Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

And I have heard from a couple of Members who are in another hearing right now, so. And hopefully they will join us soon. We have nine measures on today's agenda, three of which will be eligible for a do pass motion. The rest of our bills are suspense candidates.

As usual, we will extend a courtesy to anyone that has a do pass item before us and allow them to present their Bill out of agenda order as they show up. All Members with suspense items before the Committee this morning have waived presentation means that they won't be presenting their bills.

However, we will be taking testimony from the public on each and every item, even if the author has waived presentation. The Department of Finance has indicated that they are very busy with the budget, and so they will not have any comments on any of the measures before the Committee, so they won't be present to testify here today.

There may be individuals that have never attended or participated in an Appropriations Committee before. This is a Committee that Reviews bills that will cost money. Before we begin, I want to remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspects of the Bill because that's what this Committee does.

Please refrain from lengthy policy discussions and repeating prior testimony in your comments. I may also need to place some limits on witness testimony, but I will ensure that equal time is afforded to supporters and opponents. So before we begin our hearing today on the measures before us, let's establish a quorum. Madam, assistance, please.

Assistant, please call the roll. [Roll Call]

We have a quorum, so we're going to start our hearing for today. Our first item, because he is present, we're going to move on to item number six on our agenda, AB 1955 by Assemblymember Ward. Welcome, Assemblymember. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, I'm here to present AB 1955, the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today's Youth Act or Safety Act, which does the following things: first, the Bill prohibits and invalidates any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires a forced outing as defined.

Second, this Bill clarifies that teachers shall not be compelled to disclose such an identity unless required to do so under state and federal law. Third, the Bill protects teachers from facing retaliation for simply doing their jobs, teaching and providing a safe school environment.

And fourth, the Safety act provides parents and families of LGBTQ students with critical resources in order to support them in working towards acceptance on their own terms without interference from outside actors. To speak to the fiscal impact of the Bill,

The Safety act would have minimal and absorbable costs, if any at all, and potentially could achieve cost savings. Should this Bill be enacted, we expect a reduction in the Department of Justice's workload, resulting in cost savings, such as eliminating the department's litigation against school districts that enact unconstitutional forced outing policies which target students based on their identity.

Additionally, costs associated with the Department of Education are minimal since the Department would merely build upon the existing supports and resources for parents of LGBTQ students that they have on hand. Furthermore, we believe that there are issues in the form of cost avoidance.

For example, when forced outing policies are enacted, we have seen an increased amount of calls to the crisis hotline. After Chino Valley Unified School District passed their forced outing policy, nearly 1500 of the total calls received were solely from those who identified as residents of Chino Valley.

By clarifying in law that forced outings are prohibited, we minimize those who experience mental health crises, further reducing impacts on our counseling services and mental health systems. Additionally, due largely to lack of acceptance in their identity, some LGBTQ youth make up a disproportionate amount of those experiencing homelessness as well as though in the foster care system.

Specifically, research shows that LGBTQ youth make up about 40% of youth experiencing homelessness and 30% of youth in foster care, despite LGBTQ youth making up around 10% of the U.S. population.

By protecting protecting students from being forcibly outed, we ensure that additional LGBTQ youth do not prematurely enter the foster care system nor to become homeless, further keeping our youth safe and reducing constraints on the already impacted programs and systems.

Here today in testify and support is the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, and when the time comes, I would respectfully ask for your I vote.

Before we move on to the public testimony, I want to reiterate that testimony should focus on state fiscal impacts of the Bill. My understanding is that the measure had a very thorough public hearing in the Senate Education Committee to discuss the policy merits of the Bill, so today we'll be talking about the cost.

We will take testimony from two primary witnesses in support. It sounds like you have one, which is fine. Each of whom will have two minutes to present their testimony, followed by any other support witnesses who may come forward to provide their name, organization they represent and their positions on the Bill.

