Senate Floor

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Members, we're going to ask you to make your way to your desk. Members, quorum is present. Would our Members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise. We'll be led in prayer this morning by Senator Limon, after which we're going to ask you to remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Senator Limon, thank you.

Just when you seem to yourself nothing but a flimsy web of questions, you are given the questions of others to hold in the emptiness of your hands. Songbird eggs that can still hatch if you keep them warm. Butterflies opening and closing themselves in your coop. Palms trusting you not to injure their fur, their dust. You are given the questions of others as if they were answers to all you ask. Yes, perhaps this gift is your answer.

God of love and mercy, thank you for gifting us with the freedom to wrestle with the questions of our day. As we discern how to best meet the deepest needs of all your people. May we do so from a stance of humility and a willingness to engage the creativity of all for the common good. We ask this in your name. Amen.

Members, please join me in the pledge of Allegiance. I pledge, Members, without objection. We'll move to Assembly. Third reading file item 69, AB 106. I don't see Senator on the floor. Senator Wiener, are you prepared? Secretary, please read

Assembly Bill 106 by Assembly Member Gabriel an act related to the state budget and making an appropriation, therefore, to take effect immediately. Budget Bill

Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mister President and colleagues. AB 106 is a budget Bill Junior. Thank you, Mister President. Colleagues. AB 106 is a budget Bill Junior. Amending the 2022 and 2023 budget acts. The Bill reflects the early action budget agreement reached among the Senate, Assembly and the Administration. The Bill reduces the budget shortfall by 1.6 billion. General Fund and together with other components of the early action agreement, provides for total solutions of 17.3 billion over the three year period.

The total early action package contains 3.6 billion in reductions, primarily to one time funding, 5.2 billion in revenue and borrowing, 5.2 billion in delays and deferrals, and 3.4 billion in shifts of cost. From the General Fund to other state funds. The Bill takes a significant step towards a balanced budget in June, and we will be balancing the budget over the next two months.

And it shrinks a sizable amount of the budget shortfall, allowing the Legislature and the Administration to focus on the remaining extremely difficult budget decisions that we will need to make. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on file item 69 hearing? Seeing oh, sorry, Senator Niello.

I'm easily forgettable, I know. So to the substance of the Bill, this continues to and remains a delay and deferral strategy for balancing the budget. I can also continue to complain about transparency and the fact that the 8 million people that our caucus represents are completely eliminated from the discussions that develop the detailed proposals.

But perhaps more importantly, given the severity of the budget problem we have, and that in my opinion, it is going to become more severe as we march toward May 15, this is really crisis budgeting with optimism. The deficit that we have is not $38 billion as the Administration continues to maintain. For the life of me, I don't understand. It definitely takes urgency away from the problem, the deficit.

The LAO is much more accurate, and I strongly suspect that revenues are continuing to deteriorate as our unemployment rate just became the highest in the entire country. Now, back in 2009, a few of us will remember that rather difficult year. We were facing a budget shortfall in terms of the percentage of the General Fund similar to what it is now. Now we didn't have as many reserves and we didn't have as strong a cash position, but, and so it was very severe.

So in February of that year, we're now halfway through April this year. In February of that year, we grabbed that problem by the throat and spent a week in session and altered the current year's budget and passed the next year's budget. We didn't wait till June 30. Now, we continued to struggle, but the fact of the matter is we have bigger struggles ahead of us in the next three fiscal years after this one than we did back then.

We're staring at structural deficits of 30, average of $30 billion a year each year, assuming no further deterioration in revenues, assuming no recession or slowdown in economic activity, and prudent budgeting would suggest that one not assume that. So I can't support this Bill. I see it as a non serious approach to a budget crisis, and I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Members. We're going to ask you to take your conversations off the floor. Next recognize is Senator Dahle.

Thank you Mister President and Members, I rise also in opposition to AB 106. I'm going to be very short and brief. This budget is nothing but smoke and mirrors, backroom deals done by the party in control. Our caucus has not had the opportunity to weigh in and we have some serious budget deficits in out to the future that we need to really be adults in the room and tackle.

