Senate Budget Fiscal Review — 2026-06-29

Thank you. . The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review will come to order. We're holding our hearing here in 1021 O Street, Room 1200. I would ask all members to join Senator Nielo and myself so that we can establish a quorum. We will do that whenever the appropriate number of people arrive. And public comment will be heard after all discussion items have been presented, and I'll talk about that in a moment. Today, we'll hear Assembly Bill 111, a budget bill junior that amends AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, to represent a budget agreement between the legislature and the administration. We'll also hear Assembly Bill 112, a budget bill junior that makes technical amendments to the 2025 and prior years budgets, along with 16 trailer bills and two related policy bills. This budget package is balanced in both 2026-27 and 27-28 fiscal years. It includes $351.7 billion in total spending, $251.5 billion of which is the general fund. It includes record reserves of $35.2 billion, something that the vice chair and I did not experience during our assembly years. It cuts the long-term structural deficit in half. This budget does reflect the foundation for the future budget put forth by the Senate Democrats earlier this year. It's responsible. It protects core programs that Californians depend on, and it delays other painful program cuts. It includes difficult decisions on both targeted reductions and new revenues. Most significantly, the budget provides 22,770 new child care slots for California families. It provides $900 million for the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program and $700 million for affordable housing programs. It rejects reductions in home support services. It maintains full-scope Medi-Cal for asylees and others who are no longer eligible for federal funding through the 26-27 budget year with a commitment to work to maintain eligibility beyond that point. The budget delays implementation of plan reductions in dental services and clinics to July 1 2027 It continues the delay of Medi premiums for the UIS population until July 1st 2027 but requires the governor to set and announce a premium level in the 2027 May revision It makes key investments in new judgeships, courthouse maintenance, and course house construction. It provides significant investments in various other areas of the budget, including TK-12 education, community colleges, CSUs, and UCs. It invests in other programs such as CalFood, County Administration, Immigrant Legal Aid, Proposition 36, and many others. I would like to thank the Assembly and the administration for their partnership, the Pro Tem for her leadership, and the budget subchairs and committee members and staff for significant workload it takes to complete a budget. Um, process-wise, we are going through each bill, uh, without public comment and without questions or, uh, comments from the committee. And when we are done going through each bill, we will return it to the committee for questions or comments on any of the bills that are presented. And when we are done with the questions or comments, we will go to the public for public comment. And I will probably at the time take a survey of who wants to speak and decide whether there is some limit on the time that we need to do so that we can get out of here during our natural life somehow. And then before we begin, I am going to go to my vice chair and ask if he has any opening comments.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I appreciate your comments. We are now going to go to Erica Lee from the Department of Finance for a presentation on each bill. And then we have Ross Brown here from the Legislative Analyst's Office, who may or may not comment on the different bills, but we will give him the option. And as I said earlier, we will go through each bill, and then we'll bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. So, Ms. Lee, welcome to the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Ross Brown with the LAO. We don't have any additional comments on any of the bills, but we are available for questions.

Ms. Lee, on to 112. AB 112 is a budget bill junior that makes various technical corrections to past budget acts and provides a $4.2 billion general fund augmentation in 25-26, so in the current year, for the Medi-Cal program to cover the current year deficiency. It also reappropriates $99.3 million general fund from 23-24 to resolve a current year deficiency for CDCR. Moving on to the next bill, which is AB-126, a trailer bill in education. This bill provides several significant ongoing Proposition 98 general fund investments, which include $2.2 billion, increase to the Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, to reflect a 2.87% cost of living adjustment, and $1.1 billion to provide a supercola for school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education through the LCFF. In addition to addressing ongoing cost pressures for schools, these funds will also offset costs for local educational agencies to provide employees with up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave. The bill also provides several significant one-time Proposition 98 general fund investments, including $5 billion for the Student Support and Professional Development, which is a discretionary block grant, and it provides discretionary funding to local educational agencies to manage rising costs. About $757 million one-time Proposition 98 general fund to support the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant, which provides funds to LEAs to establish learning recovery initiatives through the 27-28 budget, sorry, school year. $428 million for educator workforce investments to support the student-teacher stipend program, the classified school employee-teacher credentialing program, and the pathways to bilingual teaching program. And next, I will move on to AB-135, which is the trailer bill on higher education. AB 135 is that this bill provides funding and policy direction for various community college program and activities. It expands the availability of financial aid and makes various other technical or clarifying changes, including providing a framework for the state's implementation of the new federal workforce Pell Grant program to make Pell Grant funds available to eligible students in short-term workforce training programs in high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations. It expands the state Cal Grant transfer entitlement program to students aged 29 and 30 for new and renewed financial aid awards. Newly eligible students would be able to renew their awards for five years. It requires the office of the chancellor of CSU annually to develop enrollment targets for each campus. It changes the calculation of funded credit full-time equivalent students incorporated into the community college's students-centered funding formula for the three-year rolling average to the greater of the three-year rolling average or the current year, FTE. And it requires community colleges to provide employees with up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave beginning January 1, 2027. Okay. And moving on to the next bill, AB 130 is the early learning and child care education omnibus. I think it's 150. Am I right?

Okay. Excuse me, AB 150, yes. And I have my glasses on, too, so I made a mistake. Okay, thank you. This bill implements the following significant early childhood education-related proposals. It sets the child care cost of living adjustment to 2.01%. It provides authority to the Department of Social Services to administer a grant program for child care centers and family child care homes for infrastructure funding related to natural disasters and appropriates $25.7 million federal funds for this purpose. And finally, it authorizes the DSS, Department of Social Services, to transfer funding between child care contractors within child care programs in order to maximize the number of children being served. The next bill is AB 152, the Human Services Omnibus. This bill implements the following proposals. It increases the CalWORKs maximum aid payment by 1.8% effective October 1 of this year. It implements new CalFresh County data reporting policies to increase transparency. It waives the increased county share of CalFresh administrative costs due to HR1 for three years. It extends the CalFresh fruit and vegetable electronic benefit transfer pilot until June 30th of 2028 to accompany a $20 million budget act appropriation for the program. It clarifies the use of adoption assistance program funds for in-state out-of-home placement and wraparound services effective January 1 of 2028. And it requires the Department of Social Services to make transition support services available to adoptive families with youth returning from out-of-state placements and to report to the legislature as specified. The next bill is AB 163, Developmental Services Trailer Bill. This bill implements the following proposals. It strengthens regional center governance, oversight, and administrative efficiencies by professionalizing boards and streamlining funding allocations. allocations. It preserves overtime protections for providers of supported living services. It reduces administrative barriers for individuals seeking employment services, and it establishes a new federally mandated process for individuals to submit grievances related to individual rights and service delivery with an emphasis on accessibility and transparency. The next bill is AB 164 the health omnibus and this bill implements the following Transitioned individuals with unsatisfactory immigration status to the fee delivery system effective January 1 of next year. It implements $50 monthly premiums for adults aged 19 to 59 with unsatisfactory immigration status effective July of 2027, subject to determination in the 27-28 May revision. It reinstates the Medi-Cal asset limit at $21,000 for individuals, $31,000 for couples, effective July 1 of next year. It delays various Medi-Cal general fund solutions by one year to July 1, 2027, including the elimination of prospective payment system reimbursement to clinics for state-only funded services and the elimination of dental benefits for adults 19 and older with unsatisfactory immigration status. And finally, it appropriates up to $576 million over four years from the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP, rebate fund, to support services for those living with and at risk of HIV. The next bill is AB165 on skilled nursing facilities. And generally speaking, this bill provides a one-year extension of the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Assurance Fee and Long-Term Care Reimbursement Act to December of next year, 2027. The next bill is AB 166, which is the Resources Trailer Bill. And this is a Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Trailer Bill that extends the Plastic Market Development Payment Program to 2029 and provides clarification, technical cleanup, and necessary updates to the California Fire Service Training and Education Program, the California Fire and Arson Training Act, and the Generation and Handling Fee. And let me say thank you.

