Senate Floor

Secretary will call the roll.

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguin, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Perez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener.

A quorum is present.

Senators, please rise this morning. We'll be led in prayer by our own Senator Richardson, after which please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Senator Richardson.

Good morning, colleagues. Make us an instrument of peace. Where there is disagreement, let us sow love. Where there is misunderstanding, let us sow pardon. Where there is doubt, let us sow faith.

Where there is despair, let us sow hope. Where there is darkness, let us sow light. And where there is sadness, let us sow joy. For it is giving that we receive, and it is in pardoning that we are pardoned. Amen.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag. [Pledge of Allegiance].

We have one introduction under privileges of the floor, Senator Arreguín, from the Majority Leader's Desk.

Senator Arreguín.

Thank you, Madam president. I am pleased to welcome to the California State Senate,. The Mayor of Berkeley, Mayor Adena Ishii. Mayor Ishii, who was elected in November 2024, comes to the Mayor's Office after a long career of civic engagement and public service. She is the first woman of color and the first Asian American to serve as Mayor of the City of Berkeley, and particularly proud of that.

And in addition to, her work with the League of Voters and her service on many boards and commissions, she got her degree from the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, Go Bears, and her Juris Doctorate from the Santa Clara University School of Law, and deeply committed to Berkeley's values of equity and inclusion and justice, and really just very honored to have here today. So colleagues, please join me in giving a warm welcome to Mayor Adena Ishii.

Go Bruins. I mean, go Bears. Welcome.

Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read.

Reports of committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Moving on their motions, resolutions, and notices, would any member wish to be recognized?

See no mics up. Going into consideration of the daily file. We have items one and two on the second reading file.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1203 and Senate Bill 942.

Second reading file is read. We're gonna be moving into the Senate third reading, starting off with we're gonna be starting off with file item 20, Senator Richardson. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1312 by Senator Richardson in equating to professions and vocations. Senator.

Thank you, madam president and members of this auspicious body. Present SB 1312, which is a follow-up bill to last year's bill, SB 777, to address the issue of abandoned cemeteries. Currently, we have 187 private cemeteries. When a cemetery is no longer profitable, meaning when it is full and additional plots cannot be sold, then it becomes not profitable and private owners consider, and in some cases, walking away from cemeteries.

When a cemetery is abandoned, it no longer has the management, it no longer has the maintenance, and it no longer oftentimes provides access to family members to be able to come and see their loved ones.

S B 777 was held in assembly approach due to the fact that the chair of BNP had made a commitment that the stakeholders would have an opportunity to meet and to discuss who, in fact, would take ownership of these abandoned cemeteries. That meeting has occurred in March. The report is due on June 1, and this bill allows us to move forward as we receive that recommendation on June 1 of how to handle abandoned cemeteries. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

There are two abandoned cemeteries in my district, and recently, I believe some of you saw the publications where, some of the volunteers had dogs, guard dogs in the cemetery to protect the cemetery, because the cemetery had been broken into at least six times.

We're talking about plots that are physically removed, metal plots to burn them for resources, and actually, crypts have been opened. A couple weeks ago, two of those dogs were stabbed and killed so people could get into the cemetery. And it is at the point where volunteers, it's beyond their ability to care for them.

We have a responsibility to make sure all Californians, even those that have passed, have a right if they paid for their cemetery to be properly managed, that it is protected and they are protected. I therefore ask for an aye vote on SB 1312.

Thank you, Senator. I see no mics up. We're gonna be placing items on calls, so we're only gonna be going through the roll once. Secretary, please call the

roll. Alan. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Archuleta.

Aye, Arteguin. Aye, Aspi. Alan. Alvarado Gil. Aye, Aspi.

Arch Archuleta. Aye. Arreguin. Aye. Ashby.

Becker. Blake Spear. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye.

Caballero. Cervantes, Troy, Cortesi, Dali, Durazo, Gonzales, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones. Aye, Laird. Aye, Limon. McGuire.

Aye, McNearney. Aye, Menjivar. Aye, Nilo. Ochoa Bog. Padilla.

I Perez. I Reyes. I Richardson. I Rubio. I See Arto.

I Smallwood Cuevas. I Stern. Aye. Strickland. Aye.

Humbert. Aye. Volodares. Aye. Wahab.

Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner. Aye. Needle aye.

As as the presiding officer mentioned, we are gonna be going through the roll call only once. We're placing items on call. Senator Richardson moves the call. Moving on to fire item 29, Senator Archuleta. Secretary, please read the support support measure.

Senate bill 1112 by Senator Archuleta in equity lane to vehicles.

Senator.

Thank you, madam president. I rise to present, Senate bill 1112. It's a small but necessary consumer protection bill. It's a measure targeted to bad actors in the towing industry. Under current law, tow yards and vehicle storage facilities are required to post a notice of fees they charge for towing and storage.

The notice must be easily readable by consumers of these businesses. Senate bill 1112 increases the fines associated with violations of notice requirement from two to three times as much, reaching the amount of a thousand dollars. That is the cap. I am continuing to work with the stakeholders on the bill and plan to continue discussions over the next few weeks if necessary. The bill in front of you has no opposition and received no no votes.

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. No mics up. We have a full house, so we will be going through the roll call for any missing members now. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Archuleta.

Aye. Adeghin. Abrashby. Abrashby. Abrashby.

Abrashby. Abrashby. Abrashby. Abrashby. Abrashby.

Abrashby. Abrashby. Abrashby. Abrashby. Abrashby.

Abrashby. Abrashby. Aye. Gonzales. Aye.

Grayson. Aye. Grove. Hurtado. Jones.

Aye. Jones. Aye. Laird. Aye.

Limon. McGuire? Aye. McNerney? Aye.

Menjivar? Aye. Nilo? Aye. Ochoa Bog?

Aye. Padilla? Aye. Perez? Aye.

Reyes? Aye. Richardson? Aye. Rubio?

Aye. Sciarto? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye.

Stern? Aye. Strickland? Aye. Aye.

Umbridge? Aye. Aye. Volodares? Aye.

Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner?

Aye.

Please call the absent members.

Becker? Grove? Limon. Aye.

Ayes 38. No zero. The measure passes. Fire item 45, Senator Perez. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 877 by Senator Perez, inequal to insurance.

Senator.

Thank you, madam president and members. SB 877 ensures transparency in insurance claims by requiring insurers to document and disclose all claim materials, including loss estimates and any subsequent revisions to policyholders. Over a year ago, the Los Angeles wildfires destroyed more than 18,000 homes and structures forever changing these people's lives. And in the communities I represent, the community of Altadena, we had over 19 people, 19 people exactly lose their life. It has been utterly devastating for the community of Altadena.

As they've gone through the recovery process though, they faced additional challenges with insurance. This has been a major issue, these low ball estimates. And those insurance customers not receiving all documents that were used to determine that estimate. This bill makes very clear that as the customer, you should be required to have access to all documents used to determine your estimate. This bill has received bipartisan support.

I urge an aye vote.

I see no mics up for discussion. We are moving back to placing items on call, going through the roll call just once. Secretary, please call the roll.

Alan. Hi. Hi. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta.

Hi. Hi. Hi. Ashby. Hi.

Becker. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.

Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.

Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.

Hi. Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortesi, Deli, Durazo, Gonzales, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon. Maguire. Aye. McNerney.

Aye. Menshevar. Aye. Nilo. Aye.

Ochoa Bog, Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes.

Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Weiner, aye. Laird, aye.

Bear with us. We are it's a ping pong of whether it's on car or not. We're gonna call the absent members.

Alvarado Gil, Becker, Choi, Grove, Jones, Limon, Ochoa Bog? Aye. Rubio?

