Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations

The Senate committee on appropriations will now come to order. Sergeants, please call any absent members and have them join us in the hearing room. Good morning, everyone. Today, we have five measures on file this morning, including one twenty nine point ten b refer referral and four new bills. All of these bills will be eligible for a vote today and will require an author presentation.

Before we begin, I do wanna remind any witnesses to limit their testimony to the fiscal aspect of the bill, and please refrain from any lengthy policy discussion and repeating prior testimony in your comments. Before we begin, today's hearing, let's establish a quorum. Madam assistant.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. We will now move on to the business of the day. Our first, item up will be AB 2727 Assembly member Nguyen. You may begin when you are ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair and members. I'm back here to present AB 28727, which strengthens the parole review process for individuals convicted of some of the most serious sexual offenses. Just wanted to note that we have worked closely with the administration, the board of parole hearings, Department of State Hospitals on the latest amendments to make sure that the process is workable and addresses any of the concerns.

And here with me to answer any technical questions you may have is Rochelle Beardsley from the Sacramento District Attorney's Office.

You're ready. Okay. I'm I'm here, Senator, to answer any technical questions that the this committee may have.

You said keep it brief and don't repeat anything we said before. We follow directions.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Do we have any other additional supporters in the room who like to testify and support to AB 2727?

Madam Chair members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Crime Victims Alliance in support and here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses?

Good morning, madam Chair. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Do we have any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to AB 2727? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments from members. Assembly member Nguyen, would you like to Department of Finance is with us today

Yeah. Christian Beltran, Department of Finance. Thank you, madam Chair, and good morning. No file on this one.

Thank you. Assemblymember Nguyen, would I like to close?

We ask for your aye vote on this, madam Chair.

Thank you. This item is eligible for a vote today. Do we have a motion on AB 2727? We have a motion from Senator Dahle. If we could please, the motion is do passed to the Senate floor. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is three to zero. We will leave that measure on call.

Thank you, madam Chair members.

We will now like to invite, Assembly Member Pellerin to join us, for AB 282, which is eligible for a do pass motion. Assemblymember Pellerin, the floor is yours.

Thank you. AB 2826 to prevent the gravest threat to our elections by preventing any attempts to seize ballots, election records, and certified voting technology before our election results are certified. It makes clear that interfering with ballots or voting equipment before an election is certified is a serious offense with serious consequences. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses who'd like to testify in support, to AB 282 today? Seeing none. Do we have anyone in opposition who'd like to testify for Assembly bill 282? Seeing none bringing it back to the committee. Finance, do you have a file on this bill?

No file, madam Chair.

See no questions or comments from committee members. This item is eligible for a vote today. Do we have a motion on AB 282? We will have to entertain a motion when we have members return.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

So I I I did not allow you to close.

Thank you.

I just respectfully ask for I vote Thank you. Democracy. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Pellerin. Our next item on file is AB 817 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzales. We would like to invite Gonzales to join us. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. I'm here to present AB 817, which will address several pressing issues brought about because of Lineage fire in my district in Boyle Heights. ABA 817 will tackle two key issues brought about by this fire. First, by preventing any new building permits like companies like Lineage until they can show that they have a contingency fund of up to $20,000,000 set aside for disasters like this.

Second, it will ensure that any settlement that a resident or business gets from any future litigation because of the incident is state tax free. Lineage is expected to spend 80 to $100,000,000 on the cleanup alone, but they have only given around $3,000,000 to help the surrounding community as this is an ongoing problem today.

This committee's analysis notes there should be minor and absorbable cost to the franchise tax board, and the state will not need to be reimbursed for any cost from the implementation of the bill by local governments. I wanna also say that I will be committing to making amendments to address the opposition concerns and how this might affect the variety of cold storage facilities throughout the state.

These amendments will do the following: clarify that the cold storage facilities the bill applies to must either be at least 20,000 square feet to cold storage facility or a facility that has at least 20,000 square feet of cold storage within if it's not entirely cold storage.