Once we've heard from all the support witnesses, we will take testimony from two primary witnesses in opposition, each of whom will have two minutes to present their testimony, followed by any other opposition witnesses who may come forward to provide their name, organization they represent, and their positions on the Bill. We're ready to take your testimony.

Superintendent Thurman, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I want to thank Assemblymember Ward and Senator Eggman and the LGBT caucus for authoring this Bill, which I'm proud to support, and we respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote on AB 1955. As you heard, it has a framework that can support students who can find themselves in vulnerable circumstances.

The internal CDE administrative costs related to this Bill are nominal. CDE is tasked with providing online supports and community resources for parents and families on the agency website. CDE staff currently provide similar information. We'll be able to do so in support of this Bill without creating any new costs.

No new funding for positions or new hires is necessary. The nominal costs will strengthen the role of public schools to educate our students and to protect them. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses that would like to testify in support? If so, we'd like you to come forward and to the mic, state your name and your organization.

Good morning, Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Craig Pulsfer, on behalf of Equality California in strong support.

Becca Kramer-Madder, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Hi, Jessica Geshe of San Mateo representing PFLAG of San Jose and the Peninsula, in strong support. May I read a list of people who could not be present today?

Other organizations and their names, yes.

From Shasta County, Danny Goforth. Tamara Pello of Shasta County, teacher. Miss Westphal of Stop Moms for Liberty, Shasta County. Kathy Darling Allen, a retired Shasta County clerk. Courtney Riss, a parent. Jennifer Arnold of the Shasta Unified for Public Education. Joshua Brown. Cheryl McKinley of the Shasta Democratic Women's Club. Allie Evers of Up north, Harm Reduction. Cynthia Frank. Jessica Davidson. Madison Zimmerman. Ellen Sweeney of Save Our Shasta. Tammy Cole. Sharon Bristolara of Inquiry That Matters. Robin Hank. Linda Russel. Colson, R.

Edwards. Nancy Elvord. Sandra Taylor. Susan Weiss. Janet Houghton. Donald Yost. Frank Treadway. Victoria Peterson. Martha Butoh. Pam Hughes. Della Martin. Lisa Alvord. Lori O'Connell. Patricia Hamelberg. Linda Miller and Jessica French. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is Marilyn Dijkstra from Livermore, California. I'm the Bi in LGBTQ and the mother of two young adults. I am an admin, volunteer admin with California STOP Moms for Liberty and I ask you to please support AB 1955.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in support?Seeing no other witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition. The two witnesses that will speak in opposition. Welcome.

Hello. Thank you for having us. My name is Jessica Wagner. I've been a public school teacher for 15 years. I have my Master's in Educational Leadership and I'm an instructional specialist. Senator Scott Weiner, who is not a parent, is misleading the public about this Bill.

He disrespectfully labels teachers like me as "nasty" because we do not want to deceive parents if their children is experiencing dysphoria, which is a true mental health crisis. AB 1955 is wrong and harmful to students and teachers.

Teachers do not want to come between their students and parents, and we certainly do not want to socially transition a child without parental consent or knowledge. This is why I expect to leave the profession after this year. The analysis recognizes that AB 1955 will be challenged in the courts because this Bill is unconstitutional.

As seen with Mirabelli and Tapia cases, Teachers do not want to deceive parents. Tapia just settled her illegal firing for refusing to lie to parents for $360,000. There are over 300,000 teachers. What will it cost the state for more teacher lawsuits?

Since 2015, California has invested 4.8 billion in finding teachers, going as far as creating 25 million in grants to change unqualified non teaching staff into teachers. 350 million for residency programs, and there's still 10% vacancies. Why?

Because teachers like me, who love teaching, refuse to hurt children by agreeing that a child can choose their sex and that their current body is a mistake that must be fixed.

The analysis missed the true cost of the Bill: a generation of sterilized children with healthy sexual organs missing, perpetual medical patients, and suicides, because social transition leads to medical transition. Last month, a U.S. study of 90 million U.S. adults showed that completed suicides for those who surgically transitioned was 12 times higher than those who accepted their natural bodies.

