Assembly Floor

Speaker Reavis notices the absence of a quorum. The sergeant at arms will prepare the chamber and bring in the absent Members. The Clerk will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, a quorum is present. We ask our guests and visitors in the rear of the gallery and rear of the chamber and in the gallery to please stand for the prayer and the flag salute. The day's prayer will be offered by our Assembly Chaplain, Mohammad Yasir Khan.

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful, divine creator. As we gather here today, we come before you with open hearts and minds. Grant us the wisdom to navigate complexities, the empathy to understand diverse perspectives, and the humility to seek common ground.

Illuminate our paths with your light as we strive to make decisions that honor justice and promote harmony. May our words be filled with compassion, our actions guided by integrity and our unity, strengthened through mutual respect. Bless this Assembly with your presence that our endeavors may be fruitful and our outcomes beneficial to all.

In your eternal wisdom, we place our trust. Amen.

Thank you. Please join Assembly Member Pacheco as she leads us in the pledge.

Members, place your right hand over your heart. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance.

Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under high, invisible, with liberty and justice for all.

You may be seated. Reading of the previous day's journal Assembly.

Chamber of Sacramento Wednesday, June 19, 2024 the Assembly met at 07:00 a.m. the honorable tree top.

Secretary moves and Mister Flores Seconds that the reading of the previous day's journal be dispensed with. Presentations and petitions there are none. Introduction and reference of bills will be deferred reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments deemed adopted. Messages from the Governor, there are none. Messages from the Senate? There are none.

Moving to motions and resolutions, the absences for the day for medical leave, Assembly Member Mathis and Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer moving to procedural motions, Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, you are recognized for your procedural motions. Members, your attention please. You add this to the majority leader.

Good morning, Mister speaker. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 45.5 to allow Assembly Member Connlly to speak on German in memory today.

Without objection, such shall be the order.

I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 118 to allow Assembly Members Boerner, Calderon, Hoover to have a guest seated at their desk and to allow Assembly Member Brian and Wilson to have guests in the rear of the chamber today.

Without objection, such shall be the order.

I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 96 to withdraw SB 168, Committee on Budget and fiscal review from the Budget Committee and order the bill to the third reading.

With that objection, such shall be the order. Moving to guest introductions and announcements, I'd like to wish a we didn't get a chance to do it in person earlier in the week. A belated birthday. Happy birthday to Assembly Member Gibson, showing a little love for Senate Member Gibson. Assembly Member Hoover, you are recognized for your guest introduction.

Thank you Mister speaker. Members, just want to welcome my son Austin to the floor. He's 10 years old. He's figured out this Rubik's cube here a million times already. But he's just joining us today because he's very bored at home. So thanks for having me.

Thank you. Thank you Mister Hoover. Welcome Austin. Mister Lee, you are recognized for your guest introductions.

Thank you Mister speaker. Please join me in welcoming the winners of our inaugural 24th Assembly District Youth art contest and their families who are in the gallery. This year's winners are Ivana Dawal Chedah, Henny Serber, Khushvi Agarwal, Ishaan Upadi, Audrey Shen. Each of our winners have creatively illustrated the art contest themes. A home for everyone.

I look forward to having their beautiful artwork displayed in my capitol office over next year. Colleagues, please join me in welcoming these talented young artists and wishing Henny a very happy 10th birthday as well.

Thank you Mister Lee. Welcome to your guests. Assembly Member Ward, you are recognized for your guest introductions.

Thank you Mister speaker. Members, please join me in a warm welcome to this year's Equality California Comcast Fellows. This fellowship is a four week program meant to provide institutional experience to LGBTQ college students and recent graduates who are interested in learning and contributing to the California State Legislature.

The EQCA Fellows are placed in various legislative offices where they receive on the job training in an effort to educate them on the complexities of a career as legislative staff.

As the Vice Chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, I commend these young professionals for their participation in this decade long program and welcome them today seated in the gallery.

Thank you Mister Ward. Welcome to your guests. Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized for your guest introductions.

Thank you Mister speaker. As Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, I am honored to introduce the US State Department sponsored Mandela Washington Fellows who are in the rear of the chamber. Established there we go.

Established in 2014, the Mandela Washington Fellowship, the flagship program of the Young African Leaders Initiative, empowers young African leaders from throughout sub saharan Africa through academic leadership training, mentoring, networking, professional opportunities, and local community engagement. This initiative supports young Africans as they spur economic growth and prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and enhance peace and security across Africa.

For six weeks, 24 Mandela Fellows who are between the ages of 25 and 35 are participating in the leadership and public management Institute at the University of California, Davis. The cohort of fellows hosted by UC Davis are part of a group of 700 Mandela Washington Fellows hosted at the 27 educational institutions across the United States.

UC Davis is the only institution in California selected to host the Mandela Fellows. The 2024 Mandela Fellows cohort includes engineers, medical doctors, health professionals, climate scientists and researchers. Nessa Mandela said, sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that generation. Let your greatness blossom.

Members, please join me in welcoming to California some of the brightest professionals that give hope in tackling the challenges and opportunities we face globally today and into the future. We have with us Saguata Manquike, Devota Nayambo, Julian Christine Kamahanji, Natasha Asaba NaLumino Myambulo, and my apologies if I misspoke any of those names. Thank you.

Please join me.

Thank you Assembly Member Wilson welcome to your guests.

Moving to business on the daily file. Second reading. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 210 with amendments, Senate Bills 278, 900, 1103, 1184, 1043 with amendments, 1078 with amendments, 1238 with amendments, 1423 with amendments, 1432 with amendments, 1511 with amendments, 1163 with amendments, 299 with amendments, 735 with amendments, 937 with amendments, 951 with amendments, 1077 with amendments, 1361, 863, 1181 with amendments, 1404 with amendments, 1243 with amendments, 347 with amendments, 1072, 1111 with amendments, 1123 with amendments, 1193 with amendments, 1514, 1205 with amendments, 1058, 1295, 445 with amendments, 1091 with amendments, 1248 with amend with amendments, 691 with amendments, 1277 with amendments, 1440 with amendments, and Senate Bill 1063 with amendments.

All bills will be deemed read and all amendments will be deemed adopted. Members, just so you understand, we're going to be bouncing around a little bit today. We are expecting some items coming from the Senate.

So, we are going to start today with Senate third reading, file item 98, SB 159 by Senator Wiener by Mister Gabriel the Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 159 by the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, an act relating to health and making an appropriation therefore to take effect immediately. Bill related to the budget.

Mister Gabriel, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I am pleased to present SB 159, our health trailer bill. Importantly, this Bill implements rate increases associated with the MCO agreement reached with the Governor. This includes authorizing targeted rate increases to take effect on January 1, 2025, for family planning, community health workers, emergency ground transportation, air ambulances, and emergency medical doctors.

It also provides additional rate increases on January 1, 2026, including for primary care, obstetrics, clinics, private duty nurses, and non-emergency medical transportation. This bill also authorizes continuous Medi-Cal coverage for children ages zero to five starting in 2026.

SB 159 also reflects the compromise reached on SB 525 with implementation over the next six months tied to two triggers. This bill also provides $115 million per year for children's hospitals as proposed by the Governor. Colleagues, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 159.

Thank you, Mister Gabriel. Mister Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to SB 159. Makes wide-ranging changes to statute governing healthcare programs related to the 2024-25 Budget. SB 159 continues unsustainable MCO tax revenue sources.

It also eliminates a major risk medical insurance programs for individuals with preexisting conditions, and this trailer bill merely delays healthcare minimum wage issues rather than creating a long-term solution. I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mister Flora. Assembly Member Boerner, you are recognized.

Good morning, Mister Speaker and members. I rise in support of SB 159. I'd like to thank the speaker, the budget chair, the budget subcommittee chair, and budget staff for prioritizing our children and safety net programs during this difficult budget year.

There's a lot to be proud of in this budget bill, which prevents cuts to many safety net programs. I'm especially grateful that SB 159 includes critical funding for zero- to five-year-olds on Medi-Cal.

The funding ensures that children who are eligible for Medi-Cal are able to get the medical care they need without the fear that they will be no longer covered simply because of bureaucratic red tape. As a mom, it would break my heart.

And as a parent of anybody who's here on this floor, it should break our hearts to think that zero- to five-year-olds would not get the medical care they need just because of bureaucratic red tape. So, it's very, very important that we did this this year. And I really thank everybody who advocated for it.

As you know, my daughter Maya was diagnosed when she was three and a half with sensory processing disorder. She was able to get the care she needs, and because of that, she can come to this Floor and sometimes it's difficult and she has to go to the Members Lounge. But you've seen her and she's thriving.

But that's because she got that critical care in zero to five. And that's what this budget does. It prioritizes families and it prioritizes children and prioritizes the healthcare in California. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Boerner. Assembly Member Dixon, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members, today I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 159. While this measure contains several positive policies, as we've just heard, including rate increases for Medi-Cal providers, which will significantly increase access to healthcare, I must vote no.

For one, this bill simply delays the implementation of SB 525, the costly health care minimum wage increase, rather than solve the long-term budget problem. This is not sustainable fiscal planning. Specifically, what is being pushed to another year is an anticipated $4 billion wage hike for public healthcare employees.

This was the projected cost when the Governor signed the bill into law with little or no debate last September. The real cost hits an added estimated 18 billion adds an estimated $18 billion in minimum wage hikes for private hospitals, which have serious impacts to the fiscal health of our healthcare system in California.

When initially signed into law, it was even mentioned that the fiscal impact was, quote, unknown, end quote. And here we are almost a year later recognizing with this trail bill that we cannot afford to implement it right now.

