SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL. ALAN
ARCHULETTA, ATKINS BATES BECKER
GORGEOUS BRADFORD CABRERA,
CORTESI, DOLLY DODD, DORIS Ó.
EGGMAN LASER. GONZALEZ GROVE,
HERZBERG WEST. SO HURTADO JONES
, KAMLAGER LAIRD LABOR LIMÓN.
MCGUIRE MELINDA'S MEN, NEWMAN
NIELSEN PETROVA, VOGUE, PAN
PORTANTINO ROTH RUBIO SKINNER
STERN. HAMBURG WIECKOWSKI WIENER
WILK. MEMBERS REQUIREMENTS.
PRESIDENT. WITH THE MEMBERS IN
OUR GUESTS BEYOND THE RAIL AND
IN THE GALLERY, PLEASE RISE WILL
BE LED IN PRAYER THIS MORNING BY
SENATOR AMBERG, AFTER WHICH
PLEASE REMAIN STANDING. WILL BE
LED IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SHOULD HAVE FLAGGED BY SENATOR
DODD. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT,
COLLEAGUES TODAY WE PRAY SONG
FROM THE CHINOOK SALTER. THE
GARDEN IS RICH WITH DIVERSITY
WITH PLANTS OF 100 FAMILIES IN
THE SPACE BETWEEN THE TREES WITH
ALL THE COLORS AND FRAGRANCES.
BASIL MINT. LAVENDER GREAT
MYSTERY. KEEP MY REMEMBRANCE
PURE RASPBERRY. APRIL ROSE GREAT
MYSTERY FILL MY HEART WITH LOVE.
STILL UNECE TANSY, HOLY WINDS
BLOWING ME ROOTED IN ADRIN
SENIOR. MAY MY PRAYER BE
BEAUTIFUL. IN MY REMEMBRANCE.
OH, GREAT MYSTERY BE AS INCENSE
TO THE IN THE SACRED GROVE OF
ETERNITY AS I SMELL AND REMEMBER
THE ANCIENT FORCE OF EARTH.
PLEDGED TO OUR FLAG. I PLEDGE
ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA. TO THE
REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ALRIGHT MEMBERS. WE WILL BEGIN
WITH MESSAGES FROM THE GOVERNOR
WILL BE DEEMED READ. MESSAGES
FROM THE ASSEMBLY WILL BE DEEMED
READ. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE
WILL BE DEEMED READ AND
AMENDMENTS ADOPTED NOW MEMBERS
REMOVING THE MOTIONS AND
RESOLUTIONS. SENATOR JONES.
THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. THE
REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR, PLEASE
REMOVE ITEM NUMBER 1 50 A B 24
81 BY A SIMILAR MEMBER SMITH
FROM THE CONSENT FILE FOR
PURPOSES OF AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU. THE DEATHS WILL KNOW.
SENATOR DODD. YES MR PRESIDENT
AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR,
PLEASE REMOVE A B 29 69. THAT'S
THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATION BILL. BIO ITEM
NUMBER 1 25. FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IN PLACE ON THIRD
READING. YES, WELL, NO. SENATOR
RUBIO. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT
AND MEMBERS AT THE REQUEST OF
THE AUTHOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
FILED ITEM NUMBER 1 43 A B 19
OH, SEVEN. 19 OH, SEVEN BE MOVED
OFF CONSENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
WILL NOTE SENATOR DURAZO. THANK
YOU, MR PRESIDENT. AT THE
REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR, PLEASE
MOVE WHILE ITEM 1 28 A B ONE
FROM THE CONSENT TO THE INACTIVE
FILE. THANK YOU TO JUST WILL NOT
ANY FURTHER MUCH. SENATOR
SKINNER. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT
. MEMBERS I MOVE THE ADOPTION OF
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS FOR BUDGET
BILLS ACROSS THE DESK ON FRIDAY
, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. JUNE 24TH
25TH AND 26TH 2022. THESE
AMENDMENTS WILL BE ADOPTED,
PUBLISHED IN THE BILLS RETURNED
TO COMMITTEE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. CORTEZ. THANK YOU, MR
PRESIDENT TO REQUEST OF THE
AUTHOR. I'D LIKE TO PULL FILE
ITEM. 1 46 A B 2094 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ROBERT RIVAS
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PLACED
ON THE INACTIVE FILE. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR NELSON. LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, SENATOR, I OBJECT TO
ANY WAVING RULES RELATED TO THE
BUDGET ITEMS AND WOULD ASK A
ROLL CALL VOTE. WHERE IT WILL BE
TAKING A ROLL CALL VOTE. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ALAN I ARCHULETTA. ATKINS I
FAITH. NÓ BECKER. I PORCHES. NO
BRADFORD. I CABRERA ORTEZ. I
DOLLY? NO DODD. I DURAZO. AYE
EGGMAN GLASER. AYE GONZALES. I
GROW. NÓ HERTZBERG. I WEAR SO. I
FURTADO JONES? NO KAMLAGER. I
FLARED. I LABOR. AYE, LIMÓN.
MCGUIRE. AYE MELINDA'S NO MEN.
AYE, NEWMAN. AYE, NIELSEN. NO,
NO. BOTH NO PAN. AYE,
PORTANTINO. I ROCK. AYE, RUBIO.
AYE, SKINNER. AYE, STERN. I
HAMBURG. AYE, WIECKOWSKI.
WIENER. AYE, WILK. NO. SECRETARY
POLICE CALLED ABSENT MEMBERS
ARCHULETTA WIECKOWSKI. ICE 29
NOS. NINE THE MOTION PALACES.
NOW WE'RE BEING GO BACK TO
MEMBERS WISHING TO REMOVE ITEMS.
SENATOR NEWMAN EASY.
THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT.
APOLOGIZE IF I WAS OUT OF ORDER
EARLIER, THE REQUEST OF THE
AUTHOR I'D LIKE TO PROFILE ITEM
1 46 A B 2094 BY SOME MEMBER
ROBERT RIVAS FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE
INACTIVE FILE. THE DEATHS WILL
NOTICE. SENATOR NEWMAN DAY, MR
PRESIDENT AT THE REQUEST OF THE
AUTHORS, PLEASE REMOVE THE
FOLLOWING BILLS FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF
AMENDMENT, ABC 7 32 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUIRK A B 17 26
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER AGREE OUR
CURRENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO
DECIMAL NOTE, SENATOR. BECKER.
THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. AT THE
REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR, PLEASE
REMOVE FIRELIGHT THEM NUMBER 1
TO 6 A B 2912 FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. THE DESPERATE NOTE.
THANK YOU. NOW MMBERS WERE
MOVING TO CONSIDERATION. SENATOR
DODD, OKAY? ALRIGHT MEMBERS. NOW
WE'RE MOVING TO CONSIDERATION OF
DAILY FILE. FIRST UP THE SENATE
SECOND READING SECRETARY, PLEASE
READ ASSEMBLY BILLS 2097 WITH
AMENDMENTS 20 TO 34 WITH
AMENDMENTS 22 95 WITH AMENDMENTS
23 19 WITH AMENDMENTS 2016 WITH
AMENDMENTS 24 51 WITH AMENDMENTS
28 95 WITH AMENDMENTS 21 47 WITH
AMENDMENTS ASSEMBLY BILL SECOND
READING WILL BE TEAM RED. NOW
MOVING ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM ITEM 49,
SENATOR HERZBERG. HE'S PREPARED,
SECRETARY POLICE READ. SENATE
BILL 9 38 BY SENATOR HERZBERG,
AN ACT RELATING TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. SENATOR HERZBERG.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ON THIS
MEASURE. I WANT TO SAY IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT REFERS TO
THE KNOX FORTESE HERZBERG LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. WE ORGANIZATION ACT
OF 2000. BASICALLY IN A NUTSHELL
. IS THE MEMBERS HERE AND I KNOW
THE NUMBER OF FOLKS IN THIS
CHAMBER HAVE SERVED UNLOCK CODES
AND THEY'RE THE LEGISLATURE'S
WATCHDOG OVER BOUNDARY CHANGES
OF CITIES COUNTIES. AND SPECIAL
DISTRICTS IN 2017, THE LITTLE
HOOVER COMMISSION OF OUR STATE,
OF WHICH SOME OF US SERVE ISSUED
A REPORT EXAMINING LAUGHS GOES
OVERSIGHT OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS
IN PARTICULAR. THIS REPORT
HIGHLIGHTED A COMPLICATED
INCONSISTENCY THAT HAVE RULES
FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF A
CONSOLIDATION OF SPECIAL
DISTRICTS. FOLLOWING THIS REPORT
, CALAF CO FORMED A WORKING
GROUP WITH MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS
TO CRAFT A SOLUTION. THIS
MEASURE IS THE COMBINATION OF
THAT THREE YEAR COLLABORATIVE
EFFORT AND PROVIDES LAUGH CODES
WITH THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO
ENSURE FUNCTIONING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES UNTIL, OF
COURSE, IT GETS AMENDED AGAIN IN
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE, AND WE
HAVE TO BE BACK HERE AGAIN AND
AGAIN. THIS BILL HAS RECEIVED
UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND
SUPPORTED BY BOTH LAUGH CAUSE
AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS. MEMBERS.
I ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DEBATE ON
THIS ITEM. ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION OR DEBATE EARNING
SEEN UN SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL AND FALLOUT. UM 49.
ALAN AYE, ARCHULETTA. ATKINS I
FAITH AYE, BECKER. AYE FORGES.
AYE BRADFORD CABALLERO ORTEZ E I
DOLLY! AYE, DODD. I WHEREAS Ó
AYE, EGGMAN. I GLASER GONZALES.
I GROW. AYE HERZBERG HUESO. AYE,
FURTADO JONES. AYE, KAMLAGER. I
FLARED. I FLAVOR AYE, THURMAN.
AYE, MCGUIRE. AYE. MELINDA'S I
MEN. AYE, NEWMAN. NIELSEN. I
LOVE BOTH. I PAN. AYE,
PORTANTINO. I BROUGHT RUBIO.
AYE, SKINNER. AYE, STERN. I
HAMBURG. AYE, WIECKOWSKI.
WIENER. I WILL. HI. I 38 NOS.
ZERO. THE MEASURE PASSES. THE
SAME. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S INTS ARE
CONCURRED IN NOW MEMBERS WERE
MOVING ON TO SENATE THIRD
READING. WE HAVE FIRST UP FILE
ITEM 55. SENATOR LEYVA. MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE READ. SENATE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 92 BY
SENATOR LEYVA RELATIVE TO EQUAL
RIGHTS FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU
, MR PRESIDENT. GOOD MORNING
MEMBERS. SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION, 92 SIMPLY AUTHORIZES
AND REQUESTS THAT THE STATE
CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION
COMMISSION STUDY. REPORT ON AND
PREPARE RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION
TO REVISE CALIFORNIA LAW TO
REMEDY ANY DEFECTS IN ITS
LANGUAGE OR IMPACT THAT
DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF SEX
. WHILE IT'S LONG OVERDUE FOR
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO BE
VALIDATED, WE AS A LEGISLATURE
CAN AND MUST TAKE ACTION NOW BY
PREPARING FOR IT TO BE CERTIFIED
AND MAKE SURE THAT CALIFORNIA IS
READY TO IMPLEMENT AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. MEMBERS I WOULD HOPE
THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT LAWS
THAT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS
OF SEX OR RON AND SCR 92 WILL
SIMPLY HELP TO SUGGEST REMEDIES.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. ANY FURTHER DESCRIPTION OR
DEBATE ON THIS ITEM ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION OR DEBATE HEARING
TEEN UN SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON ALL ITEMS ARE TOO
FAR. ALAN AYE, ARCHULETTA.
ATKINS I FAITH BECKER. AYE
FORGES. NO BRADFORD. I CABRERA
CORTESI. I DOLLY. DODD. I
DURAZO. AYE, EGGMAN. AYE.
BLAZER. AYE. GONZALES. I GROW.
