that. I I'm not disagreeing with that. That's why I say I understand that the purpose and agree Okay.

With the fact that we should have more of a voice in certain things. Because at the end of the day, we are the ones that are accountable. But I am concerned about the lack of forcing us to move on something. Because we can we've sit on appointments for a long time.

Right, we don't necessarily always move those through quickly. Sometimes it's political reasons. Sometimes it's because we have, you know, a lot of other things to do. And so those are given less of a priority.

And so I I didn't see anything in the bill or in the analysis that would require us to move at any other speed than anything else that we have. If if those are if this is being given to us and so that's.

Senator if that's what you're offering. I would be happy to take a time period as amendment moving forward and I'll be open to that suggestion moving forward if this bill went forward because again, all I wanna bring back is accountability back to legislature. A lot of people ask me because I think you know in my background, I was in the legislature back in 1998, an earlier time.

I do feel like we have put a lot of decisions away that should be from the legislative body out to these unaccountable boards and agencies. I do believe that we should bring a lot of that back here to legislature to bring back accountability and that's the reason for this bill.

Yeah. Thank you. I do have a question for opposition. We definitely do not wanna do anything that would, create any further delays or obstacles and for our workers and protection and health and safety and things like that. Within the description of this bill and the types of bills that would need to come back to the legislature. The example that you gave, would that have fallen into something that would have needed to come back.

Yes. Because the Surreal was done on the indoor heat standard as I mentioned in my testimony. So that would have come back to the legislature, which is why I made the point to say, you know, workers went through a long period where we happen to see some of the hottest, years on record.

And that, to your point, that fear of of the legislature not moving fast enough on something like this coming back to the legislature would then create more uncertainty for workers who have been waiting already eight years for the proposal to move through the regulatory process. Right?

So although I totally understand, I think the intent, right, to have some level of accountability, at the same time, the workers themselves are the ones who end up suffering when either we wait for a year or it doesn't actually get passed and then we are standing here in 2026 and then we don't have an indoor heat standard.

Thank you. I don't know what will happen with this bill today, Senator Strickland. But strongly recommend that if it does get out, that there are some requirements, some guardrails put around Sure. To ensure that we act or we prioritize so that this isn't something that is just kinda put off to the side and we'll get to it next year or next year or, you know, politics gets involved with it and it just doesn't move.

And I think that's a problem that we see at times in any form of legislature, whether it's here or, you know, in Washington DC, things can move too slow. And that was my concern with this bill that we that there was nothing to push us to move

Senator, if this does move forward, I will commit to you. I'll work with you and I will definitely put in a timeline because I agree with you. We shouldn't slow down that process.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. I think we have a quorum. Correct? So let's call the roll so we have the ability to vote if that's okay with all of you. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have now established a quorum, so we can vote on, you know, once we're done here. So thank you for that. So any other members wishing to speak on this item?

Can I make a comment?

Oh, absolutely. Go ahead, mister Senator Choi.

I'm new in this committee today, but listening to your bill, I'm so surprised that is $50,000,000 is another small amount that will impact our economy and a lot of them. Most of these regulations will be when we consider the small businesses and this is what the that was how many how many half a million regulations are now existing in our state. And think about it. Those regulations are all not just helping the businesses.

The majority of them will be restricting and do this do this unless you'll be fined.

So many businesses, as you know, small, medium or large are choked to death by these regulations and the legislation that we enact impacting their operations. And it doesn't make any sense and that they are packing and they're leaving many of them out of our state as you know. So this is a very reasonable $50,000,000 economic impact should be decided by the legislature, not by agencies, state agencies without measuring the negative impacts.

They create such a regulations internally and it has not been in place for us to review, and authorize. And now when I read most of the bills that are on on agenda here, to my senses that the next bill.

Senator bill, SB 986, and then also, Senator Weber bill, number 41123. They seem to be concerned about that this very issue. Same same $50,000,000 impact should be regulated by the state legislature rather than by state agencies internally. So therefore, I think this is a common measure and are not being supported.

Any other members wishing to speak? Okay. Well, thank you, mister Strickland. You know, first of all, I don't think any of us here are disagreeing on on the intent of your bill. In fact, you can attest to the fact that this conversation started with us having this conversation, last year.

How we both feel, that it's important that we have accountability. And I think all of us at one point or another have expressed, you know, we passed legislation and then it goes to agencies and we never necessarily get to to chime in or talk about, how we feel about the end result. I believe, Senator Akila Weber just stated the same thing. You know, we don't wanna give our authority or, you know, relinquish our responsibility to be responsive to our communities, our constituents.

But I think, what I'm struggling with right now is how we get there.

So everything you said is valid and, everything mister, Troy said is valid and and Akila Weber, but it's the, the process of how we get there. So everything that you discussed, I'm in agreement with and accountability should be key. What I was proposing in terms of amendment is, a process that would expedite the process because I don't disagree with with your statement that, you know, this has the opportunity to delay, delay.

And in the process, we may have, you know, concerns whether it's safety or I'm just making sure that that we're responsive to to the cost, which in this case, you discussed the heat standards, which took eight years in a time where we have record heat and that's also unacceptable. So, I wanted to just share with everyone what, the amendments would require.

And that would be that, after, the legislature, I'm sorry. So the major regulations will be prohibited from moving forward, and we would have sixty days as a body to to actually take, express our concerns. One of the things that I always feel is that when we pass bills and whatever the issue may be, that we're missing the piece where we get, someone sitting before us to be held accountable and give us a presentation as to why they made decisions or why not.

So this, the amendments would require and I'm just gonna read the way may I have it here. So it would prohibit a major regulation submitted to the legislature from becoming effective for sixty legislative days from receipt.

So it does have a very specific timeline. Of course, it would exclude recess and weekends because we know that, sometimes we're on break. And the second piece of this, it would require the legislature to hold an informational hearing on the proposed major regulation. Which means that that would be the opportunity for us to bring that agency in front of us and say, explain to us how you got here. And again, we're talking about the accountability piece.

Not only will they have that opportunity to explain to us and for us, the legislature, to hold them accountable, but also there is a sixty day, you know, provision that would expedite the process. You know, I've been a local council member and I've seen the other side and, you know, I'm I know maybe the comparison is not quite, you know, in line with each other.

But, you know, I've seen CEQA, for example, you know, when I was a local council member where we're trying to build a building or something that's important and, you know, then we get caught up in in court, you know, lawsuits. And and, you know, I think, Akilah Weber stated the, you know, we get caught up in the politics of it all. And so I I think the intention is the same.

But I believe that the amendments would expedite the process. It would hold these agencies accountable because they would have to come before us and by way of informational hearing to explain to us how they got there. But I also wanna make a a clarifying statement as well. And Aye, you know, I heard, Senator Choi talk about the $50,000,000 impact. It is a lot.

It is excessive. But what we're not saying here, it's not a negative impact. It also takes into account the positive impact. And it's $1 amount, but it doesn't differentiate between the positive impact and the negative impact. So it's not always the negative impact.

And so I am in fully agreement with you that something needs to be done. And I think I've heard it throughout the years, but it's just how we get there. And I do believe that putting a sixty day expiration date would allow us to move faster. It would allow us to accomplish the goal of holding agencies accountable. It would give the members of, the legislature the ability to to recall it, if you will.

You know, Aye, equate it to a veto power if we bring them back, and then we decide whether or not we want to adopt that regulation. So I don't necessarily disagree with the, you know, supporters and opposition. I think we're all in alignment with where we need to go, but it's how we get there. And so Aye, you know, would appeal to the Senator to take the amendments because I again, I don't disagree and I agree with everything you said, but it's how we get there.

And I would like to see a mechanism where we get there faster.

Because not only are we, have we have to go through another legislative year, but we also know that people turn out and people change. And at that point, we'll lose, you know, the intent which was to the body that voted for it is able to recall it in real time to say, I don't like that. I voted for that and I'm not happy with the outcome. And so with that, I will just turn it over to you and ask if you would consider the amendments proposed.