Kicking the can down the road on a major wage expansion on our hospitals does not solve the looming issue of having to significantly fund wages that cannot necessarily be supported by our healthcare industry, especially our medical facilities in rural parts of the state.

An additional reason I oppose this trailer Bill is because it includes non-industry-supported fee. A non-industry supported fee that could potentially be argued is actually a tax. Specifically, the fee would burden health plans to contract with a third-party administrator to provide certain care.

According to the health plans, they already have the ability to provide these services through their existing networks. We all pay premiums to have access to healthcare. This tax will only increase them at a time when California is already facing an affordability crisis.

For these reasons, I cannot support SB 169 59 and I ask that you vote no on this measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assembly Member Dixon. Doctor Weber, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. As chair of Sub. One, I rise in support of AB 159 once again want to thank our budget staff for this monumental bill, which contains the final portions of the Sub. One agenda on health and signifies an agreement with the Senate and the Governor. We have very significant things within this bill.

Among them, as was stated, includes the increase in the provider rates. And I just want to also highlight the fact that we are increasing the provider rates for emergency medicine physicians, and this is extremely important because they, unlike other providers, cannot turn patients away.

They cannot say, I have reached my Medi-Cal limit, or I will not see or I do not take your kind of insurance. And so, these increases that will start immediately in 2025 is very significant for our emergency medicine docs who take care of us regardless of where we come from or what kind of insurance we have.

This bill also includes increases for private duty nurses who keep and care for medically fragile patients and keep them out of the hospital, lowering overall healthcare costs.

We also retained funding for our public health, which was slashed completely within the May Revision so that we will be prepared for the next viruses that continue to pop up everywhere that we go. We were very adamant about that, and we were able to retain the entire funding.

We also retained the funding for our Indian Health Clinic Program, which was very significant for a lot of people, including our Native American Caucus, understanding that these are some of the individuals that live out in very rural areas who do not have access to clinics and hospitals and yet have been disproportionately impacted by a lot of our chronic diseases and illnesses.

We've also retained the acupuncture option within the Medi-Cal option, which was also very important for our AAPI Caucus. And so I am actually very proud of the things that we have in this budget.

We do not have everything that we wanted to, but in life, we do not get everything that we want, but we will continue to push for some of the things that we do have as we recognize the tremendous effort that this legislative body was able to do and fight for and get in this bill.

And so for those reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 159. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor Weber. Assembly Member Gallagher, you are recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mister Speaker. And my colleague from Orange County, I think covered I, you know, a lot of the reasons why we can't support, you know, this trailer bill today, but just on, on the note of Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, to me, this is a big problem.

We made a promise last year, and when we said we're going to increase the MCO tax, the agreement was that we would provide for Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, which have been long needed and are a huge problem with providing direct patient care. This trailer bill only provides that for some Medi-Cal providers.

It does not provide them across the board, which was the agreement last year. And the Governor can say whatever he wants, but you make a promise, you're supposed to keep it.

And so this year, because we're now in budget deficits, by the way, we warned you, we're going to keep that money, not put the MCO tax that was passed last year towards these things, break that promise, and then increase the MCO tax once again, and still not meet the full promise of providing Medi-Cal reimbursement rates to our Medi-Cal providers who desperately need this rate increase.

So, to me, that is a huge slap in the face. It's not what we should be doing, and that's why we cannot support this budget today.

Thank you, Mister Gallagher. All debate having ceased. Mister Gabriel, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you very much. I just, I want to conclude by thanking our colleague from San Diego. And I think she's being far too modest when she says this body fought hard and this body championed, and this body led on. Really, so much of that is due to her fantastic work and her leadership.

And so much of the good things in this Bill that I think all of us are happy about on both sides of the aisle are very much a testament to her leadership and her energy. And so on behalf of myself and the Budget Committee, ask for your aye vote on SB 159.

With that, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 49, noes 10. Measure passes without objection immediate transmittal to the Senate. Moving to concurrence and Senate amendments. File item 42.

AB 375 by Assembly Member Davies. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 375 by Assembly Member Davies, an act relating to business.

Assembly Member Davies, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, AB 375 is back for concurrence. Amendments taken in the Senate were technical and just clarified who this bill applies to. Bill was on consent the entire time and has no opposition. I ask for an aye vote on AB 375.

Thank you, Assembly Member Davies. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 66, noes zero. Senate amendments are concurred in. Moving to file item 46.

AB 2474 by Assembly Member Lackey. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2474 by Assembly Member Lackey, an act relating to retirement.

Mr. Lackey, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members, for allowing me to present AB 2474. The bill's back on concurrence, and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 64, noes zero. Senate amendments are concurred in. Moving to file item 49.

Assembly Bill 3105 by Assembly Member Flora. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 3105 by Assembly Member Flora, an act relating to employment.

Mr. Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. AB 3105 is back on concurrence with Senate amendments. Respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 65, noes zero. Senate amendments are concurred in. Moving to file item 53.

AB 1955 by Assembly Member Ward. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 1955 by Assembly Member Ward and others, an act relating to pupil rights.

Assembly Member Ward, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members, today I rise on behalf of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus to present our priority bill. Assembly Bill 1955, the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today's Youth Act or SAFETY Act, which is back in Assembly on concurrence.

This comes from a growing national attack on LGBTQ people, and particularly transgender individuals, rising since 2020 with several California school districts and other states enacting policies that explicitly compel teachers to tell parents that their child identifies as transgender, policies which are known as forced outings.

Since AB 1955, just a couple of months ago, the SAFETY Act has been introduced, two additional states in our country have followed through with passing statewide forced outing policies, further amplifying the need for us to be able to protect our constituents against forced outings.

Forced outing policies harm everyone, parents, families, and school staff by unnecessarily compelling the staff to involve themselves in family matters and removing the opportunities for families to be able to build trust and have conversations on their own terms.

Although many LGBTQ youth have supportive families, some, unfortunately, continue to face rejection and are exposed to serious harm if prematurely forced to reveal their identity. Young people thrive when they have parental support, of course, and feel safe sharing their authentic selves at home.

However, the sad reality is that not all young people are able to be their authentic selves, and it can be harmful for our youth to share their full identities before they're ready.

As such, the SAFETY Act was introduced to strengthen existing protections against force outings, and I recognize that there have been some claims from a few who historically have proposed any measures that provide safeguards for members of our community and wish to see us, and our community erased from the public.

Through robust committee discussion in both the Assembly and the Senate, we have set the record correct on what this bill does and does not do. First, the SAFETY Act prohibits and invalidates any policy, rule, or administrative regulations that requires forced outings.

Secondly, this bill affirms that teachers and employees shall not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity of students and shall not be compelled to disclose such identity unless required to do so by state or federal law, such as due to the suspicion of harm.

Third, this bill protects teachers from facing retaliation for simply doing their job, teaching, and providing a safe school environment. And fourth, and importantly, the SAFETY Act provides parents, guardians, and families of LGBTQ students with critical resources in order to support them in working towards acceptance on their own terms without the interference of outside actors.

This bill does not force schools to keep secrets from parents. This bill does not put students at risk. This bill does nothing drive a wedge between families. In fact, this bill makes sure that families are centered and empowered to have these conversations on their own terms.

Overall, the SAFETY Act strengthens existing protections and supports families by one, ensuring that all students are safe, supported, and not isolated due to any part of their identity and two, ensuring families are supported so that they can have personal conversations and work towards family acceptance on their own terms.

Ultimately, AB 1955 seeks to protect our constituents and our education system from the precarious situation forced outing policies have put our constituents in. Thank you, Mister Speaker and members. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on our LGBTQ Caucus priority Bill to protect our constituents against forced outings.

Assembly Member Pellerin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker and members. I rise in support of AB 1955 the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today's Youth Act, authored by my colleague from San Diego. As a committed ally for the well-being and rights of our queer youth, I strongly support policies and practices that protect the privacy of our LGBTQ students.

Let them share their story when they are ready to and to whomever they feel safe talking to.

As a parent, nothing in this bill takes away from the important role I play in my children's lives and my ability to have crucial conversations with them, and I would only want them to share information with me if they are ready and want to confide in me.

As the daughter of a father who had opposite views from me and physically abused his children, I would never have felt safe confiding in him about something significant in my life that was contrary to his ultra-conservative views and values. I lived in fear of him, and I avoided him at all times.

For those reasons, I strongly urge you to put our children first and vote aye on AB 1955.

Thank you, Assembly Member Pellerin. Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, you are recognized.

I rise today in support of AB 1955 because our children should feel safe when they go to school. Forced outing policies undermine the trust between a teacher and students and harm the mental health of LGBTQ-plus students. These policies also lead to a rise in bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

This bill affirms that teachers and employees will not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity of the students and will not be forced to disclose a student's identity unless required to do so by state or federal law. Please join me in supporting this bill today.

We need to strengthen California's protections that ensure all, and I say all, students are safe and supported.

Thank you, Madam Majority Leader. Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members, I rise today in strong support of AB 1955, SAFETY Act, which will protect our constituents against forced outing of LGBTQ students. As most of my colleagues may know, this issue is deeply personal to me, as I am the proud mother of a transgender son.

I recall when he, in high school, was just kind of figuring out what his life looked like, how he identified. He was outed to me by a teacher, and I kept that in my back pocket. I didn't go to him and immediately say, what is this? Why is your name changed? Why are you doing this?

I let him be, and I waited till he came to me, but I was disappointed to hear it from that teacher and not yet from my son. And I thought about, like, my colleague here.

If my teacher had told my parents and what that would have looked like in my household, I don't know if I would have survived that day, because that was the level of abuse that was happening in my home.

So, I say to you, colleagues, even with the most supportive families, we must always remember that coming out is a personal decision. I don't care how old you are.