Add an insurance policy as another option for the contingency fund. Apply the contingency fund section to only apply to the geographic boundaries of Boyle Heights for 2027, delays at the bill for the rest of the state until 07/01/2028 with my commitment to work with all of the stakeholders next year to craft a solution that can incorporate the feedback I have received from to everyone.

Because no community should have to go through what mine has gone through, which is why I've been really working hard with opposition, with a number of colleagues to make sure we got this built where it's at today. Primary witnesses in support are Willie Armstrong, senior director of state affairs for Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass, and Cleo Bluthenthal with the California Community Foundation. Take it away.

Please begin when you're ready.

Good morning, madam Chair and members for the sake of time. My name is Willie Armstrong, and I serve as the senior director for state affairs on behalf of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass, proud sponsor of AB 817. Any questions, let me know.

Hi. Cleo Bluthenthal. I serve as a California Community Foundation's policy officer. As LA's community foundation, we've anchored and supported community recovery from the Lineage Fire in Boyle Heights. We're here today to discuss the aftermath of a fire that occurred in a Lineage owned and operated cold storage warehouse facility in our community.

For context, Lineage is the world's largest global temperature controlled warehouse real estate investment trust. Lineage owns and operates over 500 warehouses across the world, totaling 3,100,000,000 cubic feet of capacity, which includes the 500,000 square feet in the facility that burned. This is not a company on the verge of bankruptcy or even operating on small margins. Lineage has already spent upwards of $80,000,000 on cleanup from the recent fire and will spend tens of millions to rebuild because operating that facility is very profitable for them.

Meanwhile, they've only invested about $3,000,000 to remediate the impacts on the surrounding community, leaving the city, county, taxpayers, non profit organizations, small businesses, and philanthropy to carry the load.

To continue to operate in Boyle Heights and in the backyards of communities across our state, companies like and including Lineage should be required to hold reserve funds to activate for community response and recovery in the event of a disaster like the one experienced in June. A $20,000,000 contingency fund would represent 0.38% of Lineage's profit last year. Between 2020 and 2024, The US averaged more than 1,500 warehouse fires a year. These disasters may be unpredictable and specific, but they're not infrequent nor unlikely.

Requiring preparation that amounts to less than half of 1% of a single year's profit is not unreasonable nor especially burdensome.

The burden of an industrial disaster should not fall on neighboring residents, small businesses, schools, community organizations, nor taxpayers. AB 817 can't undo the damage that the Lineage fire caused. It can't give families back the days that they spent worrying about whether it was safe to breathe or let their kids go outside. But we can help ensure that the next community does not face the same uncertainty nor face it alone. For these reasons, respectfully ask for your eye vote on Assembly Bill 817.

Thank you. Do we have any additional witnesses in support for Assembly Bill 817?

Good morning. Carol Gonzales on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chad Huet with the California Community Foundation registering support on the part of the YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, The Mestli Project, Clinica Romero, Proyecto Pastoral, AltaMed, and Adventist Health White Memorial.

Do we have any witnesses who like to testify in opposition to AB 817? Seeing none, finance, do you have a file on this bill?

No file, madam Chair.

One moment. We do have witnesses in opposition. Please approach.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Katie Davey. I'm the Executive Director of the Dairy Institute of California. Dairy Institute of California represents milk processors and dairy product manufacturers with processing plants based in our state. Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns regarding AB817.

We'd like to start by acknowledging the heavy toll of the June 17 warehouse fire on Boyle Heights and Los Angeles and we agree on the need to deliver clear procedures to handle future emergencies effectively. We would also like to thank the offer for offering the amendments today, to limit 817'sapplication to the Boyle Heights community for this first year, which will give us time to work with the author and his office to address our concerns for our members throughout the rest of the state.