Sure an I also do that within my close as well?

Well, why don't if nobody else go ahead and you may close.

So I'm happy to take the amendment on the sixty days. That's not the issue. In fact, I wanted what you were just talking about the veto power. The amendments that was presented go, okay. Now we have to have an informational hearing and then we have to go through an entire committee process.

You're talking about slowing down the process. What I want is a veto ability to say, okay. It comes to the legislature. Legislature then votes for it. I'm happy to take the sixty day amendment.

But the amendments that are presented actually do slow down the process dramatically and it only goes into a committee process, which a lot of times we know the committee processes loaded up. And so, a meaningful reform, I'm happy to take the sixty day amendment. But let me just close by saying this. Again, the reason why I brought this bill forward is because the chair last year said when they make those regulations, they don't take into account the economic impact. That blew me away.

That blew me away as an elected official. Because I know you, miss madam chair, and I know a lot of my colleagues here, you do take into account the economic impact and how it affects your constituents. And that's the problem with unaccountable boards and agencies. They don't have to go. I I do town halls all the time.

I meet constituents all the time. And I know all of you do as well. But they don't have to face those constituents. It's almost like the modern day Marie Antoinette. Let them eat cake.

I don't care how it affects you economically. And so let me end with this, members. It's a quick story if you would go along with me. I was a really good basketball player on the day. I played at Whittier College in in Senator Archuleta's district.

And I was having a great game and it was about ten seconds left and we're down one point and the coach called time out. And and I was having a really good game and the coach went into the huddle and he drew up a play and he drew up a play for my teammate to take the last shot. And I went to my coach and I said, coach, if you wanna win the game, give me the ball.

He looked at my eyes and saw I was really serious. And this is a true story.

He changed the play. We went back and they put the play and they put the ball in my hands and I made the last shot to win the game. The metaphor members is you're all telling your constituents that you're the leaders in your community. You should want the ball in your hand. You shouldn't want to give the ball to someone else in an unaccountable board agency.

You should want the ball in your hand. The legislature should want the ball in their hand. And that's why I'm pushing this bill because it brings back accountability on the number one issue that both Democrats and Republicans agree on, the affordability crisis. And for those reasons, I'm happy to take the amendment on the sixty days, but I don't wanna slow down the process. That's why I'm not taking the amendment for the other part of the committee analysis or the committee suggestions.

I want this bill to be meaningful. I want it to go move forward and I want it to be something that has deep meaning that will have economic impact to solve the affordability crisis for both Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. And this is a simple bill that I urge or I vote.

Once again, I think we will disagree on the fact that asking the agency to come before us in way of an informational hearing to justify how they came up with, with whatever results they came up with is pulling them accountable. They have to come before us, and it is making sure that we, the legislature, have the ability to have the last word.

And, and just, to share, I know that there's another bill that's almost identical to to mister Strickland that, you know, has the same provisions that has accepted the amendments that again, I feel that it's just a matter of how we get there, but I don't disagree. I think we're all saying the same thing. We're just saying it in a different way.

And with that, madam, secretary, please call the roll.

We have a motion.

Someone make a motion. Motion by, Senator Choi.

SB 885. Motion is do passed through appropriations committee. Rubio. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta. Ashby. Blackespear. Cervantes. Troy, aye. Troy, aye. Dahle, aye. Dahle, aye. Hurtado. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Padilla. Richardson. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab. Weber Pierson. That's four. We'll keep it open.

That, bill has four votes. We'll keep it open. Then for absent members, thank you very much. Thank you,

John, for your testimony. Thank you.

Appreciate it. We will now take a little pause to ensure that we, take care of the consent calendar now that we have a quorum, which will be once again item seven, item ten, eleven, twelve, fourteen, and fifteen. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Once again, motion by Senator Choi. Thank you.

Rubio, aye. Rubio, aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Blackespear. Cervantes. Troy, aye. Troy, aye. Dahle, aye. Dahle, aye. Hurtado, aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Padilla. Richardson. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab. Weber Pierson, aye. Weber Pierson, aye.

Okay. We'll hold that. Open it small.

Okay. We will, leave that open, for absent members as well. I see Mr. seyarto. Thank you. We will now move over to SB 986 by Senator Seyarto And I will ask your main witnesses to come forward.

If there's any witnesses in opposition, I also invite you to come up at this time. Okay. Mr. Seyarto, you may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And, as you had stated already, these are very, very similar bills, with a little bit of a a difference. So I'd like to start off by thanking the committee for their willingness to work with me on the principles behind this bill, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments today. SB 986 seeks to ensure that the legislature has proper oversight of major regulations coming out of California's largest agencies.

As amended, this bill outlines a legislative disapproval window and requires an informational oversight hearing prior to the implementation of all regulations with an estimate estimated in economic impact of over $50,000,000.

Agency rule making is generally necessary when issues are identified relating to the implementation of new legislation or court decisions. In theory, these rules are meant to be clarifying. However, the current California legal landscape has become so complex and ambiguous that agencies have effectively become empowered to make sweeping statewide policy decisions with broad economic impacts. So keeping in mind, these decisions are made by people that are not elected, the people elected us to make those decisions.

This means that major policy decisions are being made without voter representation, which goes against the very founding principles of our nation and state.

These policies have massive economic impacts that affect California consumers every day and no voter recourse or accountability. What was originally intended to be an authority delegated by legislature has in many cases become a replaced authority. SB 986 seeks to to reassert legislative oversight over the regulatory process. And, I also have the Pacific Legal Foundation with me here today to speak further on the need for this bill. And I just wanted to add one more thing about the the amendment and the window.

The legit whatever the decision that was made by the whatever agency it is, does not go into effect until we have done this part of it if this bill comes into effect, which is the difference. Does it extend it by sixty days? Maybe. But a lot of these bills need us to to really weigh in. And, and I think that delay isn't that much of a delay given the sometimes the complexity of these and in the impacts that they have.

So I'll turn it over to my witness. Thank you.

Thank you. You'll have three minutes.

Thank you. I got it. Chair Rubio and members of the committee, my name is Rees Empey, and I am state policy manager of Pacific Legal Foundation. PLF is a national public interest law firm that has worked to advance equality and opportunity for all, protect the constitutional separation of powers, and defend private property rights for more than five decades. PLF supports SB 986 because it strengthens democratic accountability over the most economically significant regulations.

When an agency rule is projected to have more than 50,000,000 in economic impact, that rule is, in substance, a major policy choice. And SB 986 recognizes that reality and ensures those choices are subject to transparent legislative oversight rather than being made solely within the executive branch. As amended, this bill does not stop agencies from regulating and it does not interfere with the Office of Administrative Law's Technical Review. Agencies will still go through the full APA process.

OAL will still review regulations for compliance with statutory standards, and emergency regulations remain exempt.

What changes is that after OAL approval, major regulations must be submitted to the legislature, placed on a clear sixty business day calendar review clock, and are subject to rejection by Concurrent Resolution if lawmakers conclude the rule is unjustified. This structure advances core separation of powers principles. It keeps agencies in their proper role while reaffirming that the legislature is ultimately for the biggest policy and economic trade offs. It also improves transparency.

SB 986 requires notice to the legislature before submission, an informational hearing on each major regulation, and a public explanation when a regulation is rejected.

If the legislature does not act within the review period, the regulation simply takes effect under existing law. In short, SB 986 is a measured good government reform. It simply ensures that regulations with the largest economic consequences receive the level of democratic scrutiny they deserve. That is consistent with PLF's long standing commitment to accountable government, which is why we're happy to support the bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We will now invite the opposition. You'll have the same time. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and senators. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in respectful opposition to SB 986.

So it's a little low. I wanna make sure everyone hears it. Yeah. Microphone up. You may.

I'm so sorry for the interruption.