It is a personal decision, and that no one, no matter their age, should be forced to do before they are ready to and without agency for them to make that decision for themselves.

Now, make no mistake, requiring teachers to forcibly out LGBTQ students before they are ready not only harms the students themselves, but also harms safe school environments and the families who are deprived of the opportunity to build trust and have those conversations in the time and manner which they would otherwise choose.

I appreciate my colleague from San Diego and the members of the LGBTQ Caucus for championing this effort, especially as we celebrate Pride Month, a time of celebration and advocacy for LGBTQ rights, civil rights in particular.

While there are a few who wish to erase transgender individuals, I stand here today as a strong ally to reaffirm that all members of the LGBTQ-plus community will not be erased, they will not be divided, and they will not be forced back into dark, hateful closets.

Let us stand together as members of this body and say, we see you, we love you, and you are a part of our community. In the face of such baseless, hateful rhetoric and erosion of civil rights, I stand in solidarity with the LGBTQ-plus community and fight back against such attacks on our LGBTQ-plus siblings.

I'm proud to stand with my colleagues of the legislative LGBTQ Caucus to strengthen protections of LGBTQ-plus students and their families, including ones like my own, against forced outings. With that members, I thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1955.

Thank you, Assembly Member Wilson. Assembly Member Essayli, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. My button. It's on. Thank you, Mister Speaker. I think this bill is everything that's wrong with our politics today. This bill is built on a foundation of disinformation, hyperbole, and fearmongering. If the reality was, as my Democrat colleagues painted, I would agree with you, I'd be standing in support with you.

But that's not the reality. So, let's for once have an honest intellectual debate about what is happening at our schools and what's happening in this state. So, let's have a little lesson on how we got here today. This all started when the California Department of Education under Superintendent Tony Thurmond issued guidance to school districts.

The question was, may a student's gender identity be shared with parents? And the answer from the Department of Education was that no because it would violate the student's privacy interests. Okay, for the first time in history, we had someone declare that students have a right to privacy from their parents.

That's not in any law and that's not in any case law. The courts have never held that. In fact, they've held the opposite, that parents have a right to raise and guide their kids. Based on this policy, this guidance, school districts implemented what we call secrecy policies.

They told teachers, under no circumstances can you share the child's gender preferences with the parent, even if you're referring to them by a new name and gender at school. So, teachers were put in a position to lie to parents.

They refer to the child as one name, the birth name with the parent, and then a different name in class. That's what caused me to introduce Assembly Bill 1314 last year, which just said if a child requests the school to change their records to have a new gender, that that information should be shared with parents.

Not to stop the change, just to inform the parents. But this body would not even let that debate happen. This body suppressed its opposition, and it silenced me.

Mister Essayli, we are debating AB 1955. We are not debating last year's bill.

Are we debating?

We are debating AB 1955. You are out of order.

I am not out of order.

You are out of order.

All right, well, let me get to 1955. The proponents have said, by the way, I am tired of being interrupted by you. You do not interrupt them.

You are.

Hold on a second. You do.

We are going to move on to Mister Zbur. You were out of order, Mister Essayli. You are out of order. I won't have to drag you anywhere. You are out of order, Mister Essayli. We ask you to have a seat because you were out of order. You were out of order.

If you want to debate the bill where. You were not debating the bill. You were debating a previous bill. You were explaining your displeasure over something that happened that was unrelated to this bill. You are out of order. If you want to debate this bill, I will grant you that privilege.

But if you persist, we may just ask you to leave.

Mister Speaker, with all respect, the proponents have said they introduced this bill because of what school districts did in California in response to my bill.

Mister Bates, Mister Essayli, you are talking again about your bill. We are not debating your bill. Your bill is not in order. Mister Gallagher, you are asking point of order?

Mister Speaker, respect, respectfully, the member was discussing the very subject matter of the bill which deals with these notice policies, and that does relate back to previous legislation. And I agree that you're.

I understand what you're saying in terms of there was another bill, but the subject matter is very much on the same subject of this bill and this legislation.

So, I respectfully just request that the member be able to finish his debate on this subject matter, sticking to 1955, this bill, so that we can complete this debate on this floor and allow for all voices to be heard.

I will allow that if the member will stay with the bill at hand. We're not going to debate a bill that was not heard or previously presented. You may proceed with your debate on the bill on the Floor.

How much time do I have left, Mister Speaker?

Minute and 29 seconds.

I would like my time restored to when I was cut off.

Well, we were debating you, so you have a minute and 29 seconds and you're using it up rapidly.

This is all right. Well, I wasn't prepared to address the Chinese Communist Party House today.

And you're not addressing them now.

I will do.

You're out of order. You're out of order. You're disparaging the House.

I will do my best to wrap up. Okay, so we are here today because the proponents have said that school districts have passed dangerous parental notification policies such as Chino Valley's policy. My question is, how many of you have actually read Chino Valley's policy? I have it right here.

You are not debate. We are not debating Chino's policy. We're dating the bill.

You're. Mister Speaker, they are saying that schools are forcibly outing kids.

You're using the paper as a prop. That paper is out of order.

Okay, I will not use the paper.

You are recognized Assembly Member Reyes, for your point of order.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. The member is using disparaging comments regarding members of our, of our community, members of our body. And I ask that he refrain from that.

Your point of order is in order.

Your point of order. You're disparaging the opposition by saying, we want to erase trans kids. We want to put people back in closets.

And I would ask that they refrain from disparaging our motives and intents, because that's absolutely not true.

There wasn't.

They were not disparaging you. They were not disparaging your colleagues. Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized for your point of order.

Thank you. Just like to note that there was a disparaging comment made that facts that were stated by me, specifically quoted by the member, were inaccurate, and they were stated as facts by me, as lived experience.

And so we'd just like to note that, for the record, that that actually happened in my own life, as I shared it as a fact. Thank you.

Your point of order, Assembly Member Wilson, was well taken. We'll move on to Mr. Zbur now. I believed you used that up, Mr. Essayli. We're moving on to Mr. Zbur. Your point of order is not well taken. It's not debatable. You do not. Your point of order is not well taken. It is not debatable. We're moving on to Mr. Zbur. Point of order is... I have ruled. We are moving on. That is in order. That takes a second. There's a second by Mr. Gallagher. There's appealing the ruling of the Chair.

On my point of order...

On your point of order...

Yes. My point of order, Mr. Chair, is that you continually interrupt me. I am...

You are out of order now. You are now disparaging the Chair.

I am overruling... I am appealing your ruling.

You are out of order. This is not debatable.

I am appealing your ruling.

You are out of order.

I appeal your ruling. Well, do this all day.

You get two minutes. But you do not have the right to disparage the Chair. If that disparages the Chair, then you are out of order.

I am going to disparage your rule. Absolutely. You are wrong. You are wrong. We are all equal Members of this body.

The item before us is shall the decision of the Chair be sustained. The Chair is asking for an aye vote. Mr. Essayli is asking for a no vote. Ask the Clerk to open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote to sustain the decision of the Chair or to support the motion. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 50, noes 13. Decision of the Chair is sustained. Mr. Zbur, you are recognized.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm proud today to rise in support of AB 1955, a bill that would strengthen existing California protections against forced outings of LGBTQ plus students in our schools. And I want to thank our colleague from San Diego for his amazing leadership on this key LGBTQ Plus Caucus priority bill.

AB 1955 provides critical resources for parents and families of LGBTQ students to support them in working towards family acceptance on their own terms. Additionally, this bill will provide additional protections for educators who face retaliatory actions from administrators and school boards for seeking to protect students.

You know, the practice of revealing, outing is the practice of revealing that a person is LGBTQ when that person prefers to keep that information private. And I want to just tell you a little bit about my own coming out and why this bill... And why this bill... And why this bill is so important to protecting LGBTQ kids...

You re recognized, Mr. Essayli.

Yes. The Speaker's remarks are not germane to the text of the bill, so I'd ask that they be declared out of order. We're not debating his life story. We're not debating his life story.

Point of order is not well taken.

Okay. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Do you have a second for that, Mr. Essayli? So Mr. Essayli is appealing the ruling of the Chair. Mr. Essayli is appealing the ruling of the Chair. The Chair is asking that the point of order, my ruling be sustained. Mr. Essayli is asking for a no vote. So I'm asking for an aye vote. Mr. Essayli asking for a no vote. Dr. Jackson?

Is it correct that the Member Sanchez second this motion? Is it correct?

I believe she is nodding. Is that correct, Assembly Member Sanchez?

Okay, just making sure.

Thank you. So an aye vote, is it Mr. Dr. Jackson. Dr. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, please. Dr. Jackson, please.

Let's come back to order, Members. The item before us is a challenge to the ruling of the Chair. Chair is asking for an aye vote. Mr. Essayli is asking for a no vote. Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. Chair is asking for an aye vote. Mr. Essayli asking for a no vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 49, noes 11. The ruling of the Chair is sustained. Members, please take your seats or your conversations off the floor. Mr. Zbur has the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to talk about my own personal life as a, to explain why this bill is so important. I grew up in a farm community south of Albuquerque, New Mexico. A rural farm community where there was not another person that I knew who was LGBTQ. Where people in my community were shamed, were beaten, were taunted, where I would not even allow myself to think about the possibility that I was an LGBTQ person.

When people asked when I came out, it wasn't even in college. Because at that point I had not gotten through, I think, the trauma and had not worked through the issue myself to feel comfortable to share that I was an LGBTQ person with anyone. I slowly started to come out in law school. First to my sister, then to a couple group of couple groups of friends.

Then eventually a couple years later to my parents. The reason why... And I come from a loving family where my parents did more for their kids than, you know, as much as any parents that are loving do for their kids. But I was afraid to tell my parents that I was LGBTQ as I was sort of coming up because they were the most important people in my life.

