March 24, 2026 · Environment, Climate and Legacy · 5,787 words · 9 speakers · 129 segments
Welcome to the committee on the committee on Senate Environment Climate Legacy. We now call the community to order. Let the record show that is 3:08 now and it's Tuesday, March 24th. We have several bills on our agenda today. We're trying to keep this bill, all this hearing within an hour or you know, we got to have hard stop at 4 being that I myself will be occupied after that due to community activities and also many some of our members and staff are not feeling well as well. So don't stay too close to each other. I don't want to. I don't want to. People can reveal their illness if they want to. I don't want to say this person had that, that person had that. So. And we're trying to go through the bill accordingly and expeditiously. I realize that the bill doesn't have much controversy and so we'll see if we get to item number six, which is my bill for the bowser. So let's.
Mr.
Chair.
Yes.
Senator Green, if I could ask you a question. We're going to be short and I wanted before the end of the committee. I know at one time you had mentioned that you may want to just not have a bigger bill and just move everything through, but I know you've been laying some bills over. So is there. Can you let us know what the intention is of moving forward?
Yeah, we'll meet and we'll discuss that and maybe let you know after Thursday.
Okay. Yeah. Thank you.
And also let records show that we now have quorum. In addition to our members here, we have Senator McCune and Senator Jim McCune and Sen. Grant House Child online and when should they should member on remote. When you testify, you need to state your location, the city and state where you are. So let's get going here. Senate file 4525 by Senator McCune. So, Sam McCune, welcome.
Kunish.
I'm not feeling well either.
I wish I were up north too.
Welcome to your community.
Yeah, thank you so much. Members and Chair, I have in front of you to begin Senate file 4520. And this is a reminder bill basically to notify tribal governments of sewage releases in the event of the release of untreated water or undertreated Sewage. Minnesota Statute 115.061 C requires publicly owned water wastewater treatment facilities and domestic sewer system owners to notify all potentially impacted downstream water users so that protective action can be taken such as avoiding swimming or protecting drinking water supplies. Tribal governments should be among those notified of sewage releases as they are important partners in protecting public health. This is one of the governor's recommendations. So we know that existing law already requires notifying downstream users when untreated or partially treated sewage or other pollutants are are released into a water body. The law is intended to protect the health of people who swim, fish, or recreate in water that becomes polluted with sewage, and especially those whose drinking water comes from a directly impacted water body. Under existing law, tribal governments should already be receiving these notifications, but tribal leaders have raised concern that there are some that are being missed. This bill is an effort to ensure that tribal governments are receiving the same notification that that is already being given to downstream drinking water facilities, local governments and members of the public. And with that, I would ask for all of your support. And I do believe we have one test fire.
Okay. Welcome, miss. Ms. Alas Donas from MPCA.
Mr. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Senate file 4520. And thank you to Senator Kunesh for carrying this bill. As the Senator said, this is an agency bill and one that we support as an agency. This was brought forward by tribal governance. It came up in consultation, but has also come up in less formal conversations as well. But tribal governments may be sometimes missed when these notifications are occurring, and this is an effort to right that wrong and to ensure that tribal governments do receive that notific so that they're able to protect public health and take the appropriate precautions to make sure that people are safe. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm happy to stand for
questions, any question from members. Okay. Senator Lane, would you move. That's a coauthor, Senator Lane, move that Senate File 4525 be recommended to pass. And all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Motion prevailed. Okay. Senator Quinish, you have another bill?
I do Indeed. Senate filed 3594. And I have the A1amendment to begin.
Okay, A1amendment coming your way.
This amendment repeals language related to a report that the DNR has prepared biannually and related to trust lands and revenue generation. After the hearing in the Education Committee, the DNR approached me about repealing this language and instead worked jointly with the Office of School Trust Lands on a more comprehensive, consolidated approach on developing and presenting this information.
Okay. And all in favor of the A1amendment say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Motion prevail on A1amendment.
Great.
Senator Kunisch, the bill as it is.
Pardon?
The bill as is.