HARTSBURG I WEAR SO. I. HURTADO
JONES. KAMLAGER I CARED. AYE,
LEVER. LIMÓN AYE, MCGUIRE.
MELINDA'S. MEN. AYE, NEWMAN.
AYE, NIELSEN. BROUGH. PAN. AYE,
PORTANTINO. I BROUGHT AYE,
RUBIO. I SKINNER. AYE, STERN. I
HAMBURG. AYE, WIECKOWSKI.
WIENER. AYE, WILK. SECRETARY
POLICE CALLED THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. ARCHULETTA. BATES.
SALLY. GROWTH. JONES. MELINDA'S.
NIELSEN. TRUE A BUG. WIECKOWSKI
WILK. 29 KNOWS. ONE THE MEASURE
PASSES NOW MEMBERS WERE MOVING
ON TO ASSEMBLY READING. WE HAVE
TWO ITEMS WE HAVE FIRST UP FILE
ITEM 93. BYE. PRESENTERS SENATOR
LEMON WILL BE PRESENTING. SHE'S
READY, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
READ ASSEMBLY BILL 16 66 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN AN
ACT RELATING TO ABORTION AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF TO
TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. SENATOR
MAMA THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT AND
COLLEAGUES. SENATORSI AM PROUD
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 16 66
ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BARRICADE HAN A BILL THAT
PROTECTS ABORTION CARE IN
CALIFORNIA. WITH THE SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION PENDING
ABORTION PROTECTIONS IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE ON THE LINE. THE US
WILL FACE A CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA
WILL BE AT THE CENTER. THERE
WILL BE A SKYROCKETING NEED AS
CALIFORNIA WILL BE THE CLOSEST
NO BAND STATE WITHIN DRIVING
DISTANCE FOR AS MANY AS 1.4
MILLION WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY.
PROVIDERS FOR THESE WOMEN'S WILL
FACE LEGAL PERIL AND ANTI CHOICE
STATES MAY SUE PROVIDERS IN
CALIFORNIA FOR PROVIDING THE
CARE THAT WOMEN NEED A B 16 66
PROTECTS OUR AMAZING PROVIDERS
AND ALL OTHERS IN CALIFORNIA, SO
OUR STATE CAN TRULY BE A PLACE
FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE. AND
WOMEN AND HUMAN RIGHTS. AS IT
IS. IS IT HAS BEEN SO MANY OTHER
TIMES. LET ME BE CLEAR. IF WE
DON'T PASS THESE LAWS WE LEAVE
CALIFORNIA IS OPEN TO THE WAVE
OF LITIGATION FOR BASIC
HEALTHCARE AND HUMAN RIGHTS. WE
MUST PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 16 66
AND THE OTHER PROTECTIONS BEFORE
US TO STAND AS A STATE FOR
JUSTICE AND CARE. I WANT TO
THANK EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER
WHO HAS STEPPED UP ON THIS
CRITICAL ISSUE PARTICULARLY ARE
PRO TEM, WHO HAS BEEN
CHAMPIONING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTIONS FOR ABORTION RIGHTS.
THIS BILL HAS AN URGENCY CLASS
SO THAT WE CAN ENACT THESE
PROTECTIONS UPON THE GOVERNOR'S
SIGNATURE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN I VOTE. THANK YOU ANY
FURTHER DISCRETION OR DEBATE ON
THIS ITEM? ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION AND DEBATE HEARING
AND CHANGE DONE. SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL AND FALLOUT
OF 93. ALAN AYE, ARCHULETTA.
ATKINS I FAITH NÓ BECKER. AYE
FORGES. NO BRADFORD. I CABALLERO
AYE, CORTESI. I DOLLY. NÓ DODD.
AYE, DURAZO. I EGGMAN GLASER.
AYE GONZALES. I GROWTH. NÓ
HERZBERG. AYE, WEST SO I
HURTADO. AYE, JONES. NÓ
KAMLAGER. I FLARED. I LABOR
LIMÓN. AYE, MCGUIRE. AYE.
MELINDA'S NO MEN. AYE, NEWMAN.
AYE, NIELSEN. NÓ OCHOA, BOTH NO
PAN. AYE, PORTANTINO. I FROST.
AYE, RUBIO. AYE, SKINNER. AYE,
STERN. I AM BERG. AYE,
WIECKOWSKI. WIENER. AYE WILK NÓ.
ISAIAH 29, NO. NOS NINE ON THE
URGENCY, EYES 29 NOS. NINE ON
THE MEASURE PASSES. NOW MEMBERS
. UH WE'RE MOVING ON TO FOUL
ITEM. 99 SENATOR COMMON MARKER.
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE READ.
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT AGREED BY SENATOR
KAMLAGER AN ACT RELATING TO
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. SENATOR
KAMLAGER FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU AND GOOD MORNING, UM MR
PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS TODAY I
RISE TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THREE,
WHICH WOULD REMOVE THE EXCEPTION
CLAUSE FROM ARTICLE ONE, SECTION
SIX OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. THIS AMENDMENT IS
LONG OVERDUE. LAST WEEK WITH A
UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL. WE ALL
SUPPORTED THE JUNETEENTH
RESOLUTION. AND AS WE WORK TO
RECOGNIZE THIS HISTORY AND
STATES AND CITIES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY AND FEDERALLY, I HOPE
YOU WERE ABLE TO CELEBRATE
JUNETEENTH IN YOUR DISTRICT AND
ITS MEETING, MEANING. FREEDOM
AND EMANCIPATION FROM SLAVERY.
MID SLAVERY IS STILL ALIVE AND
WELL AND NICELY PACKAGED IN THE
FORM OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
WHICH AS DEFINED AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL TERM FOR A PERSON
LABORING AGAINST THEIR WILL TO
BENEFIT ANOTHER UNDER SOME FORM
OF COERCION. CALIFORNIA IS A
PLANTATION STATE. WE ALONG WITH
20 OTHER STATES, INCLUDING
ALABAMA, GEORGIA, KENTUCKY,
LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI, HAVE
EXCEPTIONS TO INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE. IN OUR STATE
CONSTITUTIONS, AND THAT IS WHAT
A C A THREE IS LOOKING TO
ELIMINATE ONCE AND FOR ALL FROM
OUR STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS
A DOCUMENT OF GUIDING
PRINCIPLES. AND VALUES. THE
CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT OF
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND VALUES.
MANY OF YOU HAVE COME TO TALK TO
ME ABOUT THIS AND YOU HAVE
SHARED YOUR ISSUES WITH THE
POTENTIAL ECONOMICS OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND WITH ITS IMPLIED
OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS. AND
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I CANNOT
ARGUE AGAINST. BECAUSE YES, THIS
AMENDMENT MAY COST SOME MONEY.
JUST LIKE OTHER AMENDMENTS. AND
THE COST MAY NOT BE
COMMENSURATE. OF ITS RETURN AND
VALUE. JUST LIKE OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS JUST
LIKE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
A SPEEDY TRIAL ARE RIGHT TO BE
TRIED BY A JURY OF OUR PEERS TO
NOT BE SUBJECT TO UNREASONABLE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF OUR
PROPERTY PERSON OR PAPERS TO
FREELY EXERCISE RELIGION WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION AND TO NOT BE
DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
THOSE RIGHTS ARE ALSO IN THE
CONSTITUTION, AND THOSE RIGHTS
ALSO COST MONEY TO PROTECT AND
UPHOLD. ADDITIONALLY THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPELL OUT
HOW THESE RIGHTS ARE IMPLEMENTED
, OR OPERATIONALIZED. THAT WORK
IS LEFT TO THIS BODY AND TO
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO
LEGISLATE. AND I BELIEVE THE
ALTERNATIVE TO NOT HAVING THOSE
AMENDMENTS TO NOT HAVING THOSE
RIGHTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION IS A
COST THAT WE CANNOT MEASURE. I
ALSO WANT TO REMIND YOU MEMBERS
THAT THIS IS A PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
PROPOSED BECAUSE IF PASSED OFF
THIS FLOOR CALIFORNIA VOTERS
WOULD WEIGH IN ON NOVEMBER. FOR
OUR ELECTION. A C A THREE ASKS
THAT YOU LET THE VOTERS DECIDE
WHAT PRINCIPLES AND VALUES
MATTER TO THEM. ULTIMATELY THEY
WOULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO
AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO
SIMPLY READ SLAVERY AND
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE ARE
PROHIBITED. THIS IS ABOUT
RECLAIMING DIGNITY AS AN
INHERENT BIRTHRIGHT. IT IS THAT
SIMPLE. AND I BELIEVE OUR VOTERS
SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE THAT DECISION. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR GLASER.
YOU MR PRESIDENT MEMBERS. IT'S
UNCOMFORTABLE FOR ME TO RISE AT
THIS MOMENT TO SPEAK ABOUT A
BILL. THAT IN SO MANY WAYS THAT
VALUES THAT I CERTAINLY HOLD, UH
DEEP IN MY HEART. PERSON I WANT
TO RECOGNIZE THE SENATOR FOR LOS
ANGELES FOR HER PASSION. FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS FOR EQUITY, THE
HUMANE TREATMENT OF THOSE THAT
THE STATE INCARCERATES AFTER
THEY'RE CONVICTED OF CRIMES
COMMITTED AGAINST THEIR FELLOW
CALIFORNIANS. SLAVERY WAS AN
EVIL THAT WILL FOREVER BE A
STAIN ON THE HISTORY OF OUR
GREAT COUNTRY. THANK GOODNESS WE
ELIMINATED IT THROUGH THE CIVIL
WAR AND THE ADOPTION OF THE 13TH
AMENDMENT. INDENTURED SERVITUDE.
THE LESSER KNOWN ALSO HAS A
SHAMEFUL PAST. AFTER THE
EMANCIPATION SOUTHERN STATES
SENT MANY. BLACK PERSONS TO
PRISON ON TRUMPED UP CHARGES.
AND THEN LEASED THEM TO FARMS IN
FACTORIES WHERE THEY WERE FORCED
TO WORK. WITHOUT PAY. THAT WAS
SIMPLY SLAVERY. BY ANOTHER NAME.
BUT THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY
IS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. AND IT'S
NOT EVEN ABOUT INDENTURED
SERVITUDE, AT LEAST OF THE KIND
THAT WAS PRACTICED. 150 YEARS
AGO. THE QUESTION. THIS MEASURE
RAISES IS WHETHER OR NOT
CALIFORNIANS SHOULD REQUIRE
FELONS IN STATE PRISON. TO WORK.
OUR WORK REQUIREMENT IN THE
PRISONS IS CERTAINLY QUESTION
WORTHY OF DEBATE. SOME SAY WE
SHOULD PAY INMATES MORE THAN THE
TOKEN FEW CENTS AN HOUR THAT
THEY EARNED TODAY. OTHERS
SUGGEST THAT THEIR WORKING
CONDITIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT
THEY SHOULD BE. BUT THOSE ISSUES
CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH
LEGISLATION WITHOUT THE SWEEPING
INFLEXIBLE PERMANENCE OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
MEMBERS JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. WE
PASSED ASSEMBLY BILL. SCUSE ME.
SENATE BILL 13 71 BY THE SENATOR
FROM GARDENA. IT REQUIRED THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION. TO DEVELOP A
FIVE YEAR PLAN TO RAISE INMATE
WAGES. THAT MEASURE GOT OFF THE
FLOOR 36 TO 2 AND A BIPARTISAN
VOTE. WHAT A C A THREE WOULD DO
IS END THE REQUIREMENT IN OUR
PRISONS IMMEDIATELY. AND THEN
TIE THE LEGISLATURE'S HAND
FOREVER MORE. BEFORE WE PASSED
IT. WE SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR
ABOUT ITS IMPACT. BANNING THE
WORK REQUIREMENT IN OUR PRISONS.
WOULD UNDERMINE OUR
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS. MAKE
PRISON MORE DIFFICULT TO MANAGE
SAFELY. AND ACCORDING TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HAD MORE
THAN A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
TO THE COST OF RUNNING OUR
PRISON SYSTEM. IT WOULD ALSO CUT
INTO THE RESTITUTION THAT
INMATES PAY TO HELP VICTIMS COPE
WITH THE EFFECTS OF CRIMES
COMMITTED AGAINST THEM. IF A
PRISONER CHOOSES TO NOT WORK.