And when you have a policy that requires teachers to do things that they know are not in the best interest of the kids, it causes trauma and damage that experts across the board tell us is true. So this bill is an important. An important bill.

It's a bill that allows people to have the dignity of deciding when they are ready to share some of the most private information about themselves with other people in the world. To have teachers required to basically forcibly out kids and require teachers when they know, when they can assess a family situation and they know it will harm these kids.

There's a reason why we have statistics that are out there in our community, why four out of 10 homeless youth in Los Angeles, where I live, are LGBTQ, why the dropout rates in our schools are four times higher for LGBTQ kids than everyone else.

It's because, at this time in life, kids are going through a very difficult sets of decisions, and we should not have these hard and fast rules that require teachers to do things that we know are harmful for our kids. I want to thank my colleague from San Diego for his extraordinary leadership on this issue.

I want to thank everyone who's spoken here today and for the allyship in this room. And I just want to tell you, this is something that is really, really important. It will strengthen families. It will, it puts our kids first, and it's an important bill. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur. There are others who wish to speak on this item. We are going to take a brief caucus now, and we will resume shortly. Recess under call of the Chair.

Members of the Democratic Caucus to the Members Lounge, please.

Members, I'd like to have everybody get ready to restart our business here today.

Mister Ward, for what reason do you rise? Mister Speaker, I would without objection, like to make a motion that we restore three minutes of Mister Essayli's time.

Without objection. That's granted. Mister Essayli, you are granted three minutes to discuss the merits of the bill.

Thank you Mister speaker. And thank you to my colleague from San Diego. I very much appreciate that. What I wanted to say was that the premise of the bill was the fact that school boards are going and passing policies to forcibly out kids to their parents. And I disagree that that is what's happening at the schools.

That was the point of my comments. And I reference the Chino policy because that's been the main target of I believe this bill is policies of school boards like Chino as forcibly outing. So I wanted to read the policy, 55.0.1.0, which says a principle without objection. Oh, thank you Mister speaker.

It says a principal, certified staff and or school counselors shall notify the parents or guardians within three days from the date a student is requesting to change information contained in their records. And so that's what the policy is.

It's not going out and listening to kids or suspecting a kid might be struggling with their gender identity and running to their parents. It's when the child has come to the school and said I would like to change my name, change my gender, and I want the school to recognize my new name and gender.

I do not think that it's unreasonable that the parents know that change is happening. I do think that's a significant change in that child's life and the parents should be afforded the opportunity to work through that with their child and provide any support.

We know children who struggle with gender identity are at higher risks for all kinds of mental health issues and bullying and whatnot. And I believe that nobody cares more for their kids than their own parents. Are there bad parents? Absolutely. But the overwhelming majority of parents do love and care for their kids.

If a teacher or principal has any suspicion that this kid is going to be harmed at the home or the child expresses that, first of all, they can advise the child not to change their records to avoid the notification or two, they're mandated reporters and they can call for the authorities. So I just want to be clear.

We stand with you. We do not want anyone to be bullied or hurt or erased or any of this stuff. We believe these are really big, important issues when a child is going through this. It's a very difficult and emotional time and complicated time.

And we believe that their parents should be there to guide them and help them. And we do not believe that the government, the schools have any authority to withhold information from parents at all, period. And so that's been, this policy has been challenged in court. It's been upheld.

There's been multiple court cases now that reaffirm that parents have a right to raise their kids. And these quote unquote, secrecy policies are not constitutional.

So I wish we could have this conversation about how do we balance making sure these students have the appropriate resources and protections, while at the same time making sure that parents aren't lied to by teachers.

That's the conversation I think we should be having, and I wish we could have had that earlier, but I'm glad we have it now. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I know I've spoken to my colleague from San Diego about this issue, and I look forward to more conversations.

Unfortunately, as drafted, I have to oppose this bill because it would override policies like Chino's, which I think is a very reasonable and balanced approach that that school district has decided to take. So thank you Mister speaker, for allowing me to make my remarks.

Thank you Mister, Mister Gallagher, you are recognized.

Yes, thank you Mister speaker. I wanted to rise because I think that both sides of this debate care about the children involved, care about the students in these schools. We just come about it from a different standpoint, and what we think is maybe the best approach to helping students who are dealing with gender identity or gender dysphoria.

And I think that's another thing to really point out, is oftentimes we're dealing with children in school who are dealing with gender dysphoria. They haven't decided they are transgender. They are dealing with gender identity issues and working through that.

And the studies show pretty overwhelmingly that a lot of those kids don't end up actually becoming transgender, and they actually revert back to their biological sex. And so where this really began for me is in my district in Chico. This is what happened.

And this is, I think what people need to understand is the school district in Chico. I know this was told by the Department of Education, you cannot tell the parents of, you know, if a student is asking to use different pronouns or is asking to use a different bathroom, you cannot talk to the parents.

And what I've heard from some of the folks on the other side of this debate is that they want administrators and teachers to have discretion. Well, right now, under the current policy, and I think this is a big problem. It's something we should be talking about.

They're being told at the administrative, at the school district level that they cannot tell. And that is a secrecy policy. To me, that's the very definition, a secrecy policy. It's not in statute. There is no statute on the books that says that that needs to be the case. But yet school districts are being told to do that.

And that's where a lot of these policies generated from. The parent involved in Chico was not told. She testified in front of the Committee, and I think maybe some of you guys saw that. This is a very concerned and loving mother.

And I appreciated the story that our colleague from Fairfield told, but she got to be told by the teacher. And that's all that people on this side are really asking as well. This mother didn't get. She was not told. She was left out. And I'll draw another analogy that. That I have from my own personal experience.

I have a child that has an IEP, and when we do IEPs and we're talking about special education and needs that particular students have, we do an individualized education plan, and we invite the parents in. I got to sit in on that with counselors, with school officials. I got to help be part of that process.

And we have that in statute. That is by statute, that's how that process goes. I'm not saying that's exactly the same as the situation, but there's an analogy that could be drawn is how do we actually make sure that all the people are brought into this, and especially the parents? Because parents should be involved.

And one of the concerns I've had from the beginning with this legislation is that I feel like it almost draws a default of school officials, and teachers and counselors are always safe and parents are not safe, and that's not true. And I think we would probably agree that's not true.

I think we would probably agree on both sides. That's not true. Right.

So I think we could have a better policy that actually ensures that all people are involved to help ensure that the best interests of the child are furthered and maybe not drawing into polarized positions, you know, on this is, I think we could have that kind of discussion. We could have a better policy.

But right now, the default policy, that is what it is coming out of Department of Education, and it is on Department of Education's website saying that you shall not tell parents. I think that's wrong. And so as we're debating, you know, this.

This bill today, I think we could, you know, really work on this and make it a better policy for all students in our schools. And I think that's, that's the thing that I would hope that we work on.

No matter how this goes forward today, I can't support this policy and this the way this statute is drawn today. But I think that there needs to be a continued discussion on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Gallagher, Mister Low, you are recognized.

I want to thank a colleague from San Diego for presenting this measure before us. My mother told me that she would disown me if I was gay when I was seven years old. I was born in the eighties, during the HIV and AIDS crisis. There wasn't the Internet that provided opportunities for learning experiences.

We weren't taught about what it meant to be gay in our schools, that we existed. We didn't have the resources. And I knew that if I ever told my mom that I was different, that I ought to be disowned and you simply want to be loved. And I didn't know what I was.

The thought that I could be outed at that time, knowing that my mother was uneducated, misinformed about what she saw on TV, that everyone had HIV and AIDS, that you just saw what you saw on TV. It is our obligation to protect children in every step of the way.

And understanding that so many have come far and along of acceptance is important for so many of us. But just think about that experience of being afraid, not knowing.

And while we were wearing suits to pretend that we are strong, the fact is that I am shaking and reliving this nightmare every single time in which members of the public come in for 2 hours in committee telling us we are not normal, God hates us, we are different, we are less, and yet we persevere.

And I just hope that our experiences are recognized. This is not a partisan issue. This is about human dignity.

And I just ask for all members of this institution, all that are listening, to have empathy and thinking about the experience that I shared as a seven-year-old, knowing that my mother told me that she would disown me. And if my mom is watching now, I'm sorry that I shared that. She loves me.

She has sought allyship with the parents of families of gay and lesbian children. PFLAG, an organization of parents seeking a network of solidarity of parents who have LGBT children. And now she marches with me in the pride parades. How far we've come. But colleagues, please listen to the stories. This is not unique to me.

This is a lived experience for so many. I kindly urge your empathy and your heart supporting children in this measure, Assembly Bill 1955.

Thank you, Mister Low. Assembly Member Joe Patterson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members, I rise in opposition to AB 1955. As many of you know, I don't read from notes very often, but I had to gather my thoughts as this discussion went on.

First, I'd like to acknowledge the author of this measure from San Diego and other members of the caucus for meeting with me and having a frank discussion on this measure and opportunities for both of us to express concern.

I rise not only as a person concerned about this policy, but also as a parent in a school district that has recently adopted one of these policies. And I'm confident the vast majority of people in this body have not read the actual policies.

And if you're interested, I have copies with me today of my own school board's policy. In fact, many school districts in my district have adopted similar policies with some variations. But I'm going to speak about my district.

It should surprise absolutely no one that these policies have been, at best, mischaracterized and, to be honest, just complete lies about what these policies do.

In my district, the notification to parents occurs only after the student requests a record change, a name change, a gender change, or to utilize segregated bathroom facilities that don't match the gender in which they were born. It is not an outing policy. The student is already out. They've asked the school to call them by a different name.