No worries. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in respectful opposition to SB 986. Regulatory bodies are tasked with specific oversight of various sectors under the branch through which the state is able to implement the many policies it sets to serve all residents of California. Rulemaking itself is a highly structured process governed by laws and oversight bodies to ensure a balanced and clear process is adhered to.

Rulemaking is strictly governed by the Administrative Procedures Act to ensure that policies are expertly researched by qualified professionals and that the public and affected industries have opportunities to review and comment on proposed rules.

Regulations are also subject to judicial review in instances where they may be unconstitutional or outside of existing agency authority. Furthermore, as, stated in the analysis, the legislature can already pass legislation to make changes to regulations through its own existing robust and thorough process. Should SB 986 pass and become law, even as proposed to be amended, the bill could lead to unnecessary delays in implementing important policies that benefit Californians and create long standing uncertainty in affected industries and sectors.

For these reasons, UCS respectfully opposes SB 986. Thank you.

Thank you. for your testimony. I will now invite members of the the audience to come up to speak in support. Please state your name, your affiliation, and your position only.

Good morning again. Adam Quinones, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District in support.

Thank you.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in support.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in support? I will now go over to the opposition. Please just state your name, your affiliation, and your position. Thank you.

GDE, state building trades in opposition.

Sofia Afekoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I will now bring it back to members. Anybody wishing to speak? Okay. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Yeah. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And, thank you to Senator Sayada for bringing this bill forward. I would say before I took the oath of office, one of the number one complaints from our constituents was the power of the California Air Resources Board. The power of the California Public Utilities Commission.

The power of the California Energy Commission to make decisions and circumvent the legislature that impact real lives. That up that that upend entire industries. And I was beyond myself when I realized the amount of power that these agencies have had and how people are appointed to these agencies. I'm in strong support of this bill as I was of the previous bill because enough is enough. We have destroyed our ability to be good stewards of our constituents and respond to them.

There's so many different times when I have direct complaints about decisions that carb is making on our agriculture community or, utility rates increasing nearly 300% in my district. It it is it is it is heart wrenching to say to constituents, we do not have oversight of those decisions that they're making. So this, for me, is a long time coming. I think it has bipartisan support as well.

And I look forward to putting a halt to some of these non elected organizations, non elected bodies, doing the work of the legislature, as they kind of, color outside the lines.

So I will be, supporting this motion, when appropriate.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, madam chair. I just want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. As the previous member who presented is also trying to address an issue that many of us this is a bipartisan concern that both literally both sides are are trying to work and address. So I'm grateful for the for you bringing this measure forward. I'm also wanna echo the comments that were made by my colleague from Jackson.

Jackson. I'm like Jackson. And would love to be added as a co author when the opportunity comes. It's a great bill. And also, thank you for working with the, committee on the amendments to ensure that, you know, it does move forward.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Okay. Just, one thank you so much. And I said it earlier, so I feel like I'm gonna be repeating myself, so forgive me. I I I think all of us are in agreement that that sometimes, you know, we vote things out and we don't get to see the end result or even if, the intent of the legislation was adhered to. And so I do believe that your approach, in accepting the amendments is a better approach and that we don't delay.

You know, it has a sixty day review clock and it gives the legislature the ability to recall, if you will, a bill and have the agency come before us and hold them accountable. And if we choose to go a different direction, we can. And so, I do believe, again, it's the accountability piece that we're all looking for. You know, and I didn't say it earlier, but, it does save taxpayer dollars.

You know, that's also another intent of what you're trying to accomplish and what I believe that sometimes, you know, the delays and the red tape and everything that happens in between, you know, it really just causes more, more money to the state and, and and stress for those that are trying to ensure that, you know, what's important gets implemented right away.

And if it's not what the legislature wants, again, it gives us that ability to to hold those agencies accountable. But thank you so much for accepting the amendments. Would you like to close?

Sure. And I thank all of you for your comments on this and and on the previous bill as well. You know, one of the things that I'm really concerned about is is the relationship between our agencies and our public. And that relationship has deteriorated because our some of our agencies feel like they don't have to answer to our public or their answer to the public. We represent them.

And I think bringing this this back, adds a measure of accountability back into the process. And hopefully, we can get better service, better responses, etcetera, when we have cities, citizens trying to work with these agencies to have their concerns addressed. Because a lot of times they're not being addressed. As for using the legislature to undo bills after they've happened, that process, we talked about delays, is a one to two year process. And in the meanwhile, whatever damage is being done is being done.

And, so I think this is an important compromise to being able to do that accountability. And, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Have a motion. I have Senator Choi makes a motion.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll. SB 986. Motion is due. Pass as amended to judiciary committee. Rubio.

Aye. Rubio, Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil, Aye.

Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Ashby. Lakespeare.

Lakespeare, Aye. Cervantes. Choi.

Aye.

Choi, Aye. Dally. Aye. Dally, Aye. Hurtado.

Aye.

Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado.

Aye.

Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Ochoa Bogue. Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Pavia Richardson. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. We're hoping

that open. We're gonna leave that open for absent memos. We wanna thank you for your testimonies and thank you.

Thank you.

And told. We will now move on to SB 1025 by Senator Hurtado. I will invite her, main witnesses and support to join us in the front and main witnesses and opposition as well. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My witness is not able to be here today. I'm here to present SB 1020, 1025, which establishes Office of Food Security and Affordability. Simple idea, targeted coordination. And I want to be very clear that this bill does not take any kind of authority away from departments.

It creates a central coordinating hub, so state departments can finally operate in alignment. Think of this as a bridge, not a replacement bringing together state departments, food banks, and community partners under one shared strategy. Right now, California's food programs are spread across at least five departments social services, public health, education, food, ag, and aging that leads to misenrollment, duplicative efforts, and most concerning people falling through the cracks.

According to the California Association of Food Banks, over 8,800,000 Californians are food insecure, even though we invest heavily in food programs. This tells us the issue is not effort.

It is coordination. In Senate District 16, which includes many rural and agricultural communities in the Central Valley, we grow the food that feeds the nation and much of the world, yet families still struggle to put food on the table. They are a failure of connection between programs. I have heard this directly from my constituents, working families choosing between groceries and rent, seniors unaware they qualify for CalFresh, and students relying on food banks to get through the week. These are not failures of individual programs.

These are gaps between systems that are not connected. SB 1025 creates a coordinating office that will align state departments and existing programs, expand outreach, so eligible families actually enroll, operate a twenty four hour hunger hotline to connect people to resources, support food banks with best practices and stronger emergency coordination, and conduct data driven gap analysis to identify underserved communities. I understand concerns, that have been, raised about creating a new entity, but this bill is intentionally designed to reduce duplication, not create it.

By improving coordination, we can make existing investments work better. The bill includes a ten year sunset, 01/01/2037, and the legislature retains, full oversight.

At the end of the day, no Californian, especially any state as resource rich as ours, should have to wonder where their next meal will come from. SB 1025 assures we are not just investing in programs, but connecting them into a system that works. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for a nigh vote.

Thank you, Senator. So your witnesses are not here in support. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Any main witnesses? Okay.

Now, I will invite just general members of the public to to come up and speak in support. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in opposition? Okay. I will now bring it back to members of this committee. Senator Archuleta, you may proceed.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I can imagine if the agency would have been in effect during the fires, that affected so many there in Southern California when everybody was struggling for food and shelter and everything else. And I see this now newly created agency within the state of California to make sure that everyone who can access the telephone and be able to outreach is going to find someone there to be able to shuffle food over from one area to another.

And I know that accountability is important and oversight is important, but communication is important. When one community really needs help, whether it be in the Central Valley, whether it be down in San Diego or way up in the top of the state.

If there's a tragedy, then I would hope this agency can call the rest and say, let's ship it all over to that one area. Is that what you foresee?

Yes. That is That's that's the goal and the intention of this of this bill.

Good. Well, thank you. And I'll move the bill.

Thank you, mister Archuleta. Anyone else wishing to speak? Senator Choi, please.