Please consider the actual cost of this Bill's expected long term impact and vote "No" on AB 1955.

Thank you very much.

I'm Bella Minor, a former Democrat and one of the "nasty" parents Senator Wiener referenced to. My daughter used to believe that she was a boy when she was 11. She is now 20 and luckily never medicalized. AB 1955 will cost the states millions, and worse, tens of thousands of children will be harmed.

When the school groomed to my daughter at the age of 11 into believing she was a boy, there were not many parents fighting against the schools and had it been now, we would have sued the school for the bullying she received because the teachers treated her as a boy.

The analysis is silent on the cost of lawsuits by parents of gender dysphoric kids who were never told about their child's mental health issue before they committed suicide. The Attorney General states that 87% of all trans identified students have considered suicide. This Legislator says it's 78%. The 5.8 million students enrolled in California schools keeps dropping.

CalMatters reported that schools will lose 40 to 60,000 students annually. Inglewood is shutting down five schools. Schools are being defunded because of the secret social transition plans. Secret GSA clubs held at lunch to avoid detection, classrooms covered in all things transgender and nonstop "what's your pronoun?" games.

There are millions of parents like Jessica Conan who will take advantage of the national law firms willing to take their cases pro bono. She received $100,000 settlement for the secret transition of her 11 year old daughter. The school also paid more than $100,000 to the suspended groomer teachers while Conan paid nothing in attorney fees.

If one parent per school district sues, that's 954 lawsuits at $300,000. That's a lot of money. Schools will be liable for pushing a mental health intervention that our European counterparts have stopped. The UK is also removing any mention of transgenderism from its schools, recognizing the social contagion. Vote "No" on AB 1955.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in opposition?

Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels, in strong opposition, and along with like an endless list of parents that would like to know about this and not be alienated from their kids' lives.

Thank you.

Denise Aguilar, co-founder of Freedom Angels in strong opposition.

Nicole Young, Placer County Chair of chapter of Moms for Liberty. I represent over 1200 parents.

I also am speaking on behalf of Kimberly Crabtree, Christina Muñoz, Stan Sturger, Gretchen Stevens, April Huckabee, Amanda Kuntz, Caroline Alexander, Shamaine Phillips, Brianna Gomez, Major Philip Malama of the United States Air Force, Delaney Malama, the California Policy Center, Wendy Beal, Beth Bourne and Rick Mortenson. We are in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Tom Sheehy, representing Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids advocacy here in opposition this morning. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi. That's kind of high. Margaret Orator, former Democrat on behalf of Women are Real, a bipartisan group of over 100 Bay Area women, both lesbian and straight, and Judy Cahill, Mountain View, registered Democrat. Charlotte Johnson, registered Independent. Beverly Talbot of San Francisco, registered Democrat. Amy Anderson, registered Independent. Audra Sterrett. Amy Rush. Carol, a detransitioned YouTuber. United in respect for reality and in resolute objection to this dystopian Bill.

Thea Blair, former Democrat and middle school teacher, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Nathan Pierce, on behalf of Private & Home Educators of California and Child and Family Protection Association, in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no further members either in support or in opposition, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions. Comments? Question?

Yes, so in the testimony given by Superintendent Thurmond, he mentioned the nominal costs of this Bill. Given the controversial nature of this and the almost, you can almost assure there will be numerous lawsuits, what are those nominal costs and how did you arrive at the figure that they are nominal and not phenomenal?

Thank you for the question. So costs under the Bill related to the Department of Education, because there is a requirement, as the fourth provision when I introduce, stated, that there would be one time General Fund cost of approximately $54,000 to update and reformat online supports and resources, community resources for parents, an ongoing cost of approximately $22,000 to review and maintain that list that would be provided to local school districts.