It is important that dairy processors be given the flexibility to upgrade their cold storage facilities, encourage new investment in facilities, as well as attract new processors and investment to our state so our industry can grow. There are 114 active dairy manufacturing facilities across California. Many of these manufacturing operations have a cold storage facility.

Dairy processors hold products and cold storage immediately after processing to prevent microbial growth, preserve product quality, and satisfy strict food safety regulations at the state and federal levels. California is the number 1 dairy state in the nation, employing over 150,000 Californians, in which many of them are unionized. Our members have manufacturing plants, distribution centers, cold storage facilities in urban, suburban, industrial, and rural settings. For California's dairy industry to grow and provide good manufacturing jobs for Californians, we need cold storage facilities for the products we manufacture.

Imposing a $20,000,000 contingency fund on cold storage facilities threatens our member's operations and directly compromises their ability to invest in growth and expansion of current facilities as well as fund energy efficiency improvements.

In the event of an emergency, dairy products are easy to to dispose of and do not require extensive remediation. Cold storage facilities are essential to delivering nutritious dairy products to Californians. We are appreciative of the author's willingness to address our concerns and are committed to working with him and all stakeholders to find a balanced, equitable approach. However, today, we must remain opposed unless amended and look forward to working with the author in the next session on this important topic.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dennis Albiani on the on behalf of, coalition of agricultural interests including California grain and feed, California pear growers, California cherry, growers, and, several others. So whether the not all cold storage is created equal and not all the uses could lead to the community impacts as were identified in Boyle Heights. And we wanna say we appreciate again the impacts on the community as well as the the gracious amendments that have been offered and working with the staff as well. The Assembly member has been excellent in that.

Whether the the cold storage is storing, you know, a biotech facility, vaccines, medical warehouse, or agriculture like I'm representing today. All those have different impacts on the community. And and so some of the things that we have brought forward and and had conversations about and look forward to if this bill passes, talk about next year or whether this bill would depend on the fate can talk about in a in a future legislative is the statewide impacts of this are significant.

This happened to be in an urban setting. Many many cold storage facilities are in either suburban or even rural areas.

So should they be held at the same financial situations and and community impacts when there may not even be a community anywhere near that facility? If you drive down I 5 as many of you have, you're gonna see fruit processing facilities, nut facilities surrounded by only trees. So should they be held to the same impacts as what a a facility that might be in a in an urban area like Boyle Heights?

Those are issues that the local land use entities are evaluating as they cite these and go through that. Those are that is where a lot of these issues should be addressed.

And so, this the biggest concerns are some of the statewide impacts that include location, density, as well as the use of the facility should all be considered locally and may not be appropriate for a statewide solution. We commit to working with the member as we mentioned. We have look forward to the long term discussion over this, and we do need cold storage. And so we don't wanna do anything that would inhibit the development of cold storage going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition to AB 817?

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today. On behalf of the California Grocers Association and the Grower Shipper Association of Central California, appreciate the author's willingness to work with us. Look forward to working with the issue, further next year. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California. Also greatly, appreciate the author's work on the bill with Ag, but we do remain opposed unless amended.

Not opposed. Sorry. A little bit late. Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers. Definitely appreciate the member's willingness to work on amends, but we currently remain, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Nicole Quinonez on behalf of the, Global Cold Chain Alliance, also opposed unless amended today. But as everyone has said, we really appreciate the author's willingness to work with us.

Thank you.

Margie Lee, Samson Advisors here on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, echoing the sentiments of our colleagues. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Senator, Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association. With the amendments today, we really appreciate them being narrowed and look forward to working with the author next year. Thank you.

Okay. So no additional witnesses. Finance, do you have anything on file?

No file, madam Chair.

Do you have any members who'd like to ask questions or comments? Senator Cabaldon.

Thanks so much, madam Chair. And and, I mean, it's tragic what why we're here and and what the the people of Boyle Heights have have gone through and and, very much appreciate the author's leadership to try to tackle tackle this in a in a in a way that will really protect both his communities and and communities throughout the state. I also appreciate the amendments look forward to seeing them.