I think that the bill intention is a very good surprise. So far, we didn't have such a oversight, the central coordinator. I have a question. This newly created office of food security and affordability will be overseeing like a commander in chief over five agencies that you have described so far we have for food distributions?

Well, I I believe that the intention and, the vision of the sponsor and I is that it's it's an office. It's it's more like, in a way, to to an extent, like an auditor, where it's making sure that the programs that we have across government are actually functioning and that we're not, you know, allowing gaps in in in food insecure households to continue.

It's to ensure that people are, food insecure and that we're capturing, you know, the most accurate information and data possible and that we provide the support and the resources in a streamlined manner.

Yeah. Even though this is to create a new agency, you know, we keep on creating and the government becomes a larger and larger. Yeah. Originally, that kind of idea is objectionable to me, but this one, I can see the effectiveness of their work in coordinating all different agencies sometimes regionally oriented for the supply or, you know, helping agency and looking in their operations for their only clients and customers or or in their region. So they may not see overall what's going on in the entire state.

So this new office is gonna gonna supervise entire operation where the deficiencies are, how they are operating so they can coordinate. We'll have the authority to tell from one agency to cooperate with the other one and the surplus of any food that they may have can be shipped to the other place where there is not enough food. So that kind of a role will create that efficiency. Is that what am I interpreting correctly?

You are spot on, Senator.

Okay. Thank you, senator.

Thank you. And, Senator, good morning, Senator. I am I had abstained on the, we first heard it in human services on the bill.

Anyone else wishing to speak? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I noticed that you folks added a a date. My concern, as I expressed earlier is just adding another state agency. We have so many that we've done just as I've been here in the past six years of adding oversight more oversight agencies all over the place. So my concerns originally were adding another one without actually auditing what we already currently have in place to ensure that they're doing their job. And then if not, how do they improve?

So that component is still a concern for me. As far as we should be looking into what we currently have, ensuring that they're accomplishing the goals that they're they've been established to to attain. So that is still something that I haven't seen in the bill. But I do appreciate the the date of of 2037 as something that, you know, k. Let's review or or sunset this ocean.

My question is as with any entity in government, I don't know if we ever cancel any any agencies that we create as government. When that 2037 agent date comes around, what what usually or what's your vision as to what would happen then? Or do we have any history in in the state legislature of ending any department once the date comes to fruition?

You know, thank you, Senator, for the question. What I'll say is that I recognize that this bill is not perfect. Right? It's it's looking at we have a vision of what it's looking to do. There's still some work that needs to be done.

But I think that at at the at the core of it is, really trying to address, and and making sure that government works for people. That we are not allowing, you know, fraud, waste, or abuse occur. And that, that at the end of the day, that people that are food insecure are getting the

resources and that they need. And that we're and part of it is we have to be able to communicate across, departments, across agencies in order for it to work for, people. I see that as part of the the problem in terms of, the end date. We we I think we have a bit of a of some time to to make it to to get this bill across the finish line.

And I and I think that there is got to be some mechanism in place to ensure that this, if implemented, that it's actually working.

I do believe that's also something that's a question that's that that we've got to be able to address. That if it's not working, that something's got to change. Again, going back to the the the question of is this particular government program or office working? And if it's not, then, you know, something's gotta change. Something's gotta change.

Because at the end of the day, that's what we're here for. We're here to make sure that government works for people.

And I absolutely agree with you 100%. I think just the concerns are that as we facilitate coordination between these agencies without first looking into what what each agency is currently doing and whether or not is optimally being maximized in in ensuring that the resources are being shared with their with their constituents or with the folks that they're serving. I think that's my biggest concern is that we need to look at what we currently have first before moving forward with something new. An oversight.

Otherwise, we're just facilitating mismanaged agencies.

Right.

Another, another aspect that I think, should be considered moving forward is as with the two previous bills that we have with agencies coming in and implementing laws the legislature passes according to their purview, they have had no responsibility in coming back and giving the legislature an update. So moving forward, if you are to create a business for which I'm assuming it probably will, or maybe not. I don't know. But,

If it does move forward, there should be a mechanism in which they come back to the legislature and report back what they're doing, what they're finding, and just giving an update.

And so the legislature can have some feedback on on it. So that when 2037 does come around, the legislature is informed or they can do, you know, mitigated, legislation to or guidance, in the agency. But not give them total autonomy, but come back to the legislature for for feedback.

Thank you so much for your comments. I I would say that, I have a lot of ideas. I don't know if they're all necessarily the most, if they're the right ideas. But I definitely have a lot of ideas of, again, accountability. And how do we how do we implement accountability measures, not just in terms of food programs, but just across government, making sure, again, that government works for people.

Because I think there's a lot of urgency in that at the moment.

Senator Akilah Weber.

Thank you, chair. I wanna thank the author for bringing this up. I also saw this in human human services, I believe. Completely understand the desire to create government that works for people. And I think that's what probably I would hope everyone who is elected is is striving for.

And definitely don't want to, you know, create something that doesn't work for our constituents here in California. And I think that's one of the concerns that I have with this particular bill. And and we talked about it a little bit in in health human services, excuse me. I think a lot of things that we do here in the state of California have well intentioned to do the best for our residents.

But without some kind of specific guard rails to ensure that we are watching what is happening, we often fall short.

So we have lots of different agencies that that deal with food insecurity but we don't really have any way of ensuring that what they're doing is actually working. That's what you're trying to do with this office. But

I don't see anything in it that would allow for us to ensure that what they're doing is actually working. And so that kind of goes to what Senator Ochoa Bogh was saying. And what I had mentioned in the previous hearing was that I I need for you to implement something in this bill that states that they report back, you know, on a yearly basis or every two years to show, like, okay, when we started, this is what was happening.

Now that we've been implemented, this is how we've reduced food insecurity. Or this is how we haven't and these are methods that we're gonna switch or change course to do it.

So I don't see anything like that and I just don't want us to get to 2037 or whatever it is and be in the same position or worse position. So I'm going to support the bill today like I did last week. But really need to see some language to address those things. To make me comfortable enough to vote on the floor to create another office. Thank you.

But thank you, Senator, Weber. I'd say I I take your comments to heart and I agree, like, we there's urgency. Right? Definitely urgency in in in food programs and making sure that everyone is fed. Cannot wait to see if something is successful.

Yeah. Wait until 2037. The urgency is is there and, I'm still committed to making sure that we address and implement those guardrails that you mentioned. And, I hope that by the time it gets to appropriations and and or out if it does, that we have those guardrails and protections and urgency in place.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. So thank you for, for this, policy. But I'm in agreement with, the the previous speakers in that.

I would just want you to consider that conversation that that we just had about implementing some kind of mechanism that allows us to review. In fact, it's consistent with the very first two bills that we're trying to ensure that at the end of the day, we have the last say so whether something's working or not so that we can fix it. It's about making sure that it works, that it's efficient and that we are responsive to our constituents. With that, madam? Motion.

Moved by Senator Akilah Weber.

Aye.

Rubio, aye.

Secretary, please call the roll. SB 1025, motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Rubio.

Aye.

Blakespear, Aye.

Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Ashby?

Cervantes? Choi?

Aye.

Choi, Aye. Dahle? Hurtado?

Aye.

Aye.

Hurtado, Aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Ochoa Bogh, Aye.

Aye.

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahab.

Padilla? Richardson? Smallwood Cuevas?

Weber Pearson?

Aye.

Weber Pearson, aye. Seven votes.

We're gonna hold the the row open. At this point, there's gonna be a little bit of shifting around. I have to go to another committee to present. So we can ask, sergeants to call office as we need authors here.

At this point, we have, Senator Ochoa Bogh that will be presenting. Senator Aquila Weber will take over since our vice chair is not here today. I will be back once I'm done with my presentation.