I've heard from some of my colleagues say that these policies require parental notification immediately if heard on the playground or in class or something like that. That is completely false. Notification does not occur even when speaking to a counselor about gender dysphoria.

It does not occur when a person is speaking with a teacher, a peer, or being inquisitive. It only occurs when there's actual change of how the student is publicly recognized at school. Finally, most of these policies don't even take effect until they're actually negotiated. The only people left out of this discussion are the parents.

The reason you are seeing these policies is because CDE is actually telling districts they must keep it a secret. The author says it is not his intent and instead is to allow a conversation and to leave discretion. But I am sorry, that is not how the California Department of Education is doing it right now.

They are actively suing my school district where my children attend. I'm sorry, friends, but this bill makes an assumption that the government and teachers, and school administrators are better off at what is better than me. It assumes that their compassion and their love is more than mine.

And to my colleagues who are members of the LGBTQ Caucus, I appreciate you. I consider many of you my friends, your great colleagues, would disagree from time to time on social issues, and that's fine. And to my friends who are lesbian, gay, queer, I want the best for you.

I want you to have a life of happiness and fulfilled. Debate on this bill is clearly emotional for many of us. So, I want to say this.

We've had talks privately as colleagues about the way we frame things on social media, et cetera, how we frame them in discussions here on this floor in ways that don't elicit harm to us as public officials.

When folks go out there and make statements that these policies are made to appease extremists or individuals who are hateful to other people, I take great deal of offense to that. I'm not hateful. You know that. I, like you, I want what is best for my family and for you and your family and all of Californians.

My own chief of staff, who serves as president of the school board of a district that has adopted this policy. She's constantly framed in a paper here, here, local paper, and constantly attacked as some kind of hateful person. Go meet her.

Report back to me, if you think she is the type of person who'd adopt a policy that is intended to cause harm. Do you believe that I'm the type of person who comes from a place of hate or harm? I don't believe you think that.

My views on this policy are consistent with everything that has been regarding parental notification. From giving my child their own right to be taken from their homes for mental health treatment to seeking medical treatment. I consistently oppose these policies. My community is ground zero for this. And I invite all of you to read the policy.

And I would like to encourage the author of the bill, if you wouldn't mind, to do something if this bill were to pass. Please write the Department of Education, put the intent of this measure is to encourage a conversation, and maybe there will be times where that conversation can occur with the parents.

We cannot allow the Department of Education to ban the conversation of parents. And because of that, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mister Patterson. Assembly Member Lee, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. You know, I think we as this body agree that all voices and lived experience should be valued, should be heard. And if you're ever feeling frustrated that you're not heard, I can guarantee you it is only a fraction of the experience the LGBTQ community feels when their reality is challenged.

The opposite of shame is pride. That's why we celebrate pride on this Floor. That's why I bring people from across the state here to celebrate with pride. And you heard from many of my other LGBTQ colleagues about their personal journeys.

And while each one was different era characterized by different boogeyman that victimized us, the modern era is characterized by this. If we really have the best interests of our kids at heart, this is the struggle that adults talking about them and who they can be and who they will be. It's the struggle they have today.

When I was growing up, I'm not as brave as my colleague from the Silicon Valley talk about my mom. My parents are very supportive, and they request that I never talk about them in public, so I will not talk about them. I'm not as brave as my colleague.

When I was growing up, going through high school, middle school, as an awkward teenager, figuring out who my friends are, figuring out who I am. You know, what adults said about people like us is that it is illegal for you to get married. That was on TV. That was on the Internet. This early Internet.

And all the ballots, right? The adults said that it is a sin. It is not. You are not allowed to get married. The basic thing and what a lot of my friends who are now out felt at the time that, okay, that's not us. We're not the stereotype that people say.

And we chose to stay within the confines of heteronormativity. We said we're anything but gay. We're heteroflexible. We're all these things, but we're at metro, whatever these things are, but we're not gay. That's not us. Right? And that's the shame that we feel.

And that was very, very hard, and it was still hard growing up to figure out who we are. And I think a lot about how painful it is today. That today, even so, when we want to be supportive, and even if the intention of our policies support LGBTQ kids, the impact can still be very, very harmful.

I still get really disheartened when I go to schools today and I ask them, what are you doing? Even in my district, right? I ask them, what are you doing to support LGBTQ kids? And some principles say, we don't have any LGBTQ kids.

And I'm like, well, that's really funny because all my friends and everyone, we came through here not too long ago, and we all turned out the way we did, too. So, something's a little off, but it is really painful. And if we truly have the best interest of kids at heart, listen to them.

If they are requesting different names, different bathrooms. When you were 12 and you had to ask an adult to do something, you know, is painfully awkward and painfully horrible, that took a lot of bravery. And, you know, with my trans friends and nonbinary friends today, we joke all the time, gleefully, that, man, you have 15 names.

How am I going to remember all these names constantly? Right? We could joke about these things because it's funny, but it's also the struggle. But that struggle when you go to someone that you don't know if they're going to receive it well or they're going to be hostile to this, that's scary.

Especially if you have children who are 10, 11, like, asking for something they know is challenging is really hard. And the policy today, and I know our colleague from San Diego, are hit at home and talk about it today, is just not forcing schools to out kids.

Not forcing them, because the kids, when they feel right and comfortable, especially with supportive parents, will have that right time to do so. But even me with supportive parents and even with a lot of our colleagues who have great parents, we need a little bit more time. We need to feel out.

We need to figure out, is this right for us? Is this right in our peer groups? And it's really, really difficult. And listening to the really emotional stories today, I just remember how difficult it was for me. And my parents are very proud of me and supportive of me today, but it was not always easy to do that, you know, even in this modern era.

And today, I just want you to think about is, if your children are trying to figure it out, as complicated as youth is and teenagery is, this is one of those things they're trying to just figure out for themselves and just give them that time, give them that grace to do so.

And I thank you for listening to all our very lived experience, because it's important, because right now also, there is no trans or nonbinary representation in this House right now. And they can't tell you how awful it is to go through being dead named. Imagine if every one of you constantly called me Alan every day.

And I'm like, my name's not Alan. Just constantly doing that. But that's just the micro, micro smallest thing that nonbinary trans people have to go through every single day. And we're just asking not to politicize, not to make it worse for them. Just let them understand where they are at their own time. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Thank you, Mister Lee. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker and Members, I rise in support of AB 1955. I come from an incredibly loving family, and I'm a mom who loves my kids, and I actually agree with my colleagues across the aisle that the vast majority of parents have their kids' best interest at heart, but. And I know that my parents always did.

My sister had a boyfriend in high school, and for the first time, she went off to college across the country. She got to figure out who she was, and she realized she identified LGBTQ. She told my parents. They struggled. They didn't struggle because they didn't love her. Just the opposite.

This was the same period when our colleague from Cupertino's parents were going through this, and it was a scary time to have a child who was lesbian or gay, and they wanted more than anything for her to have a happy and healthy life. That's all they wanted. And it scared them.

And so, they made choices that now, to be honest, they regret in how they. The choices they made during that period. And now they march in every pride parade, and they couldn't be prouder, and they couldn't love her more.

And they have two beautiful grandchildren that she and her wife are raising that they spoil rotten, just like the rest of their grandkids. And the lesson from that is what we heard from our colleague in Cupertino, that even when parents love their children, it might be from a place of love that they do harm in those moments.

We're not saying it's not. We're not saying why parents are doing things that cause their children to not be able to protect themselves and make the choices they need.

We're saying that kids need that room and that if they're at school making the choices that my sister made when she was in college able to make those choices, then we need to give them that space. We need to trust that they're going to figure it out.

And when they feel safe telling their parents or their friends or whoever it may be, they will. And for some reason, those children where they don't want to be outed to their parents have made the choice that school is the safe place and they want to put it on at school and they're not ready to tell their parents.

And if we love those kids, we are going to let them do that and we're going to trust that their parents will do the right thing for them like my parents did. And like we heard from our colleague from Cupertino, they will continue to love them and support them, but that we're giving the kids the time to do what they need.

And you know, I was thinking as I sat here today, my constitutional law professor taught me a concept when I was in law school about pre-commitment, that sometimes in law, we pre-commit to things to do what is right, because we know that in the moment, we may not always make the right choice.

And that's what this feels like to me. We are pre committing to our children that we will give them that space, that they will tell their parents and their loved ones when and if they're ready. And in the meantime, they get to figure out who they are. And that will not do harm.

We know by listening to the kids who this affects, that it's what they're asking for and it's what they need. And so, I think we need look no farther than the kids as loving people and his parents to do the right thing and vote in support of AB 1955.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. Assembly Member Cervantes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker and members. I rise as a proud member of the LGBTQ Caucus and a proud co-author of AB 1955, the SAFETY Act.

I want to thank our Vice Chair, my friend, my colleague from San Diego for taking this on on behalf of our caucus and on behalf of thousands of students across our great state. And, of course, it is so appropriate that we are here and ready to send this bill to the Governor's desk during pride month.

Colleagues, the SAFETY Act is one of the most formative and sometimes traumatic experiences for members of our LGBT community, coming out.

This involves not only coming to terms with your own identity, but the possibility, which is a terrifying possibility, of the idea of presenting this idea of an essential element of yourself to the people you love most in this world. Thankfully, there have been shifting attitudes about the LGBTQ community.

More and more people are being embraced and accepted by their own families when they do come out. But as the author so beautifully put in committee hearing yesterday, as members of our community, we hope that the people who brought you into this world would be the people who are most willing to accept you.

But that is often not the case. That is why this bill is so important. It allows members of our own community, particularly our students, to choose their own path to coming out. I didn't get to choose my path. It was chosen for me.