Now, I know this is the first of many bills we will see on the budget, but we have to address some serious issues. We need to generate more revenues, not by taxes, but by promoting business in California and stop running them out. So let's get serious. Let's not just do it with the three party agreement. Let's get everybody at the table and do the work for the people of California.

The people I represent 15 counties, 1.3 million people today I hear from them about the cost of living, electricity, health care, education, housing. Those are the things we need to tackle in California. So for those reasons, I will not be supporting AB 106.

Thank you, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mister chair. Every year we go through this process and I do concur with my colleagues that, you know, if we all got in a room and tried to address some of these issues, I think we would have further action and meet the needs that Californians expect. This Bill has good and bad in it. The good is that there is an early action to take note to address the budget deficit that we have with $1.6 billion.

That's very small compared to the entire deficit that we have. And so. But that is a good step forward. The part I don't like about it is that last year for our financially distressed hospitals, there was $625 million the MCO tax created that I voted for. And the promise was to make sure that the individuals, our providers, would get increases. I've had medical providers calling me urgent care providers and this is the problem that we face.

And I just want you to recognize that a lot of times that we put band aids on things in this building, but we don't actually do a root cause analysis and fix the problem.

So basically, if these urgent cares fail because they do a workup, a physical, all this testing that they do in the office, and it takes 2 hours to see this patient and write the report, and the medi Cal reimbursement rate is $37 and it cost them $200 to do this, that is a pathway to bankruptcy. We've already lost several urgent cares all throughout the state and all of our districts.

These people are ending up in the emergency room and the plans are going to pay additional dollars, or we as a state are going to pay $2,000 for a visit in an emergency room instead of $37 or $200 in an urgent care.

So when I talk about this piece of legislation, when I look at the $625 million that was promised to increase these rates last year when we voted on this, so that providers would be able to afford to stay in business and still provide access to healthcare, I don't like that piece, but I do like the piece about doing early action.

I think this is one of the very first years that I've been in this building where we've taken early action instead of waiting for the last, last minute. I don't think it's enough. It's 1.6 billion, but it is a good start. So again, I abstained in Committee, and I'm abstaining today. Just explaining to my constituents why there's an abstain. Because there is something good in here, but there is something bad. But the bad can be fixed.

It really can be fixed if we just put our heads together and fix it, because our providers, all of our providers across the state, maybe not the budget shares, providers where they have millions of dollars or people with millions of dollars that invest in their hospitals, nonprofits, but all of us have failing hospitals, and we need to address that issue. So thank you.

Thank you. President Pro Tem McGuire.

Thank you so much. Mister President and colleagues rise today in support of this budget agreement on early action to be able to shrink the shortfall as we continue to work, deliver a balanced on time budget in June. And mark my word, this body will do that. I'm going to be candid on this agreement. As you know, I don't often talk on the floor.

I also rise in support of the hard work and dedication that so many, so many Senators, so many of you in this room have poured into the Senate's budget efforts over these past two months. Now, I'm not going to dance around the obvious here this morning. This is going to be a tough budget year. We've been saying it since January, and since January, we've seen the projected deficit numbers increase by approximately $15 billion. And it remains to be seen what the outlook will be in May.

But mark my word, we're going to be ready. We're going to be ready to tackle whatever challenge is advanced in the coming weeks and months. But sitting around and wringing our hands doesn't get the job done today. And that's why earlier this spring, the Senate, the Senate released an early action plan to shrink the shortfall. And they included, included $17 billion in solutions through program reductions and revenues and delays and deferrals.

Now, no matter what you may hear on the floor today, I think it's critical to look at the facts and not just listen to opinions. Here's the fact. We fully expect come May, we fully expect come May, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office that we all rely on each and every day, and the Department of Finance will forecast, their forecasts are going to reflect the comprehensive solutions that are embedded in this early action budget in front of us. So what does that mean?

This agreement is going to reduce this coming year's projected deficit by approximately 17 billion. Full stop. And this is, is a fact. And we've done this with full transparency. Let's talk about what the Senate has done about transparency. The Senate's plan was released on March 14. Full details on our roadmap to reduce 17 billion was released to every Member of this body, released to the public, and released to the press. All budget items have been thoroughly and publicly heard through the full Committee process.

