Senate Standing Committee on Education

You order in 60 seconds. The Senate Education Committee will now come to order. Good morning again. The Senate continues to welcome public in person, the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163. Again, that's 877-226-8163. And the access code is 609796. Again, that's 6709796. 6709796. We are holding our committee hearings here in the O Street Building.

I ask all members of the committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum, which we do not yet have. We will start this hearing as a subcommittee by way of context. There's another committee hearing going right now, the Senate Committee on Elections, of which I am a member. And there are two members of this committee. In addition to me, there are members of that committee. So Senator Glazer is chairing that hearing. Senator McGuire is also part of that hearing.

They will make their way over here as soon as possible. Last member of our committee, Senator Wilk, will be here, albeit a little bit late today. And when we have a chance to establish a quorum, we will do so. Having said that, I ask the testimony of main witnesses today in support or opposition be limited to two people per side with two minutes for each person. All others may add on and simply state your name, organization, and your position on the bill.

We have one bill on today's agenda AB 389 by Assemblymember Ramos. Before we hear presentation of the bills--no quorum again. So in the absence of quorum, we will start as a subcommittee. Welcome Assemblymember Ramos, you may proceed when ready. And as you make your way up here, I want to say as you do so, thank you again for being so accommodating and collegial as we work through what has started as a very difficult set of issues.

And I want to say, for my part, and I think speaking on behalf of the Committee, Senate Committee on Education does lots of things. We don't normally intercede in Tribal matters, so this is one of those occasions where we are compelled to do so as you'll speak to in your testimony. But as you and I discussed, I want to make sure that in doing so, as we make policy, we want to do so with the maximum chance of consensus.

And so my understanding is you'll be accepting the Committee's amendments today. Is that correct?

Yeah. Go ahead with our presentation, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, please. Please proceed.

Thank you. Thank you to Chair and Members. I would like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments. In 2021, a professor at Cal State San Jose posted that she was glad to be back amongst old friends. She was referring to a Native American remains that she was holding in her hands, which was a skull of a Native American, one of our ancestors.

On March 28th, 2022, I requested an audit of the Cal State University Systems compliance with NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, as well as the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The audit was complete in June of 2023, which now has found noncompliance and gross neglect of following both federal and state law.

The audit revealed over 700,000 Native American remains still in the process and the possession of the Cal State University System, even though federal law directed them in 1995 to start up the repatriation process. 20 years has gone by. AB 389 is a compilation of the recommendations found in the report and will start the legislative oversight with reporting mechanisms to this body to ensure ongoing compliance of both state and federal law.

On August 29th, 2023, a joint hearing on the state audit's findings was heard with Tribal leaders' input. The audit revealed that half of all campuses did not even know the extent of the remains that they possessed despite federal law giving direction in 1995 and California state law also. The audit also revealed that systemwide, only six percent of remains had been repatriated since 1995.

Also identified with a top violator was identified as Sonoma State, with over 185,000 Native American remains that have not even started the process for repatriation. I asked the state how long must California Indian people be shown a different view and respect than others in this state? We need a Cal State University System that honors California's first people with the same standards and commitment in which they allow other people with honor and respect.

AB 389 takes and implements with Tribal input, the state auditors recommendations requiring Cal State Universities to report to the Legislature annually on each institution's progress towards repatriation ensuring protocols are in place regarding handling and identifying remains and cultural items, issuing a systemwide NAGPRA policy and CalNAGPRA policy requiring full time experienced repatriation coordinators, and requiring completion of campus's efforts to inventory their collections. This bill would also prohibit the Cal State Universities to use Native American remains for purposes of teaching or research.

We are taking action to hold Cal State Universities accountable and allowing California Native American Tribes to finally have peace and closure on an issue that has been around for generations. The independent audit blatantly showed disrespect for California's first people, and doing nothing is not an option. AB 389, as amended now, includes the voice of California Indian people. With me to testify in support of this bill is Johnny Hernandez, Vice Chairman of the San Manuel Tribal Government and Janet K. Bill, Chairperson of the Picayune Rancheria Band of Chukchansi Indians.