Okay, the next bill is AB 168, the Public Resources or the Energy Trailer Bill. This bill establishes a new incentive program for first-time buyers of light-duty zero-emission vehicles. The budget includes $135.5 million one-time special funds for this purpose. It authorizes funds previously provided for the distributed energy backup assets program to be used for the demand-side grid support program. It adjusts the annual salary of the vice chair of the California Energy Commission. It clarifies that contracts with the Western Climate Initiative to operate the cap and invest auctions are part of a membership agreement. And finally, it makes clarifying and technical changes to the Wildfire Fund. And the next bill is AB 169, Transportation Trailer Bill. AB 169, among various changes, supports modernization efforts at the Department of Motor Vehicles through efficiencies, as well as an increase in the number of Californians that can receive a mobile driver's license through DMV's pilot program. The bill also includes enabling statutory changes and accompanying safeguards for DMV to meet federal Real ID requirements and authorizes automated enforcement for the Games Route Network that Caltrans will stand up on the state highway system for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. The next bill is AB 170, which is the governor's reorganization plan of 2025 on housing. The Housing and Homeless Trailer Bill codifies the governor's reorganization plan, or GRP 2025, which dissolves the business, consumer services, and housing agency and creates two standalone cabinet agencies the first being California Housing and Homelessness Agency and second being Business and Consumer Services Agency and this becomes operational July 1 of 2026. The next bill is AB 171, and it is a labor trailer bill. This bill adopts comprehensive reforms to the subsequent injuries benefits trust fund program to refocus the program on its original intent and protect the viability of the program and the benefits it provides to injured workers. It includes $3 billion in Proposition 2 funding for the CalPERS supplemental pension payment in the budget year. It includes $1 million general fund for administrative costs to implement the Fair Share Act if enacted by ABSB 177. It makes other various technical changes. And the next bill is AB 172, which is the state government or general government trailer bill. And this bill increases fees for the California State Athletic Commission. It authorizes the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to establish and collect fees for the submission of California Environmental Quality Act documents to support the cost of operating, maintaining, and enhancing the state clearinghouse database. It codifies the farm-to-school program at the Department of Food and Agriculture. It shifts clerical responsibility for the state racetrack leasing commission from the Department of Finance to the Department of Food and Agriculture. and it authorized certain expenditures from the Food and Agriculture Fund to be exempt from the cap on administrative costs for the fund. And the next bill is AB 174, the Courts Trailer Bill. The Courts Trailer Bill extends the deadline for superior courts to provide court users access to lactation rooms from July 1, 2026 to July 1, 2029. And it extends authority for courts to conduct remote court proceedings in specified cases to January 1 of 2032. And the next bill is AB 179, another trailer bill on housing. Most notably, the Housing and Homelessness Trailer Bill language does the following. It aligns local policies to lower costs for state-funded housing programs by directing state dollars towards building affordable housing rather than offsetting locally imposed costs. It establishes a disaster rebuilding fund, which is aimed at supporting residential rebuilding in disaster-impacted areas and has funding included in the budget bill. It further integrates and strengthens the state's affordable housing finance system by improving the alignment of affordable housing programs to better coordinate state housing resources. It makes programmatic changes to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program to streamline administration and better leverage complementary housing subsidies. It includes the enhanced accountability and performance measures for the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program, As we all know, this is HAP. And moving on to the next trailer bill, AB 180 is the taxation trailer bill. This bill replaces the 1% cap of the property tax postponement program with a fixed annual allocation of up to $300,000 for manufactured home postponement. It extends the California Competes Tax Credit Program for five years, providing certainty for California businesses regarding this economic development incentive. and it excludes contributions to the new federal savings accounts for children referred to as Trump accounts from state taxable income conforming with federal law. Okay, and those were the budget-related bills and trailer bills. So moving on to AB 181, which is the education governance bill. So this bill establishes the position of education commissioner appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate to be responsible for the daily management of the California Department of Education beginning on January 1 of 2027 The State Board of Education would continue to serve as a governing and policy determining body of the department. The bill also leverages the roles the Superintendent of Public Instruction has on the CSU Board of Trustees and UC Regents by adding the superintendent as a voting member to both the State Board of Education and the California Community Colleges Board of Governors, empowering the superintendent to be a policy leader across our public education system. And the last bill is another policy bill, AB 182. This policy bill is an urgency statute that has no fiscal impact. This bill is necessary for the Secretary of State and county election officials to prepare ballots and related materials for the November 3rd, 2026 statewide general election, and therefore must take effect immediately. This bill specifies that five particular measures submitted to the voters at the November 3rd statewide general election will be the first five measures to appear on the ballot. The bill will not affect the placement or numbering of any other measure that will be submitted to the voters at the same election. And the ballot measures are to be numbered as follows. Proposition 1 is the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. Proposition 2 is the Save for California's Future Act. Proposition 3 is the California Children's Education and Healthcare Protection Act of 2026. Proposition 4 is the California Fair Elections Act of 2026. And lastly, Proposition 5 is the Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 of the 23-24 regular session. And with that, I am done with the presentation of the bills. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning, colleagues. And I really appreciate the very speedy overview of all of the budget items and some of the punchlines on the budget. I think we have been in a long conversation. This budget has been certainly a difficult one in so many ways. and it really is a moment for us to demand some honesty here in terms of where we're going, in terms of who we're leaving behind, and what are we going to do to fix that. These votes are not accidental today. A lot of it has come from Washington. A lot of it has been about the decisions made at the federal level. and Washington essentially turning its back on working people, particularly those working in low-weight sectors who rely on Medi-Cal services, food services, and the safety net. In states like California, it's really our responsibility to make sure that those working families are not standing alone. And I think this budget attempts to do that in a serious way for some, but certainly not for all. And I want to call attention to AB 171, in particular Section 26 of this measure for funding for the fair share for Big Corporations Act. This is something a lot of our colleagues in the Senate, including myself, worked on because our constituents felt it was an issue of fairness. that it was about making sure that working people alone were not carrying the burden themselves. And we tried to get as far as we could with this, but appreciating this landing place, which to me is really a springboard into the work that we have to do next year. Right now we are asking communities, particularly our low-wage communities, our undocumented communities, our immigrant communities, to absorb an incredible burden, while at the same time we have some of the most profitable corporations in the world who are essentially shifting their costs for their health care onto working families. This is not a balanced formula. And I think fair share is about getting us to a balanced and fair formula. We cannot build a strong economy on unstable communities. And I want it to be clear that this is kicking the can down another year. But in this time, we are already seeing about 300,000 folks lose their Medi-Cal benefits in L.A. County already. Folks are very confused about their food benefits. And when you take food and you take health care away, those are the things that are rights. Those are the things that make us human in terms of our safety net and our care for one another. And when we take those things away, it creates a level of desperation that causes a very serious ripple effect. And I want to say South Central has been a testing ground for these kinds of dramatic shifts in our economy and dramatic cuts to our safety net. And that desperation turns into an unsafe situation for families, for neighboring communities, for our entire state. So we know this is a step, but a step is not enough. We need a system, a system where we can share responsibility and share prosperity. And for me, I think fair share is how we're going to do it. I will be fully supporting this bill and will continue to work and hope that the Senate will work both sides of the aisle because this issue of fair share is one that is understood and supported by Republicans and Democrats and independents alike in terms of what the data is showing us. And certainly we don't want California to be the outlier as New Jersey and Colorado and other states, Maryland, are moving forward with these initiatives in this budget year to deal with H 1 So I want to support that I want to ask one question on the item and forgive me where is this item on the delaying of resources on AB 163 I'm sorry, AB164. I'm curious, do we have a sense of what will happen to these populations who stand to lose their benefits on January 1, 2027? Do we have a sense of what recourse will they have in terms of their access to care? And do we have a number of how many families will be impacted by these new rules to drop services for these populations? Okay, and that's for moving those with unsatisfactory immigration status to fee-for-service? Okay.

Thank you, Senator Smallville Cueva.

And under that system, how is the care covered by the state of California?

So there not that in of a plan Okay And is there a sense of what the total number that we shifting over I understand the population but can you give me a sense of the numbers of individuals

Okay, another question I have. So if a constituent of mine is undocumented in southeast Los Angeles and is not in any of these existing buckets in terms of fee-for-service, in terms of currently enrolled, where would they go to get care under this new system? And I want to clarify because we've gone through so many different changes and shifts over time. I just want to make sure I'm understanding where they will go for care under this new funding rubric.

79%.

And so the remaining percent, what safety net or system do they fall into?

So I guess I'm trying to under, okay, I'm sorry, we're talking about the providers. I'm trying to understand where do the individuals, where are those individuals able to go for care under the new funding systems? Sorry, I'm trying to.

No. If they're not a Medi-Cal member.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, if you would hold that thought, a quorum walked in the room, and I'm going to ask for a call of the roll. Senator Slaird? Here.

Here. Archuleta? Here. Shakespeare, Cobaldon, Choi, Dorosso, Grove, Hurtado, McNerney, Menjabar, Ochoa Bogue, Perez, Reyes, Richardson, Ciardo, Smallwood-Cuevas, Weber-Pearson. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. Let me go back to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Correct.

I can't speak to workforce programs, but I do want to mention that the bill does include $197 million general fund, 32 million of which is a cost of doing business adjustment. for county eligibility workers to process workload associated with HR1, and that includes the working community engagement requirements that you're speaking about.

I would just add that we will continue to monitor what's happening on the ground, and a lot of things are changing, even real time in regards to HR1. The changes in what we anticipated would be caseload drops have changed since January, have changed since even May revision, And so I think some of what we've added in is to help support counties and the state as we transition to H.R. 1. But we obviously will be looking to see what else might be required or changed in the future.

We'll go to Senator Durazo, and Senator Richardson is on deck.

Thank you. We're going to move on to Senator Richardson, and Senator Blake Spear is on deck.

Good morning, Sanal Patel with the Department of Finance. Yes, Senator Richardson, it is correct. So long as they meet the other eligibility criteria, there would not be anything prohibiting them in current statute from applying for the new grant program and also being a recipient of other funding.

Good morning, Eamon Nelman, Department of Finance. And yes, once the DMV initiates the system, there will be a check against all other states for duplicate records. And so there will be a transfer of data initially, yes.

That's correct. The initial ping of the system is against five digits, and if there's a match, we do provide the full vehicle record, which would include the Social Security number.

have been a part of this process. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to go to Senator

Ross Brown with the LAO. Yeah, so this is an issue that we've been highlighting for the last year or two where over the last several years, the state's budget has gotten out of balance in terms of the expenditures and the revenue structure. And so earlier in this year, those estimates of sort of that structural imbalance was in the $20 to $30 billion range. this budget package here. The estimates from the Department of Finance are that it would shrink it to a little less than $10 billion. I think it's about $8 billion in sort of structural deficits. Some of that is due to...

Annually, excuse me. Yes, going forward.

Some of that is due to some of the spending reductions that were proposed in the May revision, and the package here adopts those with some delays and some changes, as well as some of the revenue increases that were adopted as part of the bills that were adopted last week, I believe.

Can I just add, Senator?

Okay. Thank you for the question. I appreciate that you are highlighting something that I think we've all, both the LAO as well as the Department of Finance Administration, has been highlighting for over a year now as I think the word we've been using is persistent, a persistent structural deficit. So we solved for the budget year as well as budget year plus one. That's the short term. But we also recognize that our revenue growth was not keeping up with our expenditure growth. And expenditure growth is far exceeding that. And so last year, this body and the governor made very tough decisions and reduced ongoing spending by $12 billion in last year's budget. This year, we wanted to address the structural deficits in the out year. And I would say one thing, two things. One thing is we did listen to the LAO because at the governor's budget, we were over $20 billion in deficit in the budget year two, three, four, so the out years. As part of the May revision, we offered both revenue proposals as well as solutions for reductions in programs to shrink that by more than half And as well as a two plan they did something similar The legislature plan included but it included billion in extra revenue that we didn't anticipate coming in. So as part of the three-party agreement, that $5 billion is no longer there because we don't anticipate at this point that we should depend on those revenues. But we still address the ongoing structural deficit. And as my colleague said, that $26 billion that was in 27-28 is now $10.5 billion, so more than half negative. And then the $22 billion and $23 billion deficits in 28-29 have shrunk to almost a little over $8 billion. So while we couldn't eradicate it completely, we have addressed it, I think, significantly, both by increasing revenues, which we discussed last week, as well as some of the difficult decisions that this body has made in terms of reducing programs, even with delaying them but still counting some of the reduction in general fund costs. So I would say that we did listen. In fact, I don't know if it was so much a listen as we agreed that something had to be done, and the legislature, this administration, is doing the difficult task of making that happen to this budget.

That's correct.

I think what that is is a sort of realization that some of the new requirements would likely restrict caseloads so that there would be a fall off of individuals that are currently receiving health care, would not be eligible, or would have difficulty re-enrolling. And so this is just sort of eyes wide open, understanding that that caseload would be reduced. And as a result, the cost on the state would be reduced. We are trying to mitigate some of that, as discussed earlier, by providing some additional funding to assist counties, so county administration funding to help mitigate some of that. But I think the reality is that there will be more people that are knocked off roles and we're able to help maintain their insurance.

No, I think it's largely because some of the work requirements that are involved. The shift from managed care to fee-for-service is as a result of the requirement, as you mentioned, for H.R. 1 and what the federal government will allow and won't allow. But a lot of the savings, as you noted, are going to come from the reduced roles.

I will let my colleague speak a little bit more about the system. She's much more expert at that than I am.

$506 million? General fund?

Is that part of it?

I'm just trying to understand it. So the savings assumed is associated with a few things.

So with fewer members, the capitation goes down.