Aye. Aye's 34. No zero. The measure passes. Senator Blakesphere is prepared.

Secretary, please read file item 64.

Senator bill ten forty six by Senator Blakespier, inequity to occupational safety.

Senator. Thank you, madam president. I rise to present SB 1046, which directs Cal OSHA to develop workplace standards for exposure to transboundary pollution in the Tijuana River Valley so that workers are appropriately protected. The Tijuana River transports millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into California every year, exposing workers and residents to a variety of toxic substances, including fecal matter, sewage, and industrial waste. The pollutants become aerosolized, creating dirty, unhealthy to breathe air that afflicts nearby communities.

Without protections, workers subjected to the contaminated air and water can get nauseous, develop headaches, and suffer other physical ailments. SB 1046 acknowledges the danger of this pollution and directs Cal OSHA to develop safety standards for lifeguards, park rangers, and any other workers needing protection. SB 1016 has had no no votes, and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. No mic sub. Secretary, please call the

roll. Allen. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Becker. Blake Spear.

Aye. Cabaldon. Aye, Caballero, Aye, Cervantes, Aye, Choi, Aye, Cortesi, Aye, Tali, Aye, Durazo, Aye, Gonzales, Aye, Grayson, Aye, Grove, Hurtado, Aye, Jones, Aye, Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire.

Aye, McNearney. Aye, Menjivar. Aye, Nilo. Aye, Ochoa Bog. Aye, Padilla.

I Perez, I Reyes, I Richardson, I Rubio, I Ciarto, I Smallwood Cuevas, I Stern, I Strickland, I Humbert, I Volodares, I Wahab, Senate bill 1091 by Senator Caballero and equity into housing.

Senator. Thank you, madam president. I rise to present SB 1091, which would create the community anti displacement and preservation program. As rent outpaces demand, housing becomes less accessible and more unaffordable, displacing people from their homes and their communities. Acquisition and preservation of unsubsidized affordable housing is a proven successful local model that prevents displacement and grows the supply of affordable housing.

SB 1091 is an important step to prevent displacement, homelessness, and to stabilize families in the communities in homes they can afford. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We're gonna be placing this item on call. Secretary, please go through the roll once.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Hi.

Hi. Hi. Ashby. Hi. Becker.

Blake Spear. Hi. Caballero. Hi. Cervantes.

Hi. Troy. No. Cortesi. Hi.

Dali. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales.

Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Hurtado.

Aye. Jones. No. Laird. Aye.

Dimon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney.

Aye. Menjivar. Nilo. Ochoa Bog. Aye.

Pavia. Aye. Perez. Perez. Perez.

Aye. Reyes. Richardson. I Rubio, I See Arto, I Smallwood Cuevas, I Stern, I Strickland, I Humbert, I Volodares, Wahab, Wahab, Wahab, Aye, Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner, aye.

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 34. Noes, 0, and the measure passes. Senator Reyes with file item 151. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 151 by Senator Reyes, an act relating to employment.

Senator.

Thank you, madam president. Members, I rise to represent SB 951. Throughout history, major technological shifts have transformed our economy. While innovation has created opportunity, it has also left many workers and communities behind, often with deep and lasting economic scars.

Today, artificial intelligence presents a new challenge unlike anything we have seen before. AI systems are now capable of autonomously planning and executing tasks that were once performed by people, creating the potential to eliminate entire occupations across sectors at an unprecedented speed, yet workers are often the last to know when their when their jobs are being replaced. SB 951 establishes a simple principle, a worker deserves notice, transparency, and a fair chance to prepare when AI displaces their job.

The bill requires that when a company uses artificial intelligence or an automated technology system to replace the position of 25 or more workers, Those workers must receive written notice at least sixty days before the layoff occurs.

During that sixty day period, workers will have the time to search for new employment and cannot be terminated without reasonable and substantiated cause. For companies with more than 100 employees, the bill also requires employers to give affected workers the opportunity to apply first for open positions within the company before hiring externally. Additionally, SB 951 directs the employment development department to collect information about how AI is affecting jobs.

As AI rapidly develops and is deployed across industries, lawmakers, researchers, workers, and the public need reliable data to understand and respond to its impact. SB 951 does not stop innovation, and it does not ban AI.

This is a modest but critical first step toward transparency, accountability, and protecting workers during a time of rapid technological change. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Padilla, you're recognized on this item.

Thank you, madam president. Colleagues, I...rise in support. Thank the author. It's important that we can encourage the application and deployment of AI as a tool to help people in the workplace, but we have to have guardrails to protect workers. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Reyes, you may now close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, before you call the roll on this, I wanna clarify on file item 75, SB 1091, the vote was 34 ayes, noes, two. Measure still passes. Secretary, please call the roll on file item 151.

[Roll Call]

Senator Reyes moves on call. Senator Smallwood Cuevas, you have file item 163. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1030 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas and that relate to public social services.

Senator. Thank you very much, madam president. Good morning, colleagues. I rise today to proudly present SB 1030, a legislative women's caucus priority. This bill restores autonomy, dignity, and trust, and it affirms that a woman deserves respect and not suspicion.

SB 1030 repeals the outdated CalWORKS man in the house rule, which can strip a family of aid simply because an unrelated man lives in the home. The entire family risk losing benefits, including children's access to food and housing. That's not accountability. That's punishment. Families are already carrying the weight of rising rent, grocery costs, economic uncertainty.

The last thing California should do is make it harder for mothers to keep food on the table and a roof over their children's heads. The rule has been deeply rooted in a racist and sexist history built on surveilling and controlling the lives of low income women. Women have the judgment to determine what relationships they need to have, and we should be supporting the unification of families at all costs.

SB 1030 repeals this requirement by preserving existing eligibility rules, keeping CalWORKs focused on what was meant, and that is keeping our children fed, keeping our families housed, and keeping our communities stable. This bill has received unanimous bipartisan support.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Archuleta. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker.

Blake Spear. Aye, Cabaldon. Aye, Caballero. Aye, Cervantes. Aye, Choi.

Aye, Dali. Aye, Durazo. Aye, Gonzalez. Aye, Grayson. Aye, Grove.

Aye, Jones. Aye, Laird. Limon. McGuire. Aye, McNerney.

Aye, Menjivar. Aye, Nilo. Aye, Ochoa Boat. Aye, Padilla. Aye, Perez.

Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Rubio. Sayardo. Aye, Smallwood Cuevas.

Aye, Stern. Aye, Strickland. Aye, Humbert. Aye, Volodares. Aye.

Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner.

Aye.

Senator Senator Smallwood Cuevas moves on call. Senator Adegin is ready. Secretary, please refile item one eighty two.

Senate bill 1218 by Senator Arteguin and Accolint's Vehicles.

Senator.

Thank you, madam president. I'm proud to present SB 1218, which establishes an accountability mechanism for illegal dumping by requiring the California Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner has outstanding illegal dumping fines. Following the same process in existing law for outstanding parking citations. Colleagues, illegal dumping is a persistent public health, environmental, and quality of life crisis across California. Abandoned waste attracts additional dumping.

It creates fire hazards, blocks sidewalks, harms local businesses, and disproportionately impacts low income communities and communities of color. Despite significant investments across many jurisdictions and cleaning up illegal dumping, enforcement remains the critical missing component. SB 1218 provides a straightforward proven solution by amending the California vehicle code to require payment or resolution of illegal dumping fines before DMV vehicle registration can be completed.

This establishes a meaningful consequence for unpaid citations and hopefully hopefully will deter repeat illegal dumping, improve compliance, and support cleaner and safer neighborhoods throughout California. This bill is received bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for a nine vote.

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

Allen. Hi. Alvarado-Gil. Hi. Archuleta.

Hi. Adeghin. Hi. Ashby. Hi.

