Transcript Highlights:

• Among our many duties, we oversee employee insurance for 131,000 state employees, their family members
• to improve employee the emplo employee<00:03:49.959><c> experience</c><00:03:50.680><c> and</c><00:03
• </c><00:04:15.480><c> insurance</c><00:04:16.000><c> for</c> oversee employee insurance for oversee employee
• base knowing that uh turnover employee base knowing that uh turnover employees<00:30:45.159><c> and<
• </c> doing some pulse surveys for employees doing some pulse surveys for employees and<00:32:11.039><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> protected employees. protected employees.
• </c> authority, and simply adds HR employees authority, and simply adds HR employees to<00:01:23.759>
• HR employees supports Protecting HR employees supports workforce<00:01:43.600><c> stability,</c><00:
• </c><00:07:58.160><c> In</c> employees to get what she needed. In employees to get what she needed.
• We treat employees and residents.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The state employees' unions are important to know is not permitted to do that communication with employees
• And so other unions that represent other state employees, like school district employees, for example
• But most of the employees that are, my understanding is that most of the employees that are represented
• And these are not bad employees; these are good employees they have to let go.
• and these are not bad employees these are good employees they have to let go it's incredibly costly

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2091, a collective bargaining measure that would require state agencies and other employers covered by the Personnel System Reform Act to provide unions with employee contact and job information similar to what other public employers already must share. The sponsor and union witnesses said the bill would close a gap left by prior legislation and improve communication with represented employees; no one testified in opposition during the hearing portion shown. Action on the bill was deferred. The committee then moved to House Bill 2264, which would allow workers who voluntarily participate in an employer-initiated layoff or reduction-in-force plan to qualify for unemployment insurance if the separation results from that plan. The sponsor and a member described it as a narrow fix to clarify eligibility and reduce disputes. After brief supportive testimony, the committee voted 9-0 to report the bill out with a due pass recommendation. A lengthy hearing followed on House Bill 2218, a workers’ compensation bill that would expand provider choice, require notice to injured workers of their right to choose a provider, limit employer steering, speed utilization review, allow more flexibility from treatment guidelines, and change rules for reopening or continuing treatment on certain claims. Supporters, including injured workers, unions, attorneys, firefighters, and a psychiatrist, argued the current system delays care and over-relies on rigid guidelines; opponents from business groups and the Department of Labor and Industries said the bill would weaken evidence-based standards, raise costs, and create uncertainty. No final action was taken in the portion shown. The committee also heard House Bill 2105, as a proposed substitute, which would require employers to notify workers after an ICE Form I-9 inspection notice or results, limit voluntary access to certain records without a subpoena or warrant, require workplace postings, and create enforcement by the Attorney General and private lawsuits. Supporters said the bill would provide due process, transparency, and protection for immigrant workers; opponents, especially small business and agricultural groups, warned of conflicts with federal law, burdensome notice requirements, and severe penalties. The hearing continued with additional testimony, and no vote was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will call this meeting of the Employee Benefits Committee to order.
• most important thing to state employees.
• It shows you the membership as far as the employees and whether they are state employees, legislators
• or employees of any political subdivision.
• Thank you. ...retirement programs of state employees or employees of any political subdivision, or health

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will call this meeting of the Employee Benefits Committee to order.
• We will call this meeting of the Employee Benefits Committee to order.
• most important thing to state employees.
• or employees of any political subdivision.
• Retirement programs of state employees or employees of any political subdivision, or health or retiree

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• the State Employees Association.
• So first of all, it only affects group one employees who are state employees.
• it has nothing to do with employees it has nothing to do with Municipal<04:08:02.640><c> Employees</
• and school employees, right?
• from other Group 1 employees.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 622, but after the sponsor said further research raised concerns, he asked that the bill be tabled. The committee then moved in executive session and voted unanimously to find the bill inexpedient to legislate, sending it to consent. The committee also retained House Bill 349, the ophthalmologic laser bill, after members said more time was needed for the professions involved to work out training standards and provide additional information; that motion also passed unanimously. The committee then discussed House Bill 244, a municipal building/fire code recodification measure. Members said the bill needed more review and careful scrutiny because of its length and possible unintended effects, and they voted unanimously to retain it as well. House Bill 534 was then heard; the sponsor said the bill did not do what was intended because of a misunderstanding about current processing, and the committee voted inexpedient to legislate and placed it on consent. The committee next considered House Bill 233, with an amendment to remove a requirement affecting the New Hampshire Vaccine Association. Supporters argued the bill would reduce an unnecessary burden and improve transparency, while opponents said the committee should not single out one private 501(c)(3) organization. The amendment was adopted 8-5, and the bill as amended then passed 7-6; a minority report was requested. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 536, a proposed 1.5% cost-of-living adjustment for certain state retirees. The sponsor and supporters argued retirees had not received adequate COLAs and that the bill would help offset inflation, while the retirement system testified that the proposal would add significant costs, including an estimated $1.5 million for the state, $6.6 million for political subdivisions, and about $100.7 million in present-value unfunded liability, with the impact reflected in future employer contribution rates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Healthcare Authority for state employees, APS for APS employees, and NMSIA for all other public school
• employees.
• share of premiums between state employees and public school employees.
• We're gonna place a pretty big burden on employees.
• It's not, it's not fair that we don't pay for, um, other state employees. Employees, uh, premiums.