Okay. Thank you for that. I also noticed that I want to go back to the front, I believe. So this budget on AB 111 includes about $200 million in, like, handouts. It also has an unsustainable record high of projective operating costs, which I just talked about. And then it provides up to $140 million, but only $90 million guaranteed for financially distressed hospitals. So my question is that we've been working on the financially distressed hospital system for at least four years with Senator Caballero when she started it. And we did an emergency allocation a few years ago, forget the budget year, where they could apply for it. Thank you for getting my hospital in Ridgecrest $5 million or they still wouldn't be here today. And also Cahuilla Health in the Central Valley where Fresno and after Madera closed, Cahuilla and Fresno were taking an abundant amount of patients. because there wasn't a hospital north of them. So I appreciate that. But my concern is that on the financially distressed hospital situation, just a month ago I sat with the budget chair, and we allocated $25 million in emergency money that seven hospitals were about going to close. They had, what, 30, 10 days' worth of cash left. Was it 10 or 30? 10 days' worth of cash left. And we allocated them $25 million. They requested $100 million to stay afloat, and I know we've been sending them more money as they go forward. We just recently had a committee hearing where we had Martin Luther King Hospital in here, not being able to be sustainable on drop-offs and things like that because of the low. Again, it's because of the reimbursement rate. We keep putting Band-Aids on it. We see a raise of Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. It'll solve it. They treat people and there won be a lack of funding But my question is is that the seven applicant hospitals for the emergency 10 notice were requested more than million worth of money to be able to stay afloat And yet this budget decreases the amount that was committed to them from $140 million down to $90 million on the total state budget. How is that going to help our constituents maintain adequate health care and keep our hospitals open? Or do you guys have a plan to give them another $100 million in a couple of months, and we're just going to do that every few months, like in August and then back in January?

So I just want to make it clear to the public that we're securing $90 million for all hospitals across the state of California, even financially distressed hospitals, and we know of at least 22 of them. Okay, seven of them are on the brink of bankruptcy closing because of the 10-day running out of cash thing, not being able to pay employees. We're giving all of them $90 million. And that's all available online where the people can have access to what hospital gets what. And basically, I think the hospitals have to report to the state government about how they spend that money, correct?

We have to submit information on how they're going to spend the grant funds. Got it. It is all public so people know where their taxpayer dollars are going. And they can be assured that it's going to health care to make sure that they still have a hospital to go to when needed. It's to ensure that the hospital stays open and continues to serve. And again, it's $90 million.

Let me move over to the Planned Parenthood allocation for $90 million. So there's a $90 million allocation equal to financially distressed hospital. But that has some type of language in it, SB 106 language that was adopted, and it actually says that where that money goes is not available to the Public Records Act. Why is Planned Parenthood's $90 million not available to the Public Records Act?

And so given the sensitivity of the data that was included in that language. So you saying that when the federal government said no more federal dollars to fund abortion taxpayer dollars to fund abortion we backfilled you guys backfilled or the budget proposal is to backfill Planned Parenthood loss And you said it sensitive information somebody going for cardiac whatever happens in the hospital I mean I ended up there last Thursday So all of that is sensitive information or not sensitive information? And there are protections like HIPAA for sensitive information?

I'm not asking for patient information. I'm asking where Planned Parenthood spends their money.

I am going to call Deputy Director Scott Kreisman to help me with this response. No, absolutely.

So I just want to, Scott Crispin with HK, so I just want to clarify on the Distressed Hospital Loan Program, we don't actually publish the turnaround plans. They are privy to Public Records Act requests. So the distinction on the Planned Parenthood, I think there's transparency that the funds are going to Planned Parenthood. There's not specific transparency or not released to public records.

Well, the fact that it's going to Planned Parenthood is known.

I just want you to make it clear that the public has no availability for a Public Records Act for $90 million going to Planned Parenthood.

That's correct.

That's all I needed. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Certainly. Okay. And then going to just a few things that are on here. You know, it's $12 million, the General Fund Performing Arts. It is also $5 million. And these are, like, small things, like, you know, for the California Men's Service Challenge. What is that? Like, what are these things? All these things add up to roughly almost a billion dollars, $1.4 million for Cal Export, for newly named International Trade Export Promotion Program. I mean, all of this money when we're trying to save money. I was just curious about, and again, it's just five pages of, you know, $500,000 Orange County United Way, which that's common. You would see that. I know what that is. But there are a lot of things in here that go to the general fund or come from the general fund that aren't, they're strange to me. So who picks those things?

Good morning, Justin Edelman. So I just want to note that a lot of these were in the two-party plan. Okay. And there was a bigger bucket as well for general fund expenditures that has been significantly reduced in this three-party act. So I just want to note that and also acknowledge that there are several small, generally small, general fund allocations to various entities, again, many of which were a part of the two-party.

Thank you.

So we needed those savings because we were coming in, again, higher expenditures than revenues. The $39 million that you're referencing is something that was newly added since the two-party legislative agreement, acknowledging that we want to do the most we can to keep people from falling off and to keep them on. And so there isn't necessarily – it's an additional cost to that savings. So it's, again, a lot of the savings, the revenue generation was part of the overall budget framework in order to get us to a positive state fund for economic uncertainty in both the budget year as well as budget year plus one.

So, like, it reflects a cost of $303.2 million for delay and transition for the population.