THE PORTION OF THEIR WAGES THAT
NOW GOES TOWARDS RESTITUTION.
WILL DISAPPEAR. AND AS THOSE
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS ARISE EVERY
ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THEM. WILL BE
MET WITH LITIGATION. INMATES
WILL SUE. CLAIMING THEIR WAGES,
WAGES ARE TOO LOW. THEIR HOURS
ARE TOO HIGH. OR THAT IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO LINK GOOD
TIME CREDIT. AND EARLY RELEASE
TO THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK.
MEMBERS THESE ARE POLICY ISSUES
BEST SUITED TO DISCUSSION AND
DELIBERATIONS ON THIS FLOOR.
THEY ARE NOT THE KIND OF
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS THAT
SHOULD BE RESERVED. TO THE
CONSTITUTION OR PUNTED. TO THE
COURTS. BUT THAT IS WHAT THIS
MEASURE WILL DO. LET'S KEEP THIS
MATTER IN OUR OWN HANDS AND GET
TO WORK ON THE DIFFICULT
CHALLENGES OF MAKING SURE OUR
PRISONS ARE RUN HUMANELY.
EFFICIENTLY. AND IN A WAY THAT
LEADS THE REHABILITATION OF AS
MANY FELONS AS POSSIBLE. I'VE
HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR ON THIS MEASURE OVER THE
LAST FEW WEEKS. AND I'VE RAISED
THIS ISSUE OF THIS AMBIGUITY.
THE PROBLEM OF THIS AMBIGUITY
AND THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO
BE LEFT UP TO THE COURTS TO
INTERPRET IT NOT UP TO THIS
LEGISLATIVE BODY. AND THAT'S THE
WAY TO CURE THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT IS TO BE CLEAR ABOUT
ITS IMPACT. SO THERE IS NO
AMBIGUITY TO BE CLEAR ABOUT ITS
IMPACTS. I SHARED WITH HER AN
AMENDMENT TO THE BILL. VERY
SHORT AMENDMENT. THAT WOULD
CLEAR UP ALL THE CONCERNS THAT I
HAVE RAISED THIS MORNING. I
WOULD SAY THIS AS USED IN THIS
SECTION, INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
MEANS LABOR PERFORMED AGAINST
THE PERSON'S WILL. FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANOTHER. AND
UNDERCOAT COERCION. INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY
REHABILITATION ACTIVITY REQUIRED
OF AN INCARCERATED PERSON,
INCLUDING EDUCATION, VOCATIONAL
TRAINING OR BEHAVIOR OR
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELING. OR
ANY WORK TASKS REQUIRED OF AN
INCARCERATED PERSON THAT
GENERALLY BENEFITS THE RESIDENT
OF THE FACILITY. IN WHICH THE
PERSON IS INCARCERATED, SUCH AS
COOKING CLEANING GROUNDS,
KEEPING IN LAUNDRY. THIS IS AN
EVENT, BUT THAT WOULD CLEAR UP
ALL THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
AMBIGUITY IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT. AND I THINK IT WOULD
HELP. THE MEASURE PASSED THE
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA WHO WILL
RAISE THE SAME QUESTIONS. IF
THIS STOPS INMATES FROM HAVING
TO WORK WHAT HAPPENS NOW? AND
THIS CLEARS IT UP. SO I WOULDN'T
I WOULD URGE THE AUTHOR TO
CONSIDER THIS THIS AMENDMENT.
BUT THE MEASURE IN ITS CURRENT
FORM AS IT'S PRESENTED TODAY,
UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETHING THAT I
CAN'T SUPPORT AND RESPECTFULLY
BUILDING NOW. THANK YOU, SENATOR
NELSON. MR PRESIDENT, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, THE SENATE I OBJECT
TO THE TERMINOLOGY CHOSEN HERE,
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE AND
SLAVERY. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM. AND JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS.
AND THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA
HAVE REPEATEDLY SPOKEN ON THIS
ISSUE. THREE STRIKES IN 1979.
LATER, MARCIE'S LAW. THAT WHEN
YOU HARM YOUR FELLOW HUMANS
INCLUDING SERIOUS AND VIOLENT
ACTS. AT THEIR PERIL. THERE'S A
CONSEQUENCE WE'RE GOING TO
REMOVE THE CONSEQUENCE NOW WHY
WELL, DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE JUST AN ELEVATED
WAGE FOR INMATE LABOR? LORD? NO.
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC. INCREASES.
IN MINIMUM WAGE FOR INMATE LABOR
. NOW, WHAT IS INMATE LABOR
ABOUT? WELL THAT'S ABOUT ONE
IMPROVING YOUR SKILLS THAT YOU
MAY THEN BE MORE CAPABLE TO
PARTICIPATE AS A CITIZEN IN YOUR
COMMUNITY WHEN YOU ARE INDEED
RELEASED. IT HAS AN ENORMOUS.
IMPACT ON INSTITUTIONAL SECURITY
. AND IF YOU GIVE A DARN ABOUT
THAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE
ABUNDANT ATTICA RIOTS. YOU
BETTER GIVE THIS A THOUGHT. BUT
WHAT YOU'D REALLY BETTER THINK
ABOUT IS THE IMPACT ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. OH THIS IS JUST A
COST TO THE STATE CORRECTION
SYSTEM. HARDLY YOU THINK
LAWSUITS ABOUT THIS ARE NOT
GOING TO MARCH RIGHT OUT INTO
YOUR LOCAL JAILS THAT ALREADY
HAS WHEN WE DID THIS TERRIBLE
REALIGNMENT SEVERAL YEARS AGO. I
PREDICTED, AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN
WITH JUST IN A FEW WEEKS,
PRESIDENT COUNTY WAS SUED. WHY
BECAUSE THE INMATE CONDITIONS IN
THEIR JAILS HAD TO BE EQUATED
WITH THOSE IN THE CORRECTIONAL
SYSTEM. UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THE FEDERAL RECEIVER THEN AND
NOW. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO
IMPOSE ON YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IN YOUR COMMUNITIES? RUNNING
THEIR JAILS HAS TO BE DONE THIS
WAY. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO
ANY WORK, YOU'VE GOT TO GET PAID
THE MINIMUM WAGE OR WHATEVER
THAT WAGES. NO. THIS IS ABOUT
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE HARMED
THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS. THEY ARE
PAYING THE CHRIST, WHICH IS
JUSTICE. FROM THE CITIZENS OF
CALIFORNIA. AND FOR PARTICULARLY
THEIR VICTIMS. NOW WE'RE GOING
TO THUMB THEIR NOSES AT THOSE
VICTIMS, AND WE DO IT HERE AGAIN
AND AGAIN. I'M TIRED OF THAT.
IT'S TIME FOR US TO CARE ABOUT
VICTIMS AGAIN. INSTEAD OF
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS WHO HARM
PEOPLE. NOW AGAIN, I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE A POINT. USED TO BE.
GOOD TIME CREDIT. WAS 50. FOR
GOOD TIMES. WELL WHAT IS GOOD
TIME? WELL, THAT MEANS THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN BEHAVING THAT YOU'VE
BEEN PROGRAMMING THE THINGS
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. NO. I
KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAN I
THINK ANY OF YOU BY FAR AND I
OBJECTED TO IT ALL MY YEARS AT
THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS
OBJECTED WHY BECAUSE CORRECTIONS
DID NOT REQUIRE INMATES TO EARN
THE GOOD TIME. WAS AN AUTOMATIC
SENTENCE REDUCTION. WHY SO THAT
THEY COULD CONTROL THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INMATE
POPULATION. IF THEY NEEDED MORE
ROOM AT THE END. THEY JUST
STARTED ACCORDING MORE CREDITS.
BUT MORE THINGS BUT WHAT
ACCREDITS MEAN? THE CREDITS MEAN
THAT YOU WENT TO YOUR A PROGRAM
OR BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME
PROGRAM. AND GOT IT. APPLIED
YOURSELF. MADE YOU PUT YOUR
BOTTOM DOWN IN THE SEAT. AND SET
THERE FOR AN HOUR. AND YOU GET
CREDIT. THAT'S INJUSTICE. THAT
IS NOT SERVITUDE THAT IS NOT
SLAVERY. LET'S NOT CALL IT THAT.
INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE HAS NO
PLACE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
EVER HOW YOU PLAY IT. REALIZED
THAT THIS BILL HAS ENORMOUS
CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR
COMMUNITIES. WHERE OUR CITIZENS
AND PARTICULARLY FOR THE AGREED
VICTIMS, WHO WE BY A VOTE OF I
R, THUMBING OUR NOSES AT SENATOR
SKINNER. THANK YOU, UH, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OR MR PRESIDENT?
SORRY. I STAND IN SUPPORT OF A C
A THREE. AND GIVEN THE HISTORY
OF WHY THIS LANGUAGE IS IN OUR
CONSTITUTION. IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO REMOVE IT NOW WE
WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST STATE TO
DO SO. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
STATES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS THAT HAVE VOTED TO REMOVE
THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE FROM
THEIR STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
COLORADO BECAME THE FIRST STATE
WHEN THEIR VOTERS PASSED THE
REMOVAL OF THIS LANGUAGE IN
2018. AND THERE IS NOW ON THE
BALLOT FOR 2022. THERE ARE
MEASURES IN UTAH, NEBRASKA. IN
UH, THE VOTERS IN ALABAMA
REMOVED IT IN 2020. THERE ARE
ALSO VERMONT, OREGON AND
TENNESSEE. ALL OF THEM WITH THIS
ISSUE ON THEIR BALLOT. IN 2022.
NOW PERMISSION TO READ.
PERMISSION GRANTED. THANK YOU.
ON THE QUESTION OF THIS ISSUE OF
COST. LET ME READ FROM YOU FROM
GOVERNING GOVERNING MAGAZINE.
THEIR ANALYSIS OF COLORADO'S
CHANGE, WHICH IS BASICALLY
ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE LANGUAGE
WE HAVE BEFORE US. WE'RE
GOVERNING SET MAGAZINE.
BASICALLY STATES SPECIFICALLY
THAT THIS. EXCUSE ME? UM THIS
VOTE WILL NOT AFFECT THE STATE'S
PRISON LABOR PROGRAMS. SO THE
FEARS THAT WE WOULD BE FORCED T
IT CERTAINLY WILL CHANGE. SOME
ASPECTS, THOUGH THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES,
FOR EXAMPLE, MINIMUM WAGE AND IN
ALL OF THE STATES THAT HAVE
ELIMINATED THIS NONE. HAVE
LIFTED BE PAID TO THEIR
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS TO, FOR
EXAMPLE, MINIMUM WAGE SO. WHILE
THERE IS THE FEAR MONGERING
AROUND THIS I DON'T THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE. AND I THINK THIS IS
A VERY IMPORTANT CHANGE TO MAKE.
AND WITH THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR MEN.
YOU, MR PRESIDENT. I HAVE TO SAY
THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSED
AMENDMENT RAISES QUESTIONS. I
REALLY HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT
SINCE COLLEGE, UM, TAKING
PHILOSOPHY CLASSES THINKING
ABOUT THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT
REHABILITATION. WHAT DO WE DO
WITH THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE
SOCIAL CONTRACT? WHO COMMIT
CRIMES AGAINST OTHERS? UM YOU
KNOW, IN THE CONSTITUTION, WE
KNOW THAT PRISONERS DON'T HAVE A
FULL ARRAY OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. THEY DON'T HAVE A FULL
ARRAY OF FIRST AMENDMENT OR
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. UM YES
, WE DO HAVE DO PROCESS AND
THAT'S SOMETHING I BELIEVE
STRONGLY IN. TREATING OUR
INMATES FAIRLY IS SOMETHING I
BELIEVE STRONGLY IN IT.