Becker. Hi. Cabaldon. Hi. Caballero.

Cervantes, Choi, Cortezi, Dali, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, McGuire, I McNearney, I Menjivar, I Nilo, I Ochoa Bog, I Padilla, I Perez, I Reyes, I Richardson, I Rubio, I See Arto, Aye.

Senator Adegaine moves on call. Senator Caballero with file item 81. Secretary, please read.

Senator bill eleven sixteen by Senator Caballero, inequity lane to land use.

Senator. Thank you, madam president. I rise to present SB 1116, a follow-up to a bill I authored two years ago, which is which was called the starter home revitalization act, which created a streamlined ministerial pathway to build small scale housing projects of up to 10 units on infill sites. Since the enactment, we have seen strong interest but also clear implementation challenges that are limiting its full potential.

SB 1116 reflects two years of real world data and feedback from local governments, planners, builders and housing advocates to make several technical changes to remove barriers, to provide clarity, and to ensure the promises of the original bill are fully realized.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you Senator.

Secretary please call the roll.

Alan. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Hi. Archuleta.

Hi. Arreguin. Hi. Ashby. Hi.

Becker. Blake Spear. Hi. Cabaldon. Hi.

Caballero. Hi. Cervantes. Hi. Choi.

Hi. Cortesi. Hi. Dali. Hi.

Durazo. Gonzales, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Nilo, Ochoa Bog, Padilla. Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson.

Aye, Rubio. Aye, Sciarto. Aye, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern?

Aye. Strickland? Aye. Umberg? Baladares?

Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Senator Senator Caballero moves on call. Senator Cervantes has filed item one fifty nine. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1013 by Senator Cervantes, and I'll link to personal information.

Senator. Thank you, madam president. Colleagues, SB 1013 is about one simple principle, protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while ensuring law enforcement tools are used responsibly. This bill mandates that operators and end users of automated license plate recognition systems strengthen their safeguards regarding employee access and usage of these systems. The bill requires the Department of Justice to conduct annual randomized audits of public agency operators and end users to ensure they have implemented a usage and privacy policy in compliance with the law.

It also requires ALPR operators to require data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. The bill additionally stipulates that any ALPR data collected must be retained for no longer than thirty days. We've seen abuses throughout California with many counties who have abused this system. They've used ALPR systems to track immigrants, facilitate unlawful data sharing, and even stalk and harass private citizens.

Several cities and counties have suspended their ALPR contracts such as the police department in the Northern California City of Mountain View, Santa Cruz, and South Pasadena who suspended the use of automated license plate reader cameras after the discovery of unauthorized access to data by federal and state agencies earlier this year.

This bill will provide the accountability needed, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Senator Adeghen, you're

recognized. Thank you, madam president. I rise in support of SB 1013. Colleagues, this does not stop communities from investing and installing ALPRs in their communities to address crime prevention. It ensures that there are critical guardrails around how the data is stored and used, balancing the need for public safety with also protecting civil liberties.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Choi.

Thank you. Thank you, madam, president and the members. I rise, in strong opposition to SB 1013. The Orange County Sheriff's Department warns this bill would severely limit the effectiveness of automated license plate readers, which are critical tools for solving crimes, recovering stolen vehicles, and locating dangerous suspects. The sheriff specifically notes that the bill's 30 data retention limit would help investigations and reduce local enforcement's ability to respond quickly and fresh cases where every minute matters.

I join organizations, including the Fullerton Police Officers Association, in opposition of this bill because it weakens regional cooperation between agencies and creates dangerous and and investigative blind spots. For public safety in Orange County and across California, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Senator Wahab, you're recognized. Thank you. I respectfully urge your support for SB 1013. Automated license plate reader data is powerful and sensitive, and it must be used with clear rules, oversight, and accountability. This bill protects public safety while helping prevent misuse, abuse, and surveillance without cause.

I wanna be very clear. There have been more and more reports regarding, data by law enforcement being sold to not only federal agencies, but also corporations. There has been a significant amount of effort in regards to also data mining that information and utilizing it against individuals and threatening their freedoms, their freedom of speech, their movement, and much more. I will also highlight that this is very much in parallel into China's big brother system where they have facial recognition, cameras all over their cities.

They have individuals that are tourists and much more.

They track them regularly. And I I do believe that with the amount of data and surveillance that this country is pursuing, it is deeply concerning how that data is utilized. Public safety is one thing, but it has to be very clear and limited. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Senator Weener, you're recognized.

My apologies. Thank you, madam president. I rise in support of SB 1013. I wanna thank the author for her, persistence on, this important, issue over the years. You know, colleagues, they technology, like license plate readers can be very valuable in helping solve crimes in in a variety of ways.

But if we want people to have confidence in that technology and not to be scared of what that technology could do to them, to their communities, then we need to have basic guardrails, around it. And here, we're not saying it's not saying ban license plate readers. It's about making sure that the data is not given out like candy, which we've seen, and that there are retention limits that it's just not gonna be retained forever. This is so basic.

We've been trying to do this for a long time.

I had a few bills on it back in the day that kept getting killed. That's why I'm very appreciative for the author's persistence. But we are you know, we have rules. They're not always being enforced. They need to be stronger.

We can have license plate readers and not have abusive, situations. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, colleague. Senator Cervantes, you may now close. Thank you, madam president.

This bill is not about taking tools away from law enforcement. It is about ensuring that those tools are used lawfully, ethically, and responsibly. ALPR can be a valuable tool for public safety, but it's being used beyond its intended scope without oversight in ways that threaten civil liberties. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

Alan. Aye. Aye. Aye. No.

Archuleta. Aye. Aye. Ashby. Aye.

Becker. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero.

Aye, Cervantes, Aye, Choi, Aye, Cortesi, Aye, Dali, Aye, Durazo, Aye, Gonzales, Aye, Grayson, Aye, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, no Laird, Limon, McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjivar.

Nilo. No. No. Padilla. Perez.

Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye.

Rubio. I Ciarto. No Smallwood Cuevas. I Stern. I Strickland.

No Umberg. I Volodares. No Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson.

Aye. Weiner. Aye.

Senator Cervantes moves a call. Senators, without objection, we're Gonna Be moving into assembly third reading to take up file item two thirty one, AB 1761. Seventeen sixty eight. Secretary, please read.

Assembly bill 1768 by Assembly member Bryant, inaccurate to taxation and declare the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Gerrazzo. Thank you, madam president. I rise on behalf of Assemblymember Brian to present AB 1768. This measure authorizes Los Angeles and Contra Costa Counties to place before their voters local funding measures to help address catastrophic funding cuts impacting county services. Communities across California are already experiencing the consequences of federal disinvestment in health care, food assistance, and other essential safety net programs.

These reductions disproportionately affect families, seniors, people with disabilities, and underserved communities that had already faced barriers to care. Los Angeles County projects losses of approximately $2,400,000,000 over the next three years with potential impacts to county health services, public health programs, and thousands of frontline workers. Contra Costa County similarly projects major fiscal pressures on its health system and other county administered services. Let me be clear, AB 1768 does not raise taxes.

It simply provides local voters with the authority to determine whether they wish to invest in and protect critical county services in their own communities.

This body has repeatedly recognized the importance of that local authority. The Senate has previously approved similar legislation in other counties including Santa Cruz, Ventura, Humboldt, Alameda, and Sonoma. If approved locally, these revenues could support public health systems, social services, nonprofit hospitals, in home supportive services, and other essential county operations including facing the loss of healthcare. At its core, AB 1768 is a local control measure.

It ensures counties have the ability to respond when federal funding restrictions reductions threaten essential services that Californians rely on upon every day.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Alvarado Hale.