Right. So there are a lot of solutions in the budget that, together with the revenues, give us that positive SFVU. There were also negotiations with the legislature to put off some of the start dates for some of the solutions because that was an important priority for the legislature. That was not part of our May revision necessarily, but we came to negotiation as we always do with the final budget. And so in totality, the savings, the revenue generation is offset some by some of these additional costs. But again, as we discussed earlier, the overall reduction is both in budget year, budget year plus one, as well as in the out years. Okay. So I'm going to go to the developmental services, AB 163. There's a lot of changes to the competency requirements for the regional center governing boards. And then there's also a structure for contract code exemptions and then some other issues. I guess my question is that I was here in the assembly when we shut down the developmental centers, where we just basically when I went and visited Sonoma and Fairview, it made me sick to my stomach. You know, they have 16 deaths. They had injuries, broken arms. There was a history of abuse in these facilities. People described what they said was dummy slipping slide. Like they would soap up the hallways and throw people down the hallways. Like staff, it really, I mean, there's articles about it out there. So we had, I worked with Holly Mitchell, and we actually closed down those facilities, and we used that funding, the savings in those facilities to fund community care. And so individuals weren't just warehoused. They got to be in the community, and maybe they required a 24-hour friend so they didn't run out in the middle of the highway or whatever the case may be. But it was less expensive, and it saved the state a significant amount of money. And now it looks like you guys, this three-party deal between the governor, the speaker, and the pro tem, it looks like to me that what they have done is they're trying to dismantle the community organization that takes care of our IDD and most vulnerable members of our society. So I have a huge concern with that. We're reducing the dollars that go to them, and we're restructuring their board to where individuals with IDD, with individual intellectual disabilities, There is a member of that population that sits on some of these governing boards so that they have a real-life experience. ...input, and that's not going to be allowed under the new current structure. And then I realize that it says in the positive things, you know, regional centers must have some type of state oversight. We don't oversee our hospice programs. There's rampant fraud there. We don't oversee. And there has been no evidence of fraud in our IDD communities. And as a matter of fact, because of the wage increases that are calculated calculated in the decrease in funding for these organizations, they are really struggling to deliver services to the individuals who really need them, whether it's daycare, whether it's where it's classes, where there's an opportunity for a work program so they have an opportunity to work and match wages. So I have huge concerns of that. You want to tell me why you cut IDD funding and not high-speed rail funding? Just for an example. It doesn't have to be that exact comparison. Omar Sanchez, Department of Finance. Thank you. I will note on this one, so for the Department of Developmental Services, what you're referencing in regards to the regional center oversight is not cutting resources for the developmental services, but it's to improve transparency and oversight of the resources that flow to the regional center governing boards and to the regional centers. So the intent behind the proposal is really to do a few things, and please let me know if this is what you're referencing, but to professionalize the board and really equip the board to oversee the resources and the functions of the regional center to do that in a way that really focuses on the resource allocation and the way that the regional center is actually functioning. In addition to that, it also requires that the board, so you mentioned the layout of the regional center board and how that function layout works. It adds board member professionalization and also experience that's needed as part of the board to really as part of the professionalization to make sure that the folks that are working on the boards who are participating part of the boards are equipped with those skill sets needed. So you're saying there's no cuts to DDS in the budget? This is maintaining the budget whole, yes, for the Department of Developmental Services. And you're saying there's no cuts? That's correct. For the Department of Developmental Services. Okay. Okay, I'm going to check you on that as soon as I pull up this number, as soon as I find it. But I'm going to move on to something else. I don't even want to go over file item 89, which is the 160 AB 165. Our war on seniors is just upsetting in this budget. And I'll probably cry because I had to take care of my mom when she was dementia-related, the whole bit. And what you guys are doing to these skilled nursing facilities is completely unacceptable. I do have a concern about, again, I'm just going to make a comment. You're requiring transparency, which they already provide transparency for developmental services boards, but no transparency under $90 million given to Planned Parenthood. This bill on file item 12, which is the AB 169, It allows the higher speed rail inspector to keep certain audits and reviews associated with these materials confidential Again no public records act request Is that true Oh hi Sorry, I didn't see you coming up. I apologize. Good morning, Eamon Melvin, Department of Finance. Yes, for the Inspector General, it allows him to protect certain records that are related to whistleblower complaints and sensitive data while continually reassessing whether or not the need for that confidentiality is required. And what would be defined as sensitive data? There's no definition. Cost? It would be specific information that could be compromising either to the individual or as determined by, I believe, the inspector general. Sorry. What would be compromising to the inspector general for the public to know? I think this is largely to do with whistleblower complaints that are provided directly to the inspector general. And in order to protect that, those complaints or those people that would be reporting to the inspector general. but he's required to publicly articulate the rationale for holding a report or a portion of the report confidential and continually reassess every 120 days whether or not that report or portion of the report should remain confidential. So just based on what you said in just like real world, so the two people who got killed or died and were stashed in one of the electrical panel boxes underneath the high-speed rail in Fresno, like somebody who whistleblowed that would be protected or the people who did it would be protected? I'm not specifically familiar with that case. Okay. And what about the sinkhole that's causing one of the bridges to be not stable that's already been built? I mean, it's billions of tons of cement and it's on a sinking valley floor. So there are sinkholes out there and they're trying to desperately try to fix one of the, so is, is that whistleblower complaint? No, I do not believe that would be part of this. Okay. Okay. So just for personal comment in 2008, Proposition 1A guaranteed the voters that it'd be $9.95 billion in bonds. And we have a high speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It would take two hours and 40 minutes. It is now 2026. The total cost of that bond was voters were told was 33 to $45 billion. And we would be on that train in 2020. It is in 2026 now. There is no active, there's not any track laid. There's nothing. I drive by this monstrosity every day on Monday or Sunday and on my way back on Thursday. We actually videotape it. You can be, it's probably the length of this building. We've spent all these years and a portion of that project is probably the length of the O Street building. You can walk it and I walked it with a TV camera in like four minutes. It's not a, it's not a long walk and we continue to to fund billions of dollars into this uh and it says that it's going to be built in 2020 or excuse me 2033 but that's only bakersfield to merced the voters were lied to and we why do we lao i'll ask you why do we continue to appropriate money do you recommend this that we continue to offer money for high-speed rail I think our view is excuse me this is a matter of legislative priorities on how it would like to allocate its different resources I think our main message has been if the legislature wants to proceed and kind of moving forward with the project to try to come up with a funding plan because you know there a gap in sort of the available funds and the funds that would be needed What's that gap for the public's awareness? $230 billion? I'm going to have to get back to you on the specific number. Okay. So I'd be curious about how California is going to come up with $230 billion to fund high-speed rail. And I'd also be curious about what the position is as the voters were guaranteed or told on the ballot measure. Because it was a pretty classy-looking project, but now it's estimated to be the largest, most expensive infrastructure project in the world. So at completion. And, again, completion is only going to be estimated at 2033 from Bakersfield to Merced. I drive it. Even if I was still up here, if I took it from Bakersfield to Merced, how would I get the rest of the way here to come to work? And what would I do when I got to Merced, I guess, are my questions. I think you guys should take a tour of this project. I think it would be very interesting. So the last thing I have on the questions that I have is the Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property Tax Postponement Program. I met a lady named Hazel. She was homeless. She was a black lady. She's carrying some shopping carts because I come down 12th Street, and it's just a horrific sight down there. She said that her property tax went up so much, even after her husband died, she owned her home, but her property taxes were so much she lost everything because taxes went up. How come we don't let senior citizens and disabled communities and our United States military veterans have property tax exemptions in the state of California, and what's the purpose of making them – what's the purpose of that? And the state controller's office, it says the state controller's office administers a property stock postponement program. How come we're postponing it in this budget? Hi. Sorry. Just bringing you all back, huh? Mary Halterman, Department of Finance. Thank you. So this program is for seniors, blind and disabled homeowners that are deferring their current year property taxes. So we're increasing the cap to allow all of the applications that are in backlog to be processed to allow this to happen. Okay, so I misread that. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize. That's not the way I read that. Thank you. Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And I appreciate you. You know that. You always give me good information. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll just say I still have – I've been really respectful. I have not shortened anybody in any way, but we still have public comment and voting to come. So we have Senator Blakespear and Senator Weber Pearson on deck. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you. I want to reiterate the thanks to the budget chair and also to the budget subcommittee chairs and also you for being here today and the work that you put into getting this all together in the last just several days, which I know is also many weeks and months of work. I was grateful to serve on budget sub two, so I want to start with some of the things that are related to that budget sub. And just note that I was happy to see a reappropriation of million for projects consistent with the natural and working lands climate smart strategy These investments matter because conservation habitat restoration public access and climate resilience are all connected Healthy lands and waters help communities adapt to climate change, and they are crucial for us as humans and animals on this planet. I also appreciate the targeted investments in Point Reyes, invasive species prevention, and Mojave Desert tortoise recovery. I wish there were a few more things in there. But I also just want to note that I am disappointed that the budget does not include funding for wildlife coexistence program. The human-wildlife conflict that we increasingly are seeing throughout the state, it is a statewide issue, and proactive conflict prevention is cheaper, more humane, and more effective than responding only after conflicts escalate. And we can also, with education about how to avoid conflicts between human and wildlife, We could really do so much more in prevention, but people have to understand not to feed animals and film them posting them on social media a lot of different things that we do see happening and that does lead to more conflicts. So I just want to make sure and note that I also want to recognize that I'm grateful that we're continuing the state parks library pass program is there was 6.75 million in the general fund ongoing for that That is so important for people to access our state parks in California. And then also there was $17.5 million for the State Park and Recreation Fund. Essentially, it sounds like it's related to the reservation system agreement. And this has been an ongoing problem that people, campsites are sitting empty, and that people, the reservation system we had was promoting reserving large numbers of days, only showing up for one of them or none of them, having almost no penalties, and then us, the park system, not being able to adequately fill those sites by opening them to the public who might even be in line to get in. So having this money for the reservation system, I am hopeful that that is going to continue to work toward improving that. We did talk about this extensively in the budget sub, and it seems like everybody is aware of the problem and working on it. So I just want to give voice to the recognition that it's important we continue to do that. Also, there was no longer the elimination of position sweeps, so that's also a really important thing. And then also Cap and Invest, it seems, has been punted to maybe further negotiation, and I hope that we're able to make