CERTAINLY I APPRECIATE THE
INTENT OF THE BILL AND ENDING
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE AND THE
HORRID HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY
HAS WITH RELATION TO THAT. BUT I
DO WORRY ABOUT SOME OF THE
EFFECTS. AND I THINK, SENATOR MY
SENATOR, MY COLLEAGUE FROM
BERKELEY'S COMMENTS HERE HELPED
ASSUAGE SOME OF MY CONCERNS.
I'VE NEVER BEEN TO PRISON. I WAS
ELECTED IN 2020. LAST YEAR
BECAUSE OF COVID. I HAVE NOT HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT AS
MEMBER. UM AND SO THAT'S
SOMETHING I PLAN TO DO LATER
THIS YEAR HAVE SEVERAL PRISON
VISITS SCHEDULED, BUT I DON'T
KNOW HOW PRISONS WORK. I DON'T
KNOW HOW THE PRISON LABOR SYSTEM
WORKS. I BUT. BUT I ALWAYS HAVE
CONCERNS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, AND
SO I GUESS I WANTED TO ASK THE
AUTHOR QUESTION. IS THAT YOUR
INTENT THAT THIS BILL WOULD, AS
I THINK THE SENATOR FROM
BERKELEY SAID WOULD NOT AFFECT
THE STATE'S PRISON LABOR SYSTEM
WOULD NOT AFFECT MINIMUM WAGE.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING HOW
THIS BILL WOULD OPERATE?
AMENDMENT? WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE
QUESTION? YES. CARILLO, SENATOR
MITCH SO IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
THAT IT WILL NOT IMPACT THAT
THIS SIMPLY SAYS THAT
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE WILL BE
PROHIBITED. IT WILL STILL BE
LEFT TO THIS BODY. TO LEGISLATE
TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH CDCR
AND CAL P I A ON REGULATIONS.
AND TO HEAR FROM THEM. ABOUT.
WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO, AND THE
REALITY IS THEY COULD DO NOTHING
. THEY COULD DO NOTHING, EVEN IF
THIS PASSES. THIS BILL TRULY IS
AN AMENDMENT TO GO TO THE
VOTERS. THAT WILL INFUSE OR
REINTEGRATE DIGNITY BACK INTO.
THE CONSTITUTION. NOW I WANT TO
BE SPECIFIC BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE
ASKING ABOUT WAGES. OKAY? SO
INCARCERATED WORKERS ARE NOT
EMPLOYEES. BY DEFINITION. THEY
ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE
WORKERS. AS A RESULT, THEY ARE
EXCLUDED FROM THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT. TITLE SEVEN OF
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
AND THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM OSHA
COVERAGE. AND IF THAT IS NOT
ENOUGH IF THERE WAS STATE
LITIGATION. THERE IS SOMETHING
CALLED THE PRISON LITIGATION
REFORM ACT THAT DISALLOWS
INCARCERATED PEOPLE FROM HAVING
THEIR RIGHTS IN FORCED AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL AND THE FEDERAL
LAW PREEMPTS STATE LAW. SO WHAT
IT MIGHT DO. AND HOPEFULLY IT
WILL DO IS FORCE OUR PRISON
SYSTEM TO THINK ABOUT CONDITIONS
THAT ARE HARMING AND KILLING
PEOPLE. IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD.
THERE WERE 600 INCARCERATED
WORKER INJURIES LOGGED IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WORKERS
WERE BURNED WITH CHEMICALS
WORKERS WERE MAIMED WORKERS WERE
KILLED. THEIR BODY PARTS WERE
CRUSHED. THEY WERE LACERATED AND
THEY WERE AMPUTATED WHILE ON A
JOB. THIS WILL HOPEFULLY FORCE
THE PRISON LABOR SYSTEM. TO
ANALYZE THOSE INJURIES AND
DEATHS. I CAN GO ON. BUT YOU
HAVE ANOTHER STATEMENT. I WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE IF WE
MIGHT, WHICH IS YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT. I
UNDERSTAND. FROM WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING THAT YOU BELIEVE THE
STATE VARIOUS STATE LAWS. AND
PRACTICES IN PLACE WOULD STILL
APPLY. AND THAT I THINK IS MY
MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS IS, UM
ONE COULD READ YOUR AMENDMENT
AND THERE IS AN INTERPRETATION,
WHICH, I GUESS IS NOT THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE OTHER NINE
STATES SO FAR. HAS BEEN TAKEN
THAT THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD IT BE
APPROVED BY THE VOTERS WOULD END
ALL PRACTICES RELATED TO THE
STATE PRISON LABOR SYSTEM. AND
SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AS AS SAYING THAT THE INTENT OF
THIS BILL WOULD NOT BE TO END
THE EXISTING PRACTICES WITH
REGARDS TO STATE PRISON LABOR
SYSTEM PROGRAM THAT WE WOULD
STILL AS A LARGE LEGISLATURE BE
ABLE TO LEGISLATE DIFFERENT
LABOR PRACTICES IN THE PRISONS
WITHOUT VIOLATING A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE ONCE THIS IS IF THIS IS
PASSED THEN IT IS THE LAW OF THE
LAND OF LAW OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND WE CANNOT AS A
BODY LEGISLATE SOMETHING THAT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO WHAT I WANT
TO BE CLEAR OF IS WHAT THE
INTENT IN INTERPRETATION THIS
AMENDMENT SHOULD BE. AND I
GATHER FROM YOUR STATEMENTS AND
YOU CAN JUST I DON'T EVEN KNOW
IF THIS IS A QUESTION. I GUESS I
WILL PHRASE IT AS A QUESTION
THAT IS IT. CORRECT THEN FROM
SHOULD I TAKE IT FROM YOUR
STATEMENTS THAT THAT YOU BELIEVE
THAT THIS BODY CAN STILL
LEGISLATE STATE PRISON LABOR
PRACTICES THAT EXISTING
PRACTICES AND LAWS WILL STILL
APPLY TO STATE INMATES. OR WILL
THIS END THE PRESENT LABOR
PROGRAM AS ONE COULD ENTER
CINDER KAMLAGER YOUTUBE THROUGH
THE CHAIR. I WILL, UM I WILL
JUST SAY THIS IS NOT GOING TO
END THE PRISON LABOR SYSTEM.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. BY
DEFINITION. IS COERCING SOMEONE
TO WORK FOR THE BENEFIT OF
SOMEONE ELSE. WHAT IS NOT BEING
DISCUSSED IS THAT THERE ARE
INCARCERATED PEOPLE THEY WANT TO
WORK. PEOPLE WANT TO WORK. THEY
WANT TO GAIN SKILLS THEY WANT TO
REHABILITATE. THEY WANT TO TAKE
CLASSES THEY WANT TO EARN
CREDITS. IN ALL OF MY TIME DOING
THIS WORK. I HAVE NEVER TALKED
TO SOMEONE WHO HAS SAID I DON'T
WANT TO WORK. THAT IS NOT WHAT
PEOPLE SAY WHAT THEY SAY IS I
DON'T WANT TO DIE. I WANT TO
HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE CLASSES
. I WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO
WORK ON AN ASSIGNMENT WORK. I
CAN EARN CREDITS. THAT IS STILL
GOING TO BE ALLOWED. THE OTHER
REALITY IS AND LET'S JUST BE
CLEAR IS THAT PRISON LABOR
BENEFITS DOZENS OF PRIVATE
COMPANIES. AND INCENTIVIZES THEM
TO LOBBY US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE PASSING LAWS THAT WILL ALLOW
THIS PRISON LABOR SYSTEM TO
CONTINUE. LET'S BE CLEAR. LET'S
ALSO BE CLEAR THAT THE STATE
EARNS MONEY. OFF OF THIS LABOR
WORK FORCE. WE HAVE A COMPANY.
THAT WE CONTRACT WITH THROUGH
CAL P A AND 45% OF THEIR
WORKFORCE ARE INCARCERATED
WORKERS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO
END THAT THIS IS NOT IMPLYING.
AND THAT IS NOT WHAT INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE IS, AND I MIGHT BE
TAKING A LONG TIME SAYING THIS,
BUT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR. THE
FEAR IS THAT PEOPLE WILL SAY I
DON'T HAVE TO WORK AND I WILL
ALSO ADD THAT THIS BODY PASSED A
LAW IF YOU YEARS AGO. A B 2056 I
BELIEVE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WEBER'S
BILL. A B 25 90, WHICH CODIFIES
THAT CDCR MUST BE REHABILITATIVE
IN NATURE. THERE IS ALSO BEEN
LAWSUITS. THAT HAVE BEEN
SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED WHEN FOLKS
HAVE SAID OH, THIS MEANS
INCARCERATED. WORKERS DON'T HAVE
TO WORK. AND IT HAS BEEN TAKEN
TO COURT. AND THEY HAVE BEEN
STRUCK DOWN BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS
SET. PRISON TIME IS NOT
PRIMARILY ECONOMIC IN NATURE. IT
IS PENALIZED LOGICAL AND IT IS
SOCIAL SO THERE ARE SOME MANY
STOPGAPS THAT WE HAVE. WRITTEN
INTO LAW IN THIS STATE AND IN
OTHER STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THAT'S STILL WILL KEEP. THE WORK
IN PROCESS. IT WILL. WHAT WE ARE
HOPING WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS
THAT PEOPLE WILL THINK ABOUT
WHAT INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE WHAT
INDENTURED SERVITUDE MEANS AND
WILL SAY. THAT WE DON'T WANT IT
IN OUR CONSTITUTION WITH 26
OTHER STATES THAT DON'T HAVE IT
IN THEIR CONSTITUTION THAT STILL
HAVE ACTIVE CAR, SURREAL SYSTEMS
WHERE PEOPLE ARE STILL WORKING.
UM SO I WILL JUST STATE I THINK
IF I HAD JUST HEARD, SO FIRST OF
ALL, IN THE QUESTION OF ABUSES,
I CERTAINLY AGREE, AND I THINK
WE SHOULD LEGISLATE AWAY
WORKPLACES ABUSES. YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE
HAVE A BODY SHOULD DO. I DO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT I'M STILL VERY
UNCLEAR AS THE EFFECT OF IF I
THINK IF YOU JUST SAID THAT WE
WILL FOLLOW THE PRACTICE, AND
THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS
SHOULD BE THE SAME AS WITH THE
OTHER NINE STATES. I WOULD HAVE
BEEN HAPPY TO VOTE FOR THIS. UM
YOU KNOW, I ONLY NOTE THAT
SOMEBODY WHO IS IN STATE PRISON
IS ALREADY IN VOLUNTARY
IMPRISONMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
COMMITTED A CRIME, A BREACH OF
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS. WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENDING
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND YOUR WHAT? WHAT THE
IMPACT OF THIS WILL BE AND I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT VOTING FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT I
DON'T UNDERSTAND, AND THAT IS MY
CONCERN, SO I WILL UNFORTUNATELY
BE LAYING OFF ABILITY. THANK
YOU. SENATOR EMBARK. UM THANK
YOU, MR PRESIDENT. THE QUESTION
OF THE AUTHOR SENATOR KAMLAGER.
WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE QUESTION?
YES. AND I'M HOPING THAT THIS IS
ALREADY BEEN SAID, BUT JUST TO
CLARIFY FOR LEGISLATIVE INTENT
PURPOSES. SHOULD A C A THREE BE
PASSED BY THE VOTERS, UH,
INMATES WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED
TO, FOR EXAMPLE, CLEAN THEIR
CELLS BUST THEIR DISHES, CLEAN
COMMON AREAS. THAT WOULD NOT BE
PROHIBITED, WOULD IT? TO RESPOND
. YES THAT WOULD NOT BE
PROHIBITED BECAUSE TAKING CARE
OF YOURSELF. IS NOT WORK. THAT
IS A SOCIAL AGREEMENT THAT YOU
MAKE. WHILE YOU'RE LIVING WITH
OTHER PEOPLE. YOU'RE NOT EARNING
WAGES BECAUSE YOU ARE. MAKING
SURE THAT YOUR HOUSE IS IN
ORDER. UM SO ALREADY ANSWERED.