Thank you, madam president. I rise today in strong opposition of Assembly Bill 1768. This bill would allow Los Angeles and Contra Costa Counties to exceed the 2% statewide sales tax cap and further increase already extraordinary high local sales tax rates. This bill is fundamentally a tax policy bill. It expands local taxing authority and creates another exemption to California's statewide transactions and use tax cap.

Yet despite that, this bill was heard in the assembly rev and tax, but in the Senate, it bypassed the Senate rev and tax committee entirely and was sent only through the local government committee before reaching the floor. The Senate rev and tax committee exists for a reason. It is so that the committee charged with reviewing tax policy, analyzing fiscal impacts, and evaluating the long term consequences of changes to California tax law.

Bypassing that process undermines transparency, limits public scrutiny, and weakens the integrity of the committee system. What makes this even more troubling is that similar tax caps exemption bills in prior years did go through the normal legislative process.

Measures such as Senate Bill 335 in 2023 regarding Santa Clara County, Assembly Bill 3,959 in 2024 involving Solano County and Pinal, Senate Bill 333 in 2025 regarding regarding San Luis Obispo. They all received review in both tax policy committees. Yet this bill should not receive the special treatment simply because it may be politically inconvenient to fully vet the proposal. Sacramento cannot keep claiming affordability is a top priority while continuing to approve policies that make daily life more expensive for consumers.

Californians are already overtaxed.

We have a duty, regardless of where we stand on the sides of the aisle, to carefully scrutinize proposals that could further raise costs on consumers and businesses. Yes, this could go towards several much needed public services in Los Angeles County, but the question is, will it? And history has taught us that, yes, it should and it could, but it shall not. We should not be waiving proposals around the normal process. We have to respect the process that we've outlined.

Now, of all these bills at a time when California is struggling with rising costs of housing and groceries, utilities, insurance, and everyday necessities. The list goes long on and on. This legislature should not make it easier to impose even higher regressive taxes on working families. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 1768. Senator Ottigan.

Thank you, madam president. I rise in strong support of Assembly Bill 76768 as a co author and also as one of three representatives of Contra Costa County in the California State Senate. But I'm particularly proud to represent West Contra Costa County, which has the largest number of Medi Cal recipients and some of the largest income disparities in Contra Costa County. I want to just, follow-up on a comment that my prior colleague made. Yes.

The legislature has, over the last several years, approved many bills to give the voters the opportunity to vote to approve a sales tax increase, and that's all this does. We are not Sacramento is not going and imposing a tax increase on LA County or Contra Costa County. All this does is let the voters of those counties make the decision themselves. Whether or not those measures pass is up to the voters, up to the will of the voters.

And there are measures on the ballot in Contra Costa County and Los Angeles County right now, which is why this bill is an urgency measure and needs to move off the floor today that if we give this approval, those measures can proceed.

And if they pass, the voters, will the voters will be honored, and we can collect the revenues from those tax increases to stave off the catastrophic cuts that these counties are seeing already in healthcare and human services. I know this is a difficult vote for some of you. And I I know that it's it's hard for some of you to to to go up on this.

But think about how difficult it's gonna be for that family that is losing their health care, or for that family that is not able to feed themselves. Because that's what this measure is about.

It's about making sure that we can maintain a safety net as that safety net is collapsing in California. To put this in context around Contra Costa County, ninety three thousand people are at risk of losing their Medi Cal coverage if we don't do something. And seventeen thousand six hundred residents will lose their eligibility for CalFresh and will be food insecure and will struggle to feed themselves. In addition, our clinics and our public hospitals will struggle.

1,000,000,000 projected operating deficits for hospitals and clinics over the next five years because of the impacts of HR 1.

I wish we didn't have to do this. I recognize the challenges of affordability in California, but all we're doing is let the people of LA County and Contra Costa County decide whether they want to approve these tax measures. Colleagues, we need to move this forward today. It is essential.

I beg you as a representative Contra Costa County, give my voters the ability to do this so that we can protect the residents of Contra Costa County and make sure that they have access to health care and essential social services while those things are collapsing under the impacts of HR.

When I respectfully and strongly urge and I vote.

Senator Choi, you're recognized.

Thank you, madam president. I rise in strong opposition to AB 1768. Californians are already struggling with the high cost of living. In Orange County and Los Angeles, families are paying $6 to $7 a gallon for gas while facing higher costs for groceries, housing, and utilities. A recent statewide survey found more than 70 of Californians believe that they already pay enough in taxes.

This bill opens the door for additional local tax burdens at exactly the wrong time, and once granted to a few counties, others will follow. For those reasons, I ask for your no vote. Senator Valadares.

Thank you, madam president. Members, I draw I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Californians are hurting right now. Families are struggling right now. Working people are struggling right now.

And this bill makes it worse. My constituents in the Antelope Valley already pay some of the highest sales taxes in the entire country at 11.25%. LA County already pays some of the highest gas prices in America, some of the highest utility bills in America, some of the highest insurance costs in America, if you can even get insurance. Everything costs more. Groceries cost more.

Housing costs more. Clothes costs more. School supplies cost more. People are exhausted. They are tired of feeling like every time they finally come up for air, Sacramento and government find another way to pile more on them.

And what makes people so angry right now is not just that life is expensive, it's that they feel that government keeps making it worse. Families are already paying more in taxes, in fees, in gas prices, in utility costs, housing costs. And what do they have to show for it? People don't feel safer. They don't feel more financially secure.

They don't feel like it's getting easier. And yet Sacramento's answer always seems to be pay more. At some point, people stop feeling like tax payers and start feeling like ATMs for government. A government that never believes it's enough. Members, this state is operating at nearly a $350,000,000,000 budget.

And Californians are already taxed heavily. And still families are drowning financially while this legislature keeps coming up and coming back to ask for more. For the people that I represent, affordability is not politics. It's survival. It's parents lying awake at night wondering how they're going to pay their electric bill.

It's seniors cutting pills in half to stretch prescriptions. It's families putting groceries back on the shelves because they ran out of money. It's people getting that sinking gut feeling when they look at their bank account because they don't know how they're going to make it to the end of the month. It's workers driving hours because they can't afford to live closer and then getting crushed by gas prices and the tax on gas.

This is going to increase the cost of everything, of clothes, of school supplies, of formula, of getting to work, of for of paying for your kids' prescriptions.

This is the consequence of moving this legislation forward. And I know every single one of the members on this body has said that affordability matters. Well this vote is a chance to prove this for working Californians. I urge

a no vote. Senator Perez.

Thank you, Madam president. You know, I rise to speak to this issue because I've heard from so many of my constituents as well as so many of my cities who have raised concerns, support, all sorts of positions around this piece of legislation.

You know, we've had a lot of discussions both in the body as well as at the local level about the impacts that we are going to see as a result of the devastating HR1 cuts.

There is in reality no way that any single one of us, whether this body or local government, is going to be able to prepare for the devastating impacts of these cuts to the our health care systems.

But what we are doing here today is not voting on a tax, but allowing the county to be able to make a proposal, allow voters to choose if they want to do a sales tax increase. That's first and foremost.

Right now, voters in Los Angeles County are currently voting on Measure ER. Measure ER intends to, increase and create 45% of backfill for hospitals, clinics, emergency rooms, public health departments, critical access hospitals, and ensuring that county uninsured programs are able to continue to provide coverage to people.

These things are important. We recognize that when people lose health care coverage, when they lose access to their health care clinics, it has a devastating impact overall on public health for our entire systems.

But I understand that there are real concerns that members of the public have as well as my local city leaders have about government leaders' ability to use these dollars effectively, ensure that we are applying and using these dollars and they are having the kind of intended impact that we want to see. You know, we have been very good at raising taxes and very good at spending those dollars.