Okay, so the purpose of this bill is to update Minnesota statutes governing the school trust land director to strengthen transparency, accountability and fiduciary management of the school trust lands. The legislation modernizes reporting requirements and clarifies the Director's responsibility to better reflect how trust assets are managed today. And this goal is very simple to ensure that school trust lands are managed like a professional trust focused on long term value for Minnesota students. You might ask why this is needed. It is because school trust lands exist to generate revenue for Minnesota's public schools through the Permanent School Fund. The Director already operates under fiduciary obligations, but current statute contains outdated reporting language. It requires inefficient quarterly presentations rather than comprehensive reporting and it does not clinical clearly specify key financial and performance information that we lawmakers should receive. And the last one is that legislators, beneficiaries and the public need clear, consistent and annual reporting tied to the outcomes. So the bill what this bill does is that it modernizes the Director's duties. That's section one. It maintains the Director's fiduciary responsibility to the trust beneficiaries. It clarifies advisory roles to the governor, the executive council, land exchange board and the dnr. And it updates statutory language for clarity and consistency and that includes the technical edits. It also continues long term strategic planning requirements such as a 10 year strategic plan, a 25 year management framework and to be updated every five years. And this is to align the duties with modern asset management practices. Then the second thing that it does is it improves legislative oversight through better reporting. The bill replaces multiple procedural reporting requirements with a single comprehensive annual report. So instead of quarterly presentations, the Director must now submit a written report by January 15 each year to the legislative Permanent School Fund Commission. And this report is expected to include efforts to uphold the fiduciary duty and beneficiary interest management activities and new revenue opportunities. Financial performance of trust lands, management costs versus revenue generated, recommended statutory improvements and then of course the actual distributions to the Minnesota schools. The third thing that it does is ensures data coordination across agency. So it will require the Departments of Natural Resources and Education to provide necessary data and then ensure that our lawmakers receive a complete financial and operational picture of the trust. Why is this so important and why does it matter to Minnesota schools? Minnesota the school trust lands are constitutionally protected public trust trust. It's not a general state land revenue supports students statewide through permanent school fund distributions and strong governance helps to increase long term revenue, improve our asset performance and then protect the trust fund from future for future generations. The more information the better Information we have, we have better legislative insight and that means a stronger return for our schools. And then the last part is accountability and transparency improvements. This bill will create a predictable annual reporting cycle. It provides financial clarity on costs and revenues. It links management actions to fiduciary outcomes. It improves legislative oversight without expanding bureaucracy. And it enhances public transparency. And so in essence, this bill bill ensures Minnesota manages our school trust lands with the same clarity, discipline and transparency expected of any professionally managed trust. And it will always focus on delivering long term values for our students. And that is my bill. And we do have one testifier.
Okay. All right. May the testifiers come forth. Mr. Bart Wake from the Office of School School trust fund and Mr. Assistant Commissioner Bob Meyer, if he's here. It's online. Okay, go ahead, state your name for the record.
Yes. Mark Waite, Chair members. First of all, Chair, I'm going to do my best to help you out with your getting out of here at 4:00'. Clock. I have very brief comments. Today, the Office of School Trust lends supports the changes to our reporting requirements for two primary reasons. One, as Senator Kunesh explained, the current lot just has a statutory mismatch as it reads now requires the school Trust Lands director to report quarterly in a public meeting to the Legislative Permanent School Fund Commission. And in practice, this has been difficult in recent years because the commission doesn't always meet quarterly. So this change would allow us to fulfill our reporting duties. Secondly, we believe that an annual written report as opposed to verbal testimony has some real inherent value. It will provide permanence continuity that oral testimony can't. And it will ensure that information about school trust lands is documented, accessible and consistent year to year. So for these reasons, the Office of School Trust Land supports these proposed changes. I just want to mention one other thing regarding the amendment to strike DNR school Trust lands reporting requirements. Submitting one official report rather than two separate reports from different agencies would certainly avoid duplication. It would reduce conflict or overlapping information and it would ensure a single consistent account of school trust lines management. So we also support the proposed amendment. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer questions.
Thank you. Now let's go to Assistant Commissioner Bob meyer on remote.
Mr.
Chair, members, can you hear me okay?
Just fine.
For the record, Bob Meyer, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources I just want to say thank you to Senator Kunis. She did an amazing job at introducing this bill and talking about what it is. And also Mr. Waite, talking about how we do need to have a consolidated view and report development Much like the work that we do daily at the DNR with Office of School Trust Lands. I do want to, for the record, just note that our latest copy of this report has not been submitted yet. We've been working with the Office of School Trust Lands on another very important project, our asset management plan, and that has caused some delays. We are working on that data and that would, should this pass be included in this first report that would be due coming soon, together with OSTL and the Department of Education. So I just wanted to make sure that people were aware of that.