Transcript Highlights:

• For near-field RF EMF exposure to the head from mobile phones, there was low certainty of evidence that

Keywords: 926, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the way... ...if they don't move their lines out of the way in a timely manner, and we have fully mobilized

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan, with testimony from the authority, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General. Chair Cortese framed the hearing around the project’s recent changes: a new CEO, revised delivery strategy, loss of federal funds, renewed interest in private financing and value capture, and proposed adjustments to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment. He also raised concerns about statutory compliance, transparency, and whether the draft plan fully reflects required elements and true costs and timelines. Authority CEO Ian Chaudhry said the project has made substantial construction progress in the Central Valley and is moving toward track installation, with the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding providing a stable base. He argued the plan uses design optimization, direct procurement of materials, and revised sequencing to reduce costs and support an early operating segment by about 2032-33. He also promoted broader commercialization of the corridor through real estate, energy, broadband, logistics, and public-private partnerships, saying private sector interest is now real. Several senators pressed him on station locations, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, permitting delays, transparency, and whether the project can realistically reach Los Angeles and San Francisco on the current timeline and budget. The LAO and Inspector General were more skeptical. LAO analyst Helen Kirstine said the draft plan assumes major scope changes, including a shorter segment, a Merced station outside downtown, more single-tracking, and several statutory changes that have not yet been enacted. She warned that the plan may not comply with recent legislative requirements, that funding may still be insufficient even for the reduced segment, and that borrowing against future cap-and-invest revenues is risky because those revenues are uncertain and volatile. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan fails to comply with newer statutory requirements, especially regarding the Merced-to-Bakersfield scope, the funding plan, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the presentation obscures cost increases and schedule delays and limits the Legislature’s ability to compare current estimates with prior reports. Committee members generally supported continued oversight and some form of project delivery reform, but several expressed concern that the plan relies on legislative changes that have not been approved and on private financing that may not materialize. Chaudhry said the authority would address the Inspector General’s findings in the final business plan and continue to pursue federal grants, private capital, and corridor commercialization. No vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• the way... ...if they don't move their lines out of the way in a timely manner, and we have fully mobilized

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the way ...if they don't move their lines out of the way in a timely manner, and we have fully mobilized

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan, with testimony from the authority, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General. Chair Cortese framed the hearing around the project’s recent changes: a new CEO, revised delivery strategy, proposed station and scope changes in the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, the loss of major federal funds, and the authority’s push for private investment and ancillary revenue. He also raised concerns about financing risks, the proposed changes to the initial operating segment, and the Inspector General’s finding that the draft plan may be missing required statutory elements. Authority CEO Ian Chaudhry said the project is now in a more disciplined phase, citing major construction progress in the Central Valley, near-completion of right-of-way and utility work, and plans to begin track and systems procurement. He said the authority expects the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment to be completed around 2032-33, with broader Phase 1 service later, and argued that design optimization, direct procurement, and public-private partnerships could reduce costs and attract private capital. He also described plans for ancillary revenue from real estate, broadband, energy, and logistics, and said the authority is discussing station locations and value-capture tools with local governments rather than locking them in yet. Several senators questioned the legality and practicality of tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and whether the project’s revised scope still meets high-speed rail standards and public expectations. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the draft plan assumes major statutory changes, including changes to station locations and scope, and warned that the plan’s cost and schedule estimates depend on assumptions that may not materialize. LAO said the plan lacks transparency because it does not clearly disclose the assumed station changes, and it questioned whether even the shorter segment can be delivered within existing funding once borrowing costs and other risks are included. The office also noted uncertainty around future greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues and said ancillary revenues are not yet credit-worthy for financing. The Inspector General’s office said the draft business plan does not appear to meet several statutory requirements, including requirements added in AB 377, and reiterated that the final plan must address those omissions. Chaudhry said the authority would respond to the OIG’s findings in the final business plan and committed to resolving the compliance issues before final adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• the way... ...if they don't move their lines out of the way in a timely manner, and we have fully mobilized