We are on file item number eight, SB 1214 by Senator Ochoa Bogh. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you madam chair, members. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the staff for working with my staff. It's been very productive. The proposed amendments would add another step in the implementation process by requiring California State Library to conduct research and issue a report to the legislature on each state emblem chosen by a legislator.

California has several state symbols that showcase our state's rich and diverse history, culture, and geography. I hope those are still the amendments. Right? Okay. Just wanna make sure because I know there's been conversations up until eight.

Despite being one of the most biologically diverse states in the nation, California is only one of the few states that does not have an official state butterfly. SB 1214 would remedy this issue and establish an official state butterfly for California. Prior to the proposed amendments, SB 1214 would have established the Western monarch as the California state butterfly. And I would still like to take a moment to share why the monarch is the right choice for our state.

The monarch butterfly, famous for its orange, white, and black wings, can be easily recognized throughout California.

During autumn, this well known pollinator migrates from the Rocky Mountain Range in Colorado and can be found in Southern California desert reaches, such as the Coachella Valley and the Mojave Desert. Come winter, these butterflies will take flight and travel thousands of miles to the coast to overwinter. Remarkably, this phenomenon is unique to California, making these butterflies among our most important pollinators, playing a vital role across the state's ecosystems.

Designing designating the monarch as the official state butterfly will foster a stronger connection for Californians to our diverse regions and highlight the role they play in our ecosystems. Choosing the monarch will also highlight the California's strong commitment to conservation, including ongoing efforts to rebuild populations and restore habitats, led by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

I hope you'll join me in supporting this important effort to help establish the Western Monarch as the official state butterfly. With me today is James Danath Berg, Vice President of Conservation at the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens in my district.

Greetings, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all today. As Senator said, I am Doctor. James Danof Berg and I'm lucky enough to be the Vice President of Conservation at the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens in Palm Desert, California. The Living Desert strongly supports SB 1214.

And as an entomologist who specializes in insects, I wish to offer a few thoughts on why we and I think that the western monarch should be California's state butterfly. As you know, state symbols can engender public support, passion, and action that can bring about many benefits both for the people and the symbol. In in the case of the western monarch, both can easily happen and indeed are already happening in many places across our state.

The western monarch butterfly populations have declined precipitously in recent years from numbering in the millions to only a few thousand, two years ago. It needs our help and this designation would help spur action all across California.

Every one of these golden wanderers who live part time across the Western parts of North America migrate to California every winter to take refuge here along our warm, sunny shores. During the winter, California is the only place where you can find monarchs West of The Rocky Mountains, including in Canada. This annual trip also mirrors the path of many of us here today, as well as that of all of our out of state visitors.

The striking orange, black, and white markings inspire awe and excitement among people who love nature, whether they are in more natural locations or indeed in urban areas. Their aerial beauty benefits both the city and the country parts of our great state.

This proposed designation would encourage Californians to restore the overwintering habitat all along the Central Coast and also inspire people who live along the migratory pathways of the monarch to plant native milkweed plants, their sole food plant. Both of these actions will enrich the lives of monarchs, the hundreds of other animal and plant species that coexist with them and depend upon them, as well as all of the people of California.

Thank you for considering supporting SB 1214 to evaluate whether to make the western monarch the state butterfly by voting to advance this bill out of committee. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone else that would like to see to speak in support of this bill, this is your time to come forward to the microphone. Please state your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing no one else, if anyone would like to come and speak in opposition of this bill, This is your time to come forward. If you

do not wanna be a lead witness in opposition, you may come to the mic at this point and state your name, your position, and your organization if you just wanna do a me too in opposition. Saying no one, we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions. Saying none, Senator, wanna thank you so much for bringing this bill forward and for agreeing to take the committee amendments. At this time, you may close.

Thank you, madam chair. SB 1214 will provide California with a meaningful symbol that reflects our state's rich geography and biodiversity and helps raise awareness around important conservation efforts. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you

so much. At this moment, we I will entertain a motion.

I have a motion.

So moved by Senator Choi. The motion is to do pass

as amendment as amended to the floor. Assistant please call the roll.

Rubio? Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil, Aye. Archuleta?

Ashby? Blake Spear? Blake Spear, Aye. Cervantes? Choi?

Aye. Choi, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye.

Hurtado? Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Padilla Richardson?

Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahab, Weber Pearson? Aye.

Weber Pearson, aye.

Seven, we'll hold it open. Seven, we will hold it open. We'll hold the roll open. And I am also asking once again for any authors to please come to committee at this time, committee of government organization, Senator Weiner, Senator Caballero, Senator Reyes, Senator Richardson. Rubio.

And our chair, Senator Rubio. If anyone sees any of those senators, please grab them, bring them down here to committee. If any of the staff is here, please get your Senator and bring them down as we have no authors in the room.

Do you wanna recess for a couple minutes?

We will take a quick recess as we await for authors to come to committee. Thank you.

We will take a quick recess as we await for authors to come to committee. Thank you.

We are back and we have an author still calling for any other authors that would like to have their bill heard today to come to Committee Room 1200 on 0 Street. But for right now, we will be going to file item number six, SB 1178 by Senator Reyes. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair. My witnesses, if they would come up. Or are are they going to be speaking from the mic? Come on now. Thank you, madam chair and members.

I want to, present to you SB 1178 and want to start off by accepting the committee amendments with the understanding that more amendments are forthcoming to narrow the state's library review to focus on the California yellow jacket specifically. I look forward to working with the committee on that narrowed down language. The goal of s p eleven seventy eight is to designate the California yellow jacket, Vespula sulfuria, as the official state wasp.

I started working on this bill because I saw that there was a need to highlight the important yet uncommon uncommon species of the California of this species that calls California home. This uncommon species has California in its name because of its distribution across the Upper Sonora region that covers areas in San Diego, Imperial, and the Inland Empire.

While most yellow jas jackets and wasps may have a bad reputation for ruining picnics and delivering a painful sting, the sulfuria only eats live prey. They also serve as an excellent natural pest control agent and typically avoid humans. The California yellow jackets avoidant temperament sets this species apart from its more aggressive relatives such as the German or southern yellow jackets, hornets, and Wasps.

Preying on beetles, flies, worms, and other insects that damage crops, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources has found that Yellow Jacket colonies can capture over two pounds of insects from a 2,000 foot square, 2,000 square foot garden plot. Gardeners have been known to let yellow jacket nests remain in non sensitive areas, understanding their valuable role in maintaining a balanced ecosystem.

Designating the Vespa Sulfuria as a state symbol will bring visibility to California's diverse ecology and recognition to the essential work they do every day in our fields, forests, and hillsides. By highlighting this species to become a state symbol, we send a message that California val values ecological stewardship and the preservation of our unique native wildlife. Not just for the animals we find easy to love, but for the ones our ecosystem cannot function without.

Here to testify and support are WASP expert, Lynn Kimsey, a distinguished professor emerita of entomology from UC Davis, And Taylor Trifo on behalf of California Cotton Growers and Gunners Association.

Thank you. You will each have a minute and a half for your presentation and you may begin. Hold on just a moment. I'm gonna make sure.

Turned on, sorry? Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about one of my friends. People normally think of yellow jackets as being evil denizens of picnics and things but this particular species does an incredible job of biological control in wild lands where it's found.

It never nests anywhere near human settlements or anything like this. Very handsome wasp with two racing stripes down its back. And I would say that of all the wasps that could be designated for this, this one would be would have been my first choice as well because of it's endemic. It does a lot of positive in the environment and, it's cute. What can I say?

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Taylor Triffa on behalf of the California Cotton Growers and Tomato Growers Association in support of this bill. Yellowjackets also play an important role in agriculture and on our working lands. In cotton fields, they act like natural predators, feeding on a range of pests and insects that can damage cotton crops and reduce yields. Yellowjackets are valuable allies to farmers in that respect.