Thank you. The witness is here?

Vice chair?

Please. Mr. Hernandez, welcome. Yes, please. Sorry, this is the way we do it here. I'm not sure--

Alright, no worries.

Yes, please. Please proceed.

Amitam schnitawan Johnny Hernandez. Yinavitam nun akupi tutkiyaka yavitam pumu. My name is Johnny Hernandez. I have the honor of serving on behalf of my people as Vice Chairman of the San Manuel Abandoned Mission Indians, a sovereign nation in highland California. Thank you, Senator Newman and Education Committee Members for their opportunity to speak on behalf of my Tribe in support of AB 389.

The bill is before you today as a result of the recent state audit released in June 29, which brought findings of gross inaction by the CSU System to address more than 700,000 ancestral remains and cultural items needing to be returned and repatriated to Indian Tribes. Tribal leaders just shared before an Assembly Joint Committee hearing about the sad reality shown through the state audit of complete failure and compliance by the CSU System to achieve deliberate and meaningful repatriation as required through NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA.

What Tribes continue to face today is significant impact to our family, culture, tradition, and lack of respectful treatment of what is most sacred to the identity and preservation of our people. Despite enactment of the Federal NAGPRA more than 30 years ago, little to no progress has been made in repatriating items that are of historical and cultural significance to Tribes. NAGPRA was established to provide a process where federally recognized Tribes could request from government agencies and museums the return of their human remains and cultural items, but the lack of a comprehensive strategy to address compliance by universities, museums, and other institutions continue to highlight the ongoing trend of limited or no action regarded NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA obligations.

These cultural items to be repatriated might include baskets woven by great grandmothers which with very intricate detail that are masterfully made with love in the bonds of a family and rich history and storytelling, their remained of loved ones, our ancestors whose graves have been disturbed and the remains and sacred items held in collections for research.

These ancestral remains and cultural items are foundational to our identity and heritage and it is the foundation that connects our present day people with our ancestors, providing a sense of community and belonging. I would ask all nontribal people to picture your family, your ancestors, and their belongings that you hold near and dear that are owned and used under the guise of an artifact on display for public learning and teaching. And this is the unfortunate reality of my people. We are talking about humanity and human rights.

It is time to get this right and bring our people home. The fact that little to no progress has been made in repatriating items that are historical and culturally significant to Tribes is appalling and unacceptable. A lack of funding our statewide policy cannot continue to be as a barrier as to why the CSU System is making little to no progress on repatriation. Excuses have been hollow and it's long overdue that action be taken by all parties evolved at every level.

AB 389 includes two main components prohibiting use of Native American humans, human remains, and cultural items for purposes of teaching and research at the CSU and requiring the office, the Chancellor of the CSU, to comply with various requirements related to repatriation of Native American human remains and cultural items under CalNAGPRA. I ask today for your support of this bill. AB 389 is a critical step in the right direction toward healing and justice for Native American people.

The ancestral remains and cultural items held at CSU campuses are an important part of our Native American culture and need to be treated with respect and accordance with established guidelines. And consulting with Tribes on the repatriation process should be a number one priority. While there has been some outreach from CSUs to local Tribes, the pervasive action across the system cannot be ignored, and Tribes have been willing to be involved in the repatriation process and must have a voice.

It is imperative that Tribes being consulted in order to provide an understanding of how items should be repatriated and to keep the CSUs accountable through the process. There needs to be a thoughtful, comprehensive, strategic approach to repatriation and AB 389 can be a resource to help make that happen. This is a painful process for indigenous people to endure, especially our elders. But we are resilient and know that repatriation is a path towards repairing the past.

And thank you for recognizing the value and importance of our people being made whole again, and we will not rest until everything is home. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. And next, Ms. Bill.

Chairwoman?

Chairwoman. Welcome.

May I begin?

Please proceed.

Hilly hilly hoya woshnam Janet K. Bill, the Chairperson of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, a sovereign nation located in Madera County. On behalf of my nation--mitch gais--thank you to the Honorable Chairman Newman and respected Members of the Committee for inviting our Tribal nation to be here today to share our perspective on the CSU audit and support of AB 389.