Thank you. All right, members, any questions to the test fire to Senator Kunisch? Senator green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you did do a good job explaining this. But I did have a question on your amendment. You've taken out some language on the reporting, and I see that that other language requires the reporting. But the one question I had is it looks like the report now has to go to the Legislative Permanent School Trust Commission once a year. But I don't see anything that requires that to be brought to the legislature except for when they bring forward changes or requests. So is there anything in here that would require that that report to still come to the legislature?
Senator Kunesh,
Commissioner and Senator, excuse me, Chair and Senator Green, it looks to me like I'm just going to ask Mr. Waite.
Yeah.
If you would respond to that. Chair.
Mr. Waite. Yeah.
If you look at what the language that is being stricken in the amendment, it also requires, it requires DNR to report biannually to the Permanent School Fund Commission. So the reporting body is the same for the stricken language as well as the language that would be in this. In the revised legislation.
Senator Green,
I'm not going to go over it, but I do think that in the stricken language it did say that not only to the commission, but the. But the legislature. But we're going to worry about that different days. We can move on. Okay.
All right. Any other question? So I move that The Senate File 3594 as amended, be recommended to pass and re refer to the Committee on Education Policy. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay, motion prevail. Next is Senator House bill. But Senator will be presenting on Senator Houchow behalf. Senator Houchow is also online too to stand in for question or maybe give a closing remark. Senator Kunisch on to the Senate 54374. And there is an A1amendment, am I correct?
You are correct, Mr. Chair. There is the A1 offense amendment. And what that amendment does, it lists out the design Expectations. The license plate design must celebrate the North Shore and the Lake Superior Agate. It cannot be created in whole or in part using artificial intelligence intelligence. It must be created by a resident of Minnesota and should be submit and will be selected no later than 12-18-2026. And that is my amendment.
Thank you. And all in favor of the coonish amendment say Aye. Aye. Oppose. Okay. A1amendment prevail. This is a fun bill, Senator Kunish. And thanks to Senator Hchow as well. Any further comment or the.
Well, the bill itself is a bill that would create a state park license plate that specifically acknowledges the North Shore and the Lake Superior Agate. The Lake Superior Agate is a really unique agate. We find agates all over our state. But the Lake Superior Agate is unique in the fact that of where it is located and the elements that create those beautiful lines that go through it. We have to recognize that the DNR license plate contest that was established in 2024 celebrates our state's open official gemstone, the Lake Superior Agate. The Lake Superior Agate has been our state gemstone since 1969 but is not currently featured on any license plate design. Yet other state icons are featured on existing license plates. We have our state bird, the loon. We have our state flower, the lady slipper. And I can't not not mention the missing and murdered indigenous women's relative license plate that we have. And so we know that there, there's support all over the place for, for this actual license plate. The DNR Commissioner Strauman. Strauman and the DNR in support of this. And then I just want to let you know that the companion Bill House filed 369099 was passed unanimously through committee on the 10th and is now on the House general register. And so I ask you all to support this, this bill. And I do have one testifier that just knows his rocks.
Okay, welcome and state your name for the record.
Thank you chair her and members for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our state gemstone Ladies Lake Superior Agate and in support of Senate file 4374. My name is Lars Leif Blad. I'm a resident of Shoreview, a small business co owner and a lifelong fan of agates. Our state gemstone encapsulate this committee's focus on environment, climate and legacy. It was given its official designation in 1969 after a many year statewide advocacy campaign by the Minnesota Mineral Club and years of legislative debate by your predecessors and signed into law by a Republican governor Governor Levander. Like many Minnesotans, my first memories of hunting for agates were made on the beaches of Lake Superior, thanks to my late grandparents, Jack and Sally Burke, who made Duluth their home after US Steel brought them to town in 1971. I've continued the legacy of agate hunting with my own four kids, now ages 13 to 21, via trips to Grand Marais, the shoreline of Lake Alexander in central Minnesota, and gravel roads all across our state. As Senator Kunesh noted, I'm asking for your vote. There's a lot of precedent. Our state birds, state flowered, are featured on other Minnesota plate designs. We have momentum in a companion bill that was passed in the House. The DNR is supportive and legacy. 150,000 Minnesotans are members of Lake Superior Agate Facebook groups. Thousands gather every summer for Agate days in Moose Lake and to visit the Moose Lake Agate and Geological Interpretive center in Moose Lake Lake State park, which was dedicated in 2004. By voting yes, your voting support our shared legacy. Thank you for your consideration and special thanks to Senator Housechild, Senator Marty, and Senator Kunesh for your leadership as authors.