This includes testimony from residents across California, the Administration, and the Legislative Analyst Office. And just last week, because we heard from Members that they wanted additional transparency, just last week, we put our entire shrink to shortfall plan. Our budget agreement, all 20 pages online. It was online so that everyone in this body and the public could see how we plan to reduce the deficit by approximately $17 billion.

Knowing that we have more work ahead, we put forward this early action plan to protect our progress and safeguard core programs so that we could spend time and energy on the more challenging decision to close the remaining budget gap responsibly. And we're going to do just that. I'm going to wrap up with this. Here's what you can expect. You can expect more than 100 legislative budget hearings are going to be held this year. 100. And it's our hope everyone tunes in.

It's our hope that everyone shows up and makes their voice heard. Finally, budgets are a value statement. And here in California, no matter how tough the budget outlook may be, we are committed to ensuring that our budget, our budget, reflects our most valuable asset. That's the people of the Golden State. Colleagues, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you, Mister President, for this time.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item, Senator Wiener, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister President. So I want to just acknowledge the statements from my friend, the Senator from Fair Oaks, the budget Vice Chair. Harkening back to 2009, the somehow good old days of 2009. But I'm going to date myself and quote some lyrics from Billy Joel. The good old days weren't always good.

And let's look about what happened in 2009 and the surrounding years, a time period when we had a Republican Governor and we had Republicans in the Legislature, had an effective veto over the budget because it was a two thirds. Let's look what happened then. In 2009, we passed a placeholder budget. We, the Legislature, passed a placeholder budget in February, but did not pass the actual final budget until July 28, late in 2007. The budget was passed August 24, late 2008.

The budget was passed September 23, late 2010. It was passed on October 8, October 8 late. So I think it's important to look at those actual facts and you compare it to where we are now since Governor Brown took office in 2011, followed by Governor Newsom, our budget reserves, which were zero back then in those good old days. And I'm sure there are staff in this building who remember receiving an IOU instead of a paycheck because we had no cash flow.

The State of California had no cash flow in these good old days, and our workers got IOUs. Can you even imagine that? But now, all these years into Governor Brown and Governor Newsom and the leadership of this Senate and the leadership of the Assembly, we now have over $30 billion in cash reserves, and we are, of course, going to pass an on time budget, and we don't have to be taking this action today. We could have said we're going to just do everything in June.

And because this Legislature and this Governor are highly responsible in stewarding taxpayer resources, we are now reducing the shortfall by $17.3 billion, months ahead of when we have to do it, which will give us the ability to focus like a laser on the incredibly hard work ahead and difficult choices we're going to have to make. The one thing I will agree with, we have a big deficit, and it's a problem, and it's going to require hard choices. We're going to make those choices. Let's take the first step today. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you all. Discussion having seized secretary, please call the roll on file item 69.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Mister President. I rise today to recognize representatives of the Harupa Community Services District. I've been very proud to represent the City of Harupa Valley in this particular district for almost 12 years and am pleased that the district has been named California's wastewater collection system of the year. The statewide award honors the district's exceptional commitment to maintaining its wastewater collection system. The district is not only a model for saving scarce water resources in our state, but also a nationwide leader.

Representatives of the district are in Sacramento today to receive this well deserved honor from the California Water Environment Association. And with us in the gallery, our district President, BART Moreno, General manager Chris Birch, and manager of government and public affairs, Armand Tarzai. Please join me in giving them a warm Senate welcome and congratulating these incredible public servants. How about it, Senators?

Welcome to the California State Senate. Now Members removing on the messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read, reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Now it's time for motions, resolutions and notices. There are none. Now moving on to consideration of the daily file. Moving on the second reading.

[Second Reading]

Second reading is deemed read. Now moving on to governor's appointments. We have six items there. Senator Laird, he's prepared. Secretary. Senator Laird, you ready?

I am ready. But the first item. There we are is item 24. There are six individual items. Each one is an individual Commissioner on the board of parole hearings. The first one is file item 24. It's the confirmation of Robert Barton for reappointment to the board of parole hearings. He was first appointed to the board in 2017. Prior to this role, he was serving as the Inspector General for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR.