This bill is a direct result of the Joint Select Committee hearing on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act audit, which showed that CSUs have failed to comply with long standing law. The extensive collections held by the CSUs encompass a wide range of artifacts, traditions, languages, rituals, and practices that have been passed down through generations and hold historical, social, and spiritual value to our people. They are a foundation of and connection to our identity and heritage.

The CSU System and other institutions of higher learning have amassed their collections through efforts of cultural genocide and assimilation policies that cause our people and cultural items to be removed and redistributed across the State of California. Due to the need of brevity today, we'll focus our comments on the CSU Fresno because it is closest to us. CSU Fresno is listed as one of the campuses that has completed a review of its collection of human remains and cultural items.

Although we acknowledge the CSU Fresno took initiative to complete its review, we must highlight that they did not consult with Tribes before reviewing its collection, which is mandated under the 2020 Amendment to CalNAGPRA. This failure to consult denied us the opportunity to opine on the respectful treatment of our artifacts, hindered our ability to share our Tribal knowledge and traditions, and undermined our Tribal sovereignty.

Additionally, it is disheartening to know that over 30 years of the enactment of NAGPRA, CSU Fresno still maintains a sizable self-reported collection of nearly 40,000 items, and without consultation, it is difficult to know if this self-reported number is accurate nor whether our ancestors and culture items were handled with respect. Providing further doubt to the self-reported number is that according to the Native American Heritage Commission, CSU Fresno failed to submit their inventories last year in further violation of the 2020 Amendment to the CalNAGPRA.

Of CSU Fresno's substantial collection, it has repatriated zero percent. Zero percent has been repatriated back to our sovereign nations. By failing to comply with the repatriation requirements in NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA, the CSU System is directly harming the preservation and future of our culture. This failure to repatriate denies us healing, denies us decolonization, denies us justice.

AB 389 requires that the CSU's report on the repatriation process, which is a needed first step, but just that, a first step. More action will be needed to bring our ancestors and stolen items back home. Our cultures were stolen and it is past time we reinforce their return. Thus, we must start increasing oversight of their return and implement the state auditor's recommendations now.

Today we ask you to vote aye on AB 389 and commit to making the systemic changes needed to enforce NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA throughout the State of California. Our Tribal nation stands ready to partner with you on this endeavor. Mitch gais, thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Let's now move on to any witnesses in support, additional witnesses in support of the Legislation. If you could please come forward and simply state your name, your organization, and your position.

Mr. Chair and Members, Scott Governor behalf of the Morongo Band of Missioned Indians, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Bakke with the California State University Chancellor's Office, in support.

Thank you.

Neil Peyron, Chairman, Tule River Indian Reservation, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members, James Jack on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Calvin Hedrick from the California Native Vote Project and I am here in support. Thank you Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sequoia Coleman. I'm a youth organizer with the California Native Vote Project and I'm here in support. Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you.

Heyyung. I'm Camiko Hostler and I am a youth organizer for the California Native Vote Project. And I'm here in support of 389. Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos.

Sintha Mano winawanan kanima. I'm an enrolled Member of Pinoleville Pomo Nation. I'm a sister, I'm a daughter, I'm a youth member. I'm also a youth member of Native Sister Circle Organization located here in Sacramento, and I am in support. Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you.

Santamana wanawana kanima. My name is Leticia Aguilar. I'm an enrolled member of Pinoleville Pomo Nation, Executive Director of Native Sister Circle. But I am here as a granddaughter of Betty Sigala who unsuccessfully had her mother's baskets returned before her passing. I'm in support of AB 389. Gahoi, Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you.

Pamela Lopez on behalf of the Redding Rancheria and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokuts Tribe, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cameron Demetre, Capitol Advocacy on behalf of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members. Paul Bauer, on behalf of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Charles Wright, on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos. In strong support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members of the Committee, Frank Molina on behalf of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, in strong support. Love to thank the Assemblymember for the great work.

And thank you. Let us now move on to opposition. And there are at least two witnesses in opposition. I'd like to give them an opportunity to testify. Please come forward when you are ready. And good morning.