And by keeping pest populations in check, they contribute to more balanced ecosystem, reduce the need for chemical interventions, and support integrated pest management that growers use every day. Unlike symbolic or friendly insects, the yellow jacket aligns with California's values of resiliency and adaptability, which is also true for the California agriculture community. And in acknowledging that nature isn't always gentle, the yellow jacket would be an ecologically honest symbol.

Designating the jacket the yellow jacket as a state wasp demonstrates the important role that beneficial species play in California agriculture and protecting our working landscape. We respect respectfully request

Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in support of this bill, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, if anyone would like to speak as a lead witness in opposition to this bill, this is your time to come to the table. Seeing none, if anyone would like to speak as a me too in opposition to this bill, please come to the mic, state your name, your organization, and your position.

Seeing none, I will now bring it back to the committee for any questions or concerns. Seeing none, Senator, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward and for accepting the committee amendments. You may close.

Thank you, madam chair. What what often times appears to just be a fun bill. I've never done such a bill in my tenure, here in the legislature. I think something that is important to recognize that some that a species like this that we often see is something that is in a negative way. It's important as the witnesses have talked about to see the positive to our California crops, to our California forest, in having a species like this so that our students would then learn about it.

And I thank you so much. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I would now entertain a motion. Move by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. The motion is do pass as amendment to, to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Rubio, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Blakesphere, Cervantes, Blakesphere? Aye. Blakesphere, Aye. Cervantes, Troy?

Aye.

Choi, Aye. Dalhe? Aye. Dalhe, Aye. Hurtado?

Ochoa Bogh? Padilla? Richardson? Smallwood Cuevas?

Aye.

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahab? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson,

aye. Five. Hold it open. That has five votes. We will hold it open.

And in honor of such a day, I did wear my special socks. As did my team. Oh. Oh.

Oh. Thank you all.

Thank you, Senator. We are now waiting again for any other authors that would like to have their bills heard today. Senator Weiner, Senator Caballero, Senator Richardson and Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Senator. We are now waiting again for any other authors that would like to have their bills heard today. Senator Weiner, Senator Caballero, Senator Richardson and Senator Rubio.

We will now move to file item number nine, SB 1286 by Senator Birthday Girl Richardson.

That's right. I'm ex I'm excused all day. Right?

Then I hear you may begin.

I apologize. I was in, natural resources and the bills went, really long. Good morning, madam chair and members. Let me first start off by thanking, Senator Rubio and staff, for working with us regarding this bill. That's very important to us, as Californians, the community I just recognized you and saw you there.

To my community in particular, which has a marine mammal center that helps care for, injured and sick, marine animals, particularly sea lions, which you'll hear about today. And, really I think for future generations because we need to make sure that there's more than just us walking around here. That we have beautiful, species that we can enjoy and cohabitate with. With that in mind, I accept the amendments and thank the committee and staff for working with me on SB 1286.

I present to you today SB, 1286 which would recognize the California sea lion as an official state pinniped.

The California sea lion is the pinniped with the deepest ties to our state among all 33 species spread across the world, including the stellar sea lion, the Pacific harbor seal, and the Northern elephant seal. In the past, Coastal Native American societies viewed California sea lions as both food and as a part of their cultures.

Today, California sea lions served as a as the sentinel, of the ocean's health used by scientists to identify issues in the marine ecosystem and as a draw for tourists, educational specialists, and animal lovers across the world who seek to better understand and protect the environment.

While in 1992, the California sea lion population was numbered only at 10,000 due to both federal, conservation law and the hard work of conservation groups like our sponsor of the bill here today with the marine mammal care center in Los Angeles, the California sea lion has now grown to 240,000. And now call our state home, supporting the sea lion's influence on California.

California sea lions can be found from as far North as Eureka, all the way down South to San Diego. And in every major coastal city, bay, and river across California. Sea lions are a conservation success story and a part of our state's history and culture. Recognizing the California sea lion as the official state pinniped, Californians will demonstrate our priorities and commitment to the conservation of other important and iconic species and to our unique California identity. With that, I'll pause to close. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Your, lead witness and support will have a minute and a half.

Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Dave Bader. I'm the Chief Operations and Education Officer at the Marine Mammal Care Center in Los Angeles and a passionate marine biologist. Our organization is responsible for rehabilitating marine mammals throughout Los Angeles County, and we're members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's California Stranding Network.

The Marine Mammal Care Center's, is in support of l, SB 1286. We wanna thank Senator Richardson and happy birthday

Thank you.

For authoring this bill. California sea lions are more than just an iconic part of our coastline. They're sentinel species. Helping us understand the health of our ocean and ultimately our own health. What impacts them often reflects broader environmental risks that can be that can affect us all.

Right now, we are facing growing challenges. In recent years, we've seen unprecedented stranding events driven by toxic algal blooms, disease, malnutrition, and shifting ocean conditions linked to climate change. At our center, we regularly treat sea lions suffering from neurological toxins, severe emaciation, man caused injuries, including entanglements, and even gunshot wounds. Despite this, they are remarkably resilient. With care, they recover and they return to the ocean.

And when they return to the ocean, they serve as a powerful reminder of both the fragility and strength of our marine ecosystems. SB 1286 is a meaningful step forward. By naming the California sea lion as our official state pinniped, we elevate public awareness, inspire, stewardship, and reaffirm California's leadership in ocean conservation. This bill is more than symbolic. It's a statement of our values.

It tells Californians, especially future generations, that protecting ocean health is inseparable from protecting our own. On behalf of the Marine Mammal Care Center Los Angeles and the many organizations supporting thiS Bill, I respectfully urge your support for SB 1286.

Thank you. If anyone else in the audience would like to register their support for the bill, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, if anyone would like to speak as a lead witness in opposition to this bill, this is your time to come to the table. Seeing none, if anyone would like to speak in opposition, just add ME two.

This is your time to come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, we will now bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments.

Well, thank you for telling us what a pinniped Yeah. Was. It was good to learn that. So appreciate the bill.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments, Senator Richardson, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. Thank you for accepting the committee amendments. And once again, happy birthday. You may close.

Thank you. Well, first of all, you should know that I've never seen David so dressed up. So, he did a special treat just for us. And I'd I'd like to really close. Normally, I just say ask for an aye vote.

But I just wanna paint a pincher for you of why this is important. About three weeks ago, we were able to return three sea lions back to the ocean. And this group, they take very special care to feed the sea lions, to they don't let you if you come and I'd invite any of you to come to the center. You're not supposed to talk to them, you know, it's tempting to oh, you're so cute. Happy.

One of them, his name was Happy. But they don't want you to have the, human, association because they don't want them, you know, moving around with us. So anyway, they got these three back to perfect health. We they had them in these, cages. Two were in one cage.

One was in one cage. And, when they opened it up, one popped out and went onto the sand and looked at the other two. One came out of the one that was in the cage of the two, and he, laid his head on the other one's back, kind of like looking like, where is this? Are we really gonna do this? And the third one wasn't coming out.

And they don't force them out. They come out on their own. And, the second one went back in to get the third one. And you could feel him kinda moving around. He was probably nudging him and saying, come on.

Let's go. Let's go. And next thing I know, the three of them are in front of probably cages isn't the right word. I apologize. Containers or something.

And it was about 30 feet from the ocean. And the three lined up. They kind of looked at each other. And then they just all flapped in and went into the ocean. And I think it just really speaks to that there's a role for all of us.

And if we can be educated and understand the value of our species, of the ecosystem, and the role that they play, we can certainly continue. So it brought me a great hope and excitement. So thank you to the Marine Mammal Center. We're gonna have something special for you. I was told I can't give you little props when you're voting.

But I'll have something, special for you to thank you. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on, SB 1286.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion at this time. Second. Moved by, Senator Choi. The motion is do passed as amended to the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Rubio, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Blake Spear? Aye. Blakespare, aye.

Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Choi, aye. Dally?

Aye. Dally, aye. Hurtado? Ochoa Bogh? Padilla?

Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Smallwood Cuevas?

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahab Webber Pearson? Aye. Webber Pearson, aye. That's seven.