So those are the departmental costs for Department of Education that Superintendent Thurmond had highlighted. For litigation, that is speculative. We know that there has been a growing amount of litigation already because of local district policies that are either enacting or prohibiting.

But much of that has been resolved generally within, I think, the favor of some of the tenants of what we're trying to achieve here based on some of the court activity over the last year.

It's why we felt, I felt necessary to introduce this Bill that really just created a statewide baseline for what we're going to do or not do in regards to this issue.

Does that figure also, does it figure the amount of money that we have spent suing the various districts that we talked about and finding that they didn't really have standing to sue?

The districts did not have standing to sue.

Well, no, the districts didn't sue. Our Attorney General sued. So there's costs already related to this type of Bill. So does that cost, is that included in the administrative or whatever the cost that you're including in those nominal fees?

So I think what we've seen is that there was ambiguity as far as any statutory guidance on this issue, which is exactly what AB 1955 seeks to rectify, is to be able to provide that very clearly in our statute.

We've had local districts, for example, that have engaged in lawsuits, and this is coming right out of their budget that could otherwise be going into the classroom. Chino Valley alone, where aware, has spent more than $500,000 in district legal expenses trying to defend itself.

Okay. Thank you very much for some of your explanation.

Thank you.

Thank you. I just wanted to make clear on the report here.

It says existing law provides that it is the policy of the state to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crime set forth.

Do you believe that because of this that the cost is nominal to some degree?

Yes.

Okay. And I heard a lot of the opposition. I just wanted to ask you: this Bill would actually allow for educators not to get involved in exposing a child or coming in between the child and their parent, correct?

Exactly. The point of the Bill is that we should not have outside actors engaged on this very personal decision for one to own about whom and when they want to come out. Teachers want to teach. They don't want to be the gender police.

Okay. And this Bill in particular would require that California Department of Education develop some support and resources for the parents of children that are LGBTQ.

That's correct.

All right. I do appreciate it. I appreciate the work. I just think that there's a lot of misinformation about this Bill. It's very clear based on this report. With that, I'll move the Bill.

Okay, we have a motion. The motion is due pass to the Senate Floor.

Madam Chair. I'd like to interject just real quick and make a substitute motion. There seems to be some considerable conversation around the cost of this Bill, and the Department of Justice.

Attorney General Rob Bonta's own Department of Justice has raised some concerns that this Bill will require multiple full time employees and that the impact on the enforcement division is unquantifiable and potentially significant. That's from the DOJ itself.

So to translate that into actual dollars, those costs could easily reach into the low millions of dollars from the General Fund, depending on how many lawsuits occur. This Committee's rule for suspense is whether the Bill will cost more than $50,000 to the General Fund. Therefore, the Bill clearly meets the criteria to be sent to suspense

file to be considered later. I'm sure that my colleagues have not forgotten that the state is facing a budget deficit in the range of $60 billion. There is no urgency clause in the Bill, so there is no rush that we need to dispense with this today.

There should be no need to bypass the rules on this particular Bill. So I would make a substitute motion that AB 1955 be sent to suspense.

All right, we have a substitute motion, and my apologies to Assemblymember Ward. I didn't give him an opportunity to close. So we'll hear his close, and then we'll take up your substitution.

Just respectfully request your "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Very good. So there is a substitute motion on the floor. The chair recommends a "No" vote to the substitute motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The motion fails. We'll move on to the motion in chief, which is to send it to the floor. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that on call for the absent Members and appreciate you being here early so that we could take this up quickly at the beginning. We're going to move on to, we have two other bills that for which we have Members presenting, so we'll wait to the end.

We'll move on to AB 359 by Assembly Member Holden. Assembly Member Holden has waived presentation, so we'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses present who would like to testify in support of AB 359?

Good morning.

Hello. Valerie Johnson with the Campaign for College Opportunity in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to testify in support? Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing no opposition, this is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 359 will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 459 by Assembly Member Maienshein. I'm sorry, 456. Turn that one upside down.