May you yam non mokara yaka lava kapiva ah una nava opamash. My name is Mark Macarro. I am the Tribal Chairman for the Pechanga Band of Indians, Temecula, California. It's good to be here with all of you. We're very pleased that Assemblymember Ramos has agreed to accept the committee's amendments to address the Tribal concerns that have been raised over AB 389. There have been a dozen Tribes and Tribal organizations in California that either opposed or opposed, unless amended, this bill.

So it's significant that these amendments were accepted. Now, the subject matter and intent of this bill is one that every Tribe in California would proudly support, and these amendments will go a long way toward getting us to that point. Let me be abundantly clear. We fully support the goal behind AB 389 and repatriation. And that's why we sponsored Legislation in 2017 to press the UC System to adopt meaningful policies.

Now, it's been 33 years since the federal NAGPRA was promulgated by, well, passed by Congress, signed into law, and then promulgated essentially as law of the United States. 33 years. It was in November of 1990. A generation and a half have passed since that time. I mean, from my context, my great uncle, my dad's father's brother, he was born 1899 and unfortunately, he died in 1992. And I just reflect on how many elders and how many people for whom this was particularly meaningful have passed away.

So I wanted to put that out there because every year that goes by is a painful reflection for our people to regard what what has been transpiring with both these university systems here in California, just essentially both of them being scoff laws at the federal law as well as the state CalNAGPRA law. I do want to mention too that Congress, it wasn't happenstance that they used the term repatriation. Repatriation as Congress intended, it was repatriating the citizens of our people and that was the framework as much as we would seek to repatriate fallen servicemen who have passed in other countries.

So it is cultural, it's religious, but it's also a political dynamic and that also needs to be--bear that in mind, it's a contextual thing to think about because it makes it even more powerful but also even more urgent that we repatriate those citizens of our people, of our Tribes. So that was a digression.

The Committee amendments address the concern then with the bill by placing AB 389 in the CalNAGPRA State Statute Health and Safety code where process is clear and terms are defined, such as Native American Tribe and Tribal Consultation. This construct is known and in use by Tribes today, so it will be familiar. This section already includes important definitions for the proper administration of the bill. So importantly for the repatriation committees, the amendments offer a specific construct for the composition and qualifications for Committee Members.

It is similar to existing law where Tribal governments are the ones making the nominations for committees with the state's Native American Heritage Commission making the appointments. I thank the author and his staff and the Chair for his staff and for all their time and efforts in making, in helping make this work.

In closing, we urge you to adopt the Committee's amendments and help us make AB 389 as meaningful and as effective as possible to finally return our great great grandparents and our ancestors home to where they belong. Chamshon ohblon.

And thank you, Chairman Ramos.

Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification, that was testimony in opposition. Did opposition now remove opposition?

Let's be clear with Mr. Chairman Macarro. I understand you're removing your opposition pending acceptance of the amendments, is that correct?

That's correct.

That is, they are in support?

They are in support but haven't given their moment--

They accepted the amendments in the beginning, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. And so we're in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Very good. And I do think it is important to give some of the other Tribes a chance to speak on this issue, although stipulating that we do have an agreement on the amendments. Ms. Treat, welcome.

Yeah, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee on behalf of the Calusa and the Tejone Tribes from opposition to support.

Very good. Next please.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read & Associates representing the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. We were opposed to the bill, but as the amendments have been accepted by the author, we're removing our opposition and look forward to working on this issue next year as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jerome Encinas on the behalf of the United Auburn Indian Community. We are still opposed to the measure, and we look forward to seeing the amendments and hopefully we'll be able to change our position.

And thank you, Mr. Encinas. Anybody else in opposition?

To clarify, the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake with the amendments have now moved to support also.

Alright, thank you, Mr. Cantona. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Brendon Greenaway, and I'm the President of the Society for California Archaeology. I'm testifying at this hearing today representing over 1,200 society members who include archaeologists that are both students and faculty members at the various CSU campuses. Our membership also includes professional archaeologists working for the state, federal agencies, and in the private sector as well.