Aye.

We'll hold it open.

Seven votes will hold the roll open. We will now move back in the file to file item five, SP eleven seventy one by Senator Caballero. Senator, you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, madam chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present SB 1171 today. I wanna begin by accepting the committee's amendments and thank you and your staff for the thoughtful conversation and consideration of the measure. SB 1171 would make any private entity that contracts with the US immigration and customs enforcement or ICE ineligible to receive a state funded loan or grant. Since 06/06/2025, ICE has conducted military style immigration rates, arrests, and harassment of California's worksites, homes, and public spaces.

I think we've all seen the videos and the chaos that was re a result of that. Media reports and civil rights complaints following ISIS increased enforcement presence have documented instances of excessive use of force, unlawful detention, racial profiling, mistaken detention, and assault, and murder. The indiscriminate, brutal, and unconstitutional nature of ICE's immigration rates have wrecked havoc on California.

The Federal Government's refusal to host hold ICE accountable has emboldened ICE to act without fear of consequences, and ICE enforcement tax tactics disregard California's commitment to public safety and respect for public order. While California cannot stop ICE from conducting raids in our state, we do have the ability to decide how best to spend our state tax dollars.

As such, California has an obligation to ensure its resources are used to protect the residents of the state and that means ensuring that ICE does not benefit from state funding either directly or indirectly. SB 1171 is very simple. It makes any private entity that contracts with ICE ineligible for state funded grants and loans. I respectfully ask for your Ibook.

Thank you, Senator. Do you have any witnesses to speak in support?

Okay. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to add on as a me too, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, we will now open it up to any witnesses that would like to speak as and lead opposition. You may come to the table now. Okay.

I do not.

There we go. Thank you, madam chair and members. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce. We are ... opposed here. I wanna acknowledge the author, and thank the author and their team for careful drafting on this bill.

There's a lot of bills in this space, and I think they've done a good job here. I I just wanna flag, obviously, not in defense of ICE and and the tactics they've used and what's happened. I just wanna flag that I've had members reach out to me with concerns where they don't think their contracts are the kind of problematic contracts that, you know, everyone is focused on, but they do work with ICE.

For example, I had a health care member reach out and say, we provide nursing service to people being detained. You know, is that something that's a problem under this bill?

And I was like, I I think it might be. Right? I had another member reach out that provides legal research, services so that detainees can look up what their rights might be. And this is pursuant to a federal contract with ICE to provide that research tool. So, you know, obviously understand the goal and and not an issue there, but hope we can work on some of these contracts that we don't think are problematic, but do happen to be with ICE. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone else I would like to add on as a me too in opposition, please come forward to the mic, state your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, we'll now bring it back to the committee. If there are any questions or concerns from the committee, Senator Choi.

Thank you. I'm very troubled by this measure That is to prohibit awarding any grant or loan of state funds to any private entity that contracts with the US immigration and customs enforcement, which is eyes. As we heard from the opposition witness, there are many essentials that probably companies may need to supply during the ICE operations, such as the simple facilities, food, health care, legal services. You know? Judges may have to get involved sometimes in the water supplies, anything like that.

Any of those companies later, they will be paralyzed for for working with them for the essentials that they need for the even detainees. So this is the measure that hurts our own companies, our own citizens in California just because of working with the eyes for providing necessary services through sometimes through instant service or sometimes through contracts.

So this is sounds like take you know, feels like that this is strictly anti measure to our Federal Government, especially president Trump's measure that he's strong about strongly encountering with illegal aliens. And as you know, during the Biden administration, our border was wide open. Was it four years or eight years during that time?

Over 10,000,000 people, I understand, have come in because whenever there is a demonstration against our president Trump. There are millions of people every city they come out. Most of them are those are the ones who came across our border during the open border policy during the previous administration. So this is something that is going against the national policy. And then also if it's like a retaliation of taking measures on the Trump administration at this time.

What if if this passes and then penalizes for the companies providing necessary services upon the request of the eyes, then Trump administration can say, okay. If that's the case, then no federal grant to California.

If you don't if if you retaliate for the with the federal agents, then you are not part of the union, and we will not grant any research funds, any housing development funds, any insurance health such as Medicaid, medical service care service fund funding, anything to do with the funds that we we get from the Federal Government. If they come up with that kind of retail retaliatory measures, then how are you gonna be responsible for from this anti government anti Federal Government measure.

I'm strongly troubled by that and opposed to the idea.

Anybody else wishing to speak on this measure? You may proceed. Go ahead.

First, I wanna thank the author for for bringing this bill forward. I think this is a time where we have to be very critical about our relationships with this agency and how it operates in California. I did wanna know how this bill or the need for this bill would change under a different federal administration. And and your thoughts on that.

And, would there be a way for companies that were previously contracted with ICE to become eligible again, here in California in terms of the state grants and loans under under this bill?

So let me just say that I appreciate the opposition's concern. This is the first time I've heard of it. And so I think we need to take it seriously in terms of, I certainly don't want to prejudice contracts that are made specifically to come in and take care of the date detainees, whether it's food or or medical services. So that's that's something to be taken into consideration. The reason now, is that the Federal Government has made it very clear that there is no over sight.

All of the inspector generals have have been, the office has been disassembled and there's nobody ensuring that federal contracts are being exec executed in a manner that's legal, and that is, not detrimental to the health and well-being of of the individuals that that are being detained, contacted, assaulted. And so the, when that changes, this legislature can change the

prohibition and can revert back or do something different. But during this time when we have no control over how people are being treated in California because we have no control over the Federal Government, then, I think this is a real important statement that carries consequences. And there are consequences to, taking action against the citizens, or and its citizens. I'm gonna be clear. Citizens and non citizens both, that are living their lives.

They're not violating the law. And, and they're most of them are working and paying taxes. And so, the reason for the what is an unprecedented move at this time. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak on this matter? Okay. Senator Caballero, would you like to close?

Thank you, madam chair. I don't take I don't, propose this bill lightly. This is a reaction to, conduct that we've seen over and over and over again. And to to the extent that it is so disruptive to our communities and to the mental health as well as the physical health health of communities. This is a very simple bill that gives us the authority to not make investments in in a system that would benefit the continued operation.

The illegal operations that are going on in ICE and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary? Oh. Anybody wishing to make a motion? So moved by, Senator, Cuevas. Okay. Sorry. Smallwood Cuevas. Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

This bill has seven to three. We're gonna leave it open for absent members. I will take the next one since we don't see Senator Wiener here. And I'm gonna ask, oh, we don't have miss Weber. Smallwood. Smallwood, Cuevas. May I ask you to take over since we don't have the vice chair. Is that okay while I present the bill? Thank you. =

Okay. Next we'll have file item number 13 SB1358. Madam chair proceed when you're ready.

I'll just ask my witnesses to come forward. Thank you. Thank you, members of this, committee, for the opportunity to present SB1358, the Ethnic and Community Media Equity Act, which will create equity in state advertising, marketing, and outreach funds. Equity and access to opportunity are crucial to having a strong democratic system and maintaining public trust. And this is true for our state advertising processes.

California is home to diverse populations with their own unique needs, histories, cultures, and methods of communication. Known as trusted messengers in our communities, ethnic and community media outlets serve the information needs of these populations that we serve as they provide relevant information, know residents' languages and idioms, and act as leaders and advocates. Yet, these same outlets struggle with financial inability to, and the need to increase access to revenue to continue to do this very critical work.

Yet, these same outlets struggle with financial instability and need increased access. SB 1358 will strengthen California's outreach to underserved communities by enhancing the allocation of advertising funds to ethnic and community medias.

This bill requires the Office of Community Partnership and Strategic Communications to establish a database of ethnic and community media outlets and to ensure that these outlets are represented in state contracting processes. Specifically, a state agency may award an advertising or marketing contract of a specified amount to an ethnic media community, member provided that the agency has price quotations from two or more outlets in that database.