He also previously served as supervising deputy District Attorney for the Kern county District Attorney's office. He was approved by the Rules Committee on April 3. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate. Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mister President. Members, I'll be opposing all six candidates this morning, but I'll only speak once to spare us some time and help us get off the floor. So if you all can just apply these comments to all six votes, I'd appreciate it. But I rise in opposition to the board of parole hearing commissioners that are up for confirmation today. So, as I said, my comments will apply to all six confirmations.

Over the last three decades, we have seen the old board of prison terms transition into today's board of parole hearings. The transition has not gone well. It used to be a Commissioner led agency headed up by our old colleague Jim Nielsen, who used to say, in quoting our Senator, Jim Nielsen, unless you're comfortable with an early released inmate moving next door to your kids or your grandkids, don't let them out.

Today's board is obsessed with freeing up bed space, closing prisons, and ensuring the rights of killers, rapists and torturers are upheld. The release votes on some of these commissioners are nearing 50%, which means almost half the inmates coming before them in the hearing asking for parole are going to get early release. A crime victims advocate group, Crime Victims alliance, wrote a letter, which I have a copy of. If you'd like a copy, I can email it to you. Opposing the confirmation of all six commissioners.

It is a very raw and emotional letter, and given the serious circumstances, I can understand why. Current law enacted by the people, namely Marcy's law, allows crime victims and their families unfettered latitude in their testimony against releasing the killer, rapist or torturer of their loved one. However, the staff at the board is reportedly now censoring the testimony and submissions by victims. I'd like to read a passage of the CVA letter, Mister President, if I may have permission to read.

Permission granted.

Thank you, sir. When referencing the staff withholding or censoring information that victims and law enforcement submit in opposition to early release, the crime Victims alliance said, unfortunately, no board Commissioner has spoken up against this injustice and in fact, many point to the Executive officer as their Boss, whom they take direction from Members. Some of us have served on school boards and city councils and other elected offices.

Can you imagine calling your city manager or your Superintendent or the Executive Director of your board, your Boss as the duly elected Member or appointee of that board? Unbelievable. If commissioners at the board see the board's Executive Director as their Boss, that's the real problem. Senators, crime victims and their families have lost faith in the board, and it is up to the Senate to restore that faith. Simply rubber stamping the current crop of commissioners will further undermine that faith.

I stand with crime victims and their families and recommend an overhaul to the board and urge a no vote on all six commissioners this morning. Thank you, Mister President.

Thank you, Senator Eggman.

Thank you very much, Mister Member. I will also allow this to stand for all six, just so we can stay consistent. But I was also in that same hearing, and I just want to speak for a yes vote for all six Members who we interviewed at length, went over their backgrounds at length. And I think the issue, and I will say the evidence, the actual concrete evidence, shows that those go before the parole board and are granted early release.

There is less than a 2% recidivism rate at this time, less than 2% recidivism rate. So we're doing some things right, because when people come before, they are not just granted absolute release. Some are sent back multiple times. Multiple times. It depends on if they've done their programs, if they have shown remorse. All the things that we want people to do to prove that they can be successful outside. That's what these folks do. This is a full time position, a full time job.

They interview four days a week, up to five people a day, huge files that are compiled for them. And I think the one issue they're talking about people making decisions, some folks from some of the victims groups, of course, you want to see pictures from your loved one at that, at that crime, that horrible crime that may have existed 40 years ago, to include those pictures. Those pictures were popping up. Staff, brand new staff who were taking something somewhere, were seeing things like that.

There didnt seem to be any extra value in the inclusion of that in the basic file. Any Commissioner can always ask, and the commissioners verified to us, if they want to see further things, they have full access to all of that. And the idea that, referring to the CEO as a Boss, I would ask the Senator from Santee how many times that he has tried to overrule Erica Contreras on a decision. And I ask for your aye vote.

Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mister President. I'm going to break with my colleagues. I am splitting these decisions because I believe that they all should be confirmed on their own merit. I am supporting the first two, Robert Barton and Kevin Chappelle. So my statement on this will be for both of them.