I I represent a lot of cold storage facilities, both both suburban and rural, but also urban in my even in my own city right across the river. There are at least a half a dozen cold storage facilities and represent the the the farmers and the ranchers and others that that depend on the system.

This we are often big advocates of, you know, farm to fork and healthy foods, and yet a lot of the processing, storage, rendering plants, which is probably a term that urban folks don't even know what that means. But, you know, I mean, these are necessary in order for that for that for that for that high that that important value of healthy local California foods being available throughout the California and fighting back against food deserts.

That entire chain is absolutely necessary and so we want to make sure we get this right and that we are at the same time protecting communities and their health and their safety and also, respecting and advancing because, you know, I've seen just too many storage and processing facilities in and around my district close and then everyone, you know, everyone loses the the the food supply and certainly the farmers that are working.

And so we have to get this right, on a statewide basis and appreciate the the author's commitment to to doing that and the and the commitment of so many of the agricultural folks to to try to make that real as well. So with that, I intend to support the bill today and on the floor. Thank you, madam Chair.

Thank you. See no additional comments or questions from members. I do also wanna align my comments with, Senator Cabaldon. Appreciate the author bringing this forward. We know, the devastation has occurred.

I do have several cold storage facilities in my district as well as we have discussed and so certainly appreciate, the amendments that we will be seeing on the floor. With that, wanna just make sure, Assemblymember Gonzalez, would you like to close?

I just wanna thank you, madam Chair, for the opportunity to present today, and thank you to my colleague, Senator Cabaldon, for your comments as well. And, look, obviously, we didn't plan for a fire to happen the way that it did. We didn't plan to have two months later rats and flies still infesting my neighborhood and my community, and we certainly don't want your area or any other area, to be the next Boyle Heights, which is why we have this legislation in the first place.

But we do also don't wanna have unintended consequences to hurt anybody else in the cold storage industry. So we do wanna work together to continue to put this forward.

But we have to take action on this today. So I just wanna thank, everybody who is here today, who's come to the table in the last couple of days, to get us to this point and respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. This item is eligible for a vote today. Do we have a motion on AB 817? No. Alright. Motion by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate floor. For no. Or excuse me. The motion is do pass to the Senate floor. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is two to two. We will leave that on call. I would like to open the roll on AB 282. Yes. If we can have a motion. I have a motion by Senator Cabaldon on AB 282. Just do pass. To the Senate floor, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is two to two. We will leave that on call to allow others to add on. Our next item on file, we will move to AB 2760 by Assemblymember Sharp Collins. Welcome, Assemblymember. Please begin when you are ready.

Alright. Alright. Good morning, madam Chair and and senators. I would like to begin by addressing the promised amendments. Due to timing, we are unable to amend the bill in this in this committee, but plan to take the amendments on the floor should the bill be able to get out of this particular committee.

I am proud of the work that we have done in such a short amount of time and the nearly 30 co authors within both houses that we have been able to to pull together. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 2760, a bill that protects public health and safety by prohibiting federal state federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies from purchasing, possessing, or using electric sock gloves and other sustainable similar wearable conducted energy, devices.

Electric shock gloves are an emerging use of force technology that is being marketed as a solution to the overuse of excessive force. However, the reality is that this technology has not been widely evaluated for safety or public health impacts. Sadly, this misuse has already resulted in someone losing their life after after reportedly being shocked by these gloves while in police custody in Kentucky.

And school resource officers in Nebraska are now carrying these gloves despite clear guidance of them not being able to use them against children. Just last week, members of the House Committee on Homeland Security sent a letter to the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security urging them to halt the department's plan to invest $20,000,000 towards purchasing shot gloves.