AB 456 by Assembly Member Maienshein. Assembly Member has waived presentation, so we'll go directly to witness testimony. Are there any witnesses that would like to testify in support?

Clifton. Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and the California Faculty Association, both in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in support? Is there anybody in opposition to AB 456? Seeing no opposition, this Bill is a suspense file candidate so without objection, it will move to the suspense. Moving on to AB 1891 by Assembly Member Weber. Assembly Member Weber has waived presentation, so we will go directly to witness testimony.

Is there anyone that would like to testify in support of AB 1891? Is there anyone, anyone that would like to testify in opposition to AB 1891? Seeing neither of the Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, the Bill will move to the suspense, to suspense. Moving on to AB 2119.

Again, Assembly Member Weber, who has waived presentation. Is there anyone who would like to testify in support of AB 2119? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition to 2119? Yes, seeing neither the Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, it will move to suspense. Moving on to AB 1965 by Assembly Member Blanca Rubio.

Assembly Member Blanca Rubio has waived presentations, so we will go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone who would like to testify in support? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? This Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 1965 will move to suspend. Moving on to AB 2044 by Assembly Member Chen.

Assembly Member has waived presentation, so we will go directly to witness testimony. Is there anyone that would like to testify in support of AB 2044? Anyone who would like to testify in opposition? This Bill is a suspense file candidate. So without objection, AB 2044 will move to suspense. We have two final bills that need to be heard.

I'm going to move on to AB 1842 and break up the little cabal over there. And I understand Senator Becker is going to be presenting Assembly Member Reyes'. AB 1842.

If I could. Just a minute. I'd like to lift the call on file item number 6. AB 1955, by Assembly Member Ward 1955. I'm having a trouble with numbers right now.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Ashby. Ashby. Aye. Becker, aye. Becker. Aye, Bradford. Bradford, Aye.

Five to two; the bill is out. Going back to AB 1842 by Assembly Member Reyes, with Senator Becker presenting. Thank you for doing this today. Appreciate it.

Yeah, and thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of the Assembly Member. This bill prohibits commercial health insurers from imposing prior authorization rules that create barriers to accessing medication-assisted treatment. Medications such as buprenorphine or naltrexone can significantly improve treatment for many substance use disorders by treating cravings and withdrawal symptoms.

However, medication-assisted treatment is underused due to prior authorization requirements, which create unnecessary barriers that delay or interrupt access to effective treatment. AB 1842 is an important first step that will reduce overdose rates and save lives. In support to testify, we have Dr. Aimee Moulin, who is a Professor of Emergency Medicine, Division Chief of Addiction Medicine at UC Davis, and also Director of the California Bridge Program.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for your time. As an emergency physician, I also work with California Bridge, which works with over 270 of the 310 emergency departments in California. What this looks like in our current EDs is a person will come into the emergency department with an overdose or with substance use, and we will start treatment there in that emergency department visit. If that person has Medi-Cal, they will frequently get their prescription. They will get it before they leave.

So they will have continuous access to medication that treats withdrawal and treats addiction. However, if that patient has commercial insurance and there is a prior authorization requirement, they are unable to fill that medication when they leave. They will experience delays, they will go back to withdrawal, and usually return to use.

Since this is Appropriations, I can tell you, untreated drug use is a huge cost to the state in terms of lost employment, lost housing, health care utilization, engagement with the EMS system, and unfortunately, often the criminal justice system. This is an important bill that will help people stay in treatment for substance use and I think ultimately reduce cost to the state. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony here today.

Madam Chair and Members, Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Thank you very much.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, the California State Association of Psychiatrists, and the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone here in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Seeing no opposition, this is eligible for a do pass. We're going to bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. There is a motion. Seeing no comment, we'll allow you to conclude on behalf of Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you. As you heard from the witnesses, we do believe this will save lives by stopping these delays, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. The motion is: do pass. No further comments? Please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Seven to zero; the bill is out.

