Senate Floor Session

Secretary, please call the roll. Allen, Alvarado Gil, Archuleta, Aragon, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Daly, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, McGuire, McNerney, Menjavar, Nilo, Ochoa Bog, Padilla, Perez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Cillarto, Smallwood Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Baladaris, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Wiener. A quorum is present. Would the members and our guests be on the rail and in the gallery please rise?

by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, after which please remain standing

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, in its form, with liberty and justice for all. We are now at privileges of the floor. There are none. Messages from the governor will be deemed read. Messages from the assembly will be deemed read. Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Senators, we are now at motions, resolutions, and notices. Seeing none, we will now move to consideration of the daily file, starting with Governor's appointment. File item number six, Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Alvarado Gil. Archuleta.

Aragon.

Ashby.

Becker.

Blakespear.

Cobaldin.

Caballero. Cervantes.

Choi.

Cortese.

Dally. Durazo, Gonzales, Grayson, Aye, Grove, Aye, Hurtado, Jones, Aye, Laird, Aye, Limon, McGuire, Aye, Limon, Aye, McGuire, Aye, McNerney, Aye, Menjabar, Aye, Nilo, Aye, Ochoa aye, Padilla, aye, Perez, Reyes, aye, Richardson, aye, Rubio, aye, Cigarto, aye, Smallwood Cuevas, aye, Stern, Strickland, aye, Umberg, aye, Valadares, Wahab, aye, Weber Pearson, aye, Wiener, aye, Stern, aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Allen, Abrago, Caballero, Daly, Durazo, Aye. Gonzalez, Hurtado, Perez, Voltares, Voltares, Aye. Secretary, call the absent members. Allen, Avrador Guio, Caballero, Daly, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Perez. Secretary, please call the absent members. Allen, aye. Avrador Guio, Caballero, aye. Daly, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Perez. Ayes 35, nos 0. That appointment is confirmed. We'll now move to file item number 7. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

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

Alvarado Gil. Archuleta.

Aragon.

Ashby.

Becker.

Blakespear.

Cobaldin.

Caballero.

Cervantes. Aye. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Aye. Hurtado. Jones. Aye. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjavar. Aye. Nilo. Aye. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Padilla. Perez. Reyes. Aye. Richardson Aye Rubio Aye Cioto Aye Smallwood Cuevas Stern Aye Strickland Aye Umbert Aye Valadares Aye Wahab Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Abroadoglio? Aye. Daly Durazo? Aye. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Aye. Padilla? Aye. Perez, Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Ayes 37, noes 0. That appointment is confirmed. We are now at file item number 10. Senator Grovey are recognized.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. I'm Ronald Gill. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Adagin. Aye. Aye, Ashby. Aye, Becker. Aye, Blakespeare. Aye, Cobaldon. Aye, Caballero. Aye, Cervantes. Aye, Choi. Aye, Cortese. Aye, Daly. Durazo. Aye, Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye, Grove. Aye, Hurtado. Aye, Jones. Aye, Laird. Aye, Limon. McGuire Aye McNerney Aye Menjavar Nilo Aye Ochoa Bog Aye Padilla Aye Perez Aye Reyes Aye Richardson Aye Rubio Aye Ciarto Aye Smallwood Cuevas Stern Strickland Aye Strickland Aye Smallwood Cuevas Aye Humbert Aye Valadares Aye Wahab Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Stern, aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Daly, Gonzalez, Limon, Manjivar. Secretary, please call the absent members. Gonzales, Limon, Mandivar. Ayes 36, no 0. That appointment is confirmed. Senators, we are now at Senate third reading. We will start with file item 17, but I want to also inform everyone that we are not necessarily going to go directly in the file order today, so listen to the floor managers. Remember when they tell you that you're up because we may be kind of jumping around the file today. But we will start at file item 17, SB 1173. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1173 by Senator Caballero, in acronym to Criminal Procedure. Senator Caballero, you are recognized.

aye vote. Thank you, Senator Grove. You are recognized. Thank you, Madam President. I respectfully rise in opposition of SB 1173. Judicial discretion, while I think is well intended and most of our judges make great decisions, it does create inconsistency across the state based on the judge in the area that they're from and their ideology. It also creates inconsistency on justice. If you take the evidence-based theory and apply it to just what happened a few weeks ago, you had a convicted felon convicted by a jury of his peers of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old little girl, and that little girl came up and told her story. The jury believed him. He was convicted of six counts of vaginal and anal penetration with a six-year-old little girl, or excuse me, 11-year-old little girl. And the judge said, see in five weeks for sentencing, and let him out. He got away. That's just one example of poor judicial discretion, which creates inconsistency. I don't think there's another judge in the state that would allow that to happen, but allowing further judicial discretion, even if evidence appears, Evidence appears that the individual was guilty. He was going to be sentenced, and they let him out of jail, and now he's nowhere to be found. I think that we have to have consistency across the state, all 58 counties, and that the law should be applied equally. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you very much. Well, I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Bakersfield. The reality of the situation is that our system is not perfect, But what is important is that we have equity and that we have the ability to argue from a defense perspective that a lesser offense is more appropriate under the circumstances. Ultimately, this is a jury decision. It's a jury that will determine whether the person is guilty of the lesser related offense or the more serious offense as prosecuted. And we all know of instances where people of color or poor people don't get the representation that they need, and it's important that we have a balanced scale, which allows the argument that a lesser related offense is more appropriate. It's up to a jury. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I rise. With a great sense of pride and duty that I present, Senate Bill 1354, which would prohibit military personnel not operating under Title X from another state, territory, district to enter California to perform military or law enforcement functions without the express permission of the governor of the state of California. The bill's clear prohibition on out-of-state, unapproved military activity reinforces the governor's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief of the state militia and the state guard here in California. It ensures California retains control over any armed or law enforcement operations conducted within its borders. Unfortunately, California is well aware of what it's like to have a National Guard activated in our state without to express permission from the governor of our state. California should not live in fear of unwanted military involvement from any other state without the express permission of our own governor here in California. I want to clarify that this bill does not affect the activation of the Guard under Title X. This legislation would not impact current mutual aid agreements, such as the Emergency Management Assistant Compact, or prohibit outside military personnel from attending schools training here in our California bases At least seven other states have passed similar legislation that prohibits outside forces from entering their states, including Maryland, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, North Dakota, and Washington. This measure helped prevent the misuse of military power. For these reasons, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. I rise in opposition to SB 1354 with deep respect for my colleague from Pico Rivera. You know, if you read our Constitution and the way our frame of government works, it is the commander-in-chief that's overriding authority to our military. I understand where the author is coming from, but at the end of the day, whether you like the commander-in-chief or not, the commander-in-chief is the commander-in-chief of our military. and despite what any governor of the 50 states says, the commander-in-chief says he is the person who dictates our military and where the military goes. And so for those reasons, I oppose SB 1354. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. As the chair of the Public Safety Committee, I want to speak in support of SB 1354. Colleagues, this is a simple bill that other states have already put into law. to say that if a president or a governor is sending troops to another state, that that's not allowed unless we have the permission of the governor of that state. It's unfortunate that we need a bill like this, but it's important to protect the sovereignty of California and the safety of Californians. This bill was amended to remove the criminal penalty against those individual officers. This is really about just making it clear, similar to what other states have done, that you cannot send troops into California without the express permission of the governor of California, making sure that our troops are not being weaponized for political purposes. I respectfully ask for an eye on SB 1354. Thank you.

Once again, it does not affect our military as a whole. We have troops coming into California for training and other military duties. It does not affect that. It only makes sure that if anyone comes in, they have the permission from our state government, which is our commander-in-chief here in California. With that, I ask for your vote, and I thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Madam President and members. SB 1090, the Keep Altadena Lands and Altadena Hands Act, would impose a five-year prohibition on an individual or entity that owns 75 or more single-family properties from making unsolicited offers to purchase property in areas affected by a fire where an emergency was declared. In January 2025, the Eaton and Palisades fire ravaged the Los Angeles metropolitan region. Among the challenges raised during the recovery process is the increased presence of investors aggressively pursuing impacted properties at below market rates. This dynamic, called disaster capitalism, has occurred in several post-disaster communities. In response to this threat, governments have established temporary protections through executive actions, including following the 2023 Maui fires and the 2022 Hurricane Ian in Florida. In that same spirit, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-725 to protect disaster-impacted residents from predatory real estate speculators from the Affirmation fires through July 1, 2025. Property purchase trends in Altadena before and after the Ian fire show a significant increase in investor purchasing of loss. One report found investors purchased close to 49% of properties sold from February to July 2025, compared to only 10% during the same month's time span in 2024. Similar trends were observed in the Palisades Fire impacted area. Predatory real estate speculation can have a ripple effect on disaster-impacted communities, driving up housing costs, permanently displacing fire victims, and gentrifying neighborhoods. S.B. 1090 establishes long-term protections for disaster-impacted residents both in the immediate aftermath and through the rebuilding period by creating a five-year prohibition on unsolicited purchase offers from large-scale property owners. S.B. 1090 will provide disaster-impacted survivors with the assurance and stability they need to focus on rebuilding their lives without being pressured or harassed to sell their property at an inopportune time. They will sell in if and when they want to. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. I rise today to present Senate Bill 966, which will codify critical safety standards and protect refinery workers from regulatory rollback. In 2012, a fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond endangered 19 workers and resulted in 15,000 residents seeking medical care. An investigation found the disaster could have been prevented if the refiner had acted on workers' safety concerns. In response to disasters like this, OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, adopted updated process safety management regulations in 2017, which strengthened worker protections, including the right to select their own representative to participate in safety proceedings at refineries, report hazards anonymously, and access safety information, and initiate SOP work procedures. Now under pressure from refineries, new regulations have been proposed that will weaken these hard-won protections SB 966 makes that right permanent by codifying the existing worker representation and participation standards from 2017 I respectfully ask for an aye vote thank you senator Viadars you are recognized thank you madam president I respectfully rise in opposition to SB 966 let me be clear worker safety matters refinery safety matters community safety matters, but California has to start recognizing reality. We are already dealing with shrinking refinery capacity, fuel supply fragility, and some of the highest energy costs in America. Families are struggling with affordability, and policies like this continue adding instability and operational uncertainty to one of the most critical industries in our state. This bill has consequences. It expands mandates into nearly every aspect of refining operations and creates broad, vague standards around employee participation, shutdown recommendations, and operational decision-making. This issue is not whether or not workers should have a voice. They absolutely should. The issue is whether or not the legislature is now creating conflicting authority structures and additional legal exposure inside highly technical industrial operations where clarity and accountability are essential to safety itself. And what concerns me most is that many of these exact issues were already litigated and negotiated over several years between Cal OSHA, Cal EPA, labor, and industry stakeholders. A settlement agreement was reached in 2024, and now the legislature is stepping in to override portions of that negotiated agreement through statute. That sends a terrible message about California's regulatory stability. Because if parties negotiate in good faith with state agencies, only to have the rules change politically afterward, we undermine the process entirely. At some point, we have to acknowledge that every additional mandate, every additional lawsuit risk, and every additional operational burden eventually shows up in our cost of living, which is why I urgently, I strongly urge a no vote.

Thank you so much, Madam President. I want to be very clear here. This is not a bill on refinery affordability or whatsoever. All this is saying is that we would like a worker voice. The refinery workers that mostly represent the refineries across California, which are represented by the United Steelworkers, need to have a voice at the table, as well as many of our building trades. The settlement agreement that had been mentioned by my colleague was reached in 2024, which required Cal OSHA to propose new process safety management regulations, and it was not based on negotiations between all impacted parties. In fact, there was, of course, as mentioned, the USW and the steel workers tried to get answers on what the intent of the changes were and whether refinery workers were included in the negotiation process. And this puts in statute that those voices need to be upheld and ensure that they prevent additional safety and health standards at our California refineries. With that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam President and members. I have an exciting subdivision MAP Act bill. It is SB 1256, a narrow district bill addressing repetitive lawsuits on a housing project in my district. This measure is intended to prevent needless delays on a housing project of about 500 new homes and help get much needed housing built for California families The bill does not eliminate CEQA review or prevent an initial challenge and is narrowly tailored to address this local circumstance without broadly changing statewide law Please vote for SB 1256

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise as chair of the local government committee. We heard this bill in committee. Unfortunately, there was late opposition regarding fire safety the day before the hearing regarding this project. We weren't able to fully vet the concerns in time, so I supported the bill at that time, but stated I wanted to see the fire safety concerns addressed. I asked for an amendment to make it clear that this bill isn't a way to avoid our fire safe regulations. We have not yet reached agreement working on it, but I wanted to explain that I would not be supporting today for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the Chairwoman's comments regarding SB 1256. We are in continued talks. my office with the consultant from local government and the folks involved in this in San Diego County. I believe that we'll be able to get to a positive place once we get it over to the assembly. And I've made a commitment to the chairwoman to keep her and her staff abreast of all of the changes and updates and ask for your aye vote today on SB 1256. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. In the Sacramento region alone, Aftershock and Golden Sky music festivals generate an economic impact of over $44 million. These events supported 13,000 jobs across multiple sectors and generated over $230,000 in local sales tax revenue and 1.1 million in state sales tax contributions. And that's just one city with two music festivals. Imagine the impact of music festivals across the entire state of California SB 865 is intended to make sure that the creative economy continues to infuse all of our districts I respectfully ask for your aye vote

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. I rise to present SB 866, which requires jurisdictions that do not receive homeless housing assistance and prevention grants, to report on homelessness data, regional coordination efforts, and strategies in their housing elements. Homelessness is a regional problem that does not stop at city or county boundaries. Without formal planning, governments are prone to focusing on duplicative programs and reactive emergency management, rather than investing in coordinated efforts to site and build shelter and housing, and expand access to behavioral health services. SB 866 would promote effective homelessness approaches by requiring cities to identify service gaps, share data, and report on their regional coordination efforts. I'm committed to exempting the smallest of cities from the requirements of SB 866, and will be taking an amendment at the next opportunity. This bill ensures accountability and alignment of our efforts to address homelessness, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for the author.

Of course.