YOUR QUESTION DOES THANK SENATOR
ALLEN. UM. BUT I'VE BEEN
LISTENING VERY INTENTLY TO THE
DISCUSSION. I WAS I WAS MY
UNDERSTANDING THIS BILL IS GOING
TO COME UP NEXT WEEK AND I GUESS
I AM VERY, VERY OPEN TO VOTING
FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. I AM
SUPER. CERTAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IS
PROJECTIONS THAT THIS IS GOING
TO LEAD TO AT $1.5 BILLION
ANNUAL COST TO OUR BUDGET. THAT
REALLY WORRIES ME, GIVEN ALL OF
THE PRIORITIES AND NEEDS THAT WE
HAVE THAT ARE OUT THERE FROM
TRANSPORTATION TO HEALTH CARE
TO, YOU KNOW TO PROGRAMS FOR
DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE. SO THAT'S
MY OUTSTANDING CHALLENGE. I
THOUGHT THAT SOME ISSUES WERE
BEING WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE
ELECTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS CHAIR AND THE AUTHOR
. IT SEEMS THAT THEY'VE FALLEN
APART. UM AND SO I THOUGHT THAT
WAS IN PROCESS, AND NOW THE BILL
IS UP FOR, UH, FOR A VOTE, SO I
WANT TO. I WANT TO GET MORE
CLARITY ON THE STATE OF THAT
NEGOTIATION. BUT I DO WANT TO
SAY THAT I AGREE WITH NEARLY
EVERYTHING EVERY SINGLE THING,
THE AUTHOR HAS SAID. AH AND I'M
VERY OPEN TO VOTING FOR THIS. I
JUST AM CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE
THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE BETWEEN THE
AUTHOR AND THE CHAIR. STANDARD
QUESTION FOR THE ANSWER. ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR, UM. RATHER I'M
SORRY. THAT'S OKAY, MR.
PRESIDENT. I'M THE CELLOPHANE
MAN. YOU KNOW, I THINK MY VOTING
RECORD ON THESE ISSUES OVER THE
LAST 10 YEARS IS PRETTY GOOD. I
AM CONCERNED ABOUT AND FRANKLY,
I DIDN'T KNOW THIS WAS COMING UP
EITHER, AND I'M READING IT ON
THE FLY. SO MAYBE I'M ALL OFF.
UM AND I'M NOT EVEN A LAWYER
ANYMORE. BEST I CAN TELL, BUT
WHEN I WAS I, I SORT OF THOUGHT
THAT WE LOOKED AT THINGS WITH
THROUGH THE LENS OF THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE. AND WHEN YOU TALK
ABOUT INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. AND
I DON'T CARE WHICH DEFINITION.
YOU TRY TO PULL UP ON YOUR PHONE
AND THE 45 SECONDS THAT I HAD TO
DO IT. UM INVOLUNTARY MEANS
AGAINST YOUR WILL. AND SERVITUDE
, HIS WORK AND FOR ME, IT MEANS
WHEN YOU ARE FORCED OR COERCED
TO ENGAGE IN WORK. AGAINST YOUR
WILL. AND WORK TO ME IS WHETHER
YOU'RE CLEANING YOUR CELL OR
YOU'RE BUSTING UP YOUR TRAY AT
THE DINING HALL OR DOING
ANYTHING ELSE. YOU KNOW, YOU
POTENTIALLY HAVE HAVE A PROBLEM
AND IT'S THE INVOLUNTARY PEACE
AND IT'S THE WORK PIECE INSIDE
THE WIRE. UM THAT BOTHERS ME.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN
PRISON FOR A WHOLE VARIETY OF
REASONS FOR INMATES WHO CHOOSE
NOT TO ENGAGE IN EDUCATIONAL
EFFORTS OR THE REHABILITATION
THAT WE. HOPEFULLY ARE NOW
PROVIDING FOR THEM AT A HIGHER
LEVEL THAN WE HAVE BEEN OVER THE
LAST 10 YEARS. YOU PROVIDE
INMATES, AND YOU REQUIRE INMATES
TO DO SOME WORK. FOR A VARIETY
OF REASONS. ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ONES IS GOOD ORDER AND
DISCIPLINE INSIDE THE WIRE WHERE
YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED
TO BE THERE FOR A GOOD REASON
AFTER CONVICTION. AND THERE ARE
A LOT OF THEM. LESS SO NOW THAN
PERHAPS 10 YEARS AGO. BUT TO
HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT.
ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN PRODUCTIVE
WORK IDLE HANDS. YOU KNOW WHAT
THEY SAY. AND SO THAT'S. WHAT MY
CONCERN IS, FOR ME. COST IS NOT
THE ISSUE. INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK
SHOULD BE PAID. AND IF OUR PAY
RATES ARE TOO LOW IN THE IN THE
CDCR SYSTEM, THEY SHOULD BE
INCREASED. AND I'M ALL FOR THAT.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
INTERPRETATION. AND SOMEONE FOR
SURE WILL BE INTERPRETING THE
TWO SENTENCES OR ONE SENTENCE.
THAT'S IN THIS, AKA AT SOME
POINT IN TIME. AND IF THE
INTERPRETATION ULTIMATELY IS
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS, IN
FACT, THE WAY I READ IT, WHICH
IS YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO
WORK AGAINST THEIR WILL. PERIOD
STOP. END OF SENTENCE. THEN I
THINK POTENTIALLY, WE HAVE A
SERIOUS ISSUE INSIDE THE WIRE
FACILITIES UP AND DOWN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AND I DON'T KNOW
HOW TO ADDRESS THAT, MA'AM. AND
I, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION
ABOUT THIS. I HOPE WE CAN I'M
GOING TO KEEP THINKING ABOUT IT
IN THE 30 FURTHER SECONDS I HAVE
BEFORE THEY CALL THIS MATTER FOR
A VOTE, BUT I AM VERY, VERY,
VERY CONCERNED. I DO APPRECIATE
YOUR WORK. I HAVE THE UTMOST
RESPECT FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE
DONE. AND CONTINUE TO DO IN THIS
LEGISLATURE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE
SOME ISSUES WITH THIS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR BORDERS.
MR PRESIDENT. UM I HAVE A
PROCEDURAL QUESTION. I DON'T
KNOW TO WHOM I SHOULD ADDRESS
THIS. UM, MAYBE BERNIE OR THE
AUTHOR, PERHAPS, BUT MAYBE
THROUGH THE PRESIDENT. MAY I
POSE A QUESTION? PART OF
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. GO RIGHT
AHEAD. I THINK THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE. UM WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE PUSHES FORWARD A
BILL TO PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS IN
ITEM. DOES LEGISLATIVE INTENT
STILL CARRY OVER? OR IS IT THE
INTENT OF THE DRAFTERS OF THE
BILL? BEFORE THE VOTERS. THAT'S
A LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL QUESTION.
AND WOULD HAVE TO CONTACT THEM
FOR AN ANSWER. OKAY. THE REASON
I ASKED AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT MAY
NOT BE PERFECT COROLLARY, BUT
THERE WERE THERE WERE
LEGISLATIVE BILLS. ON THAT
ALLOWED ITEMS TO GO TO THE
VOTERS, ONE OF WHICH WAS, FOR
EXAMPLE, WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.
NO, LET'S SHIP LEGISLATIVE
INTENT AT THE TIME. WAS THAT
CERTAINLY THAT CERTAIN PROJECTS
WE'RE GOING TO BE IDENTIFIED. UM
BY VIRTUE OF AGREEMENT, BUT THEY
WEREN'T MEMORIALIZED IN THE
BALLOT INITIATIVE ITSELF. AND SO
WHEN PEOPLE BROUGHT THAT ISSUE
UP, IT WAS THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT AT THE TIME. BUT THEY HAD
NO FORCE OF LAW OR FORCE OF
INTERPRETATION THROUGH THE
COURT. IF THAT IS ACCURATE, AND
I'LL LET LEDGE COUNCIL OPINE AT
SOME POINT, I SUSPECT EVEN
THOUGH IT'S NOT HERE NOW. IT
SEEMSLIKE LEGISLATIVE INTENT ON
THIS ISSUE MIGHT BECOME
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. IF THIS
MATTER GOES BEFORE THE VOTERS
AND HOW IT'S CONSTRUCTED. WILL
BE THE PRIMARY. LEGAL AUTHORITY
ON THATISSUE. AND I DIDN'T KNOW
IF YOU KNOW, MAYBE HAD ANYBODY
WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE ON THIS MIGHT
BE WILLING TO OFFER A COMMENT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GIRL. THANK
YOU, MR PRESIDENT. QUESTION OF
THE OTHER. SENATOR CONRAD WILL
YOU ACCEPT THE QUESTION? YES,
YOU ARE. ALRIGHT SO RIGHT NOW
THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTIONS SPECIALIZED THAT
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS
PROHIBITED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME. WOULD
IS IT YOUR INTENT, OR IS THAT
THE INTENT OF THE PROPONENT OF
THIS BILL TO HAVE THOSE THAT ARE
SERVING A PRISON SENTENCE BE
CLASSIFIED AS EVEN SHIN MIN
INJURIES. THE REASON WHY I'M
ASKING THIS IS BECAUSE YOU
MENTIONED ABOUT INJURIES MAY
MEAN THINGS LIKE THAT. WOULD
THEY BE UNDER THE D R.
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
HOUSING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT? WOULD
THEY BE UNDER THOSE CAL OSHA
PROTECTIONS? IS THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE WHERE THE INTENT OF
THE S C A OR A C A SORRY.
TUESDAY ANSWER THAT SENATOR
KAMLAGER? YES THANK YOU. FOR THE
QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS NO. THEY
WOULD NOT BE PROTECTED UNDER ANY
OF THOSE LAWS. THEY WOULD NOT BE
COVERED UNDER ANY OF THOSE
PROTECTION. BY DEFINITION AND IN
LAW, INCARCERATED WORKERS ARE
NOT EMPLOYEES. SO I GUESS MY
QUESTION IS, AND I THINK THE
OPPOSITION IS WRITING THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF BROAD LANGUAGE
IN IT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION
SPECIFICALLY SAYS NOW WITHOUT
THIS A C A THAT INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT
WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF THE
CRIME. AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THE
S THE A. C A IS TO, UM INCLUDE
THOSE SERVING IN A PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME INTO WHAT CATEGORY
THEN THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL.
REALLY? UM IS TO TAKE THIS
PHRASE. WHICH IS INCREDIBLY
POTENT. AND. HISTORICAL AND
DEHUMANIZING OUT OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION. THE PRESIDENT THAT
WE HAVE OUR 26 OTHER STATES THAT
ALSO DO NOT HAVE THIS PHRASE DO
NOT HAVE THIS CLAUSE IN THEIR
CONSTITUTION. AND STILL HAVE
ROBUST WORKING CAR SURREAL
SYSTEMS IN THEIR STATE WHERE
PRISON LABOR IS GOING ON AYE.
WANT AND I HAVE TO ASSURE YOU
THAT THERE ARE NOT LOST. IT'S
HAPPENING IN THOSE STATES. WERE
INCARCERATED. INDIVIDUALS ARE
NOT WORKING. UM THIS IS NOT
ABOUT HAVING PEOPLE NOT WERE.
AND SO I HOPE I'M TRYING TO BE
MORE SUSTAINED. BUT I'M HOPING
THAT THAT ALSO ANSWERS YOUR
QUESTION. DEFINITELY YES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING.
YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS HARD. I SERVED WITH HER
OWN RULES. AND I KNOW THAT SHE
HAS A DEEP HEART FOR, UH
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. UM. I
KNOW I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE
BILL. I KNOW IT'S BEEN VOTED ON
BY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE
PAST COMMITTEES. I HAVE TO
RESPECTFULLY RISING OPPOSITION
BECAUSE I TRULY FEEL THAT THE
STATE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIES.