sure that the legislature's priorities and some of the important things we funded through Cap and Invest don't all get zeroed out. So reopening of that negotiation is something that's important, And so I look forward to seeing what comes of that and just want to make sure it's noted. So I do have a couple questions, but I'll also continue just making some general statements. I'm really happy to see $900 million for HAP around seven. It is really critical that we have resources for local governments who are trying to move people off the streets and into shelter, housing, and services. I also appreciate that that money is paired with accountability because taxpayers deserve to know that homeless dollars are being spent effectively and also that governments are making progress. And we really have to continue to focus on outcomes, not just progress being someone was handed a flyer or several dozen meetings were held, but what is actually happening for people so that they are actually being able to move out of homelessness and stabilize their lives. I remain concerned about the lack of predictable funding though it is really hard for cities and counties to enter into contracts and leases when they don't have any certainty about the ability fund those programs into the future. So I wish that we could get on a three or five year funding schedule when it came to HAP. And I also just want to recognize that I continue to see a major lack around our both policy and funding for interim housing, which is the level of housing directly up from being homeless and living on the streets. And so we don't have money that funds interim housing in the housing bond that we will be putting in front of the voters. And I don't see that also in this funding document. But we know that when people raise their hand and say, I would like a bed inside tonight to stay in, only one in 10 is actually able to get one because we just are not providing enough of that. And that's really a responsibility of all of us, but it starts with the state. I'm also supportive of Orange County's United Way program, pilot program. because people do need to know about the opportunities that are available. And I'm hopeful that that will help reduce barriers. I want to talk a little bit about transit. So transit, I strongly support the $300 million that is the Losan Corridor Liquidation Extension, because this Losan Corridor is not just a regional line. It's a critical passenger rail, freight, military, economic corridor for Southern California. and the extension will allow the corridor resiliency work to continue taking place, the planning, permitting, interagency coordination, and sustained funding. I also support suspending fare box penalty requirements for transit operators. Ridership patterns have changed, and agencies should not be punished for operating essential services while they recover. But we also need to remember that fare box relief is not the same as transit stabilization, and we are still really not meaningfully addressing the operating deficits that are going to lead and already are leading to service cuts in transit. And that really undermines our equity goals, our climate goals, and I remain concerned that we're doing this short-term transit stabilization funding, but if we want cleaner air, safer mobility, and reliable transit, we have to help our transit agencies to maintain their service levels, And that's not something that really we're currently doing in our budget. I wanted to ask a little bit about Prop 36. So when we have this, quote, net zero Prop 36 shift increase implementation, what exactly is that doing? What does net zero Prop 36 shift increase implementation capacity mean? Good morning, Justin Adelman, Department of Finance. So the AB 109, the two-party agreement, included $50 million one time for Proposition 36, and that was all allocated in the Judicial Council of the Courts budget. The net zero shift was to disperse that as part of the three-party agreement so that $20 million goes to the Department of Mental Health Services, $20 million to courts, and then the final $10 million also to courts for their workload. Okay. Okay. Yes. So in order for that to be effective, I think we do need to continue to support it. So we've had $100 million the first year, now $50 million. There was an ask that was substantially higher than that. And there are a lot of elements to that, but the one that's particularly related to our behavioral health system, that is really important for us to be able to be successful. So I want to continue to advocate for us to support that I wanted to ask about the care referral and petition pipeline So there are a lot of parts of care and I'm just trying to understand what problem is the state addressing with that exact part, care referral and petition pipeline. Is that meant to address the lack of referrals or incomplete petitions or delays? I mean, care court is really not serving anywhere near the number expected, So I wanted to understand that. So the budget includes $3.5 million one-time general fund for public defenders to increase CARE Act petitions and referrals, helping to integrate CARE Court as a first intervention. It also includes $1.5 million one-time general fund to the California Health and Human Services Agency to train and support first responders, homeless outreach workers, and street medicine teams to strengthen, again, that CARE Act referral process. Okay. Okay. It sounds like there was a lot put in there. So we'll see where that trickles down to more specifically. Did you have something to add to that? No? Okay. Okay. Yeah, CareCourt is only useful if families and providers and local systems can actually move through it, access it, have it help people. I was really fortunate to witness CareCourt in action, and it was helping the people who were able to utilize it. So people were grateful to be there. It was definitely demonstrating that they were receiving care and housing that they wouldn't be otherwise. So helping more people access it in a way that's effective, cost-effective, is really important. I also strongly support the $15 million for journalism fellowships. I think journalism is part of our civic infrastructure, and communities need reliable fact-based reporting to understand what's happening. But we also, so, you know, $15 million is a really great investment, but I just want to emphasize the continued need for broader civic journalism funding. Because fellowships are really important, but the local news ecosystem needs to have sustained support. And then the last thing I'll mention, this was mentioned by, I want to uplift what was said by Senator Richardson about courts and judges and needing to continue to support that and dive into making sure that works because that's really an access to justice issue when we don't have, if we have long back delays for people to be involved in our court system, it's really, truly, deeply problematic. And then I also wanted to just recognize the distressed hospital funding. I have a hospital in my district, Tri-City Medical Center, and financial stability is really critical for our hospitals. So I support the creation of a health care access stability unit at HKI because we need better information before the hospital is on the brink. We took action to help the hospitals that were so close to closing, but I think we need to be looking more at that long-term loan forgiveness where it's appropriate because keeping hospitals open should be where we're heading toward not just delaying our next crisis. So with that, thank you, Chair, for the opportunity, and I'll turn it back to you. Thank you very much. we're going to go to Senator Weber Pearson and Senator Gomez Reyes is on deck. Thank you, Chair. I will be very quick with my comments. I want to thank all of the staff that have worked on this in the legislature but also in the governor office and the LAO We definitely appreciate all that you done It has not been easy This is not an easy budget year Last year was not an easy budget year and I sure unfortunately our next couple of years won't be easy as well. I wanted to just point out an issue in the AB 164 or SB 164 that deals with menopause. I know that there were some amendments from, I believe, ACOG that were not addressed. And I want you all to, as we're thinking about trailer language in the future, really reconsider that. So I know one section was subdivision C3 of section 1367.252, where it talks about establish and maintain a policy to provide enrollees who may experience menopause and who are 40 years of age and older, blah, blah, blah. So, you know, any female with a functional uterus and ovaries may experience menopause and will be very clear that menopause is not hot flashes, irritability, mood changes. That's not what menopause is. Menopause is when you stop having cycles, right? Everything before that is called perimenopausal period, and those are symptoms. So any female with a functional uterus and ovaries may stop having menses at some point, but not all of them may experience perimenopausal symptoms. And that's what we're trying to get at with this particular bill and legislation to ensure that we are counseling and addressing individuals who are at risk for hot flashes, mood changes, sleep disturbances, memory issues. So if I'm a 40-year-old patient and I'm on hormonal therapy and eventually my doctor gradually tapers me off, that is very different than a 40-year-old who's not on any form of hormones, who has that sudden drop or sudden fluctuation in their hormone levels, therefore having those symptoms. And so when the recommendation was to change it from may experience menopause to perimenopausal, which is actually what you're trying to get at, symptoms, I would strongly recommend that you look at that again. Additionally, when you look at subdivision C5 of that same section, it says establish and maintain a policy to contract with providers. which is delivering primary care who are credentialed in menopause. When we had this conversation in committee, I believe last year, it was not about contracting. It was about providing an incentive. When you're talking about who you are going to contract with as far as a health policy and who you're not going to contract with or who you're going to give preferential contracts to, what you're doing is decreasing the availability for providers within the network. And I know that at this time when we're having so many issues within our healthcare space, when we talk about the fact that we have provider shortages, whether it's MD, DOs, NPs, whatever, the last thing that we need to do is be putting in a policy that would allow for less providers to be covered via contract. The incentive that we discussed with CME or however they want to incentivize people is very different language than who you are going to contract with So I wonder if I me for example I see patients who are you know 40, but I do not, I'm a very specialized kind of OBGYN, along with others who do high-risk pregnancies. We don't, I'm not doing anything in the menopausal space. They don't do anything in the menopausal space, will we still be contracted to provide care with this particular language? So, you know, I would strongly, you know, recommend that you go back during your trailer language and look at the way in which this is worded because we want to make sure that what we're putting out is medically factual sound and also is not something that's going to ultimately decrease the ability for people to get providers for comprehensive health care, women's health care coverage in the future. And so thank you for all that you've done, but really need to make sure that we're getting this right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator Gomez-Reyes and Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, if she comes back, had a follow-up question. So let's go to Senator Gomez-Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to also echo the comments of my colleagues in thanking you, Mr. Chair, thanking our PT Limon, Speaker Rivas, the governor and his team, our vice chair, Senator Nilo as well, all the subchairs that have worked so hard to try to make sure that we take care of our section so we can then present it to the rest of the committee and have sound comments to be made about it. Chris, Scott, and Alyssa have been just absolutely necessary in this process to make sure that we are asking the right questions and we're getting the right answers. And when we don't have the answers, they are very resourceful. And for me personally, Joanne and Eunice have been invaluable to make sure that our sub two is able to have meaningful hearings. I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Durazo, who will be leaving us, is going to be a county supervisor in Los Angeles. It's good to have partners outside of the state building, whether it's our county supervisors or other members of their cities. They're the ones that are suffering the most with many of the cuts that we put together. And I'm looking forward to new leadership in Congress. We have a number of people that I think will be joining, and I'm very excited about that as well. My comments are more general. I think that what we have in this budget is that we're able to look at issues that we've been talking about, affordability, health protections, justice, air quality, education, housing, broadband, veterans. So many issues that are being covered within this budget. In education, I'm pleased to see that there are higher education protections. I'm glad that we're finding a way to make sure that those who qualify are going to get CalFresh and we don't have them go through all of these hoops to try to get the benefits. We're providing more research, career, online, high school, getting high school diplomas online, teacher recruitment so important to make sure that we have teacher recruitment our dream resource centers, our LGBT Q resource centers. These are all things that make it easier, better for our students as they're getting their degrees. In housing, affordable housing opportunities, first-time homebuyers, the $10 million for disaster rebuilding, these are things that are extremely important for our communities. In labor, I'm really glad to see the workforce development, whether it's through the Department of Industrial Relations or community colleges, for those in the ports who are losing their jobs because of automation, jails to jobs, and also outreach. These are things that are so important, as well as the Social Entrepreneurs for Economic Development program, the SEED program. In transportation, our zero-emission vehicles, whether it's