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• correctly, maximum speed limits should accomplish three things: mitigate collision severity, improve mobility

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an inflection point for our country, and it is also the place where we are mobilizing our power

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The meeting was a multi-state press event and hearing focused on alleged federal immigration enforcement abuses in Minnesota and other states. Minnesota lawmakers and invited legislators from Montana, Illinois, North Dakota, Tennessee, and elsewhere described ICE and Border Patrol activity as warrantless, masked, and violent, citing detentions of residents and U.S. citizens, school lockdowns, hospital disruptions, chemical munitions, and the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Brady. Speakers said the actions were terrorizing immigrant communities, communities of color, Native Americans, and families, and argued that the federal government was using Minnesota as a testing ground for broader authoritarian overreach. Several lawmakers tied the situation to constitutional and civil-rights concerns, saying the conduct violated protections related to due process, free speech, and equal treatment. They urged state and federal officials to resist cooperation with ICE, protect schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses as safe spaces, and support sanctuary policies. One speaker said Minnesota had never before needed a select committee on federal impacts, but that the current situation justified it; another said a coalition of 27 states was coordinating 85 bills to require coordination with local law enforcement, increase transparency, protect against warrantless arrests and racial profiling, and impose consequences for federal misconduct. During the press question period, lawmakers from North Dakota and Tennessee said similar enforcement activity was spreading beyond Minnesota, including reported abductions in Fargo and a large federal presence in Memphis that had led to deportations and business closures. Illinois lawmakers said their state had already passed sanctuary laws and would continue pushing back. The event ended with calls for continued organizing, state-level legislation, and collective resistance to federal immigration enforcement practices described by speakers as unlawful and abusive.

Transcript Highlights:

• This council is crucial for education and workforce efforts to create upward mobility and ensure state

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s new Career Education Master Plan and related budget items. Labor Secretary Knox described the plan as an effort to reduce fragmentation across K-12, community colleges, workforce boards, and other systems by improving statewide and regional coordination, data sharing, skills-based hiring, career pathways, and wraparound supports such as child care, housing, food, and transportation. Members asked how success would be measured, how the plan would serve disconnected youth and adults, and whether the proposed data integration would rely on Cradle to Career; the secretary said it would. The Department of Finance said it was available to answer questions on the education side. The committee then reviewed existing CTE funding and oversight. The LAO, CDE, and Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office described the major ongoing programs, including CTIG, Perkins, K-12 Strong Workforce, and Community College Strong Workforce, and noted that many programs overlap in purpose and administration. Members repeatedly raised concerns about duplication, annual applications and reporting burdens, lack of clear outcome metrics, and whether funding incentives should be better aligned to regional collaboration. CDE and the Chancellor’s Office said they support alignment and dual enrollment, and Finance and CDE said LCFF/local match dollars are part of the funding structure. The committee also discussed child care as a barrier to participation and the need for better tracking of enrollment, completion, and job outcomes. On the consolidated application proposal, Finance proposed a study directing CDE to examine whether three long-standing CTE grant programs—Specialized Secondary Programs, CTIG, and California Partnership Academies—could be streamlined into a single application and reporting process. The LAO supported reducing administrative burden but noted that the largest programs, CTIG and K-12 Strong Workforce, were excluded from the proposal even though districts most often cite them as burdensome. CDE said it did not oppose the study but warned that statutory differences may limit consolidation. Members said the proposal should better address regional coordination, multi-year funding stability, and outcome measures rather than only simplifying paperwork. Finally, the committee heard a proposal for a $5 million ongoing California Education Interagency Council. GovOps said the council would provide a neutral venue for statewide coordination across education and workforce systems. The LAO opposed the proposal, arguing that existing bodies already provide coordination, the proposal does not change agency incentives, and the council would lack authority to implement decisions. Members expressed mixed views, with some supporting a coordinating body and others questioning whether it would differ from past efforts. No votes were taken during the portions summarized here, and the committee indicated it would hold some items open for further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• enough housing choices is crucial for the development of thriving communities and upward social mobility