Alright, next, we're moving to item number nine on the agenda, AB 2755 by, is this the Assemblymember Wicks; one? Yes. Since this is one of the annual claims bills the chair will be presenting on behalf of Ms. Wicks and I have the gavel. So in the notes right here.

You do have the gavel, sir. Thank you very much. Is this on?

Okay.

So good morning, everybody. It is still morning. AB 2755 is a bill carried by the chair of the Appropriations Committee each year to provide appropriation authority for legal judgments settlements approved by the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance.

This urgency bill appropriates $523,000 from the general fund to DOJ for the payment of the following claims against the state Right to Life of Central California versus Bonta, Gupta v. Bonta, and Progressive Democrats for Social Justice versus Bonta.

These judgments and settlements are to pay for the prevailing parties attorneys fees and costs, and they are binding state obligations. Yep, we have to pay them. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the claims will revert to the General Fund.

With me today are Justin Rausa and Tony Hakl from the Department of Justice, who can answer any technical questions about the individual claims. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Witnesses in support of AB 2755.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Justin Rausa. I'm the deputy legislative director for Attorney General Rob Bonta. I'd like to thank Chair Caballero for presenting the bill today and the Committee staff for the detailed analysis.

Not to repeat, the chair's detailed presentation, this bill would appropriate $523,000 from the General Fund to the Attorney General for the payments of claims, settlements, or judgments against the state arising from the three specified actions presented by Madam Chair.

Supervising Deputy Attorney General Tony Hakl is one of our lead attorneys and is available to answer any specific questions you may have regarding any of the three settlements. With that, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Are there any other witnesses in support there? Any witnesses in opposition to AB 2755? Seeing none. Madam Chair, would you like to close, or actually, is there any conversation from the members on this Bill item?

I have a couple comments. We do have to pay these, and it kind of sticks in my craw that we do. Two of these cases were unconstitutional from us passing unconstitutional, and I say us, the majority party, passed unconstitutional bills that we knew were unconstitutional.

They knew and we warned, the Republicans did warn against these, and now we're paying out on those claims. We constantly are after the PD for their claims. We just heard a bill last year, and yet these are the kind of claims that kind of slip through that people don't notice, our taxpayers don't notice, and they add up.

They add up to a lot. And so, you know, while we have to support paying our claims, we shouldn't be generating these claims in the first place.

And we should be a lot more judicial about when we're trampling on the Constitution and taking unconstitutional actions, knowing that they're going to be challenged and we're going to wind up paying out. But we keep doing it. And so I'll probably be laying off this bill today just as a my own little protest.

But I think we should be more judicial in the future. Otherwise we're going to continue to pay out ridiculous claims from our own doing. So with that, go ahead and turn it back over to chair.

Thank you, Senator. So to summarize, the judicial branch is saving the citizens of California from the legislative branch. Okay, just wanted to see if. That's what I heard. That right. We have a motion on the bill. Is there any more discussion on this bill? With that we will. There's a motion to approve.

Would you like to close?

Thank you very much for the comments and the discussion. We could spend all day debating about exactly why the claims happened and what the protections were that the Legislature was trying to enact. But that's not the point here. These are debts that we need to pay. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can the secretary please call the roll?

The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Jones? Not voting. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Bradford. Bradford, aye. Seyarto. Wahab. Wahab, aye.

Four to zero. The measure passes.

Do you want to wait for him?

We'll put that bill on call to see if Senator Becker returns. I think he had something that pulled him out, so we'll just take a very brief recess. That pretty much concludes our agenda items for today. We're just going to leave that one bill on call for a couple of minutes. Thank you.

We're going to reopen the roll on AB 2755 by Assemblymember Wicks. Please call the absent members.

Motion is to pass to the Senate Floor. Jones, Becker. Becker, aye. Seyarto.

Five to zero. That bill is out. So I know you're disappointed to hear this, but that concludes the Senate Appropriations Committee for today. So thank you for joining us. We are adjourned.