Globally, Amnesty International has documented the use of electric shock shockled devices as instruments of torture and has recommended that governments seize use of decommission and destroy any stockpiles of such prohibited electric shock weapons. While the gloves are not currently being used in California, the cost of safety and health outweighs the financial concerns. So Assembly bill 2760 draws a clear line.

Public safety technology must be proven safe and accountable before it is deployed, that after someone is killed or seriously injured. Here with me to testify in support of twenty seven sixty is Cleo Bluthenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation and Monica Madrid with CHIRLA.

Thank you. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Cleo Luthental, and I serve as the policy officer for the California Community Foundation. This bill is about a simple but urgent truth. Laws can and must be enforced safely with order and without causing unnecessary harm to the communities that enforcement officers are tasked with protecting. AB 2760 will prohibit law enforcement agencies in our state from purchasing, possessing, or using taser gloves and other substantially similar wearable conducted energy devices.

Unlike other conducted energy weapons, the devices that are addressed in this bill are concealed within a glove and can be activated during close physical contact and by touch. Although they're labeled as less than lethal, a 43 year old man recently died after being shocked 40 times with a combination of the gloves and a taser in Kentucky. This bill takes a proactive approach, preventing adoption of a technology that raises significant public health and oversight concerns while offering no demonstrated benefit beyond existing law enforcement tools and practices.

We agree with Assemblymember Sharp Collins. We shouldn't wait until a Californian dies or is maimed before taking action.

The need for this proactive approach is highlighted by a number of bills this session, including SB 937, which focuses on regulating and preventing the use of other, quote unquote, less than lethal devices that have been repeatedly local, state, and federal enforcement officers in our state over the last year with devastating impacts. The benefit of adding another similar device to this list is unclear, particularly when the cost may be human life. We've seen the harm that these devices have already caused in another state.

It's irresponsible to wait until these harms hit our state, our communities, and California residents to act. The time to act is now. Our communities deserve nothing less. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on Assembly Bill 2760. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm the state policy advocate with the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, here in support of AB 2760 by Assembly Member Sharp Collins. AB 2760 establishes an important fiscal safeguard by prohibiting prohibiting law enforcement agencies from using funds to purchase wearable electric shock devices.

At the time when California faces significant budget constraints, state resources should not be spent purchasing or implementing technology designed to remotely administer electrical shocks to individuals in law enforcement custody.

Preventing the use of these devices may also reduce future fiscal exposure to state and local governments. The use of force can result in costly litigation, legal defense expenses, settlements, and judgments paid with the public dollars. By establishing a clear prohibition before wearable electroshock devices become incorporated into law enforcement practices, California can avoid that by introducing an additional source of potential liability. This bill also avoids potential costs associated with purchasing these devices and developing the training implementation and oversight necessary for their use.

For immigrant communities, these protections are particularly important given the escalation of federal immigration enforcement operations across California, but they also represent responsible stewardship of limited public resources.

California should invest its public safety dollars in protecting communities, not in new technologies that could expose the state and local governments to additional costs and liability. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do I have any additional witnesses in support to AB 2760? Seeing none, we will now move to witnesses in opposition to AB 2760.

Good morning, madam Chair. Heeding your admonition about sticking to, the fiscal. I'll just say that there was a discussion yesterday. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association. We remain opposed to the bill.

In print, there was conversation in committee about amendments. They're supposed to be taken here. They're not, I guess, being taken. There are additional discussions as I understand it, but it's not all clear what actually the committee has voted on. Unless it's the bill in print that went into print at 4am on Saturday morning, which actually bans tasers and fails to ban the Electro gloves.

We understand that the intention is to fix that, drafting error. But again, without the uncertainty of what is in or not in the bill, we're very concerned about the banning of technology, that would be seen as precedential. And if you start taking away force options on the spectrum, you limit the ability of law enforcement to deescalate. Thank you very much.

Good morning, madam Chair members. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association, Riverside Sheriffs Association. While we remain in opposition to the bill in print, we have been in discussions with the author, and we look forward to, working out, some potential amendments as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Finance, do you have a file on the bill?