The SCA has been allied with Native Californians since our founding in 1966, and we collaborate on many common interests, including working towards a better understanding of California's diverse cultural heritage. To be clear, the SCA does not oppose CalNAGPRA, AB 389, nor its intent to repatriate human remains and sacred objects. We do, however, oppose AB 389 for the pace at which it moves forward and its unintended consequences.

We urge more thorough consultation with stakeholders, including the SCA and both federally and non-federally recognized California Tribes. Many of our members, including myself, learned their trade in the CSU System and are now gainfully employed as professional archaeologists working to preserve California's diverse cultural heritage for its inherent value to California, to all Californians. I'm here today to bring to your attention unintended consequences that this bill would have.

As written, the bill would prohibit the use of Native American cultural items for the purposes of teaching or research at CSUs. The term 'cultural items' is not clearly defined in this bill, but it is of utmost importance. The bill may be interpreted to mean that no archaeological material of any kind may be studied, including items to be not sacred, such as stone tools and fishbones and shellfish.

Without the ability to train students how to research archaeological material, the CSU would simply not be able to educate and train students to become professional archaeologists. The SCA suggests a solution. When signed into law, CalNAGPRA stated that its intent was to apply the state's repatriation policy consistently with federal NAGPRA. Federal NAGPRA defines cultural items to include human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.

The SCA has no objection to this definition and requests that the NAGPRA definition of cultural items be added verbatim to AB 389. If CSUs are prohibited from producing educated professional archaeologists, then AB 389 will have the unintended consequences of abandoning the mission of the CSU System, disregarding the preservation of California's diverse cultural heritage, and neglecting the regulatory obligations of CEQA, NEPA, and the National Historic Preservation Act. In conclusion, and to reiterate, the SCA does not oppose CalNAGPRA, but we do oppose AB 389 unless amended.

The bill has the potential to take away the rights of many groups to understand their cultural heritage, to silence the voices of California Tribes who want to participate in archaeological research, and to seriously undermine California State Universities in teaching and training the next generation of professional archaeologists. The SCA urges thorough consultation with all stakeholders and offers our professional expertise to assist in amending language in this bill to avoid such problems. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? I'd ask you to keep it brief, please.

Yes. My name is Anmarie Medin. I'm the Immediate Past President of the Society for California Archaeology. Again, speaking in opposition as written. Our concern is with the term 'cultural items' not being clearly defined. Member Ramos, I agree completely: repatriation needs to happen, and I am saddened that it has taken this long. I think one of the issues is funding, as you well know. This needs to happen. I will say I am a product of the CSU System.

Many CSU campuses have programs to teach students how to be professional archaeologists using existing archaeological collections. Historically, there has been a problem of archaeologists feeling like they own this data, which I agree is wrong. New generations are rectifying these problems, and they are working with Tribes to identify Tribal interests in doing research. I would hate to see this bill inadvertently stop all that progress that has been made in the new generation who's coming up and who's understanding these Tribal concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak in opposition to the measure that is in print? Again, with the amendments that will be adopted, the understanding is virtually all other than the archaeologist's opposition has been dropped. Seeing none. Let's come back to the Committee here. Colleagues, any questions for Assemblymember Ramos? Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments regarding the bill?

Yes. Would you like to have an opportunity to respond to the concerns that the archaeology experts had with regards to the future collaboration of research and teaching the next generation about archaeology and preserving?

Well, I think the consultation that's now adopted into the bill starts to lay the groundwork of working with Tribes from the beginning. It also talks about in possession of the university itself, remains and cultural artifacts that were there, and to state that people are upset with not being able to use remains in the classroom.

This bill moves forward, and I think we have to reiterate, and it's shown here with the acceptance of the amendments, that California people are in support of moving something forward because what we don't accept is a professor frolicking around the classroom holding our Native American ancestors. That's what we don't accept. That's what AB 389 starts to move forward to make sure we're balancing that act in there as far as making sure Tribal people are represented and representing the person that they're holding. Thank you.