But in terms of answering the question as to where those dollars are going and how they're having an impact, sometimes we forget to communicate that back to voters. But there's a way that we can go about doing that. You know, the County and I've certainly had conversations with their County Supervisors can continue to provide updates to the public to talk about how these dollars are leading to better care for Angelenos.

The people of Contra Costa can receive those kinds of updates. We should provide that kind of oversight. We should provide that kind of accountability because that's what people want to see. Should the voters of Los Angeles County choose to approve Measure ER, they are doing so because they are trying to backfill the cuts that are being made by HR1. We should show them that their vote is actually leading to those kinds of results.

People want to know that government works. I think that many of the individuals I speak to, including voters in my district, they want to support new taxes. They're comfortable with these conversations if it leads to results. And this can lead to results. There will be 5,000 jobs and public safety and health care that will be protected as a result of Measure ER passing.

That is a good thing, but we should provide those updates. We should show people that it worked. And so I would impress upon both counties that we're approving this measure for to do exactly that, provide those updates. Let's tell our constituents what these dollars are doing for them. That we are doing our best to try to reduce the devastating impacts of the HR1 cuts.

We're not going to be able to completely backfill all the cuts that are being made. But this is going to help reduce harm and that is our job as government. But we also need to tell people that this is delivering what they asked for. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, Madam President. As the representative, East Contra Costa County, I rise in support of this measure, and that's because the ballots are already out. The voters in our county, as in Los- as in Los Angeles County, are already voting on this measure. They're taking up the tough questions that have been raised on this floor.

I'm not here to rise in support of the ballot measure, but simply the ability of the people of these two counties to make tough decisions about what to do in the face of devastating cuts to their health care and to so many other essential services locally.

And they will have to weigh the trade offs that have been raised on this floor. And they will have to take a look at the affordability question. But I would also note that less than a less a half cent increase in a sales tax, compared to the 50, 60, 70% increases in the price of gas.

Thanks to the unauthorized war in Iraq, the price of groceries going up, the price of wine going up because of tariffs, that are crushing Californians at the grocery store.

These the order of magnitude, the impact on a household budget from these federal policies, including and magnified by HR 1, is so far beyond one half of 1% on the sales tax that it's a completely disingenuous note that this is a pure affordability issue. The voters in Contra Costa County in Los Angeles deserve the right to.

They are already casting votes as we speak on this measure. This is a simple authorization to allow local control to make to allow local voters to be able to make the tough calls about what they will do to do what we cannot.

We, in this building, do not have the ability to stop all of the effects of HR 1, as the Senator from Pasadena said, and that means local communities have to rise to the occasion in any way that they can.

We need to give them the tools to make that choice. This bill does that urgent aye vote.

Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam president. I think it's important that we speak to why we're here. I've heard some varying comments today, but I think we have to go back to why we are here today. We are here today because HR1 was passed, the one big beautiful bill act.

And what did that bill do? It implemented deep federal funding cuts, structural changes to public benefits, and tax revisions. That's what HR1 did the law significantly impacted healthcare, food assistance, and broader economy.

So, yes, health care has gone up. It's not available to most people. Food assistance and food availability costs have gone up, and the economy has also changed. But I think we need to come back to why HR1? Let me be more specific to the bill before us today.

MedicAid and health care impacts due to HR1. The law cuts federal MedicAid funding, putting benefits at risk. States are forced to navigate reduced federal matching funds and limits were put on states in terms of directed payments, which directly affects hospital systems and care access.

That's why we're here today. We're not here today because if people wanna debate whether counties are doing all that they could do or should do.

That's not the debate here. The debate here is that originally, funds were available to assist with Healthcare, and those funding mechanisms have changed. The people haven't changed. People getting ill have not changed, but the funding that we received has changed.

And so that's why we're here today, to fill that gap, to say that it's not enough to say, laws happen, oh, well, because we have people on the street.

In my district, 58% of my district, 58% of a million people are on MediCal. 58%, 6 clinics have closed. People will be ill. People are ill.

And what this bill gives these counties that have been mentioned, and I'm certain more will come, it gives them the ability to make sure that people are not on the street, that they're not ill, and oh, by the way, it's not costing us more.

Because if people can't go to a clinic to get initial health, and they go to an emergency room, it's gonna cost us more than this half cent. I urge an aye vote on AB1768.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much in allowing me to speak on this issue. I rise in opposition to AB 1768, and there's several reasons for it. Number one, I've been down this road before. Over thirty five years, I've watched taxes get raised, promises that they are going to go to certain things, especially public safety.

And then what happens at the end is, they use this money for the public safety that they said they were going to, but then they take out the same amount of money from somewhere else and the public safety actually stays the same.

So the constituents wind up not getting, what they were told in the big glossy flyers that they're going to get to convince them that the only way that they're gonna be able to maintain these essential services is for them to pay more.

I wanna address this MediCal issue. With the HR cuts, yes. It was, like, $1,800,000,000. We have $12,000,000,000 more this year.

So I think we should go ahead and backfill that, for this year, and then we can figure something out. You need to remember, we added we expanded our MediCal program in California to populations beyond what the Federal Government has ever reimbursed for.

We developed an MCO Tax Scheme to try to get matching funds from them to pay for that, and they caught us. That's what they're withholding. The Federal Government is adding $20,000,000,000 to MediCal this year.

$20,000,000,000. Last year, we had a $190,000,000,000 MediCal budget. This year, it's $220,000,000,000. Don't talk to me about cuts. If there are certain cuts that are making an impact in certain areas, well certainly, that's something we should consider that $12,000,000,000 of extra revenue that we wound up with this year to try and plug.

Raising the cost of living for people was supposed to be a major priority. We did not want to do that anymore. That's what we told people at the beginning of session. This year is all about affordability. Well, guess what?

This doesn't make anything more affordable. If you wanna buy a car or buy a car in LA County, I don't care what county you go to, you're gonna pay LA County's Property Tax I mean, Sales Tax. And then in another issue with this, this type of approach is that if you if LA County raises their taxes to 2.5 on their Sales Tax, what about cities? What happens to cities?

Because the cities might wanna go to their people and say, "Hey, you know what? We do need a little extra help. Right now, our sales tax is 1.75. We wanna go up to two" It's less likely that the citizens will go ahead and do that.

You know what? We do need a little extra help. Right now, our sales tax is 1.75. We wanna go up to o two. It's less likely that the citizens will go ahead and do that.

You know why? Because they're already paying two and a half to the county. These folks have tried to raise and especially in LA County, they have tried other ways to raise money for essential services.

And the voters turned them down. Why they would go and then and what's gonna happen in a couple of weeks is they're gonna vote on this anyway. And then guess what?

If they vote for this, maybe we take this up in August. But we do not need to urgently pass this measure now, when they're already voting on it. They put the the horse I mean, the cart before the horse.

And now they want us to rush something through that's gonna affect cities, that's going to affect, and affect the counties. And it but more than that, it's going to affect the people that are in those counties. We talk about people who can't afford anything.

Well, people go to the store, they pay sales tax. This will affect everyone. It's not fair. We told them. And one other point I wanna make, you pay for your essential services first.

Public safety is something that you should be funding upfront in the amount that you need to fund it to provide the right amount of public safety for your communities. If you're shortchanging them and then hope and then using them, public safety as a carrot for people to go raise their their taxes, otherwise, oh, we won't be able to provide you with the most essential services that you need. That's bunk. We need to get real folks.

If you wanna reduce people's or you wanna increase affordability in California, you have to stop doing things like this.

You have to allow communities to go to their citizens, but not impacting other communities. So I would urge a no vote on this. I would urge that we wait until we see what the voters have to say in LA about whether they wanna do this or not. We're gonna find out in about two weeks. And if that happens then, then we can retake it up then.