our light duty, our medium and heavy duty, medium and heavy duty has been something that has been so important to me, and I'm glad to see $135 million being put specifically for HVIP to make sure that we continue providing those incentives to those heavy-duty, especially heavy-duty diesel trucks that are looking to transfer to ZEVS. These are extremely important. I appreciate my colleague, Senator Chair Richardson, and her leadership, especially regarding the new judgeships. Care court on Prop 36, $20 million for pretrial services, $10 million for the courts, and another $20 million for behavioral health. making sure that in Prop 36 we're covering all of those areas that the voters wanted us to cover and making sure that it's funded, and I appreciate that that was put in there. In health, a lot of this has been talked about, the reimbursement for our community clinics, especially for our UIS Medi-Cal patients, for our asylees and victims of human trafficking who are Medi-Cal, Also, the distressed hospitals and the public hospitals providing some assistance to them. We can always say it's not enough and it'll never be enough. And I think that as things progress and we find that there are greater gaps, just as we did earlier this year when we found those hospitals that were within 10 days of being without cash, we found a way to try to help there. The delay in the elimination of dental benefits, we've heard from so many of our constituents about how important that was. And midwifery, we're finding that we don't have enough OBGYNs to cover all of our rural areas. And so the education and training for our midwives, something extremely important. I appreciate that some money was put into that. Additionally, the $15 million for the promotoras. We know that we need to get the message out to the community about what is and isn't covered and where the resources are and the promotoras have been an invaluable part of providing the outreach to our communities, and I appreciate that they were included. Child care spaces, I know that's been mentioned. I appreciate the expansion of another 22,700. for adoption assistance programs, for the wraparound services. That's extremely important. And these may sound like small things but for those who require these services they are extremely important For our development services the extension of remote access that was going to sunset And now with this inclusion in the trailer bill language, it will be extended. And they are so grateful, and we're hearing from them about that. There is so much in this budget, so much work that went into it. I, as I said at the beginning, I'm grateful to all those who took a leadership role, who spent countless hours in putting this together. It'll never be perfect, but it never has been perfect, just as we are not perfect. But we sure did our very best, and I think that this is a budget that I'm very proud to support and to vote on later today. Thank you so much, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. That completes our list, and I was going to go back to Senator Smallwood Cuevas, and I think Senator Weber Pearson is going to ask the question for her. Okay, just signal to me. I'll add you to the list, but I'm going to let the question be asked, and then I'll go to you. So go ahead. Thank you. So I am asking this on behalf of Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, but it's definitely a concern and a question from every member of the California Legislative Black Caucus. So one of the issues that we notice is that with the legal services that we're funding, immigration dollars this past time, very few was being funneled into other immigrant, non-Hispanic or Latino communities. And, you know, although black immigrants make up only about 7% of non-citizens in the United States, they account for more than 10% of people in removal proceedings and more than 20% of those facing deportation on criminal grounds. They also face distinct barriers to relief, including limited access to culturally competent multilingual counsel and to country conditions experienced for certain black nations. Many have no choice but to represent themselves in an extremely complex system. These are our communities that speak Amharic or Ethiopian, French, Swahili, and have been reportedly underserved in the past as far as some of the funds that we have earmarked. Prior to this, in an earlier version of the bill, there was $5 million that was allocated to FAHI, the Black Alliance for Justice Immigration. Is that still a part of this budget? She noticed that it wasn't here and wasn't sure if it's because this is only noting changes or was wondering if it was actually removed. Lourdes Morales with the Department of Finance. I believe you're referring to the $5 million that remains in the budget. Okay, thank you. Great. Senator Ciarto. Thank you very much. and I think a lot of the really good parts of the budget have been talked about by my colleagues up here. And I, too, appreciate that our budget staff stayed up all weekend trying to prepare something that we could digest overnight and then responsibly come in here and vote on. I have just a couple of questions. Number one so you know reading through the list of things that got funding for million here and million there and million in other places how much do we have a list of what portion of this budget is district asks and where those asks came from so that we understand how much is going into member requests The finance person is looking at me. At this point, there are no Senate district requests in the budget, but there's a chance that we will come back in August and deal with that. And the reason I ask that is because it's hard for me to believe that somebody actually woke up one morning and thought, and some of these requests here that are in there, that made it into the budget. The one thing, and maybe you didn't ask the right question, The one thing is that some of the caucus requests are in the budget from individual caucuses, but not from individual members. A little bit of semantics. But anyway, that would be helpful for us to understand where some of these come from. Because in the big scheme of things, when some of us are out there at the mercy of the structure that we have, trying to get projects in their communities addressed, whether it's an interchange project, whether it's a fire station project, something to do with public safety, all of those are things that we see as high-priority items that come before we spend all our money on the other stuff. because what it eventually leaves us with is doing bonds, borrowing for the money, the stuff that we need, and while we spend money on all this other stuff that actually should come in the back of the budget. If we have leftover money after we've taken care of all our real needs, then that's when we should be divvying up that money to be able to help some of these organizations out and start spending some of that money. So, yeah, so that was one of my major concerns. The other concern I have was regarding the last item here, and I think that's 182. Yeah, 182. And that's regarding the proposition. What's the normal process for determining what propositions go where on the ballot? Because I don't recall this being part of the process prior to this year and probably the last time we had some ballots. Because I know there are 15 propositions, I think, that have qualified, and most of them are citizen-initiated, but somehow we come up with this policy, and this policy says all of the government ones that they want are up front. So who thought that one out? I'm not familiar with that process, but this AB 182 is not a budget bill. It's a policy bill that we are hearing today in part because of the urgency and the timing. It's not a budget bill, but we're in budget? Okay. And I think the reason it's an urgency item is because they need to get it done by when? Because this is clearly a policy that we're developing, a new policy for how to put things on the ballot, how to number what goes first and what goes in front of the other thing. I can't give you a sort of specific date on when it needs to be adopted, but I think there clearly is a sense of urgency in order to prepare the ballot materials in time. And I guess I will add there have been some instances in the past where the legislature has specified a proposition number for different propositions Otherwise there a process that goes on at the I believe the Secretary of State where they go in order and then it resets after a specific time period Thank you for that. The last comment I'm going to make is concerning what I feel is an intrusion of policy into our budget, and it's a lot of this policy should have gone through the process we have for developing policy which is the legislature in the form of bills so that we can discuss those and um and the the public can hear them um putting them into the budget and and trailer bills because i i hope you would agree there's a lot of policy in here that has not been vetted through our normal process so it feels like Like there's two tracks. There's the legislative process and there's the three-person agreement process and our three-party agreement. That's what we call it. And that's not the transparency that the public seeks when we're changing policy on them, just like changing the policy for how we put things on the ballot. So those are a few things that I have concerns about the budget. Very hard for me to support a lot of this because, frankly, I just haven't – I didn't spend 12 hours last night staying up all night so I could read this because we've got committees today that we have to be awake for. So there are some good things, some bad things, and a lot of the things, like I said, it's hard to support something that you have no idea what's in it. Thanks. Thank you very much for your comments. We'll go to the last person, Senator. Last. I like that. Two questions. You were first before. Yes, first and last. Two questions. Some of this may be clarification because I'm not sure I fully digested it. But if I understand correctly, this bill removes legal immigrants like refugees, peoples here on asylum, domestic traffic victims, off of full-scope Medi-Cal and yet preserves it for immigrants that are not here legally. I don't understand that. And maybe I'm mistaken. Megan's about Department of Finance. The bill maintains coverage for those individuals in the budget year, but it delays it. Beg your pardon? The bill maintains Medi-Cal coverage for those individuals full scope in budget year. But delays it? It delays the shift of those individuals to restricted scope Medi-Cal from full scope Medi-Cal in 2027-28. So in the following budget year, they will not be covered? Correct. But undocumented immigrants will be. Can I just add that I think the point of, I guess they're called qualified noncitizens, that's the group that you're speaking about, that there was a change at the federal level in terms of their eligibility for federal coverage. And so the proposal, I think it was at May revision that was included, was to move this population to limited, restricted scope Medi-Cal because they would otherwise be fully state covered. It would be a cost of over a billion dollars for the state to take that on. That is something that we could not afford. It was, again, part of the mayor vision. The other population I believe you're talking about is the UIS or the unsatisfactory immigration status. And that, yes. And that was the expansion that these individuals are covered under the expansion as was approved by this legislature and the administration. And that solution last year was to move, well, was to freeze that enrollment, but they would still be eligible for a full-scope Medi-Cal. So just want to, those are the two populations. Understand your question. I think what we would say is the qualified non-citizen population was moved off as a result of federal policy changes. We cannot afford to backfill, unfortunately, for them. And then the other population was a part of that expansion population that is now frozen, but is covered based on last year's decision in the 2025 Budget Act. That other population, as you describe it, also is not eligible for federal funding, correct? They are a state-only population, that's correct. So at this point, both of those populations are not eligible for federal funding, is that what you're saying? Largely that is correct. I think there are some emergency services that are available. But again, but in terms of Medi-Cal, uh, federal government won't pay either of those. So we're, we are prioritizing undocumented, uh, immigrants, uh, over, uh, uh, legal, uh, immigrants. Correct. And well, and I think again, going back to the decision that was made last year I understand that, but circumstances change, and so we made a priority decision. I think we made a decision based on what we could fiscally, what we could actually afford. I understand that. A budget is really nothing more than a statement of priorities. The entire budget is a statement of priorities. Obviously, we differ across the aisle on some of those, but the point is that circumstances changed. changed, I'm not saying whether it was correct or incorrect, but circumstances changed, and we eliminated one population, but we maintained the benefits for another population, that is a statement of priority. I don't expect you to answer that because you're not the priority setter, but I just think it's important to note that. The other question has to do with homeless funding. If I understand correctly, this budget for the first time requires a local match in order to receive homeless funding? Yes, I believe that was part of the accountability language. That's never happened before. Why? I am not exactly sure why the locals haven't. And I wouldn't say that they haven't been providing. I think this is to ensure that there is a local match to state dollars. And the accountability language is something that we have been discussing with the legislature and with locals for a couple of years now. It would seem to me that, I mean, we all have budget pressures. Locals do also, coincident with ours. And if we can't afford as much as we were allocating previously, well certainly a way to save money is to say you need a local match and if you don have it you don get any money That one way to save money Seems that that may be what we saying here which doesn make sense to me It would make more sense just to allocate less It is the state's responsibility, state and federal government's responsibility, to fund these health and human services programs, and local governments carry them out, counties