CLEARLY WHETHER IT'S HISTORICAL
OR NOT. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS
PROHIBITED, UM, WITH EXCEPT IN
THE PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME, AND
I THINK IF THERE ARE AMENDMENTS
TAKING TAKEN THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE OFFERED EARLIER IT WOULD
CLARIFY THAT AND GIVE US A
LITTLE MORE EASE THAT IT'S NOT
GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WILL
JUST ALLOW, UM, PRISON INMATES
THAT ARE SERVING THAT ARE BEING
PUNISHED FOR A CRIME AGAINST
HUMANITY, OR, YOU KNOW AN
INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING. AND THAT
THEY. THEY STILL HAVE TO DO THE
THINGS THEY HAVE TO CLEAN THEIR
ROOM. THEY HAVE TO COOK THE WORK
IN THE KITCHEN. THEY HAVE TO
WORK IN THE LAUNDRY THEY HAVE TO
WORK IN. I MEAN, THEY DON'T HAVE
TO. THEY CAN AND GET GOOD TIME
OFF AND BEHAVE. YOU KNOW, GOOD
TIME BEHAVIOR CREDITS. AND I
QUESTIONED I ASKED YOU ABOUT
THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS A CONCERN
OF MINE, TOO. I THINK THEY
SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET GOOD TIME
CREDITS. UM IF THEY DO DO THE
WORK, AND THEY DO CHANGE THEIR
WAYS. BUT I THINK THIS IS VERY
BROAD AND I DO. I DO ENCOURAGE
YOU TO WORK WITH. UH ARE THE
COLOR OUR COLLEAGUE THAT STOOD
UP AND ASKED FOR THE AMENDMENT
SENATOR GLASER? BECAUSE I CAN'T
REMEMBER HE'S FROM. I APOLOGIZE.
UM BUT I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO
WORK WITH HIM ON THIS AMENDMENT,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD
CLARIFY IT AND GIVE A LOT OF US
EASE TO HELP SUPPORT THIS. SO
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
DINNER'S DONALD IS THAT IT'S NOT
IT IS DUST. SENATOR MAN. I
APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING UP A
SECOND TIME. AS I SAID EARLIER.
MY MAIN CONCERNS ARE ABOUT WHAT
THIS AMENDMENT MEANS. AND IN THE
COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION, I
RECEIVED SEVERAL TASKS STATING
THAT THIS IS THE CASE LAW WITH
RESPECT TO THE BILL. AH! ONE FOR
PEOPLE SERVING CRIMINAL
SENTENCES. SERVITUDE MEANS WORK
THAT DOES NOT SERVE A
REHABILITATIVE PURPOSE OR FALL
WITHIN THE SO CALLED
HOUSEKEEPING EXCEPTION FOR
TOURS, SUCH AS CLEANING ONES ON
LIVING AREA. AND COMMON AREAS TO
SERVITUDE IS CONSIDERED
INVOLUNTARY. IF THE REFUSAL TO
PERFORM IT CAN RESULT IN
PUNISHMENT, SUCH AS THE
REVOCATION OF CUSTODY CREDIT OR
THE IMPOSITION OF SOLITARY
CONFINEMENTS. THREE SERVITUDE
WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
INVOLUNTARY. IF THE ONLY
CONSEQUENCES ARE OF REFUSAL TO
PERFORMANCE OR THE DENIAL OF
BENEFITS, SUCH AS WAGES OR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EARN CUSTODY
CREDITS. IS THIS. YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE LAW
AND HOW THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE
INTERPRETED? THAT'S A QUESTION
OF COMMONLY OR WE ACCEPT THE
QUESTION. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT
THE COURTS WILL OPINE. SECOND
QUESTION. THE AUTHOR, IF I MIGHT
UM, IS THAT YOUR IMPORTATION
FROM THIS? UNDER KAMLAGER. WILL
YOU ACCEPT? ANOTHER QUESTION? IS
THAT THE INTERPRETATION THAT WE
SHOULD TAKE THIS AMENDMENT IS
HAVING. I ONLY ASK THAT BECAUSE
I WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL. I
WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT,
BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
WE'RE NOT OPENING UP A CAN OF
WORMS SHOOTER THAT THAT MIGHT
UPEND OUR PRESIDENT LABOR
SYSTEM. THAT IS MY MAIN CONCERN
HERE, SO I JUST HAVE TO SAY, UM. THAT. I I'M WONDERING HOW MY
WORDS HAVE NOT BEEN CLEAR. THIS
IS THIS AMENDMENT, IF PASSED BY
THE VOTERS WOULD NOT ERADICATE.
THE PRISON LABOR SYSTEM. I WISH
THAT IS SOMETHING WE WERE. IN A
SPACE TO TALK ABOUT, BUT IT IS
NOT. I THINK IT WOULD BE
ENCOURAGING ACTUALLY FOR FOLKS
TO VISIT THE PRISONS TO SEE AND
HOPEFULLY NOT ON A PREARRANGED
VISIT. WHERE EVERYTHING IS
SHINED AND BUFFED AND PRETTY,
BUT TO HAVE REAL CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON, AND I
DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO
FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SAY
I DON'T WANT TO WORK. I THINK
WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO FIND IS
PEOPLE SAYING I YOU KNOW, I DO
WANT TO HAVE I WANT TO EARN GOOD
TIME CREDITS. I WANT TO HAVE A
CERTAIN ASSIGNMENT. THE INTENT
BEHIND THE BILL IS NOT TO GET
RID OF THE PRISON LABOR SYSTEM.
I ALSO WANT TO JUST CLICK. I
WANT TO SAY WE HAVE SO MANY
AMENDMENTS, WHICH I TRIED TO
DISCUSS IN MY OPENING. WE ARE
NOT OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE. WITH
WHAT? PROHIBITING UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES LOOK LIKE
IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT GETS
PRESCRIBED IN LAW. WE ARE NOT
OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT WHAT A
JURY OF YOUR PEERS LOOKS LIKE.
THAT IS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN LAW
. WE ARE NOT OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE
. ABOUT WHAT FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS LOOKS LIKE THAT IS
PRESCRIBED AND DISCUSSED IN LAW,
SO I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE
TRYING TO NEGOTIATE. WHAT
FREEDOM LOOKS LIKE, AND IT
DOESN'T MEAN FREEDOM TO DO
WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT IT
CERTAINLY MEANS WHAT A COUSIN TO
SLAVERY IS STILL DOING IN THE
CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION.
BUT IF YOU TAKE YOUR JOB
SERIOUSLY IN THIS BODY I IMPLORE
YOU. I AM PLOURDE YOU TO
IMMEDIATELY UPON THE
ADJOURNMENT. TO CONSIDER
LEGISLATION. ABOUT WORKING
CONDITIONS INSIDE THE PRISONS. I
IMPLORE YOU TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE
WITH CAL P I A AND CDCR BECAUSE
IT IS SO LAZY. TO HAVE AN
ANALYSIS THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO
OPPOSE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
BECAUSE IT COULD COST $1.5
BILLION ANNUALLY THE COST OF
OPERATING OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
SO THAT WE GIVE PEOPLE DUE
PROCESS COSTS FAR MORE THAN $1.5
BILLION ANNUALLY, AND WE WORK
REALLY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT
DUE PROCESS IS IN PLACE. SPACE
IS NOT ABOUT GETTING RID OF A
LABOR INDUSTRY. IT'S EVIDENT
WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO DISCUSS
THAT. THIS IS ABOUT TAKING OUT A
PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW
THIS TO GO TO THE VOTERS. AND
YOU CAN DECIDE HOW YOU INTERPRET
IT FOR THE CONSTITUENTS THAT YOU
TALKED TO BETWEEN NOW AND
NOVEMBER. BUT IF THERE ARE 26
OTHER STATES IN THIS COUNTRY
EVEN IN THE SOUTH THAT DON'T
HAVE THIS CLAUSE AND STILL HAVE
AN ACTIVE PRISON LABOR INDUSTRY
. THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU SOME
RELIEF. IF YOU ARE FEARFUL THAT
PEOPLE WON'T WANT TO WORK WHAT I
THE INTENT FOR ME. IS THAT MAYBE
IT WOULD MEAN PEOPLE ARE
SLIGHTLY MORE ADEQUATELY TRAINED
ON HOW TO USE EQUIPMENT BEFORE
THEY USE IT WITHOUT ANY
INSTRUCTIONS AND HAVE TO HAVE
THEIR ARMS AMPUTATED. AND I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THESE
EXAMPLES AS OUTLIERS TO WHAT'S
GOING ON. I THINK IT MEANS THAT
IF YOU SAY I WOULD LIKE TO DO X
JOB AND THE, UM PRISON EMPLOYEE
SAYS NO, THAT YOU'RE NOT THEN
THROWN INTO THE SHOE OR TAKEN
CREDITS AWAY OR HAVING YOUR
VISITATION TAKEN AWAY. THAT'S
WHAT IT SHOULD MEAN. IN OUR
COUNTY FACILITIES. IF YOU WORK.
AND YOU DO A GOOD JOB. YOU ARE
GIVEN A TRUSTEE STATUS. DO YOU
KNOW WHAT TRUSTEE STATUS MEANS?
TRUSTEE STATUS MEANS THAT YOU'RE
ABLE TO EAT THE SAME MEAL THAT
THE DEPUTIES GET, AND THE
DEPUTIES EAT THAT MEAL FOR FREE.
IT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO EAT
THIS SLOP. AND MAYBE MAYBE IT
WOULD MEAN THAT IF YOU ARE
WORKING. THEN YOU'RE YOU'RE KEPT
AWAY FROM BULLIES AND PREDATORS
THAT ARE IN THE PRISON WITH YOU.
SO WHY DO WE ONLY HAVE TO LOOK
AT THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF
WAGES RATHER THAN THE OTHER,
VERY REAL AND HAZARDOUS AND
DEADLY AND DEBILITATING AND
DEHUMANIZING CONDITIONS. THAT
ARE ALSO HAPPENING AND VERY
PRESENT. IN OUR PRISONS. I JUST
ASK THAT PEOPLE ARE MORE
IMAGINATIVE. ABOUT WHAT IS
REALLY GOING ON IN OUR PRISONS
AND HOW PEOPLE TRULY ARE
TREATED. AND REALLY, IF YOU WANT
TO GET DARK ABOUT IT. KEEP YOUR
WORKFORCE ALIVE AND HEALTHY SO
THEY CAN CONTINUE TO WORK. THAT
IS THE TRUE NATURE OF
CAPITALISM. SENATOR DODD. YES,
MR PRESIDENT MEMBERS. I'VE
LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY. I MEAN,
THIS, TOO, WAS JUST I FEEL LIKE
WE'RE BLINDSIDED ON THE FLOOR ON
THIS TODAY. I'VE NOT HAD ANY
SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH MY
STAFF. ANY EXPERTS, YOU KNOW,
YOU KNOW ON THIS ISSUE AFTER
LISTENING TO ALL SIDES, I DO
APPLAUD THE AUTHOR FOR YOU KNOW
, YOU KNOW, COMING FORWARD THE
BILL, BUT I STILL SEE THAT THERE
ARE INTERPRETATION. IT'S A BIG
DEAL. PEOPLE INTERPRET THINGS
DIFFERENTLY EVERY SINGLE DAY. AT
THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK THE
GOOD SENATOR FROM A RENDEZ COME
UP. WITH SOME AMENDMENTS THAT I
FEEL ARE VERY, VERY FAIR AND
CLARIFY IT, SO THERE'S NOT A LOT
OF DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF
WHAT WE'RE PASSING OUT OF THIS
HOUSE, LET ALONE WITH ALL THE
VOTERS ARE GOING TO BE THINKING
THEY'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON.
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THEY DON'T
READ THE BALLOT INITIATIVE
LANGUAGE ANYWAY, SO I THINK
WE'RE GOING TO DO OURSELVES AND
OUR VOTERS A BETTER SERVICE BY
ACCEPTING THESE AMENDMENTS.