Bet.
Okay.
Any question from members? Senator Wiesenberg. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And this might be for the help here. I'm not opposed to the thing. I just am wondering why we have
to have a bill. Why can't the DNR just have a contest?
Right. Zach Quinish.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we have to create a license plate, pass legislation to create a license plate legislatively, and then once we have that done, then the design part can begin. I know when I created that missing and murdered indigenous women's one, I had a vision of what I wanted that license to look like. And so I was able to share that with them. And they. They worked with me on the design. But I think we want to celebrate. The agate and agates are huge in my family. I have a whole jar full in my office. My brother made his wedding ring out of an agate. I think we want to, like, see, celebrate this opportunity to create a really unique license plate. And so we have to approve it legislatively, especially through state government approval. And then we can go on to the fun part of designing the license plate.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Does Mr. Assistant Commissioner Bob Meyer is. Do you want to shed some light on any of this as well or. You're good?
Mr. Chairman, really quick. Bob Myers, Commissioner, DNR we do support the language to Senator Wiesenberger's question. This language actually redefines and clarifies an existing statute requiring us to have a license plate. So we support it and look forward to meeting the deadlines within the bill.
Okay. Well thank you very much. Any other comment? If not, Senator Kunisch moved that the Senate file 43. Senator.
Smith works too. Mr. Chair, thank you. I'm just curious. I'm looking at 168.1295 and maybe staff can help us. But does this mean do we already have state and park trails plates and design? Is this an additional one or is this one actually fulfilling the needs of 168.1295 is that I see the testifier nodding his head. Maybe he can ask.
Thank you, Senator. My understanding is that there was a existing license plate contest that was passed to create a new state parks and trail and this is simply providing creative guidance to that plate design. So it would my understanding is that it would replace that current state parks and trails design that is offered and this is this is creative guidance for the license plate contest that the DNR will host and conduct reflecting this design.
So Mr. Zerkowski, so we don't already have a plate there where actually this is actually doing the plate or is it replacing it or do we have two plates?
Senator Kunishan.
Mr.
The test fire I'm not sure that's a great question. My understanding is that I believe it's going to replace the existing design. So there would be a singular state parks and trails plate offering. This would not be a it's replacing the existing design with this design suggestion.
Senator Drakowski, I think the person that will have to answer for you is Assistant Commissioner Bob Meyer.
Thank you.
Is online now.
Assistant Commissioner thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Daskowski partially right there. So the language is actually amending language that was requiring us to have a new contest. We currently have a plate that was done by a contest that some people don't some people don't always support the designs that we put on our plates. So they don't think it's the most representative of our state park system. This bill was passed. We hadn't got to it yet. This is a re effort re energizing effort and a clarification on the existing replacement process and contents.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Maybe I don't know if we need Senator Coonish need to make it clear that it's replacing it. But anyway, that was my question and, and I think the author will figure a good place for this to go. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you. So now the Senator McCune will move that no. Senator Kunisch will move that The Senate File 4374 as amended, be recommended to pass. All in favor say Aye.
Aye.
Okay. Motion prevail.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. Well, perfect timing to welcome Senator Nelson to talk about Senate 537 41.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome. And go ahead, talk about it. And do you want to talk about the amendment or we'll just. However you want to.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the A1. It looks like the A4amendment that I would like to offer.