in particular. And so we've made the decision that because of our budget pressures, we're going to push those budget pressures back on the local governments requiring a match, which is exactly what we're complaining about the federal government doing. That is a statement. If I may, I believe the rationale for having a local match is really so that locals have some skin in the game and that it isn't just the state pouring dollars into local entities. I would say that is the driving factor, not that there is a – that we want it. Clearly, we are in tight budget frames, tight budget times, but we continue as a body to allocate one-time funding to housing and homelessness programs. It is a priority. But I think it was very clear, the governor has said this a couple of budget cycles now, that he wants to see some accountability at the local level, And I think many senators on the stand today have said similarly that we want results. And so this is one way that we can help better ensure those results if locals do have a match. And so I would say that is the rationale and not because we want less state money and more local money. The governor has indeed made that very clear ever since the top-down approach to homelessness funding when we spent $20 billion and the numbers went up. And after all of that failure, then it was all the fault of local governments. That's an editorial comment on my part. But also, if the point is that you want local government skin in the game, maybe that's a similar rationale from the federal government relative to things that we're complaining about their budget process having on our spending. Maybe the rationale is the same, at least partially. So thank you for that. Just before I go to public comment and take a survey about who wants to comment, and if you're in the hall, no, I haven't done it yet, but clearly you've been waiting. Clearly you've been waiting. And for those of you in the hallway that think you'll sneak into the end of the line, you should come in in a moment because I'm going to ask who wants to testify. I was just going to respond to one thing as my comment, and that is the legislative analyst was asked why nobody listened, and actually this budget is the listening because it was don't spend the excess money this year. It's being held for two years. Cut the structural deficit. It's cut in half. Have large reserves. There's $35 billion of reserves. Balance the budget for two years. That's what we've done. So I think that the budget was responsive to the direction outlined by the legislative analyst. People are clearly voting with their feet here. And so let me just see. Is there anybody that's not in line that wants to speak? One person. Two people. Okay. Then I'm going to ask that you not take more than a minute. And if you can be more succinct, that's great. If you find somebody that you can agree with that already spoke that great and I will hope to be done by 1230 so that we can move to discussion and a vote So with that for some reason Mr McKaylee always knows how to manipulate the beginning of the line So welcome to the committee. Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Hopeful that by the end of the summer we'll see Olympics funding for 2028 projects. LA Metro also supports fully funding TIRCP and LCTOP as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you. Christine Smith, Health Access California. We appreciate the legislature and the governor delaying the worst of the cuts for California's immigrants and for ensuring that humanitarian populations will receive full-scope Medi-Cal through this budget year. As one of the leaders of the Fight for Our Health Coalition, We thank you all, including the governor and the assembly, for reaching a final budget agreement that advances a fair share contribution to hold the largest corporations responsible for contributing to Medi-Cal when they push their workforce onto the safety net. Thank you for all your hard work. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina with KP Public Affairs. First, on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians, greatly appreciate Senator Dr. Weber Pearson's comments on the menopause trailer bill language. We'll continue to work on that to refine it for clinical indications. Then on behalf of CALPACE, the statewide association of programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly, thank you. And then on behalf of Visión y Compromiso, the promotoras, thank you. Thank you. We have reached the shy part of our testimony. Mr. Chair. Welcome to the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members. Amy Brown, on behalf of the Big City Mayors Coalition, really want to extend our appreciation to the legislature and the governor's office with AB 179 and crafting some trailer bill language that also allocates the $900 million and the flexibility that we have for implementation. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Welcome. Morning, Mr. Chair and members. Andrew Shane on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association. In sincere gratitude to the entire Senate, you heard from county directors, You heard from eligibility workers and this budget really reflects that input. It's going to save lives by making sure that we have the human touch needed to help people fight through the red tape and keep their health care and their food assistance. As well for rejecting the cuts and cost shifts in IHSS, APS, the critical investments in child welfare that were mentioned. We're going to need to sustain these investments in our county eligibility workers. But we again thank the Senate for the original plan which did that along with a broader set of actions to support our health and human services programs. Thank you. Hi, good morning, Chair and members. Hi, Beth Malinowski of SEIU California. I want to appreciate tremendous work that's gotten us at this point, particularly this in its leadership on revenue, including creating that pathway for addressing corporate revenue and Medi-Cal. I want to align my comments with those of health access and our commitments to the health for all population, our immigrant community, and their health in this budget. I definitely want to align my comments with CWDA, especially when it relates to county eligibility and for IHSS. I want to also acknowledge the dedicated funding for public hospitals. So important. Thank you for that. Additionally, for everything we got right on this budget for health, do you want to acknowledge a couple of areas. One, disappointment not seeing any funding for gender care or an alternative. Look forward to continuing the conversation on that. Additionally, it's a long-term care space, specifically skilled nursing facilities. Looking for that one-year bridge for WQIB. Disappointed not to see that there. Moving on briefly to early childhood and education, just want to acknowledge and appreciate the $200,000-plus additional spots for low-income families. Want to appreciate the 2% COLA, the disaster child care funding, and look forward to working for the department implementation of that urgently for families in LA County impacted by the fires Want to appreciate the future work we keep on doing together around implementing alternative methodology providing competition keeping up and for K want to acknowledge the needs for additional work on Summer Bridge Thank you. Thank you. You packed a lot in that. Welcome. Good morning, Chair and members. Gabriela Chavez with United Domestic Workers, representing 250,000 home care workers. We want to thank the Senate, Senate Pro Temp budget leaders, and administration for working together to reject all cuts to IHSS, strengthen the medical asset test, and we appreciate your commitment to protect seniors and people with disabilities. We also appreciate the funding for the adult learning demonstration project, and we look forward to continue working with you on long-term revenue solutions that ensure corporations pay their fair share and preserve the programs that strengthen California. We also echo our comments with CCPU regarding child care. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Hi, Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. I just really want to express our gratitude for a budget that understands the critical role counties play in delivering services that our communities rely on. In particular, we are appreciative of the increased funding for HAP, the $50 million for VOCA, the robust funding for county eligibility for Medi-Cal and CalFresh in response to HR1, the funding for public hospitals in response to H.R. 1, funding for distressed hospitals, rejecting the ISS cost shift, and the funding for counties to put on the election in November of 2026. However, we do want to highlight our concerns with no funding for indigent care or an alternative to indigent care. There are going to be people who still lose Medi-Cal because of H.R. 1, and county indigent care programs are underfunded, and there's a critical need for health care for this community. And then finally, on Prop 36, appreciate the Senate's leadership and continue to fight for Prop 36 implementation funding. Unfortunately, one-time funding for one county department falls short of what's needed, and we look forward to continuing to highlight that as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good morning, Sarabachas with Children. Now, thank you so much for your leadership in taking a bold and long call for a step forward on a more effective, accountable, and equitable educational system for our students and their families. We support AB 181 and the investments in early education and care, the preschool shift, paid pregnancy leave, and the creation of CalNAS, as well as the investments in educator workforce, as well as bilingual educators. Thank you for the strong investments in higher education as well. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Melissa Vardo on behalf of EdTrust West, aligning our comments of appreciation and urging an aye vote on AB 181, education governance. Also expressing appreciation and an aye vote for strong investments in schools and community colleges, including community schools, college and career access pathways, and new proposed investments in expanding pathways to the educator workforce. We urge an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you. Sarah Petrowski on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials and also my colleagues at the Association of California School Administrators and California County Superintendents. First, thank you so much for your work on the budget. Second, we are in strong support of AB 181. We think this is a long overdue shift to make sure our education governance system is aligned and can more effectively support our schools in delivering a high-quality instruction and support to our students. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good morning. Michelle Gibbons with the County Health Executives Association of California, representing local health departments. I want to express appreciation for the public health information technology system investments and the DIS workforce. However, I do want to express our disappointment with the lack of funding for indigent care and or what we put forward as a more cost-effective solution. alternative solution. This is really going to leave counties to respond to the returning population with less resources that we otherwise would have had because the state redirects apportion and slowed the growth for our 1991 realignment dollars. We have less available to be able to address this. We just respectfully request continued discussions with the legislature and the administration and hope that we could identify a viable path in the near future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, and thank you, staff, for all of your hard work on the budget. I'm Dominique Denae on behalf of Ed Voice in support of AB 181. California's kids need a strong Department of Education to thrive. We support that. Today's divided structure makes it harder to set direction and see results. Centralizing leadership and resources will better serve the children who are furthest from opportunity because that's exactly what other states who've made progress are doing to best serve children from low-income communities. We respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good morning. Jennifer Snyder. On behalf of the California Association of Health Facilities, I want to comment on AB 165, which extends the current skilled nursing facility Medi-Cal rate reimbursement system for one year. While the association understands and supports the need to pass a trailer bill this year to address the sunset that happens at the end of the year, We're very disappointed that especially the administration chose not to include the restoration of the workforce and quality incentive program in the bill. The WQIP is an essential component of the Medi-Cal rate for skilled nursing facility, and it has a significant impact on the workforce stability and patient access to quality care and skilled nursing. We appreciate the subcommittee's efforts to try to bridge a solution in the current budget year, and we hope to continue to work with the legislature next year to find a permanent funding solution. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Andrea Ball here today on behalf of Orange County Department of Education. I want to express appreciation. Thank you for the Prop 98 package especially. I'm here today about the California Multi-Tiered System of Support, which is a statewide infrastructure built over 10 years that allows the state's other education investments, including and especially the $1 billion in community schools to deliver real results for students. It was included in the May revision, approved by both houses. Unfortunately, no funding was provided in the final budget. We would look forward to continued conversations working with you because I think this is a really integral program to make sure other programs are implemented successfully. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Kelly Brooks. I'm here on behalf of several clients. First, on behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, the urban counties of California, the boards of supervisors of Santa Clara, Riverside, Ventura, Los Angeles, and the University of California Health, thank you so much for the funding for public hospitals. That $250 million is a down payment to helping mitigate the $3 billion in losses stemming from H.R. 1. Second, on behalf of the urban counties of California, the rural county representatives of California,