But I cleared the way and made it easier for my two younger sisters to come out. But the decision of who to tell and when must be made by the individual, not by teachers or school officials, without the consent of students. That is why the forced outing policies that the SAFETY Act seeks to ban are so dangerous.

They remove the fundamental element of freedom and choice from one of the most formative experiences for members of our LGBTQ-plus community. The SAFETY Act represents the best parts of California values of diversity and compassion. You need not only look at the county that I represent in Riverside for proof.

Just this month, voters in Temecula Valley Unified School District voted to recall its school board president. He spearheaded efforts to impose one of these forced outing policies in Temecula schools, the kind of misguided manifestation of bigotry that this bill seeks to end.

And through this recall election, voters in this historically conservative part of the county I represent are sending a message to us as members of this body. They want our schools to be safe, welcoming, and nurturing environments for our students.

For every one of us who walk these hallowed halls openly as members of both the Legislature and the LGBTQ-plus community, we know that thousands and thousands of our LGBTQ-plus siblings in California are still forced to hide in the shadows. And it is incumbent upon us to shine a light for them by passing this bill today.

The members of this body who vote for this bill not merely stand in solidarity with members of our community, but we're telling students that we see them, that we hear them, that we love them, that we will continue to fight for their safety. Colleagues, I respectfully asked for an aye vote on AB 1955.

Thank you, Assembly Member Cervantes. Seeing and hearing no further debate. Mister Ward, would you like to close from the Majority Leader's desk?

Yes. Thank you, Mister Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for your personal and heartfelt words. I almost want to reflect them in my close because they were so eloquent and disappointed of what we are trying to accomplish here. Coming out, as you've heard, is a very personal decision.

Every person has a right to make that for themselves, and it includes the retention of privacy, which has been upheld in courts. LGBTQ students do not waive that right to privacy just because they come out to some people and not to others. Every conversation has its own individual experience, and it comes with its own risks.

And it is up to that individual to decide for themselves when and to whom and in what manner to have that conversation and that process and that moment of connection is important, and it should not be involving an outside actor thrust upon them.

In just a few months, since some of our California school districts have passed these forced outing policies, the results have been tested, and they're not good. Schools have been ripped apart. You know what's going on at these school board meetings, the fracturing of communities. But back to the subject of the matter.

The youth that are harmed, and not just LGBTQ youth. Their friends, the discord amongst the student body, the bullying, the harassment. This is all increasingly evident, exponentially evident in these very same school districts.

It is the wrong direction, which is why we need to bring this bill forward here, this bill forward today, to be able to reestablish that baseline from which we were before these policies started to percolate into the California community. Again, I think it's imperative that we want to correct some of the record with facts.

This bill does not force schools to keep secrets from parents. The SAFETY Act merely prohibits school staff from being forced to out students. This bill does not keep double records from parents.

Parents and guardians, they have the right to access their student's records through FERPA, and parents will still be able to request and access the student records.

I did have the opportunity to be able to go and review some of the local policies, and the challenge there, maybe we're talking past each other, is that if a student is requesting to change something in their records, first of all, you can't change official school records without the parents involved.

That is the law. Records is broadly defined. Is a piece of homework paper a record? Is a note? Anything could be subject to a record search. We know that in other areas of government, too.

So, the problem is how these are both what these are doing to these local communities, but also how they can be defined, we believe absolutely is going to cause net harm, and we know it's causing harm to the students in Chino Valley alone.

In a short time after they adopted that policy, there were 1,200 calls from youth within that geographic area to youth mental health crisis lines, compared to 4,000 statewide. That's the magnitude of how things have really blown up.

And like I said, not all of them were LGBTQ members, but just it is the wrong direction, and it's the wrong baseline for our schools. Next, the bill does not take away parents' rights, and as a parent myself, we know that parents do have a crucial role in discussions about students' LGBTQ identity.

And this bill does not prevent families from having those conversations. They've always been free to have, and they should have. This bill will not increase retaliations against any teachers.

In fact, this bill strengthens existing retaliation protections against teachers and school staff, and it is built on the foundation that's been tested in some of these exact same court cases, which I am grateful to our Attorney General and Superintendent of Public Instruction, for having these important conversations that fundamentally, what has not been thrown out is that under our state and federal laws, we have a constitutional right to privacy.

In closing, I want to acknowledge that our LGBTQ staff and members of the public who are listening in have had to endorse some comments that deeply affect them personally. And I appreciate that. It affects us, too. It affects if you know somebody who is LGBTQ or just care about anybody in general, you probably felt that pain as well.

Now, on the subject to this bill, I'm cisgendered. I'm not transgender. But I know what it's like to face coming out. I know what it's like to have others target you, question you, and deny you. Part of what is happening here is stemming from a national issue thrust upon our community to be targeting transgender individuals.

A subset of our community. Yes, a united community. Why? Maybe it's politically easy. Maybe I'm not going to repeat what opposition would say about people because it's wrong. But guess what? Transgender individuals also started out as youth, and they go through a very awkward teenage time, just like the rest of us do, too.

I know some of those youth in my life. I know Leo. I know Sam. I know Ryland. I know Cyrus, and they are awesome. They are real, they are authentic, they are going to be great humans.

And they more or less had the opportunity to be able to have those conversations on their own terms, which is exactly how one should have those conversations. Now, our caucus thought deeply as this was stressed in California communities since last summer, about how to respond, how to wrestle with some of the issues.

We have to get this right. And at that time, we told trans youth that felt under attack, that we had their back and we meant it. And we are here today to send this bill to the Governor. It's not the job of teachers to be the gender police.

They want to teach, and they want to be able to provide a safe and supportive environment. And when they do, students will thrive. Nothing in this bill gets involved in the parent-child relationship.

And if we can take this moment in time, through conversation in this bill, remember, the best practices that we should all try to do as parents is that you can talk to your children and you can have those conversations. They are the last person that you would want to feel rejection from.

And as you are, as you are having those conversations, please tell them, no matter what, that you love them. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote and concurrence.

Thank you, Mister Ward. The Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 60, noes 15. Senate amendments are concurred in. Madam, Madam Majority leader, you are recognized.

Mister Speaker, I request unanimous consent to refer SB 1481 Caballero to the Appropriations Committee pursuant to Assembly rule 51.

Without objection, such shall be the order.

AB 228 Kalra has been received from the Senate. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly rule 68 and 77 to allow assemblymember Cholera to take up AB 2288 without reference to file today for the purposes of concurrence in Senate amendments.

Without objection, such shall be the order. I'd like to now move to file item 64, ACR 217 by Assemblymember Brian.

The Clerk will read.

An Assembly Concurrent Resolution 217 by Assembly Member Bryan relative to play day. Member Bryan, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and colleagues. It's my honor to rise today and officially declare June 29th, 2024 as play day in the State of California.

The LA 84 foundation and the Play Equity Fund are nonprofit organizations across the state that have created annual national celebrations call to action to uplift the lifelong benefits of sports, play and movement for all kids and all of our communities. Sport, play and movement are essential to positive youth development and to building healthy and thriving young people.

Research has shown that playing sports improves mental and physical health, increases cognitive performance, builds self esteem, cultivates leadership skills, and leads to higher academic and career achievement. However, access to sports, play and movement varies across race and socioeconomic status. Those at greater risk for poor health and wellness outcomes often have the least access to play opportunities.

According to the Los Angeles County Youth Sports Participation survey commissioned by the LA 84 Foundation, children from households with annual incomes greater than 150,000 had a 93% sport participation rate. However, only 68% of children from households with annual incomes below 35,000 participate in sports. Access to sport, play and movement is not equitable.

There's a crisis hidden in plain sight. Kids across the county are across the country are missing out on the benefits of play due to barriers like high costs of youth sports, lack of facilities, few trauma informed and trained coaches, exclusion based on disability. There's a play equity gap. Every child should have the right to play.

That's why it's important that we lift up the efforts of play day this year. The LA 84 foundation is celebrating its 40 years of impact as a legacy to the 1984 Summer Olympic Games.

And it's doubling down on play day with the addition of a block party in Los Angeles on June 29 in the heart of my district and the historic West Adams corridor. To celebrate the enduring legacy of those Olympic Games, I ask for your support in establishing today as Play Day California.

Thank you Assemblymember Bryan. Assemblymember Quirk Silva, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker and Members. On a playful note, I rise to proudly support ACR 217 and would like to thank my colleague from Los Angeles for bringing this forward. Just the word play brings smiles to our face. As a teacher for 30 years, I know firsthand the important of play for young minds.

I have seen how it inspires creativity, encourages teamwork, and builds resilience. Healthy hobbies are essential for the development of our youth. When youth engage and play in outdoor activities, this fosters physical health but also nurtures mental well being and cognitive growth. Play and movement are vital in providing creative and athletic opportunities for our children.

Research is showing kids are sitting longer, they are using technology for longer periods and talking less.

I am a firm believer in more recess and limiting technology for our youth. Members, I ask you to think of your happiest childhood memories. For me, growing up in the eighties, coming from a family of 10, my mother often said, go out and play and don't come back until dinner. And we played all day.

We played hide and seek. We built forts we played tag and we ran back and forth to each other's homes. We played board games, we built things, and we created. I know much has changed since the eighties, and we have other safety concerns, but I would encourage parents today to bring back unstructured play.

Let our kids get bored, let them find ways to play and create. Save your paper towels and toilet paper rolls, save your wrapping paper, and let kids play and create. This Saturday, have a great play day. And I urge an aye vote for ACR.

Thank you, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, would you like to close? Mister Bryan?

Just respectfully ask for the first roll to be open for co authors.

All right, seeing and hearing no further debate, would you like co authors on the resolution? Mister Bryan is asking for co authors.