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:15 Roll Call 00:25 HB 403 Discussion 02:11 HB 403 Vote 03:08 HB 555 Discussion 04:55 HB 555 Vote 08:42 HB 321 Discussion 10:55 HB 321 Vote 13:22 HB 18 Discussion 15:21 HB 18 Vote 35:10 HB 85 Discussion 39:08 HB 85 Vote 46:40 HB 371 Discussion 49:22 HB 371 Vote 52:03 Adjournment 53:48, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Local Government met with a quorum and took up several bills, mostly focused on local planning, zoning, and municipal administration. House Bill 403, a simple measure giving coroners a six-month grace period to complete continuing education, was presented by Rep. Deanna Gordon with testimony from Madison County Coroner Jimmy Cornelson and received unanimous support. House Bill 555, a technical bill affecting audit deadlines and flexibility for small cities and certain expo center audit arrangements, was explained by JD Cheney of the Kentucky League of Cities; he said it would help about 97 cities comply with audit requirements and allow more flexibility when municipalities are making good-faith efforts. The committee approved HB 555 on a roll call vote, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee and others in favor, and reported it favorably to the House floor. House Bill 321, also presented with JD Cheney and Rep. DJ Johnson, would expand the time for planning commission and board of adjustment members to complete orientation and continuing education, with a focus on housing supply and accessibility. Supporters said it would help recruit more members and concentrate training on land-use impacts on housing; Rep. Roarx and others discussed Louisville Metro’s planning process, while Rep. Brown and Rep. Fleming raised concerns about infrastructure and long-range planning. The committee passed HB 321 favorably after roll call, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee. House Bill 18 drew the most extended debate. Sponsor Rep. John Hodgson said the committee substitute would create incentives for infill development in urban areas and extend a moratorium on zoning district classification changes for two more years, arguing that local elected officials should have more control over major density changes and that unelected boards were approving projects without adequate infrastructure review. Opponents, including Liam Gallagher of Americans for Prosperity Kentucky and several members, argued the bill would restrict housing development, interfere with property rights, and limit Louisville Metro’s ability to update its Land Development Code; supporters countered that the bill would not stop development but would require elected officials to weigh in and address traffic and infrastructure concerns. After discussion, the committee approved HB 18 as amended by the substitute and reported it favorably to the House floor, with several members explaining their votes and some opposing the moratorium on local zoning changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• the same and just treatment as other transit and public sector employees currently enjoy.
• First, classified employees do not currently have a clearly defined impartial review.
• to what is provided to certificated employees.
• union representing nearly 300,000 classified school employees across the state.
• Previous law already required this for certificated employees.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement heard several bills, beginning with SB 1166 by Senator Arreguín, which would allow AC Transit and its employees to use the Public Employment Relations Board to resolve unfair labor practice charges instead of the courts. The author and union supporters said PERB would provide a faster, fairer, and more specialized process, while no opposition testified. The committee members expressed support, and SB 1166 was approved on a due pass motion and re-referred to Appropriations. The committee also took up consent items SB 1024, SB 1207, and SB 1444, which were moved on consent and placed on hold for absent members. Later, SB 1083 by Senator Perez was heard; it would refine last year’s school misconduct database law by adding an administrative law judge review process for classified employees, requiring stronger employer notification and record-sharing procedures, and extending vetting requirements to certain contracted workers. Supporters, including classified employees and labor groups, argued the bill adds due process and fairness while preserving student safety. Opponents, including school administrators, school districts, and liability organizations, argued it could create gaps in misconduct records, increase liability, and weaken protections for students. After discussion, the author said he was continuing to work with opponents on amendments and emphasized the bill’s goal of balancing due process with child safety, referencing his own experience with grooming as a student. SB 1083 was passed on a due pass motion and re-referred to the Committee on Education. The chair then announced that all bills had passed and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh they Future, employees did just that.
• </c> Under this bill, uh which an employee Under this bill, uh which an employee who<00:06:49.520><c>
• </c><00:07:38.080><c> and</c> concerns brought uh by employees and concerns brought uh by employees and
• </c> particularly public employees. particularly public employees.
• </c> the capacity of such officer or employee the capacity of such officer or employee makes<00:10:26.080

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I am also a current state employee.
• , and that this employee is trained.
• During my 10 years as a state employee and my four years as a union officer, I have witnessed employees
• they were two-year employees or five-year employees or six-month employees.
• There are members of DPS employees, sorry, members at DPS that are covered as classified employees, but

Transcript Highlights:

• It's fewer than 50 employees, and 50 employees is very vague.
• $300 an employee.
• or to recruit employees.
• or to recruit employees.
• Per employee. Yes.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all