Thank you. So in the discussion of this bill in the policy committee, an issue is raised as to whether this should apply to all jurisdictions that don't receive a direct allocation of HAP dollars. Just keeping in mind that smaller jurisdictions may not have the adequate staff to be able to do this level of analysis and reporting. If this bill moves out today, would you be willing to consider amending the bill to exempt smaller jurisdictions or maybe changing the requirements, reporting requirements for those small jurisdictions given the concerns around staffing resources? Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you for asking that. We were thinking of 50 people or fewer as the level at which they would not have to participate And this would exempt a large number of cities in the state of California but it would still capture more cities than are currently doing coordinated homelessness planning as part of the housing element. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Colleagues, I urge an aye vote on SB 866 with that commitment from the author. I do understand the concerns around Aylton, as was mentioned, in the local government committee, or a smaller jurisdiction, including City of Albany, which actually submitted a letter in opposition to this bill, not having the resources to implement this. But I do think this is an important planning and reporting exercise that larger jurisdictions should engage in who aren't getting the direct HAP dollars. so that they're thinking about how they're working to address unsheltered homelessness in California. Because the reality is that every jurisdiction, every county in California, has a responsibility to address and reduce unsheltered homelessness, whether you have one person or whether you have 50,000 people. And so this ensures that all California jurisdictions, with some exceptions and some requirements, have to think intentionally around what they're doing to prevent homelessness and reduce unsheltered homelessness and take affirmative steps to implement those policies and practices. So I think this is a worthy exercise. I thank the author for working with the Housing Committee on this bill and respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Thank you, Madam President, and thanks to the Chair of the Housing Committee for reinforcing the need for the amendment with respect to small cities. and he mentioned a city in my district. I know some of the members who voted no on this bill and the committees shared the same concern. And the smallest of cities do face these costs, but so do others. And so I want to encourage the author on this bill, but really many of the bills that we've been seeing through that move through this body, the Constitution requires that when the legislature mandates these kinds of activities on cities and counties, that we reimburse them for the costs. That is a well-established proposition in the Constitution that the voters have adopted repeatedly. And yet, this measure, like many measures, it's by far not unique to this measure, this measure says, no, we're not going to reimburse cities for this, whether it's a small, medium, or large-sized city, because, Ledge Council has written in the bill, cities could recover the cost through the imposition of a fee. Well, when you're putting a plan together for addressing homelessness, there's no one to charge a fee to. That is a purely abstract theoretical proposition that's not real. And it's not consistent with what the Constitution requires. And so I would just encourage the author, both for medium, small, medium, and large-sized cities, we have an obligation when we impose these sorts of requirements, as they are as necessary as both the author and the housing chair have mentioned, that we fulfill our constitutional mandate to account for the costs and apply appropriate reimbursement with that. I will urge an aye vote with the author's commitment on the small city's body. Do you think we also need to assure that the mandate costs that we are obligated to meet, we actually fulfill our constitutional duty to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to speak in opposition of this bill. Unfortunately, at this juncture of legislation, when the bill is on the floor, we must be ready to vote on something that is cooked. This is not a bill that is cooked. This is a bill that is still in the sous chef kitchen. Unfunded mandates, one size fits all policies. has come off this legislature floor too often. We must recognize the diversity of cities in California. I represent some of the smallest cities in Senate District floor, including Amador City of a little over 100 population. The staff and resources do not compare to some of our coastal cities coming from the Authors District. In addition, the largest city, City of Modesto, that I also represent is in opposition to this bill in addition to dozens and dozens of cities within California. So I have to ask, if we have this level of opposition, not just from rural communities, not just from Republican-represented communities, but from cities across the state, why do we have a half-cooked bill on this legislature's floor in order to increase the mandates, the unfunded mandates and the one-size-fits-all policies coming out of this system? We know that we have the greatest level of failure when it comes to addressing homelessness in California. Let's not add to it. Let's help to reward those communities with local control and local decision-making to help fix the homeless problem, and let's ensure that those that are doing the right things, making the right tasks, are receiving funding from the state. Unfunded mandates, we don't need any more of those, and that's why I encourage us to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I want to commend the author for bringing this forward in the sense that we all are very committed to making sure that we take care of an unhoused population. But like many of my colleagues already expressed, it is a little bit of a concern, and I want to thank the author for agreeing to look at the number, the size of the cities. however I still have concerns with the mandated costs and sometimes it's for me it's not about the population I had shared I have a city that's six point seven square miles with nearly 80,000 residents so they're already so stretched thin even though it's such a small piece of land with so many residents they're having a hard time so I just want to encourage the author to continue to have these conversations because it concerns me that we already put so much on their plate. So I will support the bill as we continue the discussion, and I appreciate the conversation with that. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the commentary on the floor today, and I want to particularly thank the housing chair and his staff for working with me on this bill. It's important to recognize the importance of removing all cities under 50,000 from this bill's application because we have 483 incorporated cities, and removing all cities under 50,000 excludes 296 of them. So more than half of the cities in the state will no longer be implicated by removing cities that are under 50,000. It's important to recognize, too, that what we do with our housing element updates in cities is we account for people's housing. We spend enormous amounts of time talking about where to put higher-density housing, where we should have certain land uses, how we should provide for people to live in cities. And as part of this process, it's really an oversight for all cities not to be doing planning around their homeless residents. because cities do have people who are living on street corners and in river beds, and when they're not counting them, reporting on how many exits there are from homelessness how many people are falling into homelessness actually thinking about the spectrum of housing and homelessness as it goes from being unhoused to being housed at the highest level. So really, to me, it seems like this is something that has been an oversight in our planning process, that housing elements are not accounting for homelessness as part of the normal course of business. I recognize that this amendment that I'm committing to take will exclude more than half the cities in the state of California. But it still is progress because more cities, not just the biggest cities, the HAP cities, there are only 12 of them that are getting HAP money. So there are a lot of cities in the state of California. We have almost 500 of them that are actually not doing this type of planning around homelessness. And we know that people are homeless in city boundaries. They're on city streets. They're in city creeks and ravines. And so it really, when you're thinking about how to manage the homelessness crisis in the state of California, it does require this type of planning at the city level. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Archuleta. Cabaldon Dally Hurtado Limon

Thank you, Madam President, distinguished colleagues. I'm going to, over the next couple of hours, maybe not that long, convince you to vote for an eye on SB 1329 But first I want to say two things First of all companies like predictability They like to know what they going to be facing And secondly my understanding is that Republicans like lower taxes and hate higher taxes So please keep those two things in mind They come up again later in SB 1329 concerns solar farms. Solar farms have had a special place in the California economy since 1980. Solar farms don't pay property taxes. They're excluded from property taxes. Now, is that fair? Why would solar companies be excluded from property taxes? I worked in the wind industry and we had to pay property taxes. That's not fair. I think solar companies should pay property taxes. Well, but I guess at the end of this year, that solar tax exemption expires. So solar farms are going to have to pay property taxes. Now, if you're a county that has solar farms, you're going to be making billions and billions of dollars. Well, maybe not billions and billions, but you'll be making quite a bit of new money that you didn't expect and you haven't had before. So this should make your counties happy. You're going to be able to afford money for schools, for roads. You're going to be able to pay hospitals. I mean, this is a windfall. So I think that's great. But without SB 29, if we move forward as is, the 59 counties in California could each adopt their own way of assessing property taxes on solar farms. Now, what does that mean? That means uncertainty for companies. Companies that want to put solar farms in your counties are going to say there's too much uncertainty. I'm going to move to a state, maybe one of our neighboring states, that doesn't have these qualifications, and I'm going to put this farm there, and I'm going to sell power to California, and I'm not going to hire California people. I'm just going to get their money. So that's a bad outcome. So we want to put certainty into the market, and that's what SB 1329 does. It would establish a preferred method of assessment of property taxes. Now, again, these are new revenues to states. These are new revenues to our counties. But wait, there's an issue here. Some folks, some counties are saying, but we want more tax revenue from this. We want to include intangibles such as contracts and power purchase agreements in our tax assessments. So that means that the taxes will go higher. So these companies are going to pay higher taxes and your counties are going to get more money. But that, again, introduces uncertainty into the market. So what SB 329 does, it identified a couple of intangibles for exclusion. And then, again, that would lower taxes because state law forbids intangibles from being assessed in property taxes. so I heard from some colleagues that their counties are unhappy they want to get more tax revenue and I listening to these discussions that I opening I open to ideas on how to improve the legislation We got a couple of ideas on the table and one last note an aye vote on this bill will raise taxes So with that, I'm going to yield to the speaker and listen to the opposition here and decide how to respond in my closing remarks. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of SB 1329. We've been working for a long time to expand solar energy in California. It's essential for our climate goals, and we want the generation to happen here in California. Right now, Texas and Florida are generating more clean power than California, which should not be the case. So we need more large-scale and small-scale solar development, and we can't risk losing this development to other states. to ensure that solar energy is provided to Californians at a fair and reasonable price. Those who build it need to be able to anticipate their tax liability, regardless of where they choose to build in the state. Without SB 1329, they'll have to assume the highest possible tax, which will then determine their power purchase agreements and impact rates. This will provide certainty, and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam President. Far be it from me to disagree with my good friend from Stockton, or the Bay Area as well, let me just say that part of the challenge with this discussion is it depends on where you live. And if you live along the coast, you're not putting up solar panels, farms. You're looking towards the Central Valley. And I know my good colleague represents the Central Valley. But what's interesting to me is that the CCAs, the green energy creators that we've created, move into the valley for their energy and take it out of the valley to the big cities. And while I appreciate the need to go green, I also appreciate equity. And what is not happening with these solar farms is a commitment to the local community to reduce their energy costs. The energy is extracted and taken somewhere else. And one of the idiosyncrasies in this legislature is that we set up a system to incentivize the development of solar energy. And I'm all for it. I believe in solar energy. I think it's important, but I also think there ought to be some benefit to the community that has to look at solar farms instead of green, growing product. And this is being accelerated because of the lack of water. And sigma that says you have to put water underneath the ground if you're going to take it out of the ground. And so there's this proliferation of farmland being changed into solar farms. And the county sees a reduction in revenue when that happens because farms, agricultural farms, pay property tax. Solar does not. And. And this year I had a bill to do a study to develop an equity plan for the valley. And that bill didn't make it out of appropriations, as some bills of other people as well. But my point is that we need more information, not less. And we need a system that's fair to the valley so that the people that live there that are going to see a reduction in property value, the local government, because of these solar farms. I mean, think about it. Do you want to live next to a solar farm? Do you want your community to be surrounded by solar farms? I think not. We want it to be fair. We want community solar provides an incentive to the local community, and that's not what's happening. And so while I support solar and while I believe in our need to go green, I also believe fervently that we have to have a system that creates long-term good jobs for people that live in the valley and live there for generations. We've got to create an opportunity for them to reduce their energy costs, which are among the highest in the state. Six to seven hundred dollars a month during the summer months is unsustainable. and we need to make sure that local government gets the revenue that they need and this bill is, while there is a commitment, I believe, to continue conversations, I just at this point cannot support the bill and speak up for all the valley residents that are worried about whether they're going to have a future in the valley because the unmitigated impacts on the community is going to be tremendous. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to SB 1329, which there was a promise made when the previous Senator Majority Leader Hertzberg got the solar tax exclusion that said that that would be it. That would give opportunity for solar panel companies and large-scale solar to be able to figure out how to provide affordable energy and green energy. And so the agreement was made. Now that agreement is coming to an end, and there's a new bill, this bill, coming up, which is not a solar tax exclusion, but it does limit the ability for which you would fundamentally alter the valuation of utility-scale solar. It's a formula-driven appraisal methodology that's statutory preference for cost approach on replacing new values. So basically you couldn't assess this property like you would assess a warehouse or another business. Kern County produces about 60% of the state's solar. It's produced in our county. We don't get water, so our farmers are making the tough decision to take legacy farmland, as my colleague said, out of production and put solar panels in. A lot of these large utility solar companies take up beautiful areas in our desert. I have to tell you, I've said this to my good colleague from Santa Monica when he was introducing a bill last year. Come get your stuff because I'm not allowed to say what I really want to say on the floor. Thanks to my colleague from YOLO who schooled me on the rules of language on the floor. But Santa Monica gets about 77 kilowatts or megawatts of power from Kern County Come get your solar panels and put them on the beach I don't have an issue with that. I look at LADWP, 579 megawatts of power that we supply to LADWP and the Los Angeles residents in order to provide green technology. The East Bay, 212 megawatts. Again, come get your 6,000 acres of solar panels that are in my district. Put them in your district around your communities and have the elevation of heat and the destruction of the land. Come get those solar panels and get no credit for it for your county. You won't get tax information from them. You won't get tax funds from them. Revenue sources, you talked about fair share. They don't pay anything when it comes to roads, infrastructure, libraries, schools, nothing. nothing they pay nothing these large-scale utility plants are these large-scale solar plants in my good colleagues district from Santa Cruz 130 megawatts comes from my district to your district to provide you green technology I can tell you that I have reached out to the chair of my County Board of Supervisors and I said enough is enough we are the energy capital of the world we can produce domestic oil and fuel here so we don't have to bring it in from foreign imports and we can give them the green technology they want with these large scarce solars because we have the land to do it. But I want you to give me a commitment that you will delay, derail, pull off the agenda any pending solar panel. And I know there's a big project that's pending. Just pull it off the agenda. Every time it shows up on the agenda, pull it off and delay it if this bill passes because I am so tired of providing the energy and using our land and our resources. And now you won't even let us have the tax revenue. You already passed a solar tax exclusion. But now you won't even let us have the tax revenue after the promise that we would start getting tax revenue for these solar, large-scale solar facilities being in our district. You won't even let us have the taxes to pay for schools and infrastructure in our district. And I think it's completely wrong that you would attack this district, my district, in this way and respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I also rise in opposition to SB 1329, not coming from the San Joaquin Valley. But this bill has the same implications in the Napa Valley, the Sonoma Valley, the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, every other part of California. It's why both the rural counties and the urban counties are united in opposition. Look, this tax exclusion has been scheduled to expire at the end of this year since 2020. So it is already, the revenue that is supposed to come to the counties, like any other property, is already scheduled to come to them. There's no windfall here. And so they have all budgeted for this for the last two years, preparing for this moment. Not that they would get some special higher tax rate, but that it would be treated like any other taxpayer in their counties. So there's no windfall, and it will mean a direct cut, which is why all the county letters are not about solar. They're about H.R. 1, because this is a direct hit to the general fund of every county in California. If this bill were simply a bill that tried to harmonize assessment practices between counties, I would be prepared to support it. But it's not. It is an effort to rig the local property assessment system in order to advantage this industry. and I love this industry as much as anyone but that not what we should be doing today This bill would exempt whole areas of intangible assets that are covered for every other industry It would exclude them from assessments. It would exclude uniquely for this industry any of the effects of tariffs on obsolescence. That doesn't apply to wine or to anybody else that have been even harder hit by tariffs. And so it is a series of special treatments for the solar industry. And look, this isn't just about large-scale solar in the San Joaquin Valley. It is about all active solar projects, including residential. And I'm absolutely sure the folks that are asking me at Home Depot every time I go if I would like to install solar at my home, they are not picking up and moving to Arizona. This industry is here to stay in California because that tax exclusion did its job. It built a strong, healthy solar industry in California, and we cannot be doing this on the backs of the counties, and particularly on the backs of the Medi-Cal recipients that the counties are struggling to serve, and they cannot afford yet another hit to their general fund budget. I urge a no vote.

Well, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues for speaking up, and I'm going to try to address some of these issues to my good friend, the senator from Merced. The reduction of farm revenue is a legitimate point, but if a farmland does convert to solar, the solar will be assessed property tax starting in 2027. So I think actually we'll end up in an increase in tax revenue for those properties, and I'll certainly follow up on that with the gentleman from Reset. Now, Bakersfield. It had quite a set of words there. I appreciate the concern. We've had discussions, but I've had the Kern County representatives in my office about two weeks ago to go over this bill, and I did ask them for their inputs. How do we make this bill right for you all? And they have gotten back with very little, and what they've gotten back with we have tried to incorporate into the bill. So we are listening to their feedback, and we will continue to work with Kern County and other counties to make sure that they feel like they've been treated fairly. And again, this is new revenue. Now, the gentleman from YOLO, a good friend we've known for years, has said that this is not a windfall. A windfall may not be the exact right word, but this is new revenue. And to say that this is going to be used to reduce Medi-Cal is, in my mind, inaccurate. And with that, I will remind you that a no vote is a vote to raise taxes. So with that, I will ask for your aye vote and yield back to the

No Cervantes Aye Troy Cortese Aye Daly Durazzo Aye Gonzalez Aye Grayson Aye Grove No Hurtado No Jones No Laird Aye Limon Aye McGuire Aye McNerney Aye Menjivar Aye Nilo No Ochoa Bok No Padilla Ferez Aye Reyes Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Tillarto. No. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. No. Humbert. Aye. Valadares. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye.