And let me--I apologize. I actually neglected to engage the teleconference line. So if we could hopefully quickly--the moderator, Karen, from at&t. If we have folks on the conference, the teleconference line, who like to weigh in with their name, their position on the bill with reference to AB 389, apologies again. Please proceed there.

Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you would like to speak in opposition of AB 389--

Let's take both support and opposition on the line.

Oh, okay, thank you. If you would like to speak in opposition or support of Bill AB 389, please press one, then zero at this time.

And again, your name, your organization, your position.

Thank you. Yes, we have one in queue. One moment. We will now go to line number 26. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Patrick O'Neill. I'm a faculty member of the CSU System, but I don't represent them, I'm not allowed to. But I'm going to represent myself as an instructor and say this: I'm in support of the law completely. However, there's a problem because we have federal and state agencies that control collections and that the universities hold, and they order universities not to disclose and not to consult or repatriate things that are in their control. And the law is vague concerning that. And we need some help with that because that's been a real problem. That's all I have.

Alright, thank you for that. Is there anybody else on the line, Ms.Moderator? Seeing none.

Hi. No, thank you. We have no further support or opposition.

Alright, very good. And let's come back. Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? No. So, again, thank you to Assemblymember Ramos. And first of all, I commend you for initiating the audit which led to this legislation. And again, I'm grateful that we have something that appears to be a consensus among the Tribes at this point. But I would like to clear, to clarify, there is no prohibition that would get in the way of Tribes who want to participate in archaeological research.

It's just a matter of consultation and cultural respect. Is that correct?

That is correct. That is correct, Mr. Chair, with the voice of California's first people at the table.

Very good. Unfortunately, we seem to have sort of exhausted our comments here. We do not yet have a quorum. And so I can tell you that I'm glad to support the bill in its amended form. I don't see any impediment to getting to a majority today. But we're going to need to invite, I think, at least one member of the Elections Committee to come over and establish a quorum.

Assemblymember Ramos, you're free to go if you like, or you can wait, but let's see if we can't organize that. What's that? Oh, I'm sorry, let's let you close and I am running a terrible hearing here because I'm trying to do it--okay, thank you, I appreciate it.

I just want to thank you and ask, and you heard the testimony, you've seen the willingness to work together to accept amends. This is something that's important to California's first people. This is a chance for the State Legislature to stand side by side with us so we could be, in the process, no longer taking a paternal approach to those in the state and the agencies that are here.

It's time that we stand together and stand united for California's first people. I ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate.

And I thank you for your testimony and your patience here. Let us recess for a moment. Hopefully, it'll be brief. Let me see if I can. The other committee hearing was just on the other side of the building. Let's see if we can't get a member over and establish a quorum and do that vote. But for now, let's recess this committee. Busy day. Oh, I'm sorry. Education. Education. I did not get a lot of sleep last night. I'm sorry. That's my next stop.

The Senate Committee on Education is now reconvened. And Madam Consultant, please call the role. Let us establish a quorum.

Newman.

Newman, here. Ochoa Bogh? Here. Ochoa Bogh, here. Cortese? Cortese, here. Glazer? McGuire? McGuire, here. Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

Here.

Alright, a quorum has been established. Let us now, I need a motion on Assembly Bill 389 from Assemblymember Ramos. Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Senator Ochoa Bogh moves the bill. Madam Consultant, please call the roll.

File Item One, AB 389, Ramos. The motion is do pass as amended. But first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on appropriations. Newman? Aye. Newman, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Glazer? McGuire? McGuire, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

Alright, that bill currently has four votes. Thank you. I'm going to hold it open for a couple more moments for Senator Glazer and Senator Glazer, actually, but otherwise, it is out. And again, thank you, everybody, for your participation and your testimony and your patience, especially the work of the staff. And so we will go back into recess for the time being. Thank you. For the purpose of filling out the vote, let us reopen the role for AB 389. Madam Consultant, please.

File Item One, AB 389, Ramos. Motion is do pass as amended, but first amend and re-refer to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is four ayes and no noes with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Wilk?

Very good. That bill is out with five votes to zero. And with that, the Senate Committee on Education is adjourned.