I won't speak on the others, but I want to just recognize, and with all due respect, my colleague from Santee was not at the hearing, and we had a very lengthy discussion about this evidence that was being, being what was so called in the letter from our victims, which we took very seriously. And these pictures are omitted. You might get an autopsy that describes what happened, but the pictures are omitted and the reason why.

There's two reasons that significantly changed my opinion about the evidence being the picture evidence being asked for or requested, instead of just a blanket file with photographs. Number one, the person that just got the job and is required to open the mail. Right. That 20 year old or whatever has to open the mail and see those photographs, right. That creates trauma and other issues that we have to deal with. The second issue is they become uploaded into the incarcerated person or inmates file.

And I know that I feel differently than a lot of my colleagues, but people that get those photographs might really get off on looking at those photographs. And I don't want those photographs to be in a public file to go to the incarcerated person. So we got all those questions answered. We actually got, I got a text message regarding, thank you for clarifying that.

Because, you know, the victims and the families of victims don't want those photos to go to the incarcerated person to be able to look at and relive their, whatever joy that they had in committing that, that crime. So I confirm this, Commissioner, his release rate or his rate that he has on release or to release individuals back into society is fairly par to others. A little bit higher, but not much.

But when you listen to his background and what he does, he really does make good decisions on that particular piece. He judges the person from where they are today, day into release. And I'm not advocating to release people that are not ready to be released, but because of this guy, Robert Barton, who actually is from Kern County, worked in Kern County for a while and my District Attorney knows him very well, it reduces that rate.

Now we have to compensate with Mister Barton with the other two people at the end, or, excuse me, in the middle. Those two people, we have to offset their rate with this person's rate because I think they make bad decisions. But so my votes are split. I'm two ayes, two abstains, and two nos. But I'll let my comments for right now stand for in my colleague, the former secretary of natural resources, who is speaking on governor's appointments today.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on this item? Hearing, seeing none. Senator Laird, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mister President. It's interesting because the four speakers were four of the five Members of the Rules Committee, and what you just heard was the animated debate that happened with those of us that were there. And it's important because the letter that was referred to was actually used as a basis to ask individual board of parole commissioners how they would respond. And we had very thoughtful responses that I think really spoke to the issue.

And one board Member that was singled out in the letter with a big concern was the one who we had a chart on. Once you considered a case, you could say that somebody was not eligible for parole, parole again, for three years, five years, seven years, 10 years, 15 years. It turns out the one that there were concerns about had the highest number of people that could not be reconsidered for 10 or 15 years. And the question was asked, why?

What is it in the consideration of those parolees that makes you come to that judgment? And the answer was, basically, if there was no remorse, if there was no understanding of their act, if there was a belief that this person would return again and not get it, then they're going to be the ones that don't get consideration of parole for a very long time.

And I thought it was a great hearing, and I thought it demonstrated, because there was concern of all said, and I will apply these comments to all six unless we have another animated debate. It really showed that they were thoughtful. They looked at each case. One of the discussions was, it takes hours and hours to prepare, and they almost don't have enough time, given the amount of cases and what they do, to give the thoughtfulness to it that they want, but they do.

And so I thought that I came, came away thinking, all six are very qualified. All six come from a different place. One's a therapist, one's a former prosecutor, one's a former official of the prison system. They all came and brought different levels of expertise together. So I think it recommends this appointment and the next five. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll on file item 24.

[Roll Call]

Ayes. 39. No, six. I mean, I'm sorry. Ayes 33, nos. Six. The appointment is confirmed. Now, moving on to file item 25.

Thank you, Mister President. File item 25 is the confirmation of Kevin Chappelle for reappointment to the board of parole hearings. He served on the board since 2016. Prior to that, he had a long career with CDCR, starting as a correctional officer at Folsom. State prison in 1987. He is a former warden at San Quentin State Prison. He was approved by the Rules Committee on April 3. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, once again, we're going to ask you to take your conversations off the floor. Floor. Are there any further discussions or debate on this appointment hearing? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll on file item 25.