Senator McNerney moves the call.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, we've heard so many stories about the rising and unexpected fees from homeowners living in HOAs. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported a man in Walnut Creek, California, saw his HOA fees more than double since he moved in. He now pays $1,500 just in HOA fees. Where, add that with his insurance, property taxes, he pays more in all of the association fees that he does on his mortgage. Another community member, or community members in Europe, Belinda, this year alone experienced a 20% increase in their regular assessments. They were then hit with a special assessment and an emergency assessment that amounted to $60,000 in the next four years. Some residents have had to make the hard decision to sell their home, move out, being quoted saying, we're going to have to move out with my parents, and no one, I think, in this body would like to move in with their parents. There's just no way we can afford that much money, they're saying. The reality of rising HOA fees starts to shift the conversation from what a home costs on the day you purchase it to what it will actually cost to hold on to over time, especially once you enter your era of being on a fixed income. For homeowners trying to make sense of whether staying put still fits their financial situation or whether it's time to adjust plans, getting the full perspective can help bring clarity, which is why giving homeowners a vote is essential. And I'm not naive to the rising costs, but SB 1007 is looking to bring the homeowners together and give them a voice in confronting the rise together. HOA boards have legal obligations to meet their community's needs and requirements outlined in the Davis-Stirling Act. But let's be clear, back in the late 80s, this legislature did not give HOA boards unilateral authority to impose assessments on their homeowners. The authorizing statute that allows boards to levy assessments conditions this power on a cap, which is the main crux of this bill. It is about balance, allowing HOA boards to manage communities and homeowners' voices, which is why SB 1007 looks to amend currently to reduce that threshold in which boards are allowed to raise regular assessments without a vote of the homeowners from 20% to 8%. And I'd like to note, originally the bill was introduced with adjusted for inflation, which is only an increase of 2 to 3%, but we've jumped that up to 8%. HOA boards can still raise regular assessments above it if the homeowners approve it. And this bill does not touch any special or regular assessments. To be clear, I know the work on this vote isn't over. I am committed to continued conversation with those stakeholders to see how we can get this delicate cap balance right. At the end of the day, this vote is about giving homeowners a voice in how their money is spent and confronting this rising cost together without stripping their ability to govern, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in opposition of SB 1007. We cannot treat HOAs like landlords because they are not. HOAs are specifically the organization that the community of homeowners that are in a HOA community, the association is who they hire, the people that run the association, to make sure that all of the common costs that are shared amongst all of those homes, like the streets, the infrastructure, the gardening, the pool, the gates, all of those things have to be maintained. And there is a cost to maintain them, and that cost is not always found in an 8% increase per year. they do have special assessments that they use sporadically because if they didn't there would be a revolt and the HOA board would no longer be on the board. They are a little city basically and they run like one and there is no hidden costs in an HOA statement. In fact if I look at HOA statements, if you look at the financials that you get from HOAs, they are probably the easiest budget to read of all of the budgets that I have had to read over the years, and I have had to read a lot. So with that, I think we are delving into something that we are not going to fix, but if we are not careful, we can hamper the ability of HOAs to take care of the communities in a way that upholds people's property values. if they have to start shortchanging what they need to spend on gardening and what they need to spend on pool maintenance and what they need to spend on street maintenance, it will reflect in the property values of the people that live there. That's their job. And that's when I have an HOA board, that's who I hold accountable for this already. And that's why most people that are on HOA boards, and I realize that is a difficult task. And I am not here to defend HOA boards, believe me, or HOAs. But the reality of it is there are a lot of guardrails for HOAs currently. They're not there to make money. They're just there to make sure that the job gets done. And sometimes there's increased costs, especially in this day and age of runaway insurance and other things. And those costs have to be shared amongst all of the homeowners And whether it done through an assessment or it done through the yearly cost where they spread it out so it not as big a hit that is up to the HOA and the homeowners that live there not the legislature I ask for a no vote

Thank you, Madam President. I also rise in support of SB 938. This bill came through the Senate Housing Committee. It does... Sorry. Let me correct my comments. I'm speaking in support of SB 1007, and I rise in support of that bill and urge you to vote for it. This bill did go through the Senate Housing Committee, and the bill does two things. One is a transparency piece, making sure that as part of an annual budget report to members of an HOA that there's more information about anticipated expenditures expenditures versus the actual expenditures incurred by the HOA association and how much money is going to compensation of the management company. I think that's information that all HOA members should have available, and this is addressing a lack of transparency around current expenditures that are being made by associations. The second piece is an issue I did have concerns about, that other members of the committee did have concerns about, which is establishing a cap on regular assessments. originally the cap the proposed cap was it was an inflation factor the bill didn't define what the inflation factor was what we heard from representatives of associations was that insurance costs are increasing and other costs associated with maintaining HOAs and we need to make sure that we have flexibility so they can generate the revenue needed to be able to pay for those costs to ensure

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support as a co-author of SB 1007. The reason is that millions of Californians live in HOA-governed communities, and membership is not optional. It's mandatory, and HOA communities continue. they continue to represent a growing share of the new housing stock across our state and across our nation. So while California is already facing a severe housing affordability crisis, sudden HOA assessment increases can make homeownership unsustainable for seniors, for working families, and even for first-time homebuyers. homebuyers. Families budgeting for mortgages, insurance, and utilities deserve predictable uncertainty when it comes to HOA cost. This bill, and I want to clarify, this bill does not ban necessary increases. It simply requires homeowner approval for increases beyond 8%. So responsible boards that communicate clearly and they justify cost should have no problem earning resident support. This bill balances the operational needs of HOAs with the rights of people paying their bills And for these reasons I respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you Senator Grove You are recognized Thank you Madam President I rise in support of this bill I have been blessed to live rural almost all of my entire life. And my daughter recently moved into an HOA. And it's a new experience for us. She's safe and secure, but we were moving in the house, the garage was full of stuff, and she left her car outside on the curb in front of her own home that she pays a substantial amount of rent for. She got a $100 fine. She got a warning for another $100 fine because her trash cans were 11 minutes over the time allotted for your trash can to be outside on the curb. So God forbid if you're a single mom trying to get two kids off to school and you put your trash can out at 7 o'clock at night and don't put it in until 7.15 in the morning, you're going to get another $100 fine. So although I understand that HOAs have fees and you have to abide by the rules, I think that a cap to make sure that these fees do not go exorbitantly higher than they should, as my new experience with HOAs has changed my opinion drastically on these fees, I respectfully ask for an aye vote to support SB1007. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam President. I really appreciate the colleagues that stood up in support of this bill. Listen, people are looking at HOA fees. It's worse than a mortgage. At least with a mortgage, it's a fixed rate. You know exactly where you're going to pay year over year, and especially if you're on a fixed income. I recognize that 8% right now could still seem a little low for a lot of people. We're going to continue working with the opposition, but for the opposition or for other people to say it's not an actual choice if we're giving the homeowners the ability to vote on. That would essentially negate everything we do here on this body. We give the opportunity for everybody to have a voice and a vote on things, and if it passes, it passes. I'm asking for an aye vote on SB 1007 to allow homeowners to be engaged to know how much their assessment fees are going to go up so they can make that decision together, recognizing that costs are increasing. Respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you.

No, Hurtado. Grove, aye. Grove, no to aye. Hurtado. Aye, Jones. No, Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menjavar. Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Boog. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Teyarto? No. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Aye. Strickland? Stern? I don't know. Strickland? Humber? Aye. Voladeres? Wahab? Weber Pearson? Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Wiener? No.

Becker? No. Blakespeare? No. Cobaldin? No. Cervantes? Aye. Choi? Daly? Rubio? Aye. Strickland? No. Valadez? No.

Choi, Dali, Padilla. Aye. Rubio. Aye.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, this is a unique situation. SB 938, what I'm asking you to vote for is not what is in print today. And I've spoken to almost all of you regarding what my amends, my commitment to in the assembly will be. So hopefully the opposition will take this into consideration. I have committed to strike all the provisions out of my bill and instead put into the bill that current participants, ICE officers who wish to be local law enforcement can no longer apply for a waiver. A waiver exempts them from our training to be local law enforcement. So the language would read that you would have to go through our training to be hired on as local law enforcement. And that's the entirety of what I'm committing to on the assembly floor, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

I have opportunity amendments at the desk. Thank you.

Madam President members this is an opportunity amendment this gives this body an opportunity to fully fund Proposition 36 an initiative that passed all 58 counties almost 70% of the vote we've been pushing this for a long time I do give a lot of my colleagues credit a lot of my colleagues on the other side of aisle have been pushing to get this fully funded to get this fully funded is about $400 million a year. Certainly we can fund public safety, the most essential role of government, especially when we're talking about millions of dollars going to a legacy for a governor and we're spending money there. We should be able to spend money to fully fund Prop 36 that had 70% of the vote. Overwhelming Democrats, Independents, and Republicans across the state of California voted for this. So I'm giving you the opportunity to fully fund it today. Thank you.

Yes, respectfully request that the amendments be laid on the table and that I urge an aye vote.

Allen. Aye, I'm Rodergil. No, Archuleta. Aye, Araguin. Aye, Ashby. Aye, Becker. Aye, Blakespeare. Cabaldon. Aye, Caballero. Aye, Cervantes. Aye, Choi. No, Cortese. Aye, Daly. Durazo. Aye, Gonzalez. Aye, Grayson. Aye, Grove. Hurtado. Grove, no. Hurtado. Aye, Jones. No, Laird. Yes. Aye. Aye. Wiener. Aye.

Blake Spear. Daly.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of SB 938, and as the chair of the Senate Senate Committee on Public Safety, which this bill went through, I have spoken to the author around the substantive amendments that she's proposing to make to the bill. I support those amendments. I urge an aye vote on this bill. I think it helps balance the need to make sure that people that are engaged in immigration enforcement, that have proper training and go through the same training that other peace officers in California go through, I urge an aye vote on SB 938.

You are recognized. Thank you, Madam President. I rise in opposition to SB 938, even with the amendments, and I do appreciate the author making those amendments to only include what she included. However, the issue really is that, number one, our local agencies, our law enforcement agencies here in California, whether it's a state or local or county agencies, all have the ability to train and determine what kind of training is necessary to be able to create a workforce that reflects the community's needs. This is just further interference of that. We do not need this type of legislation. It sends the message that we don't even trust our local law enforcement officers to be able to recruit and train qualified candidates. And so therefore, I just ask for a no vote on SB 938.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. Rise in support. I had a number of concerns initially with this bill. Appreciate the author's commitment to taking up amends and narrowing the bill to make it operational. respectfully ask for an idea. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate

worked years after years to build a trust with their community and we want to make sure we give an extra layer of protection that the people that we're hiring on aren't those individuals that took the 30-day training to go terrorize our communities that they get the training the exact training needed to actually have relationships with their community as we depend on them for protecting us Respectfully asking for an aye vote on SB 938 Thank you Secretary please call the roll Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Dally. Durazo. Aye, Gonzales. Aye, Grayson. Aye, Grove. No, Hurtado. Aye, Jones. Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menjavar. Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Boog. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Rubio. Aye, Cierto. No, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye, Cuevas. Aye, Cuevas. Aye. Stern? Strickland? No. Umbert? Aye. Voladares? No. Wahab? Aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Stern? Aye.

Dally? Jones? No. Richardson? Aye.

Senator Stern?

I sure am. I am. I am recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Members, this bill is about saving ratepayers money before we make big new investments in either the electric or gas system. We need to make sure we're getting maximum benefit for rate payers. We found that some of the new developments that are occurring may have mixed fuel lines coming in that are actually duplicative of one another. The CEC itself has seen stranded cost potentials upwards of $25 billion over the next 15 years. If we don't handle this right, we know there has been some concern raised by some opposition amongst our friends in the utilities about some of these issues, and we've had really strong amendments out of appropriations, removing the gas decommissioning trust, removing the wasted methane rate recovery mechanism, removed a lot of the opposition based on that, and we look forward to future conversations with our friends on the utility side to try to figure out how not to overly micromanage these decisions about new gas build-outs and integrate it into the broader ratepayer process. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjavar. Aye. Nilo. No. Ochoa Pog. No. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Rubio. Aye. Cioto No Smallwood Cuevas Stern Aye Strickland No Umberg Aye Voladares No Wahab Aye Weber Pearson Aye Weiner Aye

Grayson Ideno

Caballero? No. Daly? Durazo? Richardson? Smallwood Cuevas?

Senator Becker, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam President. I'm really proud of our state for leading on privacy, And this is a bill to strengthen our California Consumer Privacy Act. Businesses today routinely augment customer records with data purchased from third parties to enhance targeting and profiling. For example, a retail company might collect basic information directly from the consumer, but then purchase detailed demographic data, purchasing history, other behavioral information from data brokers to create a rich profile used for marketing and pricing decisions. Additionally, while most businesses must provide multiple methods to submit privacy requests, online-only businesses only include an email. And then consumers get stuck in this endless loop of trying to email, say, hey, I want to delete my information. Then they have to do 10, 15 more steps, and that's not acceptable. So this bill does two things. Number one, it says you have to have a web form. You have to have another way other than just email. if you're an online-only business, to delete your information. And second, expands the right to delete to cover all personal information a business has. So not only the information they collect directly from you, which just might be very basic, your email address and something else, but if they've created a detailed dossier on you, they have to delete all of that information when you have a deletion request. I do understand some of my colleagues have requested clarification that existing exemptions in the CCPA for fraud prevention and security apply to this bill. We think that's pretty clear. The opposition, even in their own letter, concedes that presumably the existing exemptions apply, but I'm certainly willing to make clarifying changes in the Assembly to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation on that matter. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Alan. Aye, Alvarado Gil. Archuleta. Aye, Aragon. Aye, Ashby. Aye, Becker. Aye, Bladespear. Aye, Cabaldon. Aye, Caballero. No, Cervantes. Caballero Cervantes Aye Choy Cortese Aye Daly Durazo Aye Gonzalez Aye Grayson Aye Grove Hurtado Aye. Jones. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjabar. Aye.