Thank you very much. Welcome. We all share and appreciate as much as you were able to do that in this year's budget.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

We urge your no vote on AB 181. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Welcome.

So thank you very much. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Just before the next person starts, let me say to all committee members that are listening or staff members that are listening, we have roughly 15 speakers left. It is my hope that we will start voting in 15 minutes. And so I hope that members of the budget committee start to make their way back to the committee room so that we don't have to put this on call. Welcome.

It's been around for 20 years. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for listening. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of

all comments. Thank you. Thank you very much.

governor's investment in our communities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

aligning our comments with Andy from the League in appreciation. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. And just before you do it, let me just say once again, we have 10 people left in line to speak. And so would members please return to the committee room because we will be taking motions and voting when we're done with the speakers. Welcome to the committee.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Welcome.

So thank you so much and have a great day. Thank you. Welcome.

So thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.

If you can begin to wrap up, I've let you go 20 seconds over. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. You were the last person for the longest time, but somebody sneaked into line. So you will really be the last person. Welcome to the community.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. That completes public comment, and so we're going to bring the matter back before the committee. We have 11 members here, and I do not want to punish those that were on time or came, so I think we are going to go through the 20 bills and vote and put them on call and hope our colleagues are on their way to the committee room. So we will begin with item number one, Assembly Bill 111 by Gabriel. Motion by Richardson. Any discussion? Please call the roll. AB 111, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? Grove, no. Hurtado, McNerney, McNerney, Aye. Menjabar, Aye. Menjabar, Aye. Ochobog, Perez, Reyes, Richardson, Aye. Richardson, Aye. Ciarto, No. Ciarto, No. Smallwood Cuevas, Weber Pearson, Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye. That bill has eight ayes and four noes. We will put it on call. We'll move to item number two, Assemblymember, Assemblymember, Assembly Bill 112. We do need a motion. Motion by Archuleta. AB 112, the motion is due passed. Senator Slaird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? Hurtado? McNerney? Wait just a second. We had a vote from Grove. No. No. Senator Grove, no. Hurtado. McNerney. Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar. Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Reyes. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Ciardo. No. Ciardo, no. Smallwood Cuevas. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. That is eight ayes, four noes. We'll put the bill on call. We'll move to item number three, Assembly Bill 126. Do I have a motion? Move the bill. A motion by Richardson. Please call the roll. AB 126, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? Not voting. Nilo, not voting. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Lakespere? Aye. Lakespere, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? Not voting. Choi, not voting. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? Not voting. Grove, not voting. Orhurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Orchua Bogue? Perez Reyes Richardson Aye Richardson aye Ciardo Aye Ciardo not voting Smallwood Cuevas Weber Pearson Aye Weber Pearson aye I showed seven aye votes and four not voting Is that – did we miss somebody there? I got eight. Yeah. I have eight. You have eight? Yeah. Perfect. Then we have eight ayes, four not voting. We'll put that on call. We'll move to item number four, Assembly Bill 135. AB 135, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Well, first I need somebody to make the motion. Senator Archuleta, now please call the roll. And believe me, I appreciate the efficiency. AB 135, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Perez? Reyes? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayardo? No. Sayardo, no. Smallwood Cuevas? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. And is that, I have four no's, how many yes's are there? How many do you have? Eight. Eight. Okay, good. Then we'll put that on call. We'll go to item number five, Assembly Bill 150. Move it. Motion by Menjabar. Please call the roll. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? Not voting. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. We have 10 ayes, 3 not voting. We'll put that bill on call. We'll go to item number 6, Assembly Bill 152. Motion by Menjivar. Please call the roll. AB 152, the motion is due. Passed. And are there Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochobog? Perez? Reyes? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayardo? No. Sayardo, no. Smallwood, Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood, Cuevas, aye. Weber, Pearson? Aye. Weber, Pearson, aye. I have nine ayes and four noes. We'll put that bill on call. We'll move to item number seven, Assembly Bill 163, motion by Menjivar. Please call the roll. AB 163, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? Not voting. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogues? Perez? Reyes? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Ciardo? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. That ayes 11 to non We put it on call We move to Assembly Bill 164 item number 8 motion by Menjabar Please call the roll Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. That is nine ayes, four noes. We'll put that bill on call. We will move to item number nine, Assembly Bill 165. Please call the roll. Oops, I'm sorry. I need to get a motion. Move the bill. Motion by McNerney. Please call the roll. AB 165, the motion is do passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? Not voting. Archuleta? Aye. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blake Spear? Aye. Cobaldon? Choi? Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Perez? Reyes? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Cierto? Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. on voting. We'll put that bill on call. We'll move to item number 10, Assembly Bill 166. I'm looking for a motion. Motion by Richardson. Please call the roll. AB 166, the motion is do pass. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Perez? Reyes? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. That is nine ayes, four noes. We'll put that bill on call. We will move to item number 11, AB 168. Do I have a motion by Archuleta? Please call the roll. AB 168, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Joy? No. Joy, no. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Perez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Smallwood Cuevas? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Just one thing. Senator Smallwood Cuevas, did you intend to not vote on that? That is item 11, public resources. That's an aye for Smallwood. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. That will be 10 ayes, 4 noes. We'll put that bill on call. We'll move to item number 12 by Richardson, Assembly Bill 169. Please call the roll. AB 169, the motion is due pass. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? Aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochobog? Perez? Les Reyes Reyes, aye. Richardson, aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto, no. Smallwood, Cuevas, aye. Weber, Pearson, aye. Weber, Pearson, aye. On that bill, it's 10 ayes, 4 noes. We'll put it on call. We'll move to Item 13, Assembly Bill 170. Looking for a motion. Archuleta moves. Please call the roll. AB 170, the motion is do pass. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cobaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? Hurtado? McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Perez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Cearto? Cearto, no. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Grove, no. Grove, no. Wait, that was item 13, Assembly Bill 170. Is that the education? It won't be. That's not the, that's not, okay. Then it's, I show nine ayes and four no's. Did I get that right? I got it. 10 of 4. Pardon? Okay, then we have 10 ayes, 4 nos. We'll put that on call. We'll move to item 14, Assembly Bill 171. A motion by Reyes, Gomez Reyes. Please call the roll. AB 171, the motion is due passed. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Durazo? Durazo? Russell, aye. Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado? I'm sorry. Aye. Oh, thank you. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Orchua Bogue? Perez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Senator Grove, before I close the roll, are you not voting on that one? On 171. On 171, item 14, you weren't recorded. I'm abstaining. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Then on that bill, we have 11 ayes, 3 no's, 1 non-voting. We'll put it on call. We'll move to item 15, Assembly Bill 172. Motion by Reyes. Please call the roll. AB 172, the motion is due passed. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird? Aye. Nilo? Not voting. Nilo, not voting. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cobaldon? Choi? Not voting. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? Not voting. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Perez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto. No vote. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. I show 11 ayes for not voting. We'll put that bill on call. We'll move to item 16. Move the bill. Motion by Richardson, Assembly Bill 174. Please call the roll. If you want 74, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare Aye Blackspere aye Cobaldon Choi Aye Choi aye Durazo Aye Durazo aye Grove 174 is aye Grove aye Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochobogues? Perez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarta? Aye. Sayarta, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. That's 15 ayes. We will put that bill on call. Item 17, Assembly Bill 179. Do I have a motion? I'm sorry. Motion by Reyes. Please call the roll. Item 17, Assembly Bill 179. Which bill number? Item 17, Assembly Bill 179. Please call the roll. 179. Item 17. We have a motion. Please call the roll. AP 179, the motion is do pass. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Dorosso? Aye. Dorosso, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoabog? Perez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. We have 11 ayes, 4 noes. We'll put that bill on call. We'll move to item 18, Assembly Bill 180. Motion by Archuleta. Please call the roll. AB 180, motion is due pass. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cobaldon? Choi? Aye. Choy, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. Ochoa Bogues? Aye. Perez? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Ayes 15. We'll put that bill on call. We will move to item 19, Assembly Bill 181. Motion by Archuleta. Please call the roll. AB 181, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? Not voting. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Cobaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Dorosso? Dorosso, aye. Grove? Not voting. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Manjabar? No. Benjabar, no. Ochoa Bogue, Perez, Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Cierre Toe. No vote. Cierre Toe. Smallwood Cuevas. No. Smallwood Cuevas, no. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Nine ayes, three noes, three not voting. We'll put that bill on call. And then we'll move to item 20, Assembly Bill 182. Move it. Motion by Archuleta. Please call the roll. AB 182, the motion is due passed. Senators Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye. Cabaldon? Choi? No. Choi, no. Durazo? Aye Durazo aye Grove No Grove no Hurtado Aye Hurtado aye McNerney Aye McNerney aye Menjabar Aye Menjabar aye Orchobog Perez Reyes Aye Reyes aye Richardson Aye Richardson aye Searto? No. Searto, no. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. That is 11 ayes, 4 noes. We'll put that bill on call. That completes the roll. And I think there were two members that came in when we were partially through the roll. I think it was. Were you? Did you miss one? I missed the first part. Okay. Yeah. Then why don't we lift the call until we get to the point that all three of them were here and voted. So let's go to lifting the call on item number one, Assembly Bill 111. AB 111. Cabaldon. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. That will be 11 ayes, 4 noes. We'll put the bill back on call. We will go to item number 2, Assembly Bill 112. Please call the absent members. AB 112, Cabaldon, Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. Huachabog, Perez, Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Okay, that's 11 ayes, 4 no's. We'll put the bill back on call. And then we'll move to item number 3. AB 126, Cabaldon. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. That is 11 ayes, 4 not voting. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll go to item number 4, Assembly Bill 135. AB 135, Cobaldon. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. That is 11 ayes, 4 nos. We'll put the bill back on call. We will go to item number 5, Assembly Bill 150. Please call the absent members. AB 150, Cobaldon. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Then that's 12 ayes, 3 no's, and we'll put the bill back on call. We'll go to item number 6. Please call the absent members. AB 152, Cobaldon, Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez, Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Okay. That is 11 ayes, 4 no's. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll go to item number 7, Assembly Bill 163. Please call the absent members. AB 163, Cabaldon, Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez, Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. That is 13 ayes, 2 nos. We'll put the bill back on call. Please call the absent members on item number 8. AB 164, Cabaldon, Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez, Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Great. That's 11 ayes, 4 noes. We'll put the bill back on call. We will then go to item number 9 Assembly Bill 165 Please call the absent members AB 165 Cabaldon Hurtado aye Hurtado aye Ochoa Bogues Perez Reyes aye Reyes aye That 11 ayes 4 not voting We'll put the bill back on call. Please go to item number 10 and call the absent members. AB 166 Cabaldon, Hurtado, aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez, Reyes, aye. That's 11 ayes, 4 noes. We'll put the bill back on call. Please go to item number 11 and call the absent members. AB 168, Cabaldon, Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez. Great. And that's 11 ayes, 4 nos. We'll put the bill back on call. Let's go to item number 12, AB 169. Please call the absent members. AB 169, Cabaldon, Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez. Okay. That's ayes 11, noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. Please go to item 13, AB 170. Please call the absent members. AB 170, Cabaldon, Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Huachabog, Perez. Then we have ayes 11, noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. Let's go to item 14, AB 171. Please call the absent. So now we've caught up. Okay, then what I would suggest is we're missing Senator Cabaldon, Senator Ochoa Bogue, and Senator Perez. We have everybody else recorded on every bill. Text it all, please. Okay, thank you. So I am going to temporarily recess the committee, but we will go back into session the minute members come for us to lift the calls. So we will temporarily and hopefully very short-term recess. I will lift the calls and let's go through all 20. Let's start with item 1, AB 111. Please call the absent members. AB 111, Cobaldon? Aye. Cobaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues? Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes. Ayes 13, 4, noes. We'll put the bill back on call. Item number 2, Assembly Bill 112. Please call the absent members. AB 112, Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Orchobog? Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll move to item number 3, Assembly Bill 126. Please call the absent members. AB 126, Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13 for not voting. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll go to item number four, Assembly Bill 135, Higher Education. Please call the absent members. It'd be 135, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13 for snow. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll move to item number five, Assembly Bill 150. Please call the absent members. 150, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues, Perez. Aye. Press aye. That's ayes for. Noes 3. We'll put the bill back on call. Item number 6, Assembly Bill 152. Please call the absent members. AB 152, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Orchabog. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13. Noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. Move to item number 7, Assembly Bill 163. Please call the absent members. AB 163, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Orchabog. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 15, two non-voting. We'll put the bill back on call. Let's go to item number 8, Assembly Bill 164. Please call the absent members. 164, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll move to item number 9, Assembly Bill 165. Please call the absent members. 165, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13. Four is not voting. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll move to item number 10, Assembly Bill 166. Please call the absent members. AB 166, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13. Noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll go to item number 11, Assembly Bill 168. AB 168, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. Item number 12, Assembly Bill 169. Please call the absent members. AB 169, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll move to item number 13, Assembly Bill 170. Please call the absent members. AB 170, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, noes 4. We'll put the matter back on call. Move to item number 14, Assembly Bill 171. Please call the absent members. AB 171, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Orchobog. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, 3 noes, 1 not voting. We'll put the bill back on call. Item number 15, please call the absent members. AB 172, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Orchobog. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, no's 4. We'll put the bill back on call. We'll move to item number 16, Assembly Bill 174. Please call the absent members. AB 174, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 17. We'll put the bill back on call. Number 17, Assembly Bill 179. Please call the absent members. AB 179, Cobaldin? Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Ochoa Bogues? Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 13, noes 4. We'll put that bill back on call. We'll go to item number 18, Assembly Bill 180. Please call the absent members. 180, Cobaldin? Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Ochoa Bogues? Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. That's ayes 17. We'll put that bill back on call. We'll move to item number 19, Assembly Bill 181. Please call the absent members Members AB 181 Cabaldon Ochoa Bogues Perez That ayes 9 nos 3 not voting 3 We'll put that bill back on call. And item number 20, Assembly Bill 182. Please call the absent members. AB 182, Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. That is ayes 13, noes 4. We'll put the bill back on call. We're not going to quite recess yet, so hang with us. Then we are going to lift the call on item number 19, Assembly Bill 181. Please call the absent members. AB 181. Cobaldon. Aye. Cobaldon, aye. Ochoa Bogues. Perez. That's ayes 10, noes 3, not voting 3. Do you want to call the roll now? I'll wait for Ochoa Bogues to that. Okay. We're going to put that back on call. And as soon as Senator Ochoa Bogue gets here, we will lift the calls again. Thank you very much. We'll go into a temporary recess. We're going to go through all 20 bills and call the roll. So let's start with item number one, Assembly Bill 111. Please call the absent members. Ochoa Bog? No. Ochoa Bog? No. That is ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. Let's go to item number two, Assembly Bill 112. Please call the absent voters. Ochoa Bog? No. Ochoa Bog, no. That is ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. Item number three, Assembly Bill 126. Ochoa Bog? Not voting. That is ayes 13, 5, not voting. That bill is out. Please call the absent members on item number four, Assembly Bill 135. What's your vote? Is that number four? Number four, Assembly Bill 135. What's your vote? No. That's ayes 13, no's 5. That bill is out. Item number five, Assembly Bill 150. Please call the absent members. What's your vote? Not voting. That is ayes 14, not voting 4. That bill is out. Let's call the absent members on item number six, Assembly Bill 152. What's all about? One second, I just lost one. Okay. Item number six. Number six no What all about no That is ayes 13 noes 5 That bill is out Police call the absent members on item 7, Assembly Bill 163. That's ayes 15, not voting 3. That bill is out. Please lift the call on item number 8, Assembly Bill 164. Ochoa Bog? No. Ochoa Bog? No. That's ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. Let's go to item number 9, Assembly Bill 165. Please call the absent members. Ochoa Bog? Not voting. That is ayes 13, not voting 5. That bill is out. Please call the absent members on item number 10. AB 166, Ochoa Bogg? No. Ochoa Bogg, no. That's ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. Let's call the absent members on item number 11, Assembly Bill 168. Ochoa Bogg? No. Ochoa Bogg, no. That's ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. Please call the absent member on item number 12, Assembly Bill 169. Ochoa Bogg? No. Ochoa Bogg, no. That's ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. Please call the absent members on item number 13, Assembly Bill 170. Ochoa Bogue? No. Ochoa Bogue, no. That's ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. Please call the absent members on item 14, Assembly Bill 171. Ochoa Bogue? Not very. That's ayes 13, noes 3, 2, non-voting. That bill is out. Please call the absent member on item number 15, Assembly Bill 172. Retroal vote. Not voting. That's ayes 13, not voting 5. That bill is out. Please move to item number 16, Assembly Bill 174. Please call the absent member. Retroal vote. Aye. Retroal vote, aye. That's ayes 18. That bill is out. Please call the absent member on item 17, Assembly Bill 179. Which I'll vote? Without voting? Okay. Is there something new on here? Pardon? Sorry. That's item 17, Assembly Bill 179. Okay. Okay. So, no. Retour abode, no. That's ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. On item 18, assembly bill 180, please call the absent member. Retour abode. Aye. Ochoa Bogue, aye. That's ayes 18. That bill is out. Please call the absent members on item 19, Assembly Bill 181. Ochoa Bogue. That's 181, right? Yes Not voting Ochoa Bogue not voting We have another absent member on that there Okay Then I put that back on call And then we'll go to item number 20, Assembly Bill 182. Please call the absent member. Ochoa Bogues? No. Ochoa Bogues? No. That's ayes 13, noes 5. That bill is out. I'm going to go back. Just a second. We're going to pause for a second here. Just before we call the absent members on the one remaining bill, Senator Perez was unable to be here for the discussion and the debate. I'm going to allow her the opportunity to make a brief comment.

I appreciate your comment. I will lift the call. Please call the absent member on item number 19, Assembly Bill 181. Perez?

Perez, aye. Let's see here. My total adds to one more than there is. Maybe I had you as not voting before. So I show ayes 11, noes 3, 3 not voting. Okay, then that bill is out. That completes our business, and if it weren't for the fact that there were only about 5 people left, I would thank everybody that had worked on the budget, and hopefully I'll get a chance to do that on the floor. But the staff working around the clock and me having phone calls and texts and things at 11 at night, and I, I think, got to go to sleep. I'm not sure they did. So this has been an amazing effort, and I know we're not done until we do it on the floor and it is signed, but I just wanted to personally thank everybody for getting us to this point. With that, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.