So we'll have the Clerk open the roll for co authors for the resolution. All those vote who desire to vote as a co author. All those vote who desire to vote as a co author Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 72, No, zero. There are 72 co authors added without objection.

We'll take a voice vote on the measure. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it. Measure is adopted. Mister Bryan, would you like to introduce your guests?

Absolutely. Colleagues, we are joined today on the Assembly floor by some incredible people. Rinata Simral, a friend and mentor of mine, the CEO of the LA 84 foundation and President of the play equity Fund is here with us. Bill O'Brien, the board chair of the LA 84 foundation board, was here with us.

But because we had such an exciting floor session, he had to leave and catch his flight. Fernando Ramirez, the chief policy and public affairs officer for the LA 84 foundation and Play equity Fund, is also here with us. Colleagues, could we please welcome them to the Assembly floor?

Thank you, Mister Bryan, and welcome to your guests.

Members. We're now moving to file item 109, SB 92, Senator Umberg by Assemblymember Kalra.

The Clerk will read Senate Bill 92 by Senator Umberg and others, an act related to employment in declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Mr. Kalra, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. In 2004, the California Legislature passed the private attorneys General act to bolster the state's labor enforcement capabilities. Under existing law, PAGA enables aggrieved employees to enforce the California labor code by pursuing lawsuits against employers who recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other employees for violations of state law.

POGA cases are most often filed to address a major labor code violations and enforce fundamental labor rights such as overtime, minimum wage, and sick leave.

In addition to limited public enforcement resources, the increased use of arbitration clauses has prevented aggrieved workers from filing individual or class action lawsuits against their employer, instead requiring them to go through arbitration, which some believe historically favors employers. Two decades since its enactment, need for reform in PAGA have come to light due to some bad actors.

Under the current system, small businesses, nonprofits, local governments, labor unions and other employers have become major targets for lawsuits, often for minor technical violations. Additionally, its 100 $200 penalty structure applies no matter the severity or duration of the violation. Finally, almost no violations may be cured even if an employer quickly remedies the alleged violation.

The same penalty applies. In order to address these deficiencies while bolstering protections for workers, SB 92 and my companion Bill AB 2288 make important reforms to PAGA. These bills represent a robust compromise between all the stakeholders interested in PAGA, including the business community, organized labor, and labor law attorneys.

Specifically, SB 92 includes two critical components of this compromise. First, this Bill creates a formal right to cure process for small and mid sized companies. So long as these companies cure a labor code violation to the satisfaction of the labor and Workforce Development Agency, then generally a PAGA suit cannot be commenced.

Secondly, this measure affords all businesses, including those with more than 100 employees, the ability to seek an early evaluation conference shortly after the commencement of a PAGA suit to attempt to develop a plan for redressing labor code violations and settling matters without protracted litigation.

This important Bill to protect workers and promote the early resolution of violations is supported by a broad coalition of business, labor and attorney groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Labor Federation, the consumer Attorneys of California, and the California Employment Lawyers Association. Thank you.

Scene in Mister Flora, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of SB 92, and I just want to give a shout out to all the hard work, the business, community, labor, everybody that came together.

I know a lot of them are in the gallery today, but pog has been something we need to deal with for a long time and this is how government actually should work when parties come together, actually work it out and move things forward for the State of California while protecting your own personal interests as well.

So thank you to everybody that's worked on this. A lot of long hours went into this and appreciate everybody coming to the table. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you Mister Flora. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close roll and tally the votes. I 64 no, zero on the urgency I 64 knows zero on the Bill.

Without objection. Immediate transmittal to the Senate. Madam Majority leader, you are recognized.

Bills have been received from the Senate. I request unanimous consent to suspend Assembly Rule 63 and 77, to allow Assemblymember McCarty to take up AB 2927 and to allow Assemblymember Wilson to take up AB 628 and ACA 8 without reference to file today for the purpose of concurrence in Senate amendments.

Without objection. Such shall be the order. Without reference to file. We'll now move to AB 2288 by Assemblymember Kalra. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 2288 by Assembly Member Kalra and others and accolades for employment and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Assembly Member Kalra, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister Speaker. I rise to present AB 2288 which will make several reforms to the Private Attorney General's Act, or PAGA, that improve its effectiveness as a vital tool to enforce labor rights, promote making workers whole, and incentivize employer compliance.

As mentioned in the prior bill presentation, since 2004, PAGA has served as a critical enforcement tool of California's labor laws, recognizing the reality that the state's labor enforcement agencies often lack the resources to investigate and take action against every violation.

While PAGA cases are most often filed to address legitimate and serious violations of fundamental labor rights as overtime, minimum wage, and sick leave, it has been prone to prolonged litigation that undermines the core enforcement tool of PAGA for workers.

AB 2288 and its companion bill, SB 92, are a product of lengthy stakeholder negotiations to preserve PAGA and reform it in a way that would ultimately improve the outcomes for both workers and employers.

Specifically, this bill encourages employer compliance by reducing penalties for employers who take reasonable steps to quickly fix unlawful policies and practices, while also creating higher penalties for bad actors who act maliciously.

AB 2288 also improves overall outcomes by adding injunctive relief as a remedy, updating the split of PAGA penalties, increasing workers abilities to get back wages with interests, and allowing judicial discretion to increase penalties where the outcome would otherwise be unjust.

I'm happy that stakeholders were able to reach an agreeable outcome and by passing AB 2288 as we just did with SB 92, this allows us to avoid a potentially divisive ballot initiative measure designed to circumvent the legislative process and instead, as was mentioned by our colleague from Lodi, actually demonstrates how things should be done when all sides come together to resolve a longstanding issue of division.

With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Mister Kalra. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 67, no zero on the urgency.

Ayes 67, noes zero on concurrence in the Senate amendments without objection, immediate transmittal to the Governor. Moving now without reference to file to AB 2927 by assemblymember McCarty.

The Clerk will read Assembly Bill 2927 by Assembly Member Mccarty and others enact relating to pupil instruction making an appropriation, therefore declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Mister Mccarty, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. This Bill is back on concurrence. This is the Bill that would add a personal finance class, financial literacy, to the high school graduation requirements for all high school students. First, I want to thank our speaker, our pro Tem, and the Governor for working with us and the advocates to bring about a solution.

This measure will be signed, the Governor just announced today. The ballot measure will be pulled from the ballot. We will have, most importantly, an opportunity for kids California to focus on learning math and economics through practical experiences about what's the difference between a credit card versus a debit card, right?

We're talking to young people all this summer about how they got into college. And you may ask them, how are you paying for it? And they may say, I'm getting financial aid. You ask a follow up question, are you getting a loan or a grant? Sometimes they don't know. These skills are critically important for young people.

A lot of stress is for young people these days. We talked about some in the last hour. One of the stresses is a debt crisis for young people.

We know when young people show up to college, when they walk around their first couple days of college, before they find the library, the bookstore, they run across tables with credit cards. And so these issues are so important, they should be taught in the classroom during high school, not on TikTok.

So, this is an opportunity to bring about a powerful tool for our young people in our high schools. 25 states around the nation already do this. This is a win for our state's future and for our young people. And respectfully ask for your aye vote and concurrence on Senate amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Mccarty. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. I 71 no zero on the urgency.

Ayes 71, noes zero on concurrency of Senate amendments without objection. Immediate transmittal to the Governor.

Moving now without reference to file ACA 8 Assemblymember Wilson, the Clerk will read Assembly constitutional amendment eight by Assembly Member Wilson and others relative to slavery.

Assembly Member Wilson, you are recognized.

Thank you Mister speaker. Members, I am excited. I rise today to present ACA eight, a measure that would allow voters to once and for all ban slavery and involuntary servitude without exception in our state. This measure was introduced on February 17 and walked to this Assembly floor by my Assembly fellow Aldo Garcia.

It is one of the California Legislative Black Caucus reparation priorities and it would, if passed and approved, amend Article one, section six of the state constitution to remove the existing exception to the ban on involuntary servitude and as a punishment for a crime, and would ensure that prisons cannot punish incarcerated individuals for prioritizing rehabilitative work over work assignments.

Today, slavery takes on the modern form of involuntary servitude, including forced labors in prison. Slavery is wrong in all forms, and California should be clear in denouncing that in its constitution, this should not be controversial.

It is often assumed that slavery and forced labor are things of the past, but to our detriment, we continue practices today that have their roots in a carceral system that maintains vestiges of slavery.

When, after the emancipation Proclamation and the Passage of the 13th Amendment, which ostensibly banned slavery, the former slave states, and even free states too, would target black Americans for criminal prosecution and use the exception to involuntary servitude to exploit former slaves and their descendants through forced prison labor.

California is among only 16 states with an exception clause for or involuntary servitude in its state constitution. Most recently, voters in Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont removed involuntary servitude language from their state constitutions. Incarcerated people have long faced cruel treatment for any work absences.

This includes physical violence, solitary confinement, denial of phone calls and family visits, and limiting participation in self help groups as well as disciplinary write ups that result in longer prison terms. Such punishments or threats of such punishments are often issued even when absences are due to illnesses or injuries sustained through the work.

The current practice of forced labor does not prepare incarcerated people for success upon reentry and supersedes participation in rehabilitative services, educational opportunities, and receiving healthcare. Incarcerated people's relationship to work should not be one of exploitation and little to no agency.

Let us take this step to restore some dignity and humanity and prioritize rehabilitative services for the often forgotten individuals behind bars. Let us give them a voice to the voiceless. This Bill has no opposition and has previously received bipartisan support.

Members the legacy of slavery and forced labor runs deep in California's history, from the exploitation of indigenous people in Spanish missions to black slaves forced to mine for gold. Today, we have an opportunity to take a step in the direction towards ending that legacy.