Joining me here today to, present in support of this bill is Gerardo Martinez, chief revenue officer of Laser Media, and Tommy Trujillo, the CEO of Morello Media. And I'll turn it over to them. Thank you.

Good morning, chair. Good morning, members. Is that better? Okay. Good morning, chair.

Good morning, members. Thank you for the nice introduction. I am president of Morello Media. We are a minority owned broadcaster Los Angeles and only in Los Angeles. Our stations combined reach over 3,000,000 people in Los Angeles each month.

I'm coming here today to testify in favor of this bill and it comes mostly on the premise that I work directly with advertisers day in and day out to have them have the most effective campaigns they can have to reach the people they're trying to reach. And California, quite frankly, is no different. California's campaigns need to reach the people that they're looking for. Some of the systems in place right now, I'd say, are more geared towards efficiency and not towards effectiveness.

I think what this plan really does is it puts out a strategic solution that'll make the plans more effective with the communities and as the Senator mentioned, with our trusted messengers.

It's also a little bit more about impressions versus behavioral change. And I think that what's really important for California is an ROI on anything they do. This is a much stronger messaging. It's trusted messengers. It gets into the communities we're trying to reach.

We know that California is, I think, 60% non white. California and Los Angeles especially are mostly Latinos and mostly other groups that are not being reached with the current policies. This sets up a nice system where some of that money is gonna be allocated towards reaching the audiences I think we're all trying to reach and by also supporting some of the smaller broadcasters and smaller publishers that can't access the funds in the current system the way it's set up.

It also brings back the spend to California. Right now, some of the agencies that get most of the spend are large agencies.

In some cases, national agencies. Let's post those dollars back in the hands of the actual providers who are here in our state. That's really my key play. I urge you all to say, you know, eye on this vote and I thank you all for your time.

Thank you. Sir, you may proceed. You have two minutes.

My name is Eduardo Martinez. Good morning. I'm with Laser Media and I've spent over twenty five years at media. I currently serve as chief revenue officer for Laser Media, minority owned and certified media company, serving diverse communities across California. I'm here in strong support of SB 1358 because it addressed a real gap in how state communicates with its residents.

In my experience, ethnic media isn't a niche channel. It's often the primary and most trusted source of information for millions of Californians, especially in Hispanic and immigrant communities. Yet historically most state advertising dollars have gone to a small group of large general market outlets leaving community media underutilized despite its proven ability to reach these audiences. This is about effectiveness, not just about fairness.

When critical messages around public health, safety, or economic programs aren't delivered in language or through trusted voices, the state's investment simply doesn't perform the way it should.

And in many campaigns we've worked on, ethic media consistently drives stronger engagement in Hispanic communities in general market alone. SB 1358 helps address this by strengthening accountability, creating better access to a centralized database, and ensuring this effort continues long term. From where I sit, this is about making sure public dollars are working as hard as they can, and reaching the people they're intended to reach. This is about making sure California's message actually reaches California. Thank you, Senator Rubio, for introducing this bill.

To the Latino Media Collaborative as a leading sponsor and to each of you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you both. Now we will move to folks speaking in support of the bill. Me too's please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position.

Hi. Matt Morris, Latino Media Collaborative and I stand in support of this measure.

Any more Me Too's in support? Okay. We'll move to Opposition. Are there any key Opposition witnesses here? Please approach the table.

Seeing none, we'll go to oppositional me too. Are there any folks who wanna speak in opposition of the bill? Please step to the mic. K. Seeing none, we'll move to members of dias.

Motion. Senator okay. We have a motion for, from Senator Acheleta. But first we'll hear from Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanna commend our chair for bringing this forward. I was not aware of this bill. We see so many thousands of bills and, I'd like to extend to be added as a co author. This is very important.

I'd like to add one point, that the witnesses, you so eloquently testified. But there's one other issue why this is so important. Some media markets are extremely expensive. For example, Los Angeles. So in some areas where you could actually communicate, have a paper, radio, whatever, our areas, some areas are so broad growing of Riverside and San Bernardino and so on.

It's critical that supplemental funding is available to reach out to the communities. And it's also important that more of our the niche companies that you, you know, that you're representing. It's also important because you know how to speak to our community. And some of my communities, you know, maybe online isn't the answer. But maybe it's actual print or maybe it's a cable, you know, commercial or whatever it is.

So, I commend you for bringing this forward. It's a great need. We're really at the verge of losing the voice of communities because of this lack of funding and so I applaud your efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I also wanna thank you, Senator for bringing this bill forward. What's also I think important about this bill is that a lot of these markets employ a lot of our journalists of color. Many of our folks are so underrepresented in the broader media and and journalism space. And I have to say as a representing South LA, we have four black newspapers in South Los Angeles. So the competition is real.

There's real journalism happening. And it's really a place where there is a readership that does trust the messenger. And in this era of misinformation, we need to rely on our strong ethnic press to get communities of color in particular the information they they need. So I really appreciate you bringing this bill forward and you are welcome to close.

Thank you. And as already stated, California, we pride ourselves in really being inclusive with our diversity equity as well. And so Aye, you know, you just mentioned it. You know, we know that there's a lot of misinformation and we know that, you know, most of our communities will listen to, as you stated, your four, you know, black newspapers. And I think that it's time that we are more intentional about providing resources.

That this bill simply aligns with our goals of, reaching out to those that are hard to reach and making sure that we keep these media's outlets alive because they're important and that we uphold the, you know, the the our goals of of access. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

SB 1358 motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Assistant, please call the roll.

Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta?

Aye.

Archuleta, aye. Ashby, BlakeSpear?

Aye.

Blake Spear, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Choi, Aye.

Choi, Aye. Dally. Aye. Dally, Aye. Hurtado.

Aye. Ochoa Bog, Aye. Pavia Richardson. Richardson.

Aye.

Richardson, Aye.

That's 11. We'll hold it over.

Thank you so much, gentlemen, for for your testimony. You may sit down. I think we're looking for Senator Weiner.

He still can't hear me. Okay.

So, we are going to take a a brief recess. Oh, wait.

What do you wanna do from the Yeah.

So, we're gonna go, to the top to, while we wait for Senator. Senator Wiener, who's now presenting in another committee, we're gonna start with the consent calendar. Items, one, two, three, four. Oh, wait. I'm sorry.

Absent members Ashby?

That's not it. Long one. We are voting on the consent calendar, item seven, ten, eleven, twelve, fourteen, and fifteen. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Aye.

Ashby, aye. BlakeSpear?

Aye.

Blake Spear, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Pavia Richardson?

Aye. Richardson, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye.

Wahab.

Aye. Wahab, aye.

That's 140. We'll hold that open. 140.

We'll hold the roll open. Now we will go down the the file items. We're gonna start with item one, SB885 by Senator Strickland. Madam secretary, call the roll.

Absent members, Rubio. Aye.

No. No.

Come on. Wait. That's Strickland.

Archuleta Ashby. Blakespeare. Blakespear, I Cervantes, Hurtado, Padilla, Richardson, Smallwood Cuevas, Wahab, Weber Pearson.

Oh. Never mind.

That's five to zero. Five to zero. We'll continue to leave the the roll open for absent members. Item number two, SB 986, Senator Sayerto.

Absent members, Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Padilla Richardson?

Aye.

Richardson, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. That's 14.

We'll hold that open.

It has 14 votes. We're gonna hold that.

Yeah. We're gonna

hold that open for absent members. We will now move over to item number three, SB 1025 by Senator Taro. Secretary, call the roll.

Absent members, Alvarado-Gil.

Archuleta?

Aye.

Archuleta, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes?

Aye. Cervantes, aye. Dalhe Pavia Richardson? Aye. Richardson, Aye.

Wahab? Aye. Wahab, Aye. That's 12. We'll hold that open.

The though has 12 votes, we're gonna hold that open. We're moving over now to SB 1171 by Senator Caballero. Madam secretary?