Thank you, Madam President and members. SB 1098 restricts investor-owned utilities from collecting unlimited amounts of ratepayer money through memorandum and balancing accounts that never expire. SB 1098 will strengthen oversight and accountability of these accounts by doing the following. Requiring the CPUC to only allow IOUs to create new or extend existing memorandum and balancing accounts under exceptional circumstances, requiring the CPUC to adopt cost-sharing mechanisms for memorandum and balancing accounts or set a lower rate of return for capital spending done through these accounts than what is authorized for forecast spending, and imposing a termination date for all new or renewed balancing and memorandum accounts. At the appropriate time, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. Arise today to present SB 937, which will restrict law enforcement's use of flashbang devices for crowd control and banned the use of flashbangs and explosive breaching charges for immigration enforcement. Though classified as less lethal, improper use of flashbangs has caused life-altering injuries to both protesters and law enforcement, including limb amputations, internal bleeding, permanent hearing loss, and more. In fact, I didn't want to have to do this bill, but in my district just last year, about a year ago, Border Patrol agents actually used explosive breaching devices to blow out the door and windows off of a home where a mother and her two small children were inside. This was their type of quote unquote immigration enforcement. In fact, she was a US citizen. Her children both were under the age of 10 years old and they were sleeping inside. They posed no threat to the officers and no threat to the public. SB 937 will protect citizens and officers alike by adding flashbang devices to the already existing restrictions on the use of tear gas and kinetic energy projectiles like rubber bullets and beanbag rounds And this does not ban law enforcement from using these devices under objectively reasonable standards or when there is an objectively reasonable situation like a threat to life or safety. I ask for your aye vote on SB 937.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for clarifying that point. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 1082, which is really a technical bill to help clarify the inter-district transfer process. Current law allows families to request inter-district transfers when another school district may better suit the needs of their student. In practice, some families can experience very lengthy delays, sometimes a couple, three months or even longer, before receiving a response from the district of residence. During this time, districts of desired attendance frequently wait to begin to review their own review until the decision is released from the district of residence. However, the impact of these delays on families can be significant, leaving them unable to make timely educational decisions and increasing the likelihood of appeals to county boards of education. SB 1082 streamlines this inter-district transfer process by creating a concurrent review which preserves a parent's appeal right. It may prevent two appeal hearings on the same case. The bill continues to be neutral on the inter request decision It just helps the process work smoothly and will help reduce administrative burden Together these changes ensure families receive timely decisions while reducing the administrative burden for school districts and county boards of education I respectfully request a support. Support. I vote.

Thank you, Madam President. 18 years on this floor, Senator Steinberg took up SB 375, which was the state's landmark contribution nationally towards integrating air quality, transportation, land use, climate change, social justice, and economic opportunity at the regional scale in California. It was an effort to try to use the mix of land use and transportation strategies at the regional scale, decided by Riverside or by the Bay Area or by Southern California, to achieve ambitious goals to contribute to our climate objectives here in California. That policy is embedded in grants and in agency reviews. It's been an important step forward for California broadly. It has not produced the level of climate emission reductions that we had hoped for. It has improved things, but not at the level we anticipated. At the same time, it has been a lot of process and a lot of money being spent to accomplish it. in the San Diego area, at San Diego area of governments, San Diego spent $40 million to do its required every four-year plan for this purpose. I used to chair the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and we would vote on one plan, and the very next day we would begin the next plan. The same thing is true also in ABAC MTC and everywhere in California. So it's the right idea. It's just too much of it being done too often. And so SB 1087 is intended to modernize SB 375, to make it right-sized to the objectives we're trying to achieve, to make it more effective at achieving deeper and more profound reduction in emissions and efficiencies at the local level, to make it cheaper and to also align it with the other major change that's happened in the last 18 years, which is the adoption of all of our housing legislation here in California, which was not accounted for when SB 374 was first adopted. So that the objective This is our effort to comprehensively modernize the statute If you look in your analysis you see it has broad support It also has lots of folks who are opposed unless amended because we are engaged in a multi stakeholder process with all of the committee chairs and staff involved from both houses in order to advance this forward. So there continue to be issues that we're working through. Most everyone agrees on the bulk of the bill, but we're also trying to grapple with the hardest questions around VMT and GHG and other issues in order to assure that we do maximize the climate reductions and the efficiency at the regional scale. So we're committed to continue to work that through. I will say BIA and Clean Air California, they're all at the table working this through. Everyone hopes that this bill will advance so that we can continue to perfect it as we go through the assembly. I would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I rise in support of the measure. I just wanted to add there's no one I trust more to grapple with these issues in the Senate from West Sacramento. While the planning process may appear to be perhaps less rigorous in that there's an extended period of time now, there won't be the sequel process surrounding the development of these scs's the hope is that these planning processes are real and they're actually moving capital and that investment is occurring with them and that they're actually at a scale and a time frame and a process that we can move money into our transportation infrastructure that so desperately needs it and so the piece i just want to highlight for members is as you hopefully vote on this legislation today there's a missing piece CARB does consider this sector critical to achieving our goals. And in fact, the revenues from our program are right now at risk of no longer being a sustainable funding source for housing and transit and transportation, as this bill anticipates. And so it will be crucial that going forward we lock in both the revenue streams that are going to be able to accommodate this kind of centralized, you know, smart regional planning that actually works, but at the same time, you know, keep ourselves in a place where we don't just plan to plan. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Madam President. I rise in support, and I'd like to just add my thanks to the author of this bill for throwing himself into this four-part multidimensional chess game of trying to figure out how to right-size and modernize regional transportation planning. It's critically important that we do long-range transportation planning, but the process has become so massive and hulking that it practically collapses under its own weight, and we really need to slim it down. So we need to do the most important things, but we don't need to spend tens of millions of dollars every year on plans like this, and this is happening across the entire state. So I strongly urge your aye vote and I want to thank you to the author from West Sacramento for jumping into this difficult topic. Thank you.

Yeah, simply to thank my colleagues and everyone so far in the process that have given the grace to this in order to be achieved. We are trying to make the process more streamlined and more efficient, both for money and for public input and everything else. But also really the goal here is to achieve the profound climate reductions that we know are possible. We know how to do them. They're not on the cutting edge of technology. They're just smart planning at the regional scale that is led by local communities and local governments in order to move that forward. and in order to assure that the state is also a good partner. And that's one other element of this proposal is that when the regions do develop these plans, the state agencies, since this is a state mandate, should also align their activities with those plans and make their capital investments accordingly. With that, thank you for the comments by my colleagues, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senate Bill 1259 by Senator Blakespeare, an act relating to refineries.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. I rise to present SB 1259. We want petroleum refineries to stay open as long as we need fuel from them. However, when it's time for refineries to close, we need to be ready. As a former estate planning attorney, I would advise my clients on planning for one's end of life. None of us like to think about dying, but we know we need a plan for that, to distribute our assets and leave our affairs in order, and that's why we create wills. Wills are plans for knowing what will happen. Right now, we don't have the will equivalent for refineries, and we don't want to leave taxpayers on the hook for refineries. When a refinery closes, communities are left in the dark, and the state and host communities lack the information needed to plan for land use, environmental remediation, and economic transition. Benicia City Councilmember Carrie Birdseye told my committee that the planning and coordination Benicia is doing after the Valero refinery announced its closure is extremely difficult in the absence of information about the site. As Councilmember Birdseye said, communities like Richmond, Rodeo, Carson, Martinez, Torrance, and Wilmington can start engaging in long-term planning if this bill passes. SB-1259 does not increase the cost of doing business for refinery operators and owners. These companies already have this information, or they will need it eventually. This creates more transparency sooner and is an important part of California's holistic fossil fuel transition strategy. Last year, SB-237 required the CEC to come back with a report on what California needs to do for this mid That report came out a few days ago and one of its main findings was that we need clarity over what does happen when refineries close This bill follows through on that finding. Over the coming decades, we are transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward more climate-friendly renewable energy. We don't want the taxpayers to be left holding the bag. We need thoughtful planning. Without SB 1259, we will keep facing crisis after crisis while we are delaying our clean energy future. And an amendment I'd like to mention that I'm going to be taking on this bill at the request of some of the members is that these reports would be due every three years instead of every year. Just want to make sure that's on the record. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to SB 1259, and it sends the wrong message in a time when California is facing refinery closures, fuel supply concerns, and rising energy costs. California has already lost significant in-state refining capacity, and the remaining refineries continue to supply the gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that Californians rely on every single day, except for what we import at roughly 75%. Valera was the last refinery that we lost. There was a deal on the table last year, but it was killed in this chamber, which caused a significant reduction in the refinery capacity that we have here in the state of California. It affected the city of Benicia. I believe it's about 20 to 22 percent of their city budget, but my colleague from YOLO would have more experience in that. There were thousands of jobs lost. Businesses that relied on the economic vitality of Valero will soon be trying to figure out a survival plan. And that's just the local community. There's a large-scale impact on the state's fuel cost, gasoline cost, jet fuel cost, and preparing jet fuel for the Western fleet that protects the Western United States. SB 1259 requires refineries to publicly disclose speculative future closure liabilities and assessment retirement obligations, even if no closure decision has been made by the board. We learned very critically that when a board like Valero or any other refinery makes a decision to close the refinery, it's very difficult to bring them back from the break of failed policies in this state. But to force a refinery to say, ah, 10 years from now, and then a piece of legislation comes out of this building that makes it insurmountable or impossible to survive to doing business in this state and they have to close sooner is not right to penalize them because they made a decision based on information available at the time and the ability to stay in business at the time. And the opposite would be the same. If they said 10 years and things changed and we were a little bit more friendly to our fuel producers that benefit our constituents and they decided to stay longer, then what? Does the report change? It's kind of like Diablo, right? It keeps getting extended a couple of years, a couple of years, a couple of years. How do you retain employees knowing that their job is not going to be there if you put a deadline on a closure? California already has extensive environmental remediation and cleanup for financial assurance laws in place. Those obligations do not disappear just because the refinery closes. The comment or the concern that one of the city council members that Benicia has that the author referenced is that there is already a remediation plan. They are required to have a remediation plan But the bottom line is that I don see Valero doing anything with that property It theirs They own it I don think they going to sell it I don think they going to turn it into public housing It their property They a Fortune what five or a Fortune 20 company. They can hold on to that property for decades and not have a problem whatsoever. So because of that, I question the actual environmental protection gap that this bill is intended to solve. Policies like this have brought California to the brink of an energy crisis. We all are well aware that seven refineries, even those in the state's demand for gasoline, remains mostly unchanged, which means that we import more of our gasoline supply because of the refineries that we have lost. California's supply chain stretches from here to the other side of the world. and I know there are people on this floor that would say it's because of what happened in Iran. The fuel cost for the state of California was roughly, on a national average, not in California, was roughly $3.10 before the Iran conflict started and it protected us from a hostile nation that would really cause catastrophic loss for all of us. It is now $4.50. Before the Iran war, California's fuel was at $4.75. So we were already 25 cents above the national average, and now we're up to $8 or $9 a gallon. It's because we have exported our carbon guilt, and we have exported our reliance on foreign fuels, and we have a problem with now having enough fuel. It's not affecting the rest of the nation, only us. South Korea is one of California's top gasoline suppliers, but the country recently announced it's going to slow their refined fuel exports to protect their own energy reserves so we can check that box and know that we are not going to get their supplies of fuel that we need, which caused our cost of fuel to go up. And some of the side things that happen when we pass legislation like this is like, I never even thought that I'd be hearing from retail gas stations that say, oh, my God, it's a penalty if we don't put the right price up on the sticker price at the gas pump. But if it goes over $10, we can't do it because we only have a place for three digits. and they'd have to redo all their signs. That almost seems, I don't want to say silly, but the bottom line is that there are negative impacts to every piece of legislation that comes out of this building. Shipments on refined products heading to California have dropped from 100,000 barrels a day in April to 35,000 barrels a day in May. Colleagues, where are we going to get that fuel? Fuel is scarce. If you look at some of these reports that are coming out of national labs, like Lawrence Livermore and Berkeley and Michael Mache and others, there is a low supply of fuel left in this state, and there is no way to replace it. India has raised export duties on finished fuel products, resulting in significant fewer ships heading to California. Additionally, India's refiners have shared exports of acolytes and clean-burning gasoline additive to California specifically requires in our unique fuel blend. SB 1279 continues the same policies that have put California in this drastic situation, almost catastrophic situation, and these policies have got to stop. The bill creates additional uncertainty, litigation exposure, financial risk at a time when we should be focused on stabilizing California's fuel supply to avoid other disruptions for our constituents and higher fuel costs. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you Madam President I too rise in strong opposition to SB 1259 And I want to start with a very simple question that I truly believe that every California deserves an answer to It is rhetorical. But when was the last time that you filled up your tank and didn't wince? My constituents know that feeling. They feel it every single week and in my district often multiple times a week. Families in my district are making impossible choices right now. Gas or groceries. They're having to choose between a full tank or a full fridge. And what does this legislature do in response? We're considering a bill that asks the last remaining refineries in this state to start planning their own funerals. Now, I want to put this into perspective a little bit. In the 1980s, California had roughly 50, more than 50 refineries producing gasoline. Today, we have seven. Seven refineries that are helping to fuel the fifth largest economy in the world. And instead of asking ourselves, how do we keep those seven refineries still operating in this state and reliably while we attempt this so-called transition? That is not a transition. This bill is asking them to begin publicly planning for the end. And that's backwards. And let me be clear here, though. refinery sites absolutely must be cleaned up responsibly. Communities deserve clean soil, clean groundwater, and taxpayers should never be left holding the bag. But that's not the question before us. The question is whether or not this bill creates accountability or whether it creates even more instability in an already fragile fuel market. Supporters will say that this is about transparency, but transparency without balance becomes a weapon. This bill requires operating refineries to publicly disclose speculative future closure liabilities, funding assumptions, methodology timelines, and annual updates, even when no closure decision has been made. Now, that does not simply inform the public. It creates litigation risk, market risk, competitive risk, and it sends a loud and unmistakable message, California is not interested in your future. Start planning your exit. And members, markets listen to what we do here. When investment leaves California, capacity shrinks. When capacity shrinks, guess what happens? Prices rise. And when prices rise, the people hurt first are not the wealthy. They're the people from my district. It's the mom choosing between gas and groceries. It's the seniors living on fixed incomes. It's a farm worker driving long distances to work. It's a small business trying to absorb every delivery cost, every surcharge. The families in California are already drowning under the cost of housing, of insurance, of electricity, of food. And supporters are trying to say that this is about planning for a transition, but a transition without reliability isn't a plan. It's a gamble. California still relies on liquid fuels today. Our truckers, our farmers, construction workers, school buses, first responders, supply chains, they all still depend on this infrastructure every single day. And we cannot pretend that demand disappears because Sacramento passes another bill. And if the goal is truly financial assurance and cleanup accountability, then let's have a targeted conversation. But this bill goes much further than that. It treats operating refineries like future shutdown sites and layers on public process that can easily become pressure campaigns against the very facilities that we still rely on, that we rely on for everything. So respectfully, while this bill is framed as an environmental accountability, the real-world consequence is more uncertainty, less investment, tighter supply, and ultimately, higher prices for every Californian. Yes, we need cleanup. Yes, we need accountability. Yes, taxpayers should be protected. But we also need affordability. We need reliability. And we need energy policy grounded in reality, not symbolism. SB 1259 does not strike this balance. For those reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I'm, I believe, a proud co-author of the bill as well. and I just want to make sure we are talking about the right bill. It's been mentioned in committee as well. This is a bill that basically asks and requires refiners to report information concerning decommissioning and site remediation for refineries to the State Water Resources Control Board. It's a report. What we've known is that we have seen refiners leave the state of California, many of which I represent and are around and neighboring my community in Senate District 33, in places like Carson and Wilmington and West Long Beach. And what we've seen is zero plan. Zero plan for local cities on what transition would look like in terms of their general fund revenues. Zero plan for the workers. Where are they going to go to be re-skilled and retrained? zero plan for the community that on top of the pollution burden are dealing now with lack of an economic diversification because they haven't been able to plan for that there is no report required of these reform refiner to do that and on top of it all stranded assets in the millions of dollars towards cities and of course the the state of California how are we going to pay for these stranded assets are we going to ask taxpayers to foot the bill again when we We have no plan. This asks for a report. It's pretty fair. I think the refiners should absolutely do their part in ensuring that this report is public and that people know where to go next after a refinery if they feel like they should close. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We are asking oil companies to plan their funeral before we murder them. And that's what we've been doing to them for the last few years, and that's why our prices are where they're at these days. the process for shutting down a refinery has to go through nine different agencies in order for them to plan and shut down a refinery this is an additional process that does not need to happen it's already happening and and therefore it's it's kind of redundant to have them doing this again and again and then opening up various parts of it to lawsuits for them not doing it right or not doing it on time or whatever it is. The previous speakers have talked about we're supposed to be reducing costs. We are not reducing costs. We are increasing costs. And what we should be really focused on is making sure that we retain what we have now so that we don't run out of supply before we run out of demand because that's ultimately going to be a game changer as far as economics in California. So for those reasons, I ask you to vote no on this bill and send it to an early grave. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Try to lift the mood a bit. Look, my good friend from Marietta well knows that, and I really do appreciate the opposition here and the concern over the stability of California's fuel system. That's a real question. My friend from Bakersfield, Santa Clarita, we've actually done hard and important work in this house on stabilizing California's energy system, as reliant as it is on wars in the Middle East and on takeovers in South America, which is inherently a vulnerable system and one we should all be united to have more domestic energy fueling our daily commute and not rely on imports from Iran and Iraq and Ecuador and Venezuela. I think we're finding some unity around that. I get the rhetoric around this legislation. I think when you look at the substance of it, it's not even an insurance policy. It's just an estimate of what the coverage could just be or what you'd be missing from the private sector. I think that's just the eyes wide open approach we want to have. We actually want to have the right carrots to keep our industrial base thriving and healthy in this state, but we have to be very careful when we sort of just go into a trust exercise dealing with, say, a private equity company from another country, owns a critical infrastructure, and they can just make a private decision and leave. And so we just, to be a credible partner with this sector that is inherently a sort of unregulated, deregulated market, I just think we need tools to know what our taxpayer exposure is. That's really what this bill is. I get the rhetoric, but I think we should put that aside and just look at the substance. we should go eyes wide open into this brave new world, and I think that means doing more to enhance energy security while knowing the stakes of when people decide to play games with us to threaten to pack up and leave when they actually don need to When we say put our end of the deal on the table and said here a million incentive program for you from Cap and Invest to go invest in making your refineries more efficient. So if you come to the table, we'll meet you there and give you those allowances. But if you bail on us and try to take our money and run away, we want to know what you owe us. That's what I think this gets to. I'll be supporting it. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I don't see in the plan how we're going to deal with workers who can't afford to pay the gasoline. I don't see the questions being asked on what it's going to be like to pay higher gas prices. Yet, this has an immediate and a direct impact on those workers who will lose their jobs directly from having worked in the refinery. But it's about working people who have to pay way higher gas prices. It's not a joke. We can call it whatever we want, but it's not a joke. It's not a joke to be afraid of how you're going to pay the bills. And if we're going to be serious about all the environmental challenges and climate challenges that we face, you can't leave the workers out of that equation. And the workers are being left out of this equation. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues. and I recognize that there is a lot to be worried about when we are thinking about the affordability for people in the state of California. But what's most important when we're thinking about that is that we recognize that we need to plan ahead instead of just ignoring it. And so the idea that we are just going to proceed and not know information that is so critical for the state and for communities to be able to plan ahead, that doesn't make sense. I think there's an alarmism and hysteria that can set in, and then we're not looking at the reality that there are similar industries, all similar industries have reporting obligations. And I may have permission to just read three sentences that talks about these other industries from the CEC report.