But, for now, I would urge a no vote.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Madam president. And I'm so grateful for the reset that my good colleague from Inglewood shared in terms of how we got here. And it was mentioned that 93,000 folks could lose their health care in Contra Costa County. Well, 300,000 have already lost their MediCal in LA County already, and hundreds of thousands more are expected to lose their health care.

And, yes, HR1 took $1,000,000,000,000 out of MedicAid and our health care for our grandmothers and our babies and gave it to the top 1% of this country, some of the richest, wealthiest corporations and individuals in the world.

And here, we are debating about whether communities can have the opportunity to decide if they want to keep their parents from moving in with them because they are gonna have to figure out how to provide their health care. My family is thinking about this.

So I wanna say this is not some theoretical conversation. This isn't a political conversation.

This is about keeping people alive. And yes, there's already another threat, by the way. The Vice President recently said that he wants to take another billion dollars away from MedicAid. So this is about whether we wanna have people in stretchers in this building because they don't have health care. I also wanna say that this isn't just us having a conversation about patients.

We've already closed clinics in LA County. We've laid off 1,300 people. So all of the infrastructure that we have built to provide health care for all is being dismantled.

Again, we have invested in this and because of HR1, our investment is crumbling, collapsing, as my colleague said. We have heard from so many I wanna talk about our California Hospital Association reports.

Many hospitals are already operating on thin or negative margins. Federal MedicAid pressures, increased uncompensated care and destabilized rural and safety net hospitals. Health plans and providers, including Kaiser, Blue Shield, emphasize cover instability and inaffordability. They warn federal changes will shift costs into premiums. So this isn't about poor people.

It's about all people. The commercial insurance holders who are going to be hurt. Business groups, workers, vulnerable populations, all impacted by this ugly, ugly bill, and all we are saying is, can the people of LA County have a choice? Can we make a decision? This is about allowing them to make a decision to have a choice.

Do they want to let people die in their communities, or do they want to make sure that they have a chance to make sure they can save every life that they can? I think voters should have that choice. And if they decide not to, they decide not to. This is what the vote is today, giving our communities a choice.

But we as leaders have to be real about the choice that we are making, and we have to do it in a way that is responsible by telling the truth.

This bill would not have had to come forward, but we have a situation in our county where our families do not have that option. And unfortunately, we at the State are putting the burdens of all of the cuts in this budget on the backs of the most vulnerable folks, the folks we said who were essential just a few years ago, the folks who we said were saving our communities during COVID.

And now these folks can't even get health care because three million of them, three million in this State are gonna go without health care due to these cuts. Who are we? We are the leaders that are elected to help our communities.

With that, I enthusiastically request and strongly urge an aye vote.

That is what this bill does. That is what we continue to do, and that is why we will continue to fight to make sure that we have the fight to make sure that we have the resources that protect our communities and that we will not allow every single cut to be on the backs of the working poor of the State of California.

we have the fight to make sure that we have the resources that protect our communities and that we will not allow every single cut to be on the backs of the working poor of the state of California. With that, I enthusiastically re re request and strongly urge an aye vote. Senator Jones, you're recognized.

that is why we will continue to fight to make sure that

Senator Jones, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam president, members. I also rise in opposition to AB 1768 as mostly an unnecessary measure, that we shouldn't be needing to take up today. And there's been some very interesting comments made in favor of the bill that I'd like to address a couple of.

of the

bill that I'd like to address a couple of. And I think the main one, and I I think it's a fair question, is why are we here? How did we get here to this point? And, you know, sometimes, from the minority party, we get a little frustrated with Washington DC just as the majority party does as well.

And I think the main one and I think it's a fair question, is why are we here? How did we get here to this point? And, you know, sometimes, from the minority party, we get a little frustrated with Washington DC just as the majority party does as well.

What I'd really appreciate, though is the majority party using as much creativity to solve the problems that we have here in California as they do in finding ways to blame the current President and the legislature in the Congress in DC.

But how did we get here? Well, the last Republican Governor in California was 2010. The last speaker of the assembly in California was 1994. Get this. The last Pro Tem of the Senate was '19 Republican Pro Tem of the Senate was 1970.

So how did we get here? Well, Democrats have been completely in charge since 2010. But specifically, regardless of all of that history, how did we get here today? What's a couple of things we could blame our current situation on? And I'm only gonna dive into two big ones.

One, since 2010, when I got elected to the assembly originally, the California State Budget has nearly tripled from a $100,000,000,000 to $300,000,000,000. Has your home budget tripled in those sixteen years? Has your constituents budget tripled in sixteen years?

Can you give other than the big corporations that were mentioned earlier, I would concede that, yes, they've more than tripled over the last sixteen years. But every day, Californians' budgets have not tripled in sixteen years.

We don't have a revenue problem in the State of California. As has been stated over and over again, we have a spending problem. Oh, but there's one more thing. There's actually two. I said there's gonna be two things.

Here's the second. How about California fraud? How about the lack of the Governor and his administration in properly auditing the expenditures of his bureaucracies and making sure that the money in MediCal and MediCare and hospice spending is actually getting to the people that we all support almost unanimously on this floor that it gets to.

$30,000,000,000 in unemployment insurance in 2019, 2020, and 2021 alone that small businesses today are still on the hook for paying back $18,000,000,000 of that because the Governor and the majority party refused to pay back a the $18,000,000,000 when we had a $100,000,000,000 surplus not so long ago, three or four years ago.

What about the Community Colleges with fake students plugging up the expenses of the Community Hospitals. I will con, the now the good news today

I will con the now the good news today

State of order

Senator Jones Senator Jones, pardon me for a moment. Senator Smallwood Cuevas, what's your point of order?

We're talking about Community Colleges and its student enrollment. This measure is not about that. I ask that the comments be directed specifically to this issue of whether the County of Los Angeles can be able to raise funds to protect the health care of its residents.

Alright. Thank you for the point of order. The members the the rules of the house and Mason's manual do require that comments on the floor be directed to the matter that is currently pending before the body. And there are some bright lines with respect to this issue. We may not address specifically any other legislation that is before the Senate at the time when we're considering something else.

And as Mason's manual, also prohibits, persistent irrelevance in our comments. At the same time, the Mason's Manual does not provide for us to gatekeep each other's comments word by word.

And so I want to encourage the House to give grace to comments as on wide ranging debate topics like this one. At the same time, the the Senator's point is well taken, that the comments do need to do need to refer to the legislation that is before the house. Senator Jones, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mister president. Well handled. I will conclude the, Community College comments because I didn't get a chance to actually, compliment the Community Colleges for themselves self policing the fraud and now starting to deal with that.

I will also thank the body for finally recognizing the fraud in California and actually making some comments about that. My final comment regarding fraud is specific to MediCal and MediCare.

800 hospices, 800 hospices in the County of LA are under investigation and or have closed because they are fraudulent were fraudulently set up, fraudulently managed, and fraudulently funded.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we can do better. We can do better than continuingly to oppress the citizens of California by continually raising taxes on them because of the mismanagement and misplaced priorities of this capital. As some of my, our my, our colleagues stated earlier, Californians are pressed against the wall.

The comment was made from the majority party that they are struggling to pay their food bills.

They're struggling to pay for fuel for their cars to get to work. They're struggling to put lunches in their kids' lunch boxes to go to school. This measure moves us in the wrong direction and makes it more expensive to live in California. I ask for a no vote on AB 1768.

Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mister president. I like my colleague from West Sacramento, I'm not here to weigh in yes or no to vote for the actual ballot measure, but I do wanna contradict some of the comments that were mentioned from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of why we got here. I do believe that everyday Californians should not be taxed higher than they are right now. I do firmly believe billionaires and corporations should pay their fair share not everyday Californians.