Okay. Senator Nelson, I move that we adopt the A4amendment. All in favor say Aye. Aye. Okay. Opposed? Okay. Motion propelled.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Might I speak just for a moment about this bill as amended? Thank you very much. So this bill is really about the route permits in a karst geology area. And so the bill as amended is really now hopefully being sent to Energy where we can discuss why this bill is needed in regards to the karst geology and the new energy infrastructure. So I appreciate you, Mr. Chair, hearing the bill today. I know you have a huge, huge list in front of you, but I appreciate you taking the time to hear the bill, to accept the amendment. That really puts the bill in the shape it was intended to be. And I think it will be a very beneficial bill as we look at new technology coming into our state, into karst geology. What is it that we need to look at? And so you've helped, I think, get this bill in the shape that we need. So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Senator Nelson, and thank you for being persistent. Right. On the get go, when we begin this session, you send me an email and keep on pushing this bill for hearing the committee. So today is the day that I give a hearing, but after today, it will be out of our jurisdiction. It's already modified.
It did.
The amendment number four here we referred to the Energy Committee. So it from this point on, it would be an energy provision.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the time and for the re. Referral as well. Thank you.
Okay. Members, as chief author of this bill, I move that not chief author, co author of this bill, I move that The Senate File 3741 as amended, be recommended to pass and be referred to the Committee on Energy. In favor say aye.
Okay. Aye.
Opposed? Aye. Motion prevail. All right. Sen. Green, I. Things have gone pretty fast here and I forgot to ask you for a favor and I'd like to pass the gavel to you to handle this next business. Okay. Yeah, I I'll walk.
It's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are free to move your bill.
Thank you Senator Green for taking the gavel today. Everybody are not feeling well. Some are contagious and you know, I felt that you are the only one maybe had not reported to me that have some kind of virus.
Well, if I start coughing you.
So it's good for me to pass you the gavel. So I'm gonna call Bowser up too. But The Senate file 4446 is a bowser policy bill with a small technical change. It removed land occupier and replaced it with landowners and authorized agent to broader the responsibility. A few provision removed also include removing consideration that Bowser must make when determining whether the operation of soil and Water Conservation District is administratively feasible. And also restriction on the types of land and removes. Also include restriction on the parties that SCW may cooperate with and also restriction on who can who may provide certain equipment and supplies and remove restriction on who may provide certain technical or financial assistance and also require the district to site inspection. These are the outline of the bill. And director John Jensky is here to say further and answer any question that you may have.
Mr. Jaske.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for having us here and for considering this bill. As Chair noted, this is a modernization of some of the soil and water district statutes. The soil and water district statutes have a long ago history starting from the late 1930s when the federal government created this model legislation for states to adopt. And of course that's all happened. And in Minnesota we're fortunate to have soil and water conservation districts all from one corner of the state to the other. This language is just really being updated to reflect modern approaches to conservation work from soil and water conservation districts. You can see we're just replacing the term land occupier in a number of places, which is kind of an awkward term, which was at the time and still means, you know, the landowner and their authorized agents, you know, you know, often renters or someone holds an easement, et cetera. So that's being updated in various places. Another provision in starting on page two and carrying over to page three in a sort of repeated fashion there is districts are established through a referendum. Then the agency, the Board of Water and Soil Resources takes a step to create them and also to consider petitions for adjustments to those creatures. This is some antiquated language. We hold a hearing and collect information, you know, in the public in a public fashion through either public notice and or some meeting in that jurisdiction. So These terms in here are quite outdated, so we're removing those as well. We're adding the term scientific as one of the considerations for information that soil and water districts use to carry out their program delivery. On the bottom of page three, demonstration projects. So water districts do this from time to time, and they do it with a variety of partners, including state agencies, including private landowners, including academic institutions. So just making that a broader opportunity, I guess. Similarly, on the top of page four, with implementing practices, soil and water conservation districts do practices in urban areas, suburban. Urban areas and rural areas of all kind, of all kinds. We're just making sure that that can be clearly authorized. Excuse me. The next piece is on machinery and supplies. I'm not sick. I'm not sick. This is just making sure that we can utilize any of those materials and equipment that districts use to carry out their work and broadening the terminology there. And the rest of it is similarly focused on that land occupier term being updated and removed. Thank you, Mike. So that's my overview, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to just. I think that's only the first testifier before I have a couple of questions, but they're pretty easy. But before we go on, could Sheila Vaney come up and then Jay Eidsness. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairney. State your name for the record.
Sure, Mr. Chair.
Excuse me.