No file, madam Chair.

Do you have any members, questions or comments?

I have a quick quick

question. Senator Seyarto?

I think one of amendments I I believe they were trying to clarify the trigger finger issue. Is that one of the amendments that you're looking at?

One of the

Because it would if you didn't, it would it would eliminate all all tasers.

So the amendments are listed at the it's it's the last the the Okay. The ending of your analysis. And so the amendments is actually clarifying the fact that it is actual gloves itself. Okay. So it's not going to be eliminating tasers, stun guns, or any or any of the similar ways.

Right. Thank you.

I see no additional comments or questions. Assemblymember Sharp Collins, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you so much, madam Chair, for allowing me to be here today to present this particular bill to the committee. Just to put it simply, I've said it today during the press conference. If not now, then when? So do we wait for someone to die?

Do we wait for some other someone else to in to have some type of bodily health impacts happening to them as a result of this? We cannot spend state money or taxpayer dollars on this technology until it is properly vetted and proven to be safe. So, with that, I do respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The item is eligible for a vote today. We have a motion by Senator Wahab. The motion is do passed. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

If we could open the roll on AB 2727. Okay.

The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate floor for consideration. Seyarto.

I'm sorry. What is the motion for

2727 [Roll Call]

Current vote is four to zero. We will leave that on call. Next item is AB 282. Assemblymember Pellerin

[Roll Call]

Current vote is three to two. We will leave that on call. We will lift the call on AB 817. As I present our last item on file.

Alright. The last item on file is AB 2597, by Wicks, presented by the Chair. And, it's claims against state appropriation. Claims against the state.

Thank you. So AB 2597 is a claim bill carried by one of the chairs of the Appropriations Committee each year to provide appropriation authority for legal judgments and settlements approved by the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance. This urgency bill appropriates approximately 7,400,000 from the general front to DOJ for the payments of attorney fees and costs related to eight specified claims against the state. These judgments and settlements are binding state obligations.

Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the claims will revert back to the general fund. With me today is Tiffany Brokaw and other representatives from the Department of Justice who can answer any technical questions about individual claims.

Great. So, are there anybody doing a presentation in favor or is it just here for technical?

I just have a short statement, but it's

Absolutely. Go ahead.

Thank you. Tiffany Brokaw here on behalf of the sponsor, attorney general Rob Bonta. As, Senator Cervantes said, Chair, this bill would appropriate approximately $7,400,000 from the general fund to the attorney general, and this is for the payment of claims, settlements, or judgments against the state arising from eight specified actions. And these settlements were entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel and our binding state obligations. And for these reasons, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anybody else in support? Anybody in opposition? No? Come on back to the dias. Anybody that you have questions? Since we have a motion to move the bill. Oh, yes. Department of Finance. Did you have a little report for us on that?

This is the one we do. Yes, Mister Chair. Okay. Department of Finance supports AB 2597 as it authorizes necessary appropriations to effectuate payments to claimants and specifically finances reviewed each of the respective claims and has no concerns with the included items.

Great. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Wahab and go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is part of the 4-0. We will leave that on call. Thank you.

If we could please open the roll, lift the call on AB 270, excuse me. AB2597.

[Roll Call]

Five to zero. We'll leave that on call. We will take a short recess. I'd like to lift the call on AB 2727.

[Roll Call]

Final vote six to zero. That bill's out. AB 282, Pellerin?

[Roll Call]

Final vote, four to two. That bill is out. Next item on file, AB 817. Assemblymember Gonzales.

[Roll Call]

Final vote is four to two. That bill is out. Next item is AB 2597.

[Roll Call]

Final vote, six to zero. That bill's out. AB 2760.

[Roll Call]

Final vote is four to two and that bill is out. I now like to thank everyone for participating in today's hearing. We now have concluded the agenda. The meeting on Senate Committee on Appropriations is now adjourned.