OTHERWISE, I WILL NOT BE VOTING
ON THIS TODAY. THANK SENATOR
SKINNER. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT
MEMBERS. I'M. IT'S UNFORTUNATE
THAT THE DEBATE HAS BECOME AS I
THINK CONFUSING AS IT HAS ON THE
FLOOR. THE THIS IS THE REMOVAL
OF A FEW WORDS IN OUR
CONSTITUTION. THOSE STATES THAT
DO NOT HAVE THESE WORDS STILL
HAVE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THEIR
PRISONS, WHERE, IF A PERSON DOES
NOT COMPLY BY THE RULES, THAT
PERSON CAN HAVE PRIVILEGES TAKEN
AWAY AND PUNISHED. SO IF THE
RULES ARE THAT YOU MUST CLEAN
YOURSELF. YOU WILL CLEAN YOUR
CELL OR YOU WILL HAVE PUNISHMENT
AND THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THE
REMOVAL OF THESE WORDS THAT
WOULD REMOVE THAT NOW ARE
SENATOR FROM IRVINE RED. COURT
IN EFFECT, THE CANONS OF LAW
THAT THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD. IN
A WHOLE VARIETY OF CASES AND HIS
WHAT HE READ WAS ACCURATE. NOW
THE AUTHOR DID ALSO ACCURATELY
ANSWERED THAT SHE CANNOT PREDICT
EXACTLY HOW FUTURE COURTS MAY
ACT. NONE OF US CAN, BUT
CERTAINLY IF WE TAKE COURT
ACTIONS TO DATE AND
INTERPRETATIONS OF PRACTICES AND
EVERY OTHER STATE THAT EITHER
HAS OR DOES NOT HAVE THIS CLAUSE
. WHAT HE READ IS ACCURATE. SO
THE FEAR THAT. OR IF OUR VOTERS
WERE TO REMOVE THESE WORDS FROM
OUR CONSTITUTION, THE FEAR THAT
OUR PRISON SYSTEM COULD NOT
REQUIRE OUR INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS TO FOLLOW RULES IS
WRONG. AND THE FEAR THAT. OUR
PRISON SYSTEM COULD NOT WOULD
NOT HAVE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS
TO, IN EFFECT, HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY DID NOT
PARTICIPATE IN REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMS IS ALSO INCORRECT. NOW
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT MAY
END UP BEING CHANGED AS A RESULT
FROM DUE TO CERTAIN LAWSUITS,
AND MAYBE THOSE ARE SUCH THINGS
AS THE SAFETY OF PRACTICES, BUT
IT WOULD NOT BE EITHER. AT LEAST
IF WE LOOK AT THOSE STATES THAT
HAVE REMOVED THIS AND, FOR
EXAMPLE, COLORADO WHERE THERE
HAVE BEEN LAWSUITS WHERE CERTAIN
PEOPLE HAVE ASSERTED THAT THE
REMOVAL OF THESE WORDS IN
COLORADO'S LAW MAY MEANT THAT
ALL PRISONERS HAD TO BE AN
EMPLOYEES AND GET MINIMUM WAGE.
ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN STRUCK
DOWN SO FAR BY THE COURTS, SO
I'M I HAVE COURSE CANNOT. I DO
NOT KNOW WHAT ALL OF THE
CONCERNS THAT THE MEMBERS HERE
MAY HAVE. BUT SO FAR THE ONES
THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED ON THE
FLOOR HAVE NOT HELD UP IN ANY
OTHER STATE OR SO, IN OTHER
WORDS, IF WE TAKE COURT ACTION
TO DATE AND LEGAL PRECEDENT. TO
DATE, WE WOULD BE SAFELY
REMOVING THIS FROM OUR
CONSTITUTION WITH MINIMAL IMPACT
TO OUR PRISON SYSTEM, AND I
ASKED FOR I VOTE. THANK YOU ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DEBATE ON
THIS ITEM? SEEN NO MORE. MIX UP,
SENATOR KAMLAGER. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YES THANK YOU. I YOU
KNOW WE HAVE PASSED SO MANY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ON
THIS BODY. DEALING WITH WOMEN'S
RIGHTS. WE HAVE PASSED DEALING
WITH CHILDREN'S RIGHTS AND THEIR
PROTECTIONS. WE HAVE PASSED LAWS
ABOUT ATHLETES AND HOW THEY
SHOULD BE TREATED AND PERCEIVE.
WE HAVE PASSED LAWS IN THIS
HOUSE ABOUT FOLKS WITH IMMIGRANT
STATUS AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE.
TREATED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE EVEN TAKEN
UP LAWS. THAT DECIDE WHETHER OR
NOT DRIVERS ARE EMPLOYEES OR
NOT. WE HAVE TAKEN UP LAWS
AROUND SMOKING. AND WHO SHOULD
SMOKE AND WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE.
AND MANY OF THESE. HAVE ALSO
FOUND THEIR WAY TO THE COURTS.
WE VOTED FOR HIM. BECAUSE IT WAS
PRINCIPAL. OUT OF PRINCIPLE. I
AM SO GRATEFUL. THAT SO MANY MIX
WENT UP. WANTING CLARIFICATION.
ON WHAT INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
MEANS. I ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE
TO NOT DISASSOCIATED FROM
SLAVERY. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU
CAN PARSE OUT A JUSTIFICATION.
ABOUT THE TWO I SUSPECT. THAT
THIS CONVERSATION WE HAD ON THIS
FLOOR WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THE
DISCUSSIONS HAD AN 1800 ABOUT
FREEING THE SLAVES. AND E. EVEN
PEOPLE IN THAT BODY. WHO HATED
BLACK PEOPLE. WHO WERE NOT
ABOLITIONIST. EVEN THEY DECIDED.
THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE
COUNTRY TO ABOLISH. SLAVERY. OF
VERY DIFFERENT REASONS. BUT I
SUSPECT. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
PARSED OUT EVERY WORD. TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS
QUO. AND TO PASS SOMETHING THAT
MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. I DON'T
WANT TO MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. I
DON'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE WHAT
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE MEANS I
DON'T WANT TO GO THERE. I THINK
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOT BE
PRESCRIPTIVE. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE
OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, YOU
ACTUALLY LEAVE OUT CERTAIN
THINGS YOU BIND THE HANDS OF THE
COURT WHEN CASES COME BEFORE
THEM, AND YOU KNOW THAT COURTS
ARE OVERLY CAUTIOUS. AND THEY
WILL SAY, WELL, IF IT WAS THE
ONE THING THAT WAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED. THEN
THIS WILL NOT BE LAW. AND THAT
IS WHY WE HAVE SO MANY CASES
THAT COME BEFORE OUR JUDICIAL
SYSTEM. IZED MENTIONED THAT
CALIFORNIA WAS A PLANTATION
STATE BECAUSE A PLANTATION AS A
COLONY WHERE CROPS ARE
CULTIVATED, USING RESIDENT LABOR
AND. WE CONTRACT WITH SO MANY
COMPANIES USING OUR LABOR WORK
FORCE TO DO THIS WORK? WE HAVE
ALFALFA FARMING SOFTWARE CODING.
WE MAKE REFRIGERATORS. WE MAKE
DISABILITY PLACARDS. WE MAKE
VICTORIA'S SECRET UNDERWEAR. WE
MAKE MCDONALD'S UNIFORMS. WE
MAKE STARBUCKS HOLIDAY PRODUCTS
. WE GRIND MEAT MEAT, AND WE
PACKAGE MILK. ALL IN OUR STATE
PRISONS. SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO
BUY THESE AT A CHEAPER COST.
INCARCERATED WORKERS EARN
BETWEEN FOUR CENTS AND 37 CENTS
AN HOUR UNLESS THEY WORK FOR CAL
FIRE. AND OF THAT MONEY. 20%
GOES TO ROOM AND BOARD. 20% GOES
TO RESTITUTION AND FINES AND IF
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY RESTITUTION
FEES, 20% OF IT GOES. JUST FOR
PROGRAMMING. FOR VICTIMS OF
CRIME. 20% GOES INTO A LITTLE
TRUST. WHAT THEY BUY AT THE
CANTEEN IS MARKED UP BY 65.
GREATER THAN ANY TAX WE COMPLAIN
ABOUT ON THIS FLOOR. TO COVER
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. CALIFORNIA
IS ABLE TO RUN. BECAUSE WE
OPERATE THIS PLANTATION. AND NO
ONE NOT EVEN I IS STRONG ENOUGH
ON MY OWN TO DEFEAT THAT. THAT
IS NOT WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS
ABOUT. IN CLOSING. I JUST WANT
TO SAY I WENT TO THE SYNAGOGUE
OVER THE WEEKEND. AND TALKED
ABOUT THE BETSELEM ELOHIM. WHICH
SAYS WE ARE FREE FROM BONDAGE
AND CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE.
THINKING ABOUT THIS CLOSING
YESTERDAY. I THOUGHT ABOUT MY
MOTHER IN THE PLAY THE GRAPES OF
WRATH, WHICH WAS ABOUT POVERTY
AND HOMELESSNESS AND THE
DEPRESSION AND THE AVERAGE MAN.
WHO HAD HIS LAND TAKEN FROM HIM.
AND THERE WAS A QUOTE. THAT
STEINBECK WROTE IN HIS BOOK.
THAT IF YOU ARE IN TROUBLE, YOU
GO TO POOR PEOPLE. BECAUSE AT
THE END OF THE DAY IT IS THE
POOR PEOPLE THAT WILL HELP YOU.
I BELIEVE THAT OUR CONSTITUTION
IS ABOUT PRINCIPLES. GUIDING
PRINCIPLES AND VALUES. I BELIEVE
THAT WE ARE ALL CREATED IN GOD'S
IMAGE. I BELIEVE EVEN IF WE ARE
INCARCERATED. WE STILL SHOULD
HAVE DIGNITY. I BELIEVE THAT
EVEN IF WE ARE INCARCERATED THAT
WE SHOULD BE FREE. FROM BANDAGE.
HAVE DEEMED NORMALIZATION AND
DEHUMANIZATION. I AUTHORED THIS
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT DIGNITY
IS OUR BIRTHRIGHT, AND WE
SHOULDN'T BE DENIED IT BECAUSE
OF OUR RACE, OUR GENDER, OUR
RELIGION, OUR PARTY AFFILIATION.
OR EVEN BECAUSE WE ARE
INCARCERATED. I HOPE. THAT YOU
WILL NOT SEE THIS? OR INTERPRET
THIS IN A WAY THAT WILL UP IN
THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN DONE IN ANY
OF THE OTHER STATES ACROSS THIS
LAND. AS IT RELATES TO THIS
ISSUE. I ASKED FOR YOUR VOTE ON
A C A THREE, WHICH WOULD TAKE
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. OUT OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTION. THANK YOU
DISCUSSION. WE'RE HAVING CEASED
, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON PAR LIGHT OF 99.
ALAN ARCHULETTA. ATKINS. SPACE.
BECKER. AYE, GORGEOUS. BRADFORD
CARBONARA. CORTEZ E. I DOLLY.
DODD. BARROSO. AYE EGGMAN
GLASER. NÓ GONZALEZ. I GROW. NÓ
HERTZBERG. I WEAR SO HURTADO.
JONES. KAMLAGER I CARED. I LABOR
LIMÓN. AYE MCGUIRE. I. MELINDA'S
MEN. NEWMAN. AYE, NIELSEN. NÓ
OCHOA BOGUE. PAN. AYE,
PORTANTINO. AYE, FROTH. RUBIO.
SKINNER. AYE STERN. I HAMBURG.
AYE, WIECKOWSKI. WIENER. AYE,
WILK. SECRETARY POLICE CALLED
THE ABSENT MEMBERS. ALAN
ARCHULETTA. ATKINS. BATES.
GORGEOUS. CABRERA. SALLY. NO.
GOD. HUESO. FURTADO. JONES.
MELINDA'S. MEN. SHOW A VOGUE.