Let my constituents make that decision, upon themselves.

What I do wanna clarify is how we really got here. $1,300,000,000,000 were cut from healthcare and human services across The United States. And my colleague from Eureka talked about a $20,000,000,000 increase into Medicaid, of which California is gonna be getting approximately $243,000,000 in the first year. However, that is only specific to certain rural hospitals, because President wanted to appease his Republican, representatives and Congress member and give them some money in rural Republican areas.

Those dollars are very constricted and restricted to their ability of how they're gonna be utilized.

As the Chair of sub three, we've been going through exactly how those dollars are gonna be utilized. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Federal Government announced another $1,300,000,000 in cuts specifically to California, specifically on IHSS and Medicaid payments.

However, it was the same administration just years ago that applauded that California was in fact putting more people in IHSS and those cases were growing.

So talking about us our inability to address fraud is very incorrect, because this administration, for years now has been investigating, has put a moratorium on hospices because we've been front and center in conch in coming across these fraud investigations and stopping them. Just a couple months ago, in my own very district, this administration came in and closed even more hospices because of the fraud.

The $1,300,000,000 that's being stripped away from California is because we're putting people in care within their homes that cost about $30,000 a year. And the Federal Government thinks that is a waste of money because in fact, they want us to put people in skilled nursing facilities that cost a $130,000 a year to care for them. I, in sub 3 hearing story after story about people losing health care, losing CalFresh, and we have no means to cover it all.

But to paint the picture that it was because there hasn't been a Republican leader in the Senate or in the Governor or Republican leader in the speaker since the 1970s as the reason why we're here is incorrect.

We're here because the Republican Party and the Federal Government decided to give more tax write offs to the 1% of The United States and decided to put all everyone else in the back burner.

We are here because the Federal Government led by the Republican Party thought that it was okay to kick children off of CalFresh and parents off of CalFresh and MediCal. Now again, I do not think I should be taxed more to make up the difference that the Republican Party decided to do, but I do believe it is our responsibility to have everyone weigh in on this decision.

Because we are seeing right now that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people will lose MediCal.

Our hospitals are gonna bleed even more because only they're gonna be the only place they're gonna be able to use healthcare for emergency MediCal, and we will not be able to fill that gap. So let's let's make this clear.

This is not the Democratic Party, fault for being in this situation. This is because the current Republican Party thinks it's better to help their friends in the 1% than help everyday Californians. I implore my colleagues in the other aisle to call their friends and to put more money in MedicAid because we are hurting and bleeding. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Senator Doctor Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Mister president. I had not planned on standing on this bill, but I rise today to speak in support of this bill. This is actually a very simple bill. I feel like this conversation has really veered into a conversation that is not necessary here on this floor. This is a conversation that needs to be had with the voters in these particular areas in Los Angeles County and Contra Costa County.

The issue today with the bill that is before us is whether or not we believe that the voters in this area should decide whether or not they want to be taxed to help out the needs of their community. It is very simple.

Do we believe that they have the right to make that choice for themselves? And because I believe that they have the right and I think that some of these arguments will be discussed on a local level.

But I do think that they have the right to make that decision. I will be supporting, this particular bill and urge my colleagues too as well. Thank you.

I will be supporting, this particular bill and urge my colleagues too as well. Thank you.

Senator Strickland.

Two points I forgot is how much the limit.

Yeah. Yeah.

Madam speaker, members. I wasn't gonna speak on this issue, but I've seen a lot of hyperbole come out from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say we are here because of administration that just got elected, you know, about a year and a half ago. No. We are here because we spend too much. We have an addiction to spending in California. My last time when I was on this floor of the State Senate was back in 2012.

The entire State Budget, the entire State Budget was $98,000,000,000. Since Governor Newsom members, you a lot of you were here when Governor Newsom just got elected. Since Governor Newsom got elected, spending revenues have been up 62%, but spending has been up over 77%. For layman's terms, for every 77¢ we get, we spend we spend, for every 62¢ we get, we spend 77¢.

Now it doesn't sound like a lot, but when we were talking about in the billions of dollars, that's why we have a structural deficit.

The only reason why we closed this deficit is because we had a booming AI market this year that went public. A lot of AI companies went public, and we rely heavily on capital gains. And we do need to restructure that, what we do here in Sacramento. But let's be clear. This isn't because of an administration 3,000 miles away.

It's because you spend more money than we take in. You don't make tough decisions like every hardworking California family does in their kitchen table. They make the tough decisions, and they balance their checkbook.

You don't balance our checkbook in the State of California. What you do is max out a credit card and when that max credit card happens, you ask for more.

And that's what this bill is about. You max out the credit card of California, we have structural deficit. Now you're asking for more and more and more and more. When is it enough? When is it enough?

When are you going to stop asking people in California for more money? Because what's happening, we had a bill yesterday about going after folks who go to Montana. Well, yes, the California legislature become an economic development agency for states like Montana, Florida, Texas. We have a census coming out in a few years.

We're gonna lose four to five House seats, because it's the first time in California history more people are leaving the State of California than coming in since the gold rush.

And that's because of the policies in this building on this floor. It has nothing to do with an administration that's 3,000 miles away. It's because of the policies on this floor. People are leaving the oasis of the weather of California to go to the place in Montana, which frozen three months a year. They're going to humidity of Florida and Texas.

And you know what? They're doing that because of the policies here. The good news is we do have 6 of the top 10 public universities here. We have a diversified economy. We're one leader, one legislature away from prosperity.

Senator Strickland, point of order

The reason why I stand up on this

on this

Point of order.

Point of order. I'm wondering if we can focus on the merits of the bill in your talk

order. Point of order. I'm wondering if we can focus on the merits of the bill in your talk

Yeah. And the merits of the bill is asking for more money, and we yes. It is. It's asking

And the merits of the bill is asking for more money, and we yes. It is. It's asking

Point of order.

The language of the bill is not asking for any additional I the presiding officer

the presiding officer You're

You're asking for authority. You're asking for a local government for more authority to tax itself. Is that correct?

Asking for local government to

For more authority to tax itself. Correct?

But the bill itself does have not have language on what

Does the bill ask more authority for counties to tax itself?

counties to tax itself?

Officer respond to your question. So give us a second.

Right.

Senator Strickland, on this point of order, the presiding officer is ruling that if you could stick, we've given a lot of leeway and flexibility. If we could stick closer to the merits of the bill on the health care and the ability for the local government to increase, there's no dollar amount that people will be taxed on and so forth. If we could stick to that, you are one of our remaining speakers, and then we can close out. Would Senator Jones, you're recognized.

Point of our

madam president. I I appreciate the the last ruling, and I'm I'm certainly not opposing that. What I would like to remind the house and the body is that the presiding officer has been very generous and time spent on an issue not connected to this bill, meaning the federal administration. There's been lots of discussion and debate on that, which is not part of the bill. I think that the current speaker is trying to remind the body that

Minorities is your point of order.

Administration of the of the state need to be equally addressed as that. So my point of order is I'm asking for equal time for the speaker to be able to address the current state administration as it is connected to this bill.

Noted, which is why the presiding officer did charge with the Senator Strickland that recognized that he's one of our last speakers, allowing him to close it with his final thoughts.

Thank you. Final thoughts, members. Truth hurts sometimes. Truth hurts. It's not an administration that's 3,000 miles away that's been there for a year and a half.

The truth hurts of the fact that we've increased spending dramatically, triple over the last few years. The truth hurts is when you run out of spending money, then what you're doing here is asking for more authority for local governments to raise taxes on our hardworking California families. The truth hurts that that in turn makes more people leave the state of California than ever before. And the truth hurts that, you know, we now have a situation. It's the first time in California history since the gold rush.