This is from page 53. This talks about the other similar industries. So forward-looking policy considerations for decommissioning and cleanup are common in some sectors. Several critical energy systems have subject-specific remediation planning. Coal mining, oil and gas extraction, nuclear, and in some states, solar and wind, have various degrees of requirements for establishing remediation plans and upfront financial commitments. If refineries in California are not subject to proactive, specific, and consistent requirements, it could leave public agencies attempting to ensure full and timely remediation for those sites on a case-by-case basis and challenge the host community's ability to envision and implement their post-closure future. So that's a lot of words to say that we're better off when we plan ahead. And this bill is simply about some information that would come from refineries. Of the seven remaining refineries in California, six are over a hundred years old. So they are not used to the types of reporting that other industries face And this bill is a very basic way to do that And as I mentioned in my beginning the reports would only be due every three years So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senate Bill 1093 by Senator Allen, an act relating to housing.

Thank you, Madam President. Mobile homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country. They provide important homeownership opportunities for many of our fellow Californians. This bill is directly informed by the experience of many in Los Angeles, but also the struggles we've heard from mobile home residents face following the Tubbs Fire, Camp Fire, and more. The 2018 Camp Fire resulted in the destruction of over 30 mobile home parks in Paradise, a vast majority of which have not been rebuilt. over 700 rent stabilized units were destroyed in the recent Palisades fire approximately half of which were in two mobile home parks there were some impacted in Eaton. So this bill provides residents that have been displaced by disaster with guarantees of transparent communication the opportunity to salvage personal items the assurance that the ability to return and rebuild their

Thank you, Madam President. Afternoon colleagues. I rise today to present SB 1203, the Stand for Security Act and this bill is preparing California's frontline security workforce for the realities of the world they now face every single day today more than 330,000 licensed security officers protect our apartment buildings our hospitals our transit systems retail centers schools shelters office towers entertainment venues that is nearly four times the number of sworn police officers in California and increasingly these workers are not simply protecting property they are the first to respond they're the first to encounter the mental health crises the first to encounter substance abuse disorder episodes the first to encounter homelessness rated instability trauma violence and unpredictable public confrontations they are expected to de-escalate to assess risk and to protect the public often before law enforcement arrives and in some neighborhoods we know law enforcement may not arrive and it's the security guards who are there to protect as the nation's security officers are increasingly being assaulted injured and killed daily the question is what is it that we can do to strengthen this workforce and better protect the public. According to federal workforce fatality data, the industry reporting that security guards face workplace violence rates significantly higher than many other occupations because they routinely interact with the unstable or hostile individual, often alone, often unarmed, and often without the training infrastructure that we provide to every other public safety professional. And yet under current law, they receive only eight hours of initial training. Within 32 hours thereafter, they have six months to gain training on every aspect of their job. Often this is done virtually. And many times the training is done while they're on their posts. So they are watching videos and guarding infrastructure at the same time this is a billion industry yet the average worker earns only a year placing many at or near the poverty-level conditions here in California. And we are asking workers earning poverty-level wages to manage some of the most volatile public situations in this state, and we are not giving them the tools that they need to do it safely. I've spent my time before coming to the legislature organizing security officers, part of building the security officers union. It took us seven years to raise standards in that industry, and this was during 9-11 when many of the individuals who stand guarding our high-rise buildings or being asked to do temporary morgues and mass evacuations, and they had very little training, and most of them were making sub-minimum wage. We helped to raise the standards in that industry to ensure that those workers have voice on the job, and we've been working with contractors to ensure that we are raising the floor for this workforce, which is largely young black men and brown men. And I want to say, when I started in this sector, it's not a coincidence that this is an industry of black and brown men. And in fact, when I was organizing, one of the early contractors in a conversation said that part of the strategy is that people are scared of black men. And so we need them to be guarding our buildings and our high rises. but we don't necessarily need them to have a union and have voice at work and that is why i am so passionate about this sector because this is a sector that has been forgotten and increasingly is faced with some of the most dangerous work that any of us have to experience we all get to train we all get to do training live and in person and go through scenarios and role plays but then we have these security officers who we want to go help walk us to our car when we see a homeless person having an episode in the parking lot to make sure that we get into our car safely, yet those workers do not have the adequate training to do so. And so what is happening? What we're seeing on social media, well, we see a security guard just cold cocking, punch a black homeless woman who's in an episode in the face trying to deal with her episode. Or I got to meet a security officer who was told by their supervisor to go deal with a shoplifter who was stealing from the store. When the officer, the security officer, went to engage this individual, they were stabbed and had to be rushed to the emergency room. And in the end, they were fired because then the supervisor said that they didn't do it right, even though the individual had no training. And in the end, that worker was terminated. So this is a situation where we have to, in the state of California, particularly as we are going to invite, at least in my district, which will be the home of the Olympics Coliseum, South LA we're going to have 15 million visitors that are coming into our communities at a time where this workforce is already facing a serious crisis of unsafe conditions and working conditions And so this bill members SB 1203 it can stop every single tragedy We know no bill can do that. But what this bill does is to better prepare the workers for the situations we already know they're facing. and this is a bill that came from the workers not from the industry but from the workers and de-escalation training matters because the goal is not simply to control the goal is safety safety for the security guards safety for the individual who's in crisis and safety for the public who's just trying to shop or just trying to get into an office building or just trying to walk on the sidewalk when workers know how to slow down a conflict identify mental health distress connect people to appropriate responses everybody wins so we're at this crossroads and I want to thank all of my colleagues who helped with this bill along the way because it seemed like a simple bill but it wasn't we had a lot of back and forth about what kind of training about when the training should happen about who should be included and should churches not be included? And we went through a whole series of amendments on this bill, and we will continue to do that even once we get it off the floor today because this is important and it matters. It matters because it's about safety. It matters because we're about to welcome the world and we're going to need this security workforce. By the way, one of the things that the federal administration has done is to make sure that they invest a billion dollars into security for the Olympics. And the state of California is putting hundreds of millions of dollars into security for the Olympics. So there is going to be an incredible amount of resource available to security contractors to make sure that they hire and make sure that folks are ready and trained so that there won't be an incident that goes viral during the Olympics. and that we can feel confident that we did the right decision today by making sure that workers are prepared. If security companies are receiving public investments connected to major international events, then California has a responsibility to ensure that the workforce investments include training, professionalism, and public safety standards. SB 1203 says if we're going to build the largest security deployment in California's history, then let us also build the best trained workforce in the nation. This bill creates a legacy for the Olympic Games. As a result of the money that is going to come down and as a result of this bill, we're going to have one of the best trained security workforces in the world. And so this vote today is about making sure that we use those dollars to do all that we can to make that legacy real. And we know that long after the Olympics are over, California will still need to have a highly skilled and trained and capable workforce protecting our communities. I want to just say again, members, that SB 1203 says that we can choose preparation over chaos. we want to make sure that these are guidelines that give our contractors the ability to hire when they need to hire this bill does not create new barriers to obtaining a guard card And we know the additional dollars that are gonna be flooding into California for security is gonna create and open up a tremendous amount of job opportunity, and I want black and brown young men and women to get that opportunity. So we're not gonna let 1203 is not going to be a barrier to that. This bill does not prevent companies from filling positions. This is an on-the-job training designed to improve workforce readiness after the hiring has happened. California already has a large and growing pool, and we know why, because we're fighting for green manufacturing. There's just not a lot of good jobs out there, and so we want this to be a good job, and we especially demand that for the Olympics that we build a world-class workforce. So the question is not whether workers are available. The question is whether we are serious about preparing them, and this is what this bill does. It ensures that we are investing in upskilling black and brown workers. It makes sure that we are taking practical steps to review wages and working conditions. It ensures that employers are accountable through stronger reporting and enforcement, and it confronts implicit bias and racial profiling in the field to ensure that all workers have access to real training on the job like every worker deserves. And in response to the concerns raised by stakeholders and members, we have amended this bill to make sure that we are placing the de-escalation training within the existing security frameworks. And I want to recognize my good colleague, Senator Laura Richardson, for her work in making sure that we have a foundation of training for security officers because her bill established a primary 32-hour training that can be done hybrid, virtually, or in person, and we don't touch that. What we're saying is that de-escalation training that needs to be done by a qualified entity, of which we have many in the state of California to work with BSIS to ensure that this training creates the scenarios that officers will have hands-on in-person training to understand how to deal with and address on the job. This approach builds directly on that framework that Senator Richardson established in SB 652 which standardized the power to arrest and the use of force training across the industry this bill simply adds one new component and I want to be clear I want to keep saying this this is an eight-hour professional de-escalation training so guards are better prepared for the realities that they face in the field every day employers will retain the flexibility over their existing training systems so that workers gain these critical tools to respond safely and this will also help in their liability to have a trained workforce that understands how to deal with these instances. The bill before you reflects my genuine commitment to keep getting this right. As I say, I am looking forward to continuing to work with stakeholders and members on this. I want to also say that we want to be clear that we're about aligning the standards, making sure the training is stronger, making sure the standards are clearer, and creating a workable path forward. and if we do this together, we're going to ensure a safer public, a safer workforce and a safer California as the comes to our steps, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I stand in support of our frontline workers as security guards to make sure that they have the skills, to make sure that they have the proper wages, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam President. I also stand for workers. I also stand for Californians, and I also stand for what they protect. For those of you who don't know, I was married to a police officer. I know what public safety is all about. I know what it's about when you send them off each day and you hope they come home like they left. I know what it's like to be in a community when I was on the city council where two police officers were ambushed and one was killed and one was never to be able to work again. I understand public safety all too well. And so when we talk about public safety, I think it's important with all of the bills that we do that we make sure that we're providing all the information as accurately as possible. So what is SB 1203 about? Let's talk about SB 1203. There's a bureau that is responsible to license security officers. That bureau currently licensed over 300,000 officers. And I think it's really not fair to the bureau to say that there's chaos, there's confusion. actually the bureau and security officers are required to have training now. And to allude that that training is not effective in covering areas, we can all continue to work with law enforcement to make training better. And I agree. But I think it's important for the record to say what they are being trained on. They are being trained on the power to arrest and appropriate use of force. The power to arrest includes the following subject matter. Responsibilities and ethics in citizen's arrests. Relationship between security guard and peace officer in making an arrest. Limitations on security guard power to arrest. Restrictions on search and seizures. and civil liabilities, including personal liability and employer liability, trespass laws, ethics and communications, emergency situation response, including response to medical emergencies and security officer training. They're also trained on appropriate use of force, which looks at explicit bias and cultural competencies, high-risk situations and calls for service, shoot or don't shoot situations, and real-time force option decision-making, mental health and policing, including bias and stigma and active shooter situations. So what is SB 1203 really about? Assemblymember Holden from the area of Pasadena, it was passed by this body as well AB 2229 in 2021 that increased the training requirements And in fact it said that those two classes that I just mentioned 50 of them need to be in a classroom where security officers have an opportunity to engage The Bureau, just in 2024, underwent a sunset review that's required in 2024, and they proposed increased training. There was a hearing, actually, by our majority leader in March of 2024, which was SB 1454. And in that, what the Bureau asked was an important question. Is the training rigorous enough to be effective in reducing inappropriate use of force and protecting the public from unnecessary violent incidents and involving security guards? So the group that licenses these 300,000 security guards actually does have a process. They actually do have classes, and they actually do question whether the training is sufficient. And in the case of their 2024 review, they said more training is needed. So if all of SB 1203 is about training, I think we would all agree that's probably right. But actually, the Bureau is in the review of their second upcoming sunset review, which is due July 1st of 2028. So what are the problems? I agree with training. But what wasn't mentioned is that the training currently with the law, trainers, companies, are allowed to do their training. So SB 1203 says, oh, no, you as a company, you can't provide that training now. Someone else has to do that training. So I'm going to ask all of you here, do you mean to tell me that for every agency going, even this Senate, would we say here in this Senate floor that sexual harassment training isn't sufficiently provided by our Senate training, and oh, we need to be required to bring in someone else? I don't think that's what we're prepared to say for this Senate or any other body and company. So some of the problems with 1203 are, one, that they prohibit, not think, maybe, whatever, shall, require, that training would have to be, would be required to be done by a third party. And I think we have to ask that question, are we ready to require that? Number two, they say that the requirement would be 100% in person. And I think we all have to ask that question for future industries. Are we going to require every aspect of training that have to be in person? Now, the key point, there was an Industrial Welfare Commission that was in operation up until 2004. And it has been defunct. It hasn't been active. $3 million was allocated in 2023 to restart that commission. So what we have before us ladies and gentlemen is an issue And the issue is one should security guards be properly trained Absolutely Check the box. I'm in full agreement. What I'm asking the sponsors and the author, and I am prepared today, I'm not voting yes on the bill because I don't believe, given the issues that I brought before you, are correct. So that's why I'm not voting yes on the bill. But I'm not voting no on the bill either because we do need better training. But what we do need to do with 1203, and what I hope the author will do and the sponsors will do, is that we have to work to make this right. And the final thing that I want to bring to your attention is that 1203 calls for, and I'm going to read the language for you, permission to read. Permission granted. The commission shall issue a wage order specific to the employees employed in the property services industry by June 30th, 2028. That is two weeks before the Olympics. It is six weeks before the Paralympics. And I would argue, representing SoFi, Intuit, Dignity, I think more Olympic venues, I think are in my district actually, that I believe the timing of this bill, not only are the requirements of training by a separate entity, but also the requirements of timing is ill-advised. lastly I would urge all of my colleagues to actually read the bill analysis I don't think in my time I have ever read a bill analysis more concerning of an issue so for that I am not I am going to be laying off on this bill my request of the sponsor and the author will be to I'm willing to work to make this bill right but I seriously urge my colleagues that the last thing we want to do 10 days before FIFA and 20 months before the Olympics to throw up what is our tier one and tier two of enforcement that we all desperately need. I'm committed to working with the author to making this bill better and hopefully making it right and working with the sponsors but clearly I think there are some challenges that have to be addressed. I will say that for the record, I've spoken to the author. The author and sponsors have expressed a willingness to work together, which is why I'm actually not voting no on the bill and why I'm not asking people, you, my colleagues, to vote no on the bill because we're always better if we can work together. But I do believe I had a responsibility to clearly say the challenges of the bill, and the bill challenges are more than just we need people to have training. We need the right training, the right people to review the training, for entities to be allowed to provide that training, and we certainly shouldn't be involved with dictating wage orders two weeks before the Olympics.