NO. ROCK. RUBIO. AYE. WIECKOWSKI
WILK. NO. 20 NO. SIX. THE
MEASURE FAILS. A MOTION TO
RECONSIDER SENATOR KAMLAGER. IS
THERE OBJECTION TO
RECONSIDERATION. RECONSIDERATION
IS GRANTED. IRISH 37 0. I'M
SORRY. ICE 34 NO. ZERO ON
RECONSIDERATION.THREE. ALRIGHT
MEMBERS. NOW WE'RE RETURNING TO
MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS. THIS IS
THE TIME FOR A JOURNEY MEMORIES.
WE HAVE FOUR SENATOR ALAN, ARE
YOU PREPARED? MEMBERS. IT'S
VERY, VERY HEAVY HEART THAT I
RISE TODAY TO REQUEST THAT WE
ADJOURN IN THE MEMORY OF BRIANNA
CUP FOR IN JANUARY, BRIANNA WAS
TRAGICALLY TAKEN FROM HER
COMMUNITY. AND LOVED ONES AT THE
AGE OF 24. WHEN SHE WAS KILLED
IN A SENSELESS RANDOM ACT OF
VIOLENCE. WORKING AT A STORE. MY
DISTRICT. IN HER 24 YEARS,
BRIANNA SERVED AS A PHYSICAL
EMBODIMENT OF THE TESTAMENT THAT
WE MUST LIVE LIFE TO THE
FULLEST. SHE WAS AN AVID READER
HAVE A TRAVELER. SHE LIVED WITH
A PASSION FOR LEARNING AND
DESIRE TO MAKE THE MOST OF THE
EXPERIENCE ENOUGH AND ADVENTURES
THAT LIFE HAS TO OFFER. SHE KEPT
A LIST ON HER PHONE OF THE
PLACES SHE WANTED TO SEE AND THE
THINGS SHE WANTED TO DO. SO YOU
HAVE BEING OUTDOORS, STAYING
ACTIVE THROUGH YOGA, DANCE
BOXING. SHE VALUED DOING THOSE
THINGS. WITH THE PEOPLE SHE
LOVED. CONSTANTLY PUSHING
YOURSELF OUT OF HER COMFORT
ZONE. BRIANNA SERVED AS A ROLE
MODEL FOR THOSE AROUND HER TO
PUSH THEMSELVES TOO. EVEN
CONVINCING HER SISTER WITH A
FEAR OF HEIGHTS TO GO.
SKYDIVING. SHE CARED DEEPLY
ABOUT CAUSES CENTERED ON HELPING
PEOPLE IN OUR WORLD. ALONG WITH
OUR PASSION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.
SHE CARED ABOUT PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT. SHE WAS A MEMBER OF
THE SUSTAINABILITY GROUP BASED
IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH.
RESILIENT PALISADES. SHE WENT TO
BRENTWOOD SCHOOL IN LOS ANGELES
BEFORE GOING TO UNIVERSITY OF
MIAMI. SHE THEN RETURNED HOME
PURSUIT, AND SHE WAS PURSUING A
GRADUATE DEGREE IN DESIGN WHEN
SHE WAS MURDERED. SHE WAS A
TALENTED DESIGNER WITH A BRIGHT
FUTURE, TOO OFTEN CREATED
CLOTHES FROM SCRATCH. HE DREAMED
OF ESTABLISHING HER OWN
SUSTAINABLE CLOTHING LINE. AND
DESPITE HER TALENT, SHE NEVER
SACRIFICED HER HUMILITY. SHE
LOVED WITH A FULL HEART. I LOVE
THAT SHE GAVE TO ALL THOSE IN
HER LIFE, INCLUDING HER PARENTS
TAUGHT AND LORI AND HER SIBLINGS
MICHAELA TUCKER AND BRANDON.
MEMBERS. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO HAVE A ZOOM MEETING WITH HER
PARENTS. IT WAS ONE OF THE
TOUGHEST MEETINGS I'VE TAKEN IN
THIS JOB. HER FATHER WANTED TO
CONVEY TO US HERE IN THE SENATE.
THAT. WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT
WE'RE HERE TO DO GREAT THINGS,
THINGS THAT ARE RIGHT THINGS
THAT ARE HELPFUL THAT BUILD
COMMUNITY THAT HELPED BUILD
FAMILIES AND LOVE. TO DO THINGS
THAT ARE COMPASSIONATE. THE
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY. SENSELESS ACT
OF VIOLENCE THAT TOOK THIS YOUNG
PERSON FROM US. AND I JUST LIKE
TO ASK THAT HER LEGACY REMIND US
NOT ONLY THE FRAGILITY OF LIFE
BUT ALSO THE JOY THAT WE MUST
CONSTANTLY LOOK TO FIND AND IN
EACH OTHER. THANK YOU. THAT YOU
BRING THE NAME FORWARD SO SHE
CAN BE PROPERLY MORALIZING. WE
EXTEND OUR CONDOLENCES ON THE
OPTICAL FROM STATE SENATE. IN A
RITUAL VOTE. THANK YOU, MR
PRESIDENT. I RISE TO ADJOURN IN
MEMORY OF SOME ASPECT. NOLAN WHO
WAS A TREASURED RESIDENT OF
SENATE-DISTRICT 23. SAM WAS A
DEFINITION OF A PILLAR OF THE
COMMUNITY DEDICATED DEDICATING
HIS LIFE TO PUBLIC SERVICE. HE
STARTED HIS CAREER IN THE NAVY
BRAVELY SERVING HIS COUNTRY. HE
THEN WENT ON TO SERVE IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT AND
BRADLEY SERVED AS CITY FOR 35
YEARS, RETIRING AS A FIRE
CAPTAIN. HOWEVER HIS QUALITY
SERVICE DID NOT END THERE. HE
ALSO SERVED AS A RANCHO
CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL AND FIRE
BOARD MEMBER. SAM WAS A LOVING
HUSBAND, FATHER OR THREE IN A
GRANDFATHER OF SEVEN. HE WAS
INVOLVED IN MANY COMMUNITY
CHARITIES AND STARTED SEVERAL
LIFE SAVING PROGRAMS. SAM WAS A
CREATOR OF THE ASHLEY SMITH FUND
FOR CHILD BURN VICTIMS. FOUNDER
OF THE CITY'S CPR AND FIRST AID
PROGRAM, VOLUNTEER FOR SPARK OF
LOVE, DRIVE AND A PASSPORT
MEMBER FOR AMERICAN HEART
ASSOCIATION. HE WAS A RECIPIENT
OF THE CUCAMONGA PEAK AWARD IN
1998, THE CITY'S HARVEST AWARD
IN 2000 AND ONE THE FIRE QUEST
VOLUNTEER AWARD IN 2000 AND TWO
HE RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL
RECOGNITION FOR HIS ACTION IN
FIGHTING THE GRAND PRIX FIRE IN
2000 AND THREE AND HE WAS
RECOGNIZED AS A PATRIOT OF THE
PAST BY MY PREDECESSOR, FORMER
SENATOR MIKE MORALE. AS MAYOR L.
DENNIS MICHAEL, SAID COUNCIL
MEMBER SPAGNOLO SERVICE TO OUR
RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY WILL
HAVE A LASTING IMPACT FOR
GENERATIONS TO COME. SOUNDS
LEGACY AND IMPACT IN OUR CITY
WILL NOT BE FORGOTTE. HE WILL
BE DEEPLY MISSED BY OUR
COMMUNITY. THANK YOU AND I
SHOULD BRING THE NAME FORWARD TO
BE PROPERLY MEMORIALIZE. EXCEPT
AS SENATOR GONZALES. THANK YOU,
MR PRESIDENT MEMBERS TODAY I
RISE TO ADJOURN IN MEMORY OF
TERRY UM, A CHERISHED FRIEND AND
PIVOTAL CAMBODIAN LEADER IN THE
DISTRICT. MISS TERRY YOUNG WAS
BORN NOVEMBER 1ST 1965 IN
CAMBODIA, AND SHE UNFORTUNATELY
PASSED AWAY ON MARCH 10TH 2022
OF THIS YEAR. TERRY WAS A
SURVIVOR OF THE COMMIE ROUGE
REGIME, WHICH CAME TO POWER IN
1975. SHE HAS DEFIED ALL ODDS.
TERRY WAS THE FIRST CAMBODIAN
AMERICAN WOMAN TO BE APPOINTED
AS A COMMISSIONER FOR THE POLICE
COMPLAINTS COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF LONG BEACH. AND ASSUME
THAT RESPONSIBILITY WITH GREAT
PRIDE. SHE WAS ALSO A BOARD
MEMBER FOR CAMBODIA TOWN INC
TREASURE AT THE KILLING FIELDS
MEMORIAL CENTER AND COMMAND
DISABLED ARTS ASSOCIATION, AMONG
MANY OTHER BOARDS AND POSITIONS.
SHIP SUCH A HEART OF
HUMANITARIAN AND A STRONG
COMMITMENT TO IMPROVE OUR
COMMUNITY AND A BIG HEART FOR
THE PEOPLE OF LONG BEACH,
CAMBODIA, OFTEN SUPPORTING
EVENTS IN CENTRAL LONG BEACH.
CAMBODIA TOWN IN UPLIFTING WOMEN
AND YOUTH. I RESPECTFULLY ASPECT
THAT WE ADJOURN IN HER MEMORY
AND OFFER OUR SINCEREST
CONDOLENCES TO HER FAMILY. AND
WE HAVE TWO GIRLFRIENDS STREET
SOONER. WE EXTEND OUR DEEPEST
CONDOLENCES, ASKED THAT YOU
BRING THE NAME FORWARD SO SHE
CAN BE PROPERTY MEMORIALIZE SOON
AS YOU'RE GOING TO HOLLIS SHIP
THANK YOU AGAIN, MR PRESIDENT
AND MEMBERS TODAY I RISE AGAIN.
UNFORTUNATELY. TODAY TO ADJOURN
IN MEMORY OF JULIE LARKINS, A
CHERISHED FRIEND AND CONSTITUENT
IN THE DISTRICT. JULIE LARKIN'S
PASSED AWAY ON MARCH 5TH 2022 AT
THE YOUNG AGE OF 54 SHE CO
FOUNDED WITH HER HUSBAND, MY
FRIEND WALTER LÀ LARKINS.
EDUCATION EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO A
NONPROFIT THAT SEEKS AT RISK
SURKS DECEIVE. SCUSE ME SEEKS TO
SERVE UNDERSERVED MIDDLE SCHOOL
YOUTH. SHE WAS ALSO A FORMER
PRESIDENT OF LEADERSHIP, LONG
BEACH RENOWNED SERVICE
ORGANIZATION THAT EACH YEAR
TEACHES A CLASS OF COMMUNITY
MEMBERS HOW TO BE CIVIC LEADERS.
IN ADDITION, JULIE WAS A
SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEUR WITH
MORE THAN 25 YEARS OF BUSINESS
EXPERIENCE. IN MULTIPLE MARKET
ENVIRONMENTS, INCLUDING SALES,
MARKETING AND BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT. HE WAS THE CEO WITH
WALTER OF CDR. FINANCIAL
SERVICES, A LEADING ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
AND WAS A LONGTIME SUPPORTER OF
THE LONG BEACH AND P AND THE
LONG BEACH CHAMBER WOMEN'S
BUSINESS COUNCIL. HE LEAVES
BEHIND A BODY OF PHILANTHROPIC
WORK AND LEGACY OF SUPPORTING
EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
HUMANKIND. SHE IS SURVIVED BY
HER DEAR HUSBAND, WALTER
LARKIN'S I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT
WE ADJOURNED IN HER MEMORY.
THANK YOU AND ASK THAT YOU BRING
HER NAME FORWARD SO SHE CAN BE
PROPERLY MEMORIALIZED BY THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE. IF
THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS,
SENATOR BATES THE DUST IS CLEAR.
THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. THE
SENATE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL 3
30 PM, AT WHICH TIME THE
ADJOURNMENT MOTION WILL BE
PLACED. WE WILL RECONVENE MONDAY
AT TWO PM MEMBERS OF SENATE WILL
BE IN RECESS INTO 3 30 THAT
WHICH TIME ADJOURNMENT MOTION
WOULD BE EMPLACED. WE WILL
RECONVENE MONDAY AT TWO PM THANK
YOU.