More people are leaving. They're coming in because people leave where their job is. And the truth hurts that now we're asking for even more money from those hardworking California families that might turn into more people leaving the state of California. And the truth hurts that, you know, this is done all by acts of this body and this government here in the state of California, not by a government 3,000 miles away.

But the good news is we're one leader and one legislature away from prosperity because we have a lot going for this state.

I'm just trying to point out the inconsistencies a lot of what's happening on this floor about people blaming an administration that's only been there a year and a half, versus the policies that have happened over the last ten years. I know the truth hurts, but, you know, for those reasons, I asked for a no vote on this measure. And, again, let's put it back into focus, and let's look at why we got elected.

We're here to represent the people of California, but what Washington's doing Washington do, let's fight for the people of California, and that's why I'm asking for this no vote for the hardworking California families in our state.

Majority leader Ashley. Thank you. Colleagues, excellent debate on the floor over a really difficult issue. Some things are just truths. California is a donor state and always has been.

California is the largest economy in The United States Of America, and your voters, whether in Sacramento, Contra Costa, LA, or Huntington Beach, should have the right and the ability to decide for themselves if they would like to replace the dollars that have been removed through things like HR 1. Whether it's food stamps, or community college, or health care, that is what this vote is about. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator D'Arazo, you may now

close. I say let the people vote. Let the people vote. Let's not fear the outcome. Let's respect the local voters in Los Angeles County and Contra Costa County and, give them the right, to not only vote, but to count their vote.

They're the ones who should determine these issues. AB 1768 does not raise taxes. Make it clear. AB 1768 does not re raise taxes. It's giving the voters the authority to determine what they wanna do.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Colleagues, this item has an urgency. It requires a 27 votes. Secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker.

Blake Spear. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero.

Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortesi.

Aye. Dali. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales.

Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove? Hurtado?

Jones? No. Laird? Aye. Lumon?

Aye. Aye. McGuire? Aye. McNerney?

Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Nilo. No.

Ochoa Bog. No. Padilla. Aye. Perez.

Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye.

Rubio. So no. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern?

Aye. Strickland? Aye. Stern? Aye.

Strickland? No. Hamburg? Aye. Volodares?

No. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye.

Weiner? Aye.

Please call the absent members.

Allen. Becker? Caballero? Aye. Dally.

Grove. Hurtado. Rubio.

Secretary, please go through the roll call one more time.

Allen, Becker, Dally, Grove, Hurtado, Rubio.

Please call the absent members.

Allen, Becker, Dally, Grove, Hurtado, Rubio.

Senator Geraso moves a call. We're gonna be moving on to file item one eighty. Senator McNerney, you have SB 121. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 121 by Senator McNerney, inequity to public social services.

Senator. Madam president, distinguished colleagues, I have a happy bill to present. This is SB 121, the no hunger heroes act. HR 1 took a big bite out of food assistance. These federal cuts specifically impact the venerable veterans, such as veterans who are currently homeless, veterans raising children, and veterans awaiting disability determinations from the veterans administration.

Veterans that rely on CalFresh to feed their families often face higher poverty and lower unemployment because health challenges like post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. SB 121 helps protect veterans from these cuts by directing the state to request federal waivers to exclude job search, costs from income. And it eased the work requirements for vulnerable veterans. SB 121 also ensures that every veteran who applies for benefits is connected to a county veteran service officer.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta. Alright. Adagene.

Ashby. Alright. Becker. Blake Spear. Alright.

Cabaldon. Alright. Caballero. Alright. Cervantes.

Alright. Choi. Cortesi. Alright. Dali.

Durazo. Gonzalez. Alright. Grayson. Alright.

Grove. Hurtado. Jones. Laird. Aye.

Limon. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye.

Menjivar. Aye. Nilo. Ochoa Bog. Padilla?

Aye. Perez? Aye. Reyes? Aye.

Richardson? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Ciardo?

Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Strickland? Humbergh?

Aye. Aye. Volodares? Aye. Weber Pearson?

Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Senator McNerney moves a call. Senator Cervantes, you have file item one seventy seven. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1164 by Senator Cervantes and that's relating to elections.

Senator. Thank you, madam president. Today, I have Senate bill 1164. This recently, federal court decisions have created growing uncertainty around the future of voting rights protections in our country. Over time, key provisions of the federal voting rights act of 1965 have been narrowed, limiting safeguards against vote dilution, voter suppression, and voter discrimination.

This concern was heightened by the recent decision, Louisiana versus Cali, which raised serious questions about the strength of federal voting rights enforcement moving forward. While California has long been a leader in protecting voting access, the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 is limited primarily to discrimination at large election systems. SB 1164 helps address these gaps by strengthening voting right protections here in our state.

This bill codifies key provisions of the federal voting rights act into state law to help ensure continued protections for California voters. The bill also provides the California attorney general and individual voters with additional tools to enforce voting right laws.

At a time of legal uncertainty at the federal level, California must continue to uphold fair and equal access to the ballot box. This bill reaffirms our state's commitment to protecting the integrity excuse me. Protecting the integrity of our democracy and ensuring every voter has an equal voice. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Senator Choi, you're recognized.

Thank you, president and the members. I rise in opposition to SB 1164, which goes far beyond protecting voting rights. It creates vague and open ended standards that would expose local governments to endless litigation from activist groups and partisan interests. It also gives the attorney general sweeping oversight authority over local election policies for up to ten years, even for minor violations or settlements. The attorney general is a partisan elected office, and we have seen this partisanship through misleading ballot titles and summaries for decades?

Why should we trust that they would be nonpartisan in their expanded oversight? For the for these reasons, I strongly urge you no vote.

Senator Gomez Reyes.

Thank you, madam president, members. I rise today in strong support of SB 1164. This is one of two bills that create the California Voting Rights Act of 2026. At a time when voting rights are under constant attack at the federal level, in the courts, in Congress, and through executive actions, California cannot stand idly by. We need to act now.

Right to vote is foundational to our democracy, and when federal protections are weakened or eroded, it is our responsibility as members of this legislature to step forward to ensure that all communities retain meaningful access to the ballot, are able to elect candidates of their choice, and have access to critical election language materials. I ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Seeing no more discussion, Senator Cervantes, you may now close. Thank you, madam president. The attorney general is the highest law enforcement officer in our state. He plays a key role in enforcing and protecting voting rights in our state. And here in our golden state, we will continue to protect democracy even in the face of Federal Government that continues to sabotage voting rights.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

Allen. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Ashby. Aye.

Becker. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero.

Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No Cortesi.

Aye. Dali. No Durazo. Gonzalez. Aye.

Grayson. Aye. Grove. Aye. Jones.

No. Laird. Aye. Limon. McGuire.

Aye. McNearney. Aye. Menjvar. Aye.

Nilo. No. Ochoa Bog. No. Padilla.

Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson.

Aye. Rubio. Aye. No. Smallwood Cuevas.

Aye. Stern. Strickland. No. Umbrick.

Aye. Volodares. No. Wahab. Aye.

Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner. Weiner, Aye. Padilla, Aye.

Senator Cervantes moves a call. Moving on to file item 35, Senator McNerney, you have SCR 171. Secretary, please read.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 171 by Senator McNerney, read it to California Nonprofits Day.

Second.

Madam, president and distinguished colleagues, another even happier bill. This is s r SCR 171. Today is May 20, and SCR 1 declares May 20 to be the California Nonprofits Day. Nonprofits employ over 1,000,000 people in California and contribute billions of dollars sorta to our state's economy. They are essential partner to our government.

They make things work. They take care of people that need help. They make our communities better, and they are trusted community partners. In recognition of their important work that nonprofits do in California, I ask for your a I vote, to honor the importance of nonprofits in California.

Senator Choi, you're recognized.