I urge a strong aye vote on ACA eight. Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson, Assemblymember Waldron, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker and Members. More than a century after the end of slavery, California's constitution still has language that sanctions forced labor for incarcerated people. When the 13th Amendment was drafted, the exception clause was incorporated to reach a compromise with Senators from slave states that wanted continued access to free labor.

It is in that spirit that labor was created in prisons where it should be formed in the spirit of redemption, rehabilitation, and public safety. We can end this racist legacy with a constitution reflecting our values. California is not alone in recognizing that it's time to consider this amendment.

In the last five years, seven states with broad bipartisan support have amended their state constitutions to end the exception and abolish slavery for all. Colorado led in 2018, followed by Utah and Nebraska in 2020, and all three had unanimous bipartisan legislative support in 2022.

Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont passed state amendments as well, and there are many other states organizing to amend their state constitutions similarly, several of which have amendments expected to be on upcoming ballots. California could not continue to fall behind. ACA eight does not end work programming in prison, but it does root it in dignity and rehabilitation.

Involuntary servitude means for slaver, also known as slavery, for people in California prisons. Incarcerated people should have the choice to participate in education, vocational training, and other rehabilitative programs for better post release success. Incarcerated people have long faced cruel treatment for any work absences, even if they are absent because they are sick.

Sustained injuries due to the work or the work is unsafe. Physical violence, solitary confinement, denial of phone calls and family visits, and limiting participation in self help groups and disciplinary write ups result in longer prison terms have been what's happened?

The California Legislature should pass ACA 8 so voters can decide and have the power to remove this language from their state. Other states, including former slave states Alabama and Tennessee, passed similar ACAs that became ballot initiatives approved by the voters. For centuries, our state and country has had a reliance on cheap and free labor.

It's precisely this reliance that has kept this practice alive long after the abolition of plantation slavery. The time has passed to finally end this practice. Punishment should not involve exploitation and mass profiteering. This only serves to incentivize incarceration. Let's do the right thing and vote aye on ACA 8.

Assembly Member Wilson, would you like to close?

I would. I would like to thank my colleague from Valley center, lending her support to this ACA from across the aisle, which shows how important it is for bipartisan support.

I'd like to thank my colleagues from the California Legislative Black Caucus, who made this a priority when we didn't get it across the finish line in the previous legislative session with then Senator Kham Lager Dove, who is now a congresswoman working extremely hard to get this done at a federal level.

This is a historic moment to give the opportunity for our voters to vote their values and remove the last vestiges of slavery from our constitution. With that, Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Aye 66, noes, zero on the urgency. Ayes 66, no, zero on the concurrence of Senate amendments.

Without objection, immediate transmittal to the Secretary of State. Moving to, without reference to file AB 628 by Assemblymember Wilson. The Clerk will read.

Assembly Bill 628 by Assemblymember Wilson. An act relating to prisons.

Assemblymember Wilson, you are recognized.

I forgot there was the next one. Can you give me one moment? Do you want me to? We will not have Flora present for me. He's asking. Hold on, one second.

I know. Hold on a second.

Can we give him one moment?

Can we pass a rotation pass temporarily? We've got some amendments we'd like to take up, so we'll move to file item 75, SB 940, Senator Umberg by Mister Haney.

The Clerk will read Senate Bill 940 with amendments by Assemblymember Haney.

Assemblymember Haney, you are recognized.

Thank you. I rise to present thank you, Mister speaker. Rise to present amendments on behalf of Senator Umberg for SB 940.

These amendments move several opposition groups to neutral by deleting Section four of the bill, which would have prohibited arbitrators from taking cases at a party during the pendency of another case with that party. These are amendments that will move the bill forward. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote on the amendments on behalf of Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mister Haney. Without objection, we'll take a voice vote on the amendments. All in favor say aye. A those say no amendments are adopted. The bill is out to print. Back on file. Moving to file. Item 83, SB 674, Senator Gonzalez, by Mister Zbur. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 674 with amendments by Assemblymember Zbur.

Assemblymember Zbur, you are recognized.

Mr. Speaker, Members, I rise today to present amendments to SB 674 on behalf of Senator Gonzalez. That reworked key definition that clarifies that refineries and related facilities are only responsible for monitoring their own emissions and that fence line monitoring isn't required where there aren't communities nearby.

They also add co-authors, including Speaker Rivas. I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur. Without objection, we'll take a voice vote on the amendments. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Amendments are adopted. Bill is out to print. Back on file. Moving to file item 107, SB 675 Limon by Assemblymember Wicks.

Clerk will read Senate Bill 675 with amendments by Assemblymember Wicks.

Assemblymember Wicks, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise on behalf of Senator Limon to present amendments to SB 675, legislation that will incorporate prescribed grazing into the state wildfire prevention policies.

Specifically, these amendments define that prescribed grazing projects may include the installation of fencing or water improvements and extend the date for the range management Advisory Committee to develop guidance to July 1st, 2025. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Without objection. We'll take a voice vote on these amendments. All in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Ayes have it. Amendments are adopted. Bill is out to print. Back on file. Assemblymember Wilson, you are recognized. This is AB 628.

Assembly Bill 628 by Assemblymember Wilson an act relating to prisons.

You are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker. And also thank you for your patience. Members, I'm pleased to present AB 625, a companion nill to ACA 8, a measure that now that it's passed by the Legislature, if approved by our voters, would remove the exception in our state constitution that currently allows for involuntary servitude.

This bill is contingent on the passage and approval of ACA 8. AB 628 requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, also known as CDCR, to create a voluntary work program. Further, it clarifies that CDCR and local jurisdiction set compensation for incarcerated individuals in state prison facilities and local jails, respectively.

This is when the state Legislature or locals are silent on the issue of compensation. On the issue of wages. Now, if ACA is approved by the voters, it will end the practice of voluntary servitude, which is the rule that has allowed California State prisons to use forced labor.

And now, by removing the long standing exception to involuntary servitude for punishment of a crime, and by explicitly prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, it would fundamentally change the nature of work within our state's carceral system.

And now, for the first time in our state's history, the bill would require that work assignments for incarcerated individuals is voluntary and they would not be subject to discipline for refusing a work assignment and also allowing for greater participation in rehabilitative services and helping to restore the dignity and bodily autonomy to incarcerated individuals.

This bill clarifies implementation of ACA 8 and has no opposition with that. Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seen and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 65, noes zero on the urgency. Ayes 65 whoop. I'm sorry. No urgency? Okay.

Ayes 65, noes zero on the bill. Senate amendments are concurred in immediate, without objection, immediate. Transmittal to the Governor. A couple more items here, folks, and then we are waiting on a bill from the Senate, so we will move to file item 63, ACR 215 by Assemblymember Waldron.

The Clerk will read Assembly Concurrent Resolution 215 by Assembly Member Waldron relative to the paol Komesh Highway.

Assembly Member Waldron, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister speaker and Members, I rise to present ACR 215 to name a portion of State Route 76 to Payam Kawash, Hawaii highway, in recognition and preservation of the cultural heritage of the native Lusano tribes in the area.

Historically, State Route 76 was vital artery for the Luseno people used during their seasonal migrations between the valley and the coastline. I urge and aye vote.

Hearing and seeing and hearing. No further debate. The Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote, Clerk will close a roll until the votes Ayes 71 no zero measure is adopted.

Moving to file item 82, SB 1097, Senator Laird by Assemblymember Schiavo. Clerk will read.

Senate Bill 1097 by Senator Laird, an act relating to veterans.

Assemblymember Schiavo, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. As the Chair of the Military and Veteran Affairs Committee, I rise to present SB 1097 on behalf of Senator Laird.

Senate Bill 1097 will update the military and veteran codes for use of gender inclusive language clarifying that benefits and protections provided to surviving spouses are also available for domestic partners, and it closes a minor loophole to clarify only service members on active military orders shall be exempt from jury duty.

Senator Laird advanced a similar bill two years ago, SB 272 for CHP Commissioner Amanda Ray. She was appointed the first woman to be the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, and yet the entire code referred to the Commissioner as he.

The dedicated service of these individuals, including individuals like Secretary Lindsey Sin of the California Department of Veteran Affairs, deserve to be reflected in state law. And so SB 1097 updates numerous instances in the military and veteran code which features male specific language.

SB 1097 also ensures certain benefits and protections provided to surviving spouses are also available to domestic partners. It's far past time that we update our laws, and I thank the Senator for bringing this bill forward. The bill has bipartisan support, no registered opposition, and no no votes.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Seeing and hearing no further debate, the Clerk will open the roll. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. Clerk will close the roll and tally the votes. Ayes 55, no zero. Measure passes.

Members, as I mentioned, we are waiting for an item from the Senate, so we will pause momentarily. Quorum call is in place. If any Members have any concurrence items they would like to take up, please let us know. We'd be happy to do that.

At this time, we can also entertain vote changes Assembly Member Dixon, you are recognized.

Thank you much, Mister speaker. Yes, I am changing ACA 8 from yes to not voting, please. Thank you.

Vote change Assemblymember Dixon, Assembly Constitutional Amendment eight, aye to not voting.

Members, we're back from that brief pause, moving to announcement. The session schedule is as follows. Friday, June 28 no floor session, no check in session. Monday, July 1 floor session at 01:00 p.m. all items remaining will be passed and retained. All motions shall be continued. Seeing and hearing no further business. I get to do the best part.

I am ready to entertain a motion to adjourn. Miss Aguiar Curry moves, and Mister Gallagher seconds that this house stands adjourned until Monday, July 1, at 01:00 p.m. the quorum call is lifted and the house is adjourned.