Sheila Vanny, assistant director with the Minnesota association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. And I want to extend our appreciation to Chair her for carrying this bill. As Mr. Jaske noted, this is really just a modernization of some outdated language in the SWCD law.
We appreciated being shared when they shared
the information and got that information to us in advance, and. And we fully support these technical changes.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Okay. Thank you. And I'm. I'm sure I pronounced that wrong when.
Mr.
Eidsniss, please state your name for the record and continue with your testimony.
Thank you, Chair. My name is Jay Eidsnes. You nailed it. And I am prepared to offer testimony on the A3amendment that has not been offered yet. So I'm not sure if you want me to testify to that amendment or wait until.
Well, I think that seeing as. So that's my amendment, I'll just go right in and offer it. So I'm going to offer the A3amendment, and seeing as how you're there to talk about it, and Mr. Jaske as well, because as I understand it, this language was worked out between Bowser and other stakeholders. So go ahead and continue with the testimony.
Sure. Thank you, Chair. So I work at the Minnesota center for Environmental Advocacy. We submitted some written testimony on Senate file 36677 opposing some proposed language, the A3amendment. Here is another last minute band aid fix to a 2024 statutory amendment that has had unintended consequences. So the new 2024 agricultural exemption threshold, it bases the ability to qualify for a Wetland Conservation act exemption on a valid natural resources certification service NRCS wetland certification. And this has proven difficult and not just in areas of our state where these authorizations are rare, but across the state entirely. For example, a couple years ago a federal court invalidated thousands of these NRCS determinations in the prairie pothole region, which is where Minnesota currently lies, because NRCS kind of unlawfully relaxed its certification requirements. So our question is why not revert back to this prediction pre2024 criteria statewide and remove the NRCS certification as an exemption route altogether. So we have been talking to stakeholders and we understand this is administratively difficult and we're just concerned that this might endanger the known net loss goals of wca. So we are puzzled why we're trying to tie state law to federal law at a time when there is great regulatory uncertainty and definitely some backtracking. So with that I'll happy to answer questions.
Okay, Mr.
Chair, Chair Senator Green, thank you know the amendment is due to your initiative of Senate File 3677 and we didn't, we ran out of time, you know, last week to hear it. But I'm glad you work with Bowser to, to come out with, you know, proper language that is agreed upon and also have a testify here and speak in support. So I accept as a friendly amendment and I know that you have question said you had three questions. I hope it's just not a question to yourself. So I answered those Mr.
Chair.
I accept that as a friendly amendment.
Well, thank you. So when you're winning, you take the vote, right? All those in favor of the eighth three amendments? Aye.
Aye.
Opposed. Motion carries. Amendments on. And now we're back to the bill. Do you have anything else to say before questions, Mr. Chair?
No, I'll take any questions. I have here three testifier that can also answer question as well.
Well, my question is just going to be a clarifying and for Mr. Jaski, first of all I want to thank you because you know I'm not always pleased with some of the stuff that the agencies do. But you did, you did a good job and you came to me and you explained stuff when I asked questions and I do Appreciate that. But when I first read this language in the original bill, it did concern me that we're taking out actually notification for the landowners and stuff. And so just for the record, when you, when we discuss this, this is only for either establishing or removing a soil and water conservation district. The language is in here. Is that correct, Mr. Chair?
Yes, that's correct. You know, after a referendum would occur in either case.
Okay, that's all I have. If anybody's got any more questions, well, that's pretty easy. I don't see any more questions. So, Mr. Chair, with your bill.
All right, so let's see. I have a note up there. Maybe council can help me with the language of motion.
Mr.
Chair, I believe the motion would be
for Senate file 4446 as amended to
be recommended to pass. Okay. Mr. Chair, I motion this statement just now.
Okay. Senator, her motion makes a motion for his bill to pass. I don't see if it's going to be where it's going to be referred to recommended pass go to the floor as amended. All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Your bill with my amendment. It's on its way.
Yeah, sounds good. And thank, thank you, everybody. You know, I know that folks are not feeling well and everybody are preoccupied mentally and everything. So I'm glad that we carry this hearing today very, very smoothly and on, on time. So even though it's back and forth and, you know, seems a little informal here, but we got it done. So thank you everybody for being here. Stay tuned on your email on the next hearing committee hearing this Thursday. So check your email. Thank you very much. And meeting is adjourned. Sa.