So here's the real world problem. California is already struggling with retail theft, with violent incidents, with homelessness-related security calls, and staffing shortages. Businesses, hospitals, apartments, shopping centers rely on private security because law enforcement is stretched thin. That's a reality. So instead of helping fill that gap, this bill is actually going to add mandates, costs, paperwork, and liability that many smaller security companies and employers simply cannot absorb. And here are a few of my major concerns. It dramatically increases mandatory training hours for security guards from 32 to as much as 42 hours, plus annual training requirements. It requires employers to pay workers for all training time and covering training costs themselves. And it increases fines on businesses up to $10,000 per violation. It requires large amounts of in-person classroom and role play training that smaller operators may not realistically be able to provide. And here's what I feel like Sacramento never seems to understand. When you make private security dramatically more expensive, businesses don't magically create more money. They hire fewer guards. They cut hours. They stop using security altogether. They automate jobs away. Or they close locations in high crime areas. We've seen that throughout San Francisco. That means fewer jobs and less safety. And, you know, for me, this is personal coming from a law enforcement family and having worked in loss prevention myself. I can tell you that trained security, it matters.

Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate all of my colleagues for their insights. And like I said earlier, my goal is to make sure that we get this bill right and get it out of this House to the Assembly where we can keep working on it. I want to say I remember when this industry did not have a union, and I remember being in a bathroom with a security worker who had to wash out her insulin syringes because she could not afford to buy new syringes. I have seen workers who have been told that they had to do an evacuation but never was trained on where the exits were, and they felt that they couldn't adequately do their jobs and that they would be blamed for it. I want to say that this industry has come a long way, but it has a long way to go. And what SB 1203 does is to ensure that we have a standard for training that matches the need. And certainly we see the need of mental health and safety. Substance abuse disorder creating havoc on all of our public and private spaces, and workers should be trained on that, and they should be trained in person, and they should be trained by people who understand those conditions and understand what is the best way to have folks be safe, both the workers and the public and the individual that's in crisis. And that's simply what SB 1203 does. You know, many California legislators have worked on this issue over the years. There will be many more after I'm long gone from this Capitol. And so I think this is not going to be the last bill, but I hope that it will be the bill that makes a difference for those workers who want to be trained, who want to do the best job possible, and want to make sure that their communities are safe. So I look forward to continuing to work on this bill. I think we have the opportunity to build a world-class security workforce through this bill, and I look forward to working with all of the stakeholders to make that possible in the other House. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Allen. Alvarado Gil. No, Archuleta. Aye. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cobaldin. Caballero. Cervantes. Choi. Cortese. Aye. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Grove. No. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nilo. No. Ochoa Bog. No. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Rubio. Cillarto? No. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Strickland? No. Umberg? Valadares? No. Wahab? Weber Pearson? Aye. Wiener? Aye.

Allen? Cabaldon? Caballero? Cervantes? Aye. Choi. Dally. Grayson. Perez. Aye. Richardson. Rubio. Aye. Stern. Aye. Humbert. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Aye.

Allen, Cabaldon, Caballero, Choi, Daly, Grayson, Richardson.

Archuleta. Cabaldon Caballero Cervantes Daly Durazo Grayson McNerney aye Richardson Rubio Smallwood Cuevas Umberg Wahab

Archuleta, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Daly, Durazo, Grayson, Richardson, Rubio, Aguero Cuevas, Humberg, Wahab.

Archuleta, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, aye. Daly, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood Cuevas, Humbert, Wahab. Smallwood Cuevas, aye.

Durazo Grayson Richardson Rubio Umber Umberguy Wahab

Thank you, Mr. President. Senators, I rise today to present SB 869, a measure that focuses on transparency, consumer awareness, and public health. Excessive added sugar consumption is linked to obesity which 29 of Californians have with 3 million Californians diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and 9 million Californians pre In addition to these conditions, excessive sugar consumption can lead to heart disease and other chronic illnesses that continue to impact millions of Californians. It not only impacts their lives, but it also ultimately impacts the cost of our health care. Sugary beverages remain one of the largest sources of added sugar in the American diet, yet many consumers do not realize how much sugar these drinks contain when ordering them at restaurants or drive-thrus. SB869 would require chain restaurants with 20 or more locations to place a clear added sugar icon next to the beverages that contain extremely high levels of added sugar, specifically beverages containing 50% or more of the recommended daily value of added sugar in a single serving. This bill would also require a brief factual statement explaining what that symbol meant and this is because the reality is that these decisions are made quickly on a menu board at a counter or on a phone app and consumers deserve information that is clear visible and easy to understand in those moments. SB 869 does not ban any products it does not restrict consumer choice. It simply provides transparent information so Californians can make decisions for themselves and their families. This bill takes a practical and balanced approach by applying only to large chain restaurants that already standardized menu offerings across locations. California has long been a leader in public health and consumer transparency and SB 869 continues that tradition with straightforward evidence-based policy. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 869.

Allen. Alvarado Gil. No, Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Choi. No. Cortese. Talley. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Hurtado. Jones. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjavar. Aye. Nilo. Ochoa Bog. Padilla. Aye. Aye. Perez. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Ciarto. No. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Strickland, Humbert, Valadares, Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Aye. Weiner? Aye.

thank you mr. president senators I rise today to present SB 898 which requires manufacturers to disclose the minimum amount of time they will need to support their connected consumer products as well as provide end of life sorry to provide a separate notice when a product is approaching and reaches its end of life millions of consumers products today are enhanced through internet connectivity thinking dishwashers, vacuums, TVs, smart watches, speakers, phones, and much more. We buy these smart products to enjoy the benefits they promise, including security updates, monitoring for bugs or performance issues, and the full functionality of their smart features. However, consumers may be unaware that their connected products could lose software support at all, and let alone win. This is information they should have at the point of sale and easily available at any point. This bill ensures that consumers know the guaranteed amount of time they can expect their product to be updated and supported. It also requires that consumers are notified when manufacturers will definitely no longer update or support a product that they own. It is also important to capture leased connected products with these protections such as internet routers, modems, and home security systems. In the limited circumstances where support ends during an active lease, companies would be responsible for replacing that product. In conclusion, SB 898 is transparency measure that promotes consumer awareness, reliable technology, and industry best practices, especially in an economy increasingly sensitive to affordability. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 898. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is a very, very tightly drawn solution to a problem that is extremely dangerous in our society. Now, the author has presented, I think, nine or ten of the thousands of products that are in probably most of our homes and throughout California. It is baby monitors. It's garage door openers. It is so many items, some of which will not function at all without connection. In this case, the connection is not just a feature. It is the product itself, and it no longer works at all, and the product that you purchase no longer performs that function. So that's problem one. you should know that you have the right to know what that period of service is going to be. And the second one I just want to emphasize is that many of these products today are last generation routers that none of us replace ever, or eight or 10 or 20 years later, we'll replace a Wi-Fi router in our home or something similar. And yes, it might still be working, but they stopped supporting it years and years and years ago. It is one of the principal security vulnerabilities in our entire Internet of Things system. And so it really, it's not just a threat to the homeowner, or sorry, to the consumer. It is a substantial security threat to the entire web of Internet-enabled devices. It's absolutely critical that consumers, as a baseline, at a minimum, have access to that information so that they can make informed choices. But this is an emerging issue that needs our attention. This bill is an important first step. Burge and I vote.

you would like to close? Yes, thank you. I'd like to thank my colleague and respectfully

Allen. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Aye, Grove. Aye, Hurtado. Aye, Jones. Laird. Aye, Limon. McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menjivar. Aye, Nilo. Ochoa Bogue. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Cioto. No Smallwood Cuevas Aye Stern Aye Strickland No Umber Valadez Umberg Valadares No Wahab Aye Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 1037 codifies the federal definition from the Affordable Care Act of unreasonable rate increases, referring to health insurance premium rate increases. The bill also requires regulators to consider specific revenue indicators when determining if a rate increase is unreasonable. SB 1037 asks regulators to consider analysis from the Office of Healthcare Affordability when determining if a rate is affordable and requires regulators to conduct enhanced rate reviews in collaboration with OCA. With the loss of federal enhanced premium credits, many covered California enrollees will experience, on average, a 97% increase in their monthly health insurance premiums. As predicted, almost 400,000 Californians canceled or terminated their California coverage. Cancellations were highest among middle-income Californians and people of color. Eight in ten Californians say health care affordability is an important priority. We can all agree that health insurance is way too expensive and that health insurance premium growth is surpassing medium household income and cost of living increases. We don't have the authority in California to deny health insurance rate increases, but we can look closely at the rate increase to determine if they are justified. Health insurance isn't affordable today for so many. The rate of growth is not sustainable, and I ask for your aye vote on SB 1037.

Allen. Alvarado Gil. Allen, aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Talley. Durazo. Aye. Aye, Gonzales. Aye, Grayson. Aye, Grove. No, Hurtado. Aye, Jones. Laird. Aye, Limon. McGuire. Aye, McClerny. Aye, Menjavar. Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Bog. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Ciaro. No, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. No. Humbert. Valadares. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. SB 1105, the Protect California Rights Act, will ensure that our law enforcement agencies are not helping the federal government single out individuals based on their speech or their color of their skin. As too many of our constituents have experience firsthand, the Trump administration is using every level of government to attack our freedoms and silence those who are speaking up Under Trump orders the FBI DHS DOJ and IRS are actively going after Californians for speaking out against the horrors we have seen in our communities and our streets Trump's foot soldiers are taking DNA swaps from protesters without warrants, demanding that tech companies give up information on anyone calling out ICE abuses, and looking to revoke the tax statuses of nonprofits for the crime of keeping their communities safe. And Trump is demanding that California police help him. For example, through NSPM 7, and for those that are not familiar, NSPM 7 is National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 that was signed into law by President Trump on September 25th of last year. The Trump administration has asked California law enforcement agencies to investigate people and organizations for calling out ICE abuses, expressing anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-Christian views, and disagreeing with the administration's views on family, religion, and morality. Just recently, a couple of weeks ago, we watched an SPM 7 be utilized to target rapid responders in Ventura County, rapid responders with VC defensa. We saw that a task force was created specifically to go after these folks. In one case, one rapid responder's home was raided by nine FBI agents. There was no arrests that were ultimately made. This was just an act of intimidation. Their home was completely overturned by these FBI agents, and yet there was no crime that had been committed. This is just one example of these kinds of horrific events that we're seeing across our communities. In addition to that, at the federal level, we have seen child exploitation, human trafficking, and fentanyl investigations be derailed by the Trump administration's agenda. 25% of the FBI, 80% of the ATF and entire HSI units have been diverted from their public safety assignments and dragged into Trump's harmful political agenda. This is dollars that are being moved, particularly towards these types of investments. Now we've heard since NSPM 7 was signed into law, as we saw the murder of Renee Nicole Good, as we saw the murder of Alex Preddy, that we've heard this term being used, that these Trump refers to these individuals as domestic terrorists. There's a reason why he's doing that. He's trying to paint these individuals, these rapid responders, these community members in our neighborhood doing this good work to advocate and protect their neighbors, paint them as if they are dangerous individuals to society. This is completely, utterly ridiculous. In addition to that, we also saw back in March that the federal government approved over $150 million to go towards over 140-plus new positions to begin enforcing NSPM 7 come next year. And so I just want to highlight that this is really a storm that is coming. This is really troubling events, the indicators that we're seeing here. Now, I want to make clear that my office has been working very diligently to address every major concern law enforcement groups have brought up before the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing. Law enforcement was concerned that AG review of interagency agreements would be too burdensome. To fix that, we completely struck the AG review from the bill. Law enforcement was concerned that the bill might put state and local officers in a difficult situation to determine if their federal counterparts were complying with state law. To fix that we clarify that the aim of SB 1105 is to ensure that interagency agreements clearly lay out the legal obligations for state and local officers not federal agents Law enforcement was concerned that the bill limits on federal arrest authority for state crimes would break task forces To fix that, we clarified that federal agents have state arrest authority when operating in collaboration with California agencies. And I want to highlight and thank the chair of public safety who has worked with us very diligently on this bill and on several of these amendments. Now, I recognize that there's still been some ongoing concerns that have been raised by the opposition. I've been having conversations with them. We just sat down and had a conversation today. And I want to bring up several other amendments that we are looking to take and how we are looking to further refine this bill. First and foremost, we would like to refine the focus of SB 1105 to ensure that it specifically protects constituents documenting immigration enforcement raids as rapid responders as California statute recognizes that they already have the right to do. that it protects people who are mislabeled and targeted as anti-American or as terrorist under NSPM 7, which was signed into law, as I mentioned before, by Trump last year, solely based on their speech. Second, we will make absolutely clear that this bill does not require formal written agreements for one-off, ad hoc, and emergency collaboration for emergency circumstances or major events like the Olympics, and I recognize there's also sort of sudden events that we oftentimes need these federal task forces