[Roll Call]

Ayes. 33 no, six. The appointment is confirmed. Now, moving on to file item 26. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Mister President. File item 26 is the confirmation of Gilbert Infante for appointment to the board of parole hearings. Prior to this position, he served as the governor's appointment to the board of juvenile hearings. Before that, he had various positions with CDCR's division of Juvenile justice. He was approved by the Rules Committee on April 3. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on the appointment hearing, seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 31. No eight. The appointment is confirmed. Now we're moving on to file item 27. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mister President. The next item is file item 27. The confirmation of Doctor Kathleen O'Meara for reappointment to the board of parole hearings. She is a licensed psychologist. First joined the board in 2021. Previously served as regional mental health administrator for CDCR. She also served as a psychologist for the Napa, Sonoma and Solano County Mental health departments, and for the Napa and Atascadero state hospitals. She was approved by the Rules Committee on April 3. I respectfully asked for an I vote.

Any further discussion or debate on the appointment. Hearing and seeing none, secretary, please call the roll.

Allen. Aye. A. Rodegil. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Ashby. Aye Atkins. Aye. Becker, aye Blakespear, aye Bradford, aye Caballero, aye Cortese, aye Dahle. No. Dodd. I darazzo, I Eggman, I Glazer, I Gonzalez, I Grove. No. Erdato. I Jones. No. Laird. I limome. I Mcguire, I minjivar. I Min. I Newman. I win no Niello. No acho bog. No. Padilla. Bordentino I rot. I Rubio. I. Say arto. No. Skinner I smold, cuevas. I Stern. I Wahab. I Wiener. I woke no.

Aye 31, Noes Eight. The appointment is confirmed. Now, moving on to file item 28. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Mister President. File item 28 is the confirmation of Katherine Purcell. Reappointment to the board of parole hearings prior to her appointment in 2021. She served as a presiding judge for the state bar Court of California. She's also a former Kern County Superior Court judge and deputy District Attorney. She was approved by the Rules Committee on April 3. I respectfully ask for an iPhone.

Thank you. Any further discussion or debate on the appointment hearing, seeing. None. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 31. No seven. The appointment is confirmed. Now moving to our final appointment, file item 29. Senator Laird, floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mister President. Final item 29 is the confirmation of Neil Schneider for reappointment to the board of parole hearings. Before his initial appointment, Commissioner Snider was a captain at the Sacramento Police Department, where he started his law enforcement career and served from. From 1983 to 2017. He was also adjunct assistant Professor, Administration of Justice Department for the Los Rios Community College District. He was approved by the Rules Committee on April 3. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any further discussion or debate on the appointment hearing. Seeing none, secretary, please call the roll on file item 29.

[Roll Call]

ayes 31 no, seven. The appointment is confirmed. Now, Members were moving on to the consent calendar. Is there any Member wishing to remove an item from the consent calendar? Now would be the time hearing seeing none. Secretary, please read.

[Consent Calendar]

Secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 39 no zero on the consent calendar. Ayes 39, and no zero on the special consent. Now, Members were moving on to Committee announcements. Now would be the time. We have Committee announcements. First up is Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Mister President. Budget Subcommitee number one on education will meet upon adjournment in the swing space, room 2100.

Sub one will meet in the swing space upon a adjournment in room 2100. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mister President. Subcommitee number three on Health and Human Services will meet 15 minutes after session in room 1200.

Health and human services will meet in room 1215 minutes after session. Senator Wahob.

Thank you. Budget sub number five will meet in room 112 upon adjournment.

Subcommitee five will meet in room 112 upon adjournment. Senator Becker.

I thank you, Mister President. Budget Subcommitee number two on Energy, Natural Resources, Environment will meet room 2200. 15 minutes after adjournment.

Sub to meet in room 220015 minutes after adjournment. If there's no other business, Senator McGuire, the desk is clear.

Thank you so much, Mister President. Members, hope you have a wonderful week. And the next floor session is scheduled for Monday, April 15, at 02:00 p.m.

The Senate will be in recess until 03:30 p.m. At which time and adjournment motion will be made. Will reconvene on Monday at 02:00 p.m.