Thank you, Madam President. I respectfully rise in opposition to SB1105. This bill extends far beyond immigration enforcement and could impact our law enforcement partners engaging with federal law enforcement partners and other agencies on terrorism, gangs, fentanyl, human trafficking, and fugitive task force operations. The bill restricts participation whenever agencies have information for a federal partner that may engage in prohibited conduct without requiring a court for a proven violation. It also has local agencies that will be forced to make real-time legal decisions and determinations involving complex situations, an escaped criminal, a trafficker, a drug bust. Some examples that we have right here in the last couple of weeks is 341 individuals were arrested, 40 kids were rescued that were held against their will and trafficked. That required state, federal, local law enforcement individuals to participate in that operation. You have routine activities such as intelligence sharing and perimeter security, communication support, tactical coordination, and officer safety. You jeopardize just on a single allegation involving a law enforcement officer from the federal government participating in these operations that the operation would not be able to move forward. There's another case that just happened in San Diego where a human trafficking task force rescued over 100 victims alone. More than 100 traffickers were seized More than 100 traffickers were rescued or excuse me were persecuted prosecuted sorry and they seized over 2 million illegal weapons LA Impact seized over 2 pounds of methamphetamine 650 kilograms of cocaine 19 kilograms of fentanyl and secured over 700 felony arrests and convictions in the last three years alone. And SB 1105, if it was in place, would jeopardize this operation. This bill does not keep Californians safer. It allows the drug cartels and individuals that want to create harm in our state the ability to do so without any consequences. I ask that you take this bill deeply into consideration and the impacts that it has just because of the hate of the federal government. And I ask you not to jeopardize Californians' lives and vote no on SB 1105. Thank you.

Alan. Alvarado Gil. No, Archuleta. Aragon. Aye, Ashby. Aye, Becker. Blake Spear No, Capaldon No, Caballero No, Cervantes Choi No, Cortese Aye, Daly Durazo Aye, Gonzalez Aye, Grayson Grove No, Hurtado Jones No, Laird Aye, Limon McGuire Aye, McNerney Aye, Menjabar Aye, Nilo No, Ochoa Bog No, Padilla Perez Aye, Reyes Aye, Richardson Aye, Rubio Ciaro No, Smallwood Cuevas Aye, Stern Strickland No, Umber No, Valadares No. Wahab, Weber-Pearson, Weiner, aye.

Allen, Archuleta, Becker, aye. Cervantes, Daly, Grayson, aye. Aye. Hurtado? Limon? Padilla? Rubio? Aye. Stern? Wahab? Weber-Pearson? Allen, aye.

Archuleta? Cervantes, Daly, Hurtado, Limon, Padilla, Aye. Stern, Wahab, Weber-Pearson.

Marichellera, Cervantes, Daly, Hurtado, Limon, Limon, Aye. Limon, Aye. Stern, Wahab, Aye. Aye. Weber Pearson.

Archuleta, Cervantes, Daly, Hurtado, Stern, Weber-Pearson.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. no Archuleta aye Aragin aye Ashby aye Becker aye Blakespeare aye Cabaldon aye Caballero aye Cervantes Joy Cortese aye Daly Durazo aye Gonzales aye Grayson aye Grove no Hurtado aye Jones Laird aye Limon McGuire Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nilo. No. Ochoa Boog. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Richardson. Aye. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Sciarto. Smallwood Cuevas. Stern. Aye. Strickland. No. Umbert. Aye. Aye. Valladares. Wahab. Aye Weber Pearson Aye Wiener Reyes aye Weiner aye Senator Archuleta moves the call We are now at file item 38 SB 1160 Secretary please read

Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cobaldin. Aye. Caballero.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I rise today to present Senate Bill 1166. This is a simple bill. All it does is authorize the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to allow their employees access to the Public Employment Relations Board or PERB for adjudicating unfair labor practice charges. AC Transit remains one of the few transit districts in California under a separate framework, requiring labor disputes to be resolved through the courts rather than PERB. Previously, the legislature has passed legislation to allow various transit districts access to PERB, including the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Sacramento region, transit district, the Valley Transportation Authority, and to have a good colleague from Santa Cruz, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District. He carried the bill to allow that authority. So we have already taken action to extend the scope of PERB to those transit districts. All we're doing is allow AC Transit to allow the use of PERB. By moving disputes to PERB, this bill creates a fair and streamlined process for both workers and employees, awarding AC Transit employees the same just treatment that other transit districts currently enjoy. Moreover, it helps save money that should be going to transit operations by avoiding a costly legal process and ensuring that we use the existing per framework. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam President. I believe I do have opportunity amendments at the desk.

Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. I rise today to present amendments to SB 1166 that address California's outstanding unemployment insurance debt to the federal government. California currently owes more than $20 billion in federal unemployment insurance debt stemming from the COVID era. Because that debt remains unpaid, employers in California continue to face automatic increases in federal payroll taxes every year. These amendments establish a four-year agreement with the federal government to freeze additional tax increases, while California repays the debt at $5 billion per year until it is retired in full. Colleagues, California employers are already operating in one of the most expensive business climates in the nation. These continued federal payroll tax increases directly impact employers throughout our state, including small businesses, family farms, contractors, restaurants, and other job creators working to keep California's employed. My amendment is narrowly focused on the repayment of this unemployment insurance debt and on preventing additional tax burdens tied to that debt from continuing to escalate. This is a matter of fiscal responsibility and economic stability for California employers. I respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Request to lay the amendments on the table and urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam President. Distinguished colleagues, SB 1350 allows power plants to get renewable portfolio standards credits when they use green hydrogen to power turbines. Green hydrogen can be used to transition existing power infrastructure into clean energy infrastructure.

No.

I did that to get a good laugh. I'll start over. SB 1168 directs the CPUC to assess methods to ensure that data centers pay their fair share for transmission and distribution upgrades, ensure data centers pay for their share of loud load increases, and alleviates rate pressures on residential customers. Californians pay some of the highest utility rates in the country, and our rates are expected to climb even higher with the rapid development of data centers. A Harvard-MIT poll released earlier this month showed that two-thirds of respondents are worried about electrical prices rising due to data centers. SB 1168 will find ways to make sure that ratepayers are not bearing the cost of data center transmission and distribution connections or high energy usage. amendments have removed the most opposition to the bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this bill 1168 Thank you Seeing no further discussion or debate Secretary please call the roll Allen Aye Alvarado Gil No Archuleta Aye Aragon

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to present SB 1171, which would make any private entity that contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, ineligible to receive a state-funded loan or grant. Since June 6, 2025, ICE has conducted military-style immigration raids, arrests, and harassment at California work sites, homes, courthouses, and public spaces. The indiscriminate, brutal, and unconstitutional nature of ICE's immigration raids and detentions have wreaked havoc in California, and the federal government's refusal to hold them accountable has emboldened them to act without fear of consequences. While California cannot stop ICE from conducting raids in our state, we do have the ability to decide how best to spend our state dollars. As such, California has an obligation to ensure its resources are used to protect the residents of this state, and that means ensuring that ICE does not benefit from state funding, either directly or indirectly. SB 1171's message is clear. California will not subsidize or support private entities that profit from fear, family separation, and the unconstitutional actions. We have engaged with organization and business interests that have reached out, and we are working on language to ensure that the bill does not inadvertently harm individuals that are detained in ICE custody. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I have opportunity amendments at the desk. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, I'm giving all this body another opportunity to pull the plug on the high-speed fail. This is a project that has already been over $200 billion over budget and counting. This was supposed to be done in 2020. It was a train that was supposed to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles. We're barely getting started. We're already over $200 billion and counting. The reason why I say in counting is a nonpartisan legislative analyst says that number doesn't even take into account any borrowing. But members as you know when you borrow money you going to have to pay more money back And then at our recent informational hearing there was adjectives used like disaster not realistic And if you looked at our hearing you would also join me in voting for these amendments to pull the plug on the most wasteful government project in world history We're spending billions and billions of dollars, members, on this one project that's almost equivalent to our entire state budget. of better use for California is use these funds for shovel-ready projects all throughout the state of California. That would be better for the people of California than this one project. And I would remind these members, we're asking for a lot of resources, especially in Southern California, to prepare for the Olympics in 2028. It would be better to spend money on shovel-ready projects down in Southern California for economic development and for the 2028 Olympics than this one project that we all know in this body will never be built as proposed to the people of California. And let's stop this three-card money from the people of California and support this amendment and pull the plug on the high-speed fail once and for all. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam President. colleagues SB 1220 is a narrow public safety measure which addresses the growing proliferation of ghost guns and unsterialized firearms in California. One of the most troubling aspects of the rise in these ghost guns is how often these weapons are ending up in the hands of young people. For families across the Central Valley that is a harsh truth. Earlier this year in my district in the city of Farmersville, a 15-year-old was arrested after a ghost AR-15 rifle was found during an investigation. Law enforcement continues to recover increasing numbers of unserialized firearms tied to violent crime, and this bill helps close gaps in accountability while preserving existing protections under California law. Specifically, this bill ensures that individuals convicted of specific misdemeanor ghost gun offenses are subject to California's existing 10-year firearm prohibition. This approach is consistent with other firearm-related misdemeanor offenses already in statute. SB 1220 is about accountability, traceability, and protecting our communities from illegal firearms. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Senator Grove, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam President.

Seeing no further discussion or debates, Senator Hurtado, would you like to close?

Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Avril Aguil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cabaldon. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. No. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjavar. Aye. Nilo. No. Ochoa Boat. No. Padilla. Aye. Pérez. Aye. Rayas. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Ciarto. No Aye Aye Wahab Aye. Weber-Pherson? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Cabaldon? Aye. Daly? Baladares? Ayes 30, noes 8. That measure passes. We are now at file item 43, SB 1255. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1255 by Senator Reyes, an act relating to post secondary education. Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Senator Valladares, you are recognized.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Senator Ochoa Bo, you are recognized.

Thank you. Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

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

Secretary, please call the roll. Alan. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragin. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. I'm good. Thanks. Blake Spear. Becker. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Kevaldin. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Aye. Choy. Cortese. Aye. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. There's an API. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. No, Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menjavar. Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Boa. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Ciarto. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye, Stern. Aye, Strickland. No, Umbert. Aye, Valadez. No, Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Choi, Daly, Tiaro, no. That's right. Ayes 37, noes 31, noes 7. That measure passes. We are now at file item 44, SB 1295. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1295 by Senator Stern, an act relating to electricity. Senator Stern, you are recognized.

Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Turazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. I Jones, no Laird, I Limon, I McGuire, I McNerney, I Menjivar, I Nilo, no Ochoa Bog, Padilla, Perez, Aye, Reyes Aye, Richardson Aye, Rubio Aye, Ciarto Aye, Smallwood Cuevas Aye, Stern Aye, Strickland No, Umberg Aye, Valadares Wahab Aye, Weber Pearson Aye, Weiner Aye Secretary, please call the absent members Dalli Grove Aye Ochobo Aye Badia Aye Valadares Aye. Ayes 34, noes 5. That measure passes. We are now at file item 45, SB 1303. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1303 by Senator Wahab, in accordance to Healing Arts. Senator Wahab, you are recognized for your support, support bill.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. Senators, this item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objection, we will apply unanimous roll call. Ayes 39, nos 0. That measure barely passes. We are now at file item 47, SB 1342. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1342 by Senator Durazo, an act relating to criminal records. Senator Durazo, you are recognized.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. No Hurtado Jones No Laird aye Limon aye McGuire aye McNerney aye Menjivar aye Nilo No, Ochoa Bog. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Cillarto. No, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye, Stern. Aye, Strickland. No, Umberg. Paladaris. No, Wahab. Aye, Weber Pearson. Aye, Weiner. Secretary, please call the absent members. Archuleta, Daly, Hurtado, Humbert, Weiner. Weiner, aye. Ayes 27, noes 9, the measure passes. We will now move to file item 51, SB 1423. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1423 by Senator Stern in Acquity to Transportation. Senator Stern, you are recognized.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye Caballero Aye Cervantes Aye Choi No Cortese Aye Daly Durazo Aye Aye Gonzales Aye Grayson Aye Grove No Hurtado Jones Laird Aye Limon Aye aye McGuire aye McClerny aye Menjivar Nilo Ochoa Bog Padilla Ochoa Bog no Padilla aye Perez Reyes aye Richardson aye Rubio aye Cioto smallwood Cuevas aye Stern Aye. Strickland? No. No. Umbert? Aye. Valadez? Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Daly? Hurtado? Jones? No. Menjabar? Aye. Nilo? No. Ferez? Criarto? No. Valadez? No. Valadez? While there's no secretary please call the absent members Daly or tell a I bet as eyes 29 noes 9 the measure passes We will now move to file item 48, SB 1366. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1366 by Senator Rubio, and according to state government. Senator Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Aye. Blackspear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choy. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dally. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. Aye. Laird. Aye. Aye. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Cierto. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. Aye. Umbert. Aye. Valadares. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner. Aye. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 876 by Senator Padilla, in accordance to insurance. Senator Padilla, you are recognized.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you. Saying no further discussion or debate. Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Abrago. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. No. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjavar. Aye. Nilo. No. Ochoa Boak. No. Padilla Aye Perez Aye Reyes Richardson Aye Rubio Aye Ciarto No Smallwood Cuevas Aye Stern Aye. Strickland? No. Umber? Aye. Valadares? No. Wahab? Aye. Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Aragin? Aye. Dally? Did I yes? Aye. Ayes 30, nos 9. That measure passes. We are now at file item 53, SB 895. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 895 by Senator Weiner, an act relating to the California Science and Health Research Bonnet. Senator Weiner, you are recognized.

Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

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

Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cobaldin. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Aye. Dally. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. No. Hurtado. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjabar. Aye. Nilo. No. Ochoa Bog. Padilla. Aye. Aye. Rubio? Aye. Ciarto? No. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Aye. Strickland? No. Umbert? Aye. Valadares? No. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Daly? Hurtado? Ochoa Bogue? No. No. Ayes 29, Nodes 9. The measure passes. We are now at file item 54, SB 913. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 913 by Senator Becker, in accordance with energy. Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Alan. aye, Alvarado Gil, aye, Archuleta, aye, Araguin, aye, Ashby, aye, Becker, aye, Blakespeare, aye, Cobaldon, aye, Caballero, aye, Cervantes, aye, Choi, aye, Cortese, aye, Daly, Durazo, aye, Gonzales, I Grayson, I Grove, I Hurtado, I Jones, I Laird, I Limon, I McGuire, I McNerney, I Menjivar, I Nilo, I Ochoa Bog, I Padilla, I Perez, I Reyes, I Richardson, I Rubio, I Cierto, Aye. Smaller Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. Aye. Umber. Aye. Valadez. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner. Aye. Secretary, oh, 39 ayes, noes, zero. That measure passes. We are now at file item 56, SB 948. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 948 by Senator Araguin, an act relating to firearms. Senator Araguin, you are recognized.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen Aye Alvarado Gil No Archuleta Aye Aragon Aye Ashby Aye Becker I place fear I cobalt in I caballero I Chavantes I joy no Cortese Dally to Russell I Gonzales I Grayson I Grove no I Jones no Laird I limon McGuire I Aye. McInerney. Aye. Menjabar. Nilo. No. Ochoa Vogue. No. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Siyarto. No. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. No. Umber. Aye. Valadeiros. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Cortese, Daly, Limon, Menjivar. Ayes 27, Nos 9. That measure passes. We will now move to file Item 57, SB 989. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 989 by Senator Blakespear, an act relating to courts. Senator Blakespear, you are recognized on your support support.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Abraudio. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dally. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. Aye. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjabar. Aye. Nilo. Aye. Ochoa Boak. Aye. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Rubio. T.R. Toe. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. Aye. Umber. Aye. Valadares. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Wiener. Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Daly. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Rubio. Weber Pearson. Ayes 38, no 0. That measure passes. We are now at file item 59, SB 1009. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1009 by Senator Becker an act relating to juveniles Senator Becker you are recognized Good afternoon For too long California juvenile justice system has relied on locked doors and high walls as our first response to youth behavior rather than our last resort

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grove. No. Hurtado. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNerney. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nilo. No. Ochoa Boat. No. Padilla. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Cillarto. No. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Strickland. No. Umber. Baladeros. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Archuleta, aye. Cervantes, aye. Daly, Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado, Padilla, aye. Rubio, Stern, aye. Humbert. Ayes 27, noes 9, that measure passes. We are now moving to file item 61, SB 1031. Secretary, please read. Senator Bill 1031 by Senator Blakespeare, and I can't relate to solid waste. Senator Blakespeare, you are recognized.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Sphere. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Grove? No. Hurtado? Aye. Jones? No. Laird? Aye. Aye. Limon? McGuire? Aye. Aye. McClerny? Aye. Aye. Menjabar? Aye. Aye. Nilo? No. Ochoa Pog? No. Padilla? Aye. Aye. Perez? Aye. Aye. Reyes? Aye. Aye. Richardson? Aye. Aye. Rubio? Aye. Aye. Sciarto? No. No. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Aye. Strickland? No. Humbert? Aye. Valadares? No. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Daly? Grayson? Aye. Limon? Ayes 29, nos 9. That measure passes. We are now at file item 62, SB 1032. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1032 by Senator Reyes, an act relating to employment. Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Senator Grove. You are recognized.

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

And after comments from the staffing agencies, both California Staffing Agency representatives and National Staffing Agency representatives, we removed that and said that the commissioner is the one that's going to make the determination as to what the registration fee would be. For most of the others, it is between $500 and $600, and we would anticipate that it would be the same. The other is a delay in implementation. My colleague brought up a great point that if you're just starting your business and you don't really have employees, how are you going to get insurance? We have agreed, and we will be taking it in the next house, to agree to delayed implementation. So it's within 30 days of when you start your business, then you register with the state of California. In addition to that, allowing for a six-month delay period, because we know that sometimes you apply for something from our beloved state and you don't get what you're applying for. So allowing for a period of time up to six months to allow the state of California to actually get you completely registered. But I will tell you that it is my 30 years of experience. It's unfortunate that there is a billionaire who has been commented about over and over again. But there are some good staffing agencies. There are also some bad staffing agencies. I've had the privilege of knowing the good staffing agencies, but I've also had clients who were deeply hurt because they worked for staffing agencies without workers' comp insurance. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen.

I'm Roderick Gill.

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Ayes 29, nos 9. The measure passes. We are now at file item 64, SB 1089. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1089 by Senator Richardson, an act relating to health. Senator Richardson, you are recognized on your support, support bill.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, this item is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objections, ayes 39, noes 0, that measure passes. Senators, just an update and some housekeeping. We currently have 19 bills left to take up. Our plan originally and our hope still is to complete this workload by 5 or 530 today so that we have very little to take up tomorrow and we can adjourn tomorrow by noon Therefore we ask that you please limit your comments so that we are able to move through these last handful of bills in an efficient manner Please be mindful of support bills, of which there are seven remaining. Thank you. And with that, we will now move to file item 64, I'm sorry, 65, SB 1125. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1125 by Senator Menjivar, in accordance with drinking water. Senator Menjivar, you are recognized.

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

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Ayes 30, nos 9. That measure passes, and for clarification, we have 16 bills left now. We are now at file item 66, SB 1157. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1157 by Senator Archuleta, an acronym to juveniles. Senator Archuleta, you are recognized on your support, support bill.

Thank you Seeing no further discussion or debate Senators this item is eligible but we see an objection We will call the roll Secretary please call the roll Allen Aye Alvarado Gil Aye Archuleta Aye

I've all theirs I will have I will be person I winner I secretary please call the absent members come all the I Daly Gonzalez I small with us eyes 37 it knows one that measure passes we are now at file item 68 SB 1284 secretary please read Senate bill 1284 by senator small work web us and I will need to

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

Ayes 30, noes 9. That measure passes. We are now at file item 69, SB 1305. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1305 by Senator Richardson, an act relating to wildlife. Senator Richardson, you are recognized.

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

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Ayes 29, noes 9. The measure passes. We are at file item 71, SB 1414. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1414 by Senator Reyes and I'm going into elections. Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Thank you. Saying no further discussion. Senator Ochobo, you are recognized.

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

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

No. Secretary, please call the absent members.

Aye.

Dally.

Aye. Reyes, aye. Ayes 29, nos 9. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 74, SB 1021. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1021 by Senator Choi, an act relating to Fish and Wildlife. Senator Choi, you are recognized on your support bill.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senators, this is eligible for unanimous roll call, but we see objection, so we will call the roll. Secretary, please call the roll.

Aye.

Aye. Alvarado Gil, aye. Archuleta, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Daly Durazo.

Durazo, no.

No.

Aye. Grove.

Aye. Jones.

Aye. Ochoa Bog? Padilla? Ochoa Bog? Aye. Padilla? Aye. Pérez? Aye. Aye. Reyes? Aye. Aye. Richardson? Aye. Aye. Rubio? Aye. Aye. Ciarto? Aye. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Aye. Stern? Aye. Strickland? Aye. Umbert? Aye. Valadares? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weiner? No. No. Secretary, please call the absent members.

Daly? Jones? Jones, aye. Ayes 35, noes 4. That measure passes. We are now at file item 75, SB 1066. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1066 by Senator Nilo, an act relating to unclaimed property. Senator Nilo, you are recognized for your support, support bill.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senators, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objection, ayes 39, noes 0. That measure passes. We will move to file item 78, SB 1350. Secretary, please read. Senate vote 1350 by Senator McNerney and I'm going to energy. Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Ochoa Bog. Aye. Padilla. Aye. Perez.

Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Ciarto. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Valadares. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye. Ayes 39 No 0 That measure passes We will move to file Item 79 SB 1365 Secretary please read Senate Bill 1365 by Senator Allen an act relating to business Senator Allen, you are recognized.

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

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

Wahab?

Weber Pearson?

Wiener?

Secretary, please call the absent members.

Daly?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Valadares, no. Ayes 29, Nos 9. That measure passes. We are now at File Item 80, SB 1246. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1246 by Senator Cortese, an act relating to vehicles. Senator Cortese, you are recognized.

Thank you, Senator DeRazzo. You are recognized.

Thank you. Seeing no for the discussion or debate. Senator Cortese, would you like to close?

Thank you. Seeing no for the discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Cabaldon. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. No. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. Aye. Aye, Gonzales. Aye, Grayson. Aye, Grove. No, Hurtado. Aye, Jones. No, Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Menjabar. Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Boat. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Ciaro. No, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye, Stern. Strickland? No. Umberg? Aye. Volodaris? No. Wahab? Aye. Weber-Person? Aye. Wiener? No. Secretary, please call the absent members.

Daly?

Stern?

No to aye. Ayes 27, nos 9. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 86, SB 1261. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1261 by Senator Laird, an act relating to aging. Senator Laird, you are recognized for your support support bill.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senators, this is eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing no objection, ayes 39, noes 0. That measure passes. We will move to file item 88, SB 1230. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1230 by Senator Valladares and that grenade to solid waste. Senator Valladares, you are recognized for your support. Support Bill.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Senators, this is also eligible for unanimous roll call. Seeing objection, we will call roll call. Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Cobaldin. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Daly. Durazo. No. Gonzales. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Gonzales, no. Grove? Aye. Hurtado? Aye. Jones? Aye. Aye. Laird? Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Limon Aye McGuire Aye McNerney Aye Menjabar Aye Nilo Aye Ochoa Bog Aye Padilla Aye Perez Aye Reyes Richardson? Aye. Rubio? Aye. Ciarto? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Aye. Strickland? Aye. Umbert? Aye. Valadares? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members.

Ayes 36, nos 2. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 90, SB 970. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 970 by Senator Cervantes, and that relates to voting. Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

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

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Ay.

Allen. Umber. Aye. Valadares. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Weiner. Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Choi. Daly. Grove. Jones. McGuire. Aye. Nilo. Ochoa Boak. Tuyarto. Strickland. Ochoa Boat, Tioto, Strickland, Valadares, Weber Pearson. Ayes 29, noes 1. The measure passes. We will now move to file item 92, SB 1130. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1130 by Senator Reyes and equilibrating to privacy. Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Saying no for the discussion or debate, Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye, Becker. Aye, Blakespeare. Aye, Cobaldon. Aye, Caballero. Aye, Cervantes. Aye, Choi. No, Cortese. Aye, Daly. Durazo. Aye, Gonzalez. Aye, Grayson. Aye, Grove. No, Hurtado. Aye, Jones. No, Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menjabar. Aye, Nilo. No. Ochoa Bog. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Richardson. Aye. Rubio. Aye. Ciarto. No. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. No. Umber. Aye. Valadares. No. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Wiener. Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Avarado Gil? No. Daly? Achebo? Ayes. Ayes 30, Nodes 8. That measure passes. We will now move to file item 93, SB 1075. Secretary, please read. Senate Bill 1075 by Senator Reyes, an acronym to Air Resources. Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you. Please read. Secretary, please read the amendments. Amendments by Senator Strickland, set one. Senator Strickland, you may present the amendment.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. You are recognized.

Senator Ashby has moved to lay the amendments on the table. This motion is non-debatable. Senator Ashby is asking for an aye vote. Senator Strickland is asking for a no vote. Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. aye Blake Spear aye Cobaldon aye Caballero aye Cervantes aye Choi no Cortese aye Daly Durazo aye Gonzales aye Grayson aye Grove no Hurtado aye Jones no Laird aye Limon aye Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menjabar. Aye, Nilo. No, Ochoa Bogue. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Sciarto. No, Smallwood Cuevas. Stern. Aye, Strickland. No, Humbert. Aye, Valadares. No, Wahab. Aye, Weber Pearson. Aye. Aye, Wiener. Aye Secretary please call the absent members Tally Smallwood Cuevas Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Ayes 30, nos 9. The amendments have been laid on the table. We will now return to the bill in chief, which is file item 93, SB 1075. Do any members wish to discuss SB 1075? 75 senator kabald and you are recognized. Thank you madam president. I had a conversation with the author about this and the concerns by the barrier air quality management district. So I do have a if I might for a question for the author through the through the author take a question. Am I closed? She will answer. Wonderful okay and simply would ask the author in the close then to to address the four the four issues that have been raised by the barrier air quality management district with respect to the enforcement of the local air quality, emission reductions plans, the two-thirds vote requirement to modify the local committee. And I know the author is well aware of all the issues, or to let us know what your plans are for the future. I'd love to be able to support the bill. I agree with the concerns that have been raised, but my understanding from the author is that she's working to accomplish that. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senator Reyes, would you like to close?

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. No, Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. aye Blake Spear aye Cobaldon aye Caballero aye Cervantes aye Choi no Cortese aye Daly Durazo aye Gonzalez aye Grayson Grove No Hurtado Aye Jones No Laird Aye Lim Aye McGuire Aye McNerney Aye Mandavar Aye Nilo No Ochoa Boat No Padilla Aye Perez Aye Reyes Aye Richardson Aye Rubio Aye Cioto No. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Aye. Strickland? No. Umber? Aye. Aye. Valadez? No. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Dally. Grayson? Ayes 29, noes 9. That measure passes. Senators, we are doing so well. We're almost there. We are now going to move to Assembly, third reading. File item 107, AB 46. Secretary, please read. Assembly Bill 46 by Assemblymember Nguyen, an act relating to diversion. Senator Blake Spear, you are recognized. Thank you,

Senator Aragon, you are recognized.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

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

Secretary, please call the roll. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Aragin. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Cobaldin. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Talley. Durazo. Gonzalez. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Aye. Hurtado. Aye, Jones. Aye, Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menjabar. Nilo. Aye, Ochovo. Aye, Padilla. Perez aye Reyes Richardson aye Rubio aye Ciaro aye Smallwood Cuevas Stern Aye Strickland Aye Umbert. Aye. Valadares. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Wiener. Aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Daly. Durazo. Menjabar. Padilla. Maria. Reyes. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Weber Pearson. Ayes 34, noes 0. That measure passes. Senators, we will now go back and lift the call on some of the bills that were taken up right after lunch. Starting with file item 26, SB 869. Secretary, please call the absent members. Allen? Aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cortese? Aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Aye. Grove? No. Hurtado? Jones? Nilo? Ochoa Bog? Perez Aye Strickland Humbert Aye Valadares Aye is 29 No is 4 That measure passes We'll go to file item 27, SB 898. Secretary, please call the absent members. Allen. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Daly. Jones. No. No. Limon. Aye. Nilo. Umberg. Aye. Aye. Aye's 30, no's 8. That measure passes. File item 63, SB 1037. Secretary, please call the absent members. Cervantes. Aye. Daly. Jones. No. Limon. Aye. Aye. Humber? Aye. Aye. Ayes 30, noes 9. That measure passes. File item 37, SB 1124. Secretary, please call the absent members. Cervantes? Aye. Choi? Daly? Jones? Limon? Aye. Ochoabog? Cillarto Smallwood Cuevas Palo Darius Ayes 24 excuse me ayes 29 noes 4 That measure passes. We are done. If there is no other business, Pro Tem Limon, the desk is clear.