SFIN-260519-0900

Call Senate Finance Committee meeting to order. It is 7 minutes after 10 a.m. May 19th. We're in the State Capitol, Senate Finance Room. We have Chairman Olson, Chairman Steadman, Senator Kiel, Senator Merrick, Senator Kaufman, Senator Cronkite, myself, Senator Hoffman. We have a quorum to conduct business.

We have the following on the agenda today. The first item is HB 239, criminal negling Neglect Homicide. HB 246, Special Education Service Agenda Funding. HB 185, Pharmacy Associates— Physician Associates. HB 193, Unemployment Benefits and Planned Leave.

We still plan on hearing on HB 110. It was going to be heard this morning and delayed to this afternoon's calendar. So it will show up on this afternoon's calendar for those that are concerned that it is not being heard. So item H— the first item, HB 239, criminal neglect homicide, failure to assist, now referred to as Public Safety Omnibus Do we have questions from the committee? Senator Kaufman, do you have a question?

No? Yes, sir. Thank you. I was just wanting to ask again who is categorically not eligible for medical release by the electronic monitoring system. Do we have someone from the Department of Corrections?

Zane Nice? Zane Nieswanger, are you available online or in person?

Yeah, good morning. For the record, Zane Nieswanger, Director of Institutions for the Department of Corrections. These questions may be better answered by the bill sponsor, but it is my understanding that the statutes referenced that create an uneligibility status include sexual abuse of a minor, one, 3 through 4, unlawful exploitation of a minor and also bestiality.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kaufman. The will of the committee. Senator Steadman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move the Senate Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 239, version W, from committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. Is there objection to that motion? Seeing none, that legislation will be referred to the next committee of referral. We have HB 246, Special Education Service Agency Funding. This is the first hearing on this bill, and I invite Representative Josephson or his aide to the table to introduce the legislation to the Senate Finance Committee.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Hello, my name for the record is Ken Alpers, staff to Representative Josephson. He apologizes he can't be here, they're on the floor downstairs. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the CCivil House Bill 246 is about the Special Education Service Agency. This is a statutorily created group under the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education.

They provide special education services in school districts primarily primarily in rural areas where there aren't specialists for special education out there. They work with low incidence disabilities. These are things that less than 1% of students might have. They also work with deaf and blind students. Their team of approximately 13 teachers travels around the state a lot, takes care of the students out there, and also formally and informally trains the local general purpose teachers to better work with their Special Ed students.

By all accounts, Mr. Chairman, it's a highly successful agency. They are funded by a statutory formula that's currently $23.13 times the statewide average daily membership. Mr. Chairman, that's sort of the raw student count before it runs through the various elements of BSA formula. It's currently about 125,000 students statewide. So fundamentally, they're working with an approximately $4 million budget.

Uh, and they've been impacted in recent years in 3 ways. Uh, first by inflation, of course. Second, uh, the slow decline in statewide enrollment in the last few years, and then an increasing caseload where their current staff are maxed out and reaching their ability to care for a certain number of cases, students per. So what has come to our office, what was recommended, was an increase in their statutory number from $23.13 to $26.89 to cover their current and expected caseload. That increment comes with a fiscal note of just under $470,000, and I'll point out, Mr. Chairman, that fiscal note is included in the fiscal note package that's part of the completed operating budget.

So this bill is funded if passed, and I would also note that it passed the other body unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Do Senate Finance Committee members have questions of Mr. Alper?

Senator Cronk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a question. I just know from my 25 years of teaching the value that CESA brings and serves all of our students.

So this is something that I believe is something we should pass and make sure happens because they serve a lot of kids that really it would be very difficult to be served with our remote school districts. Thank you, Senator Cronk. Further questions of Mr. Senator, comments? Seeing none, Senator Keehl, fiscal notes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 246 has one fiscal note. It is from the Department of Education and Early Development and Special Schools. First, we note that included in the governor's FY '27 request is a base amount of $2,890,800, so $2,890.8 in our in our notation. The FY27 appropriation requested under the bill would be an additional $469.9 million, and that number would be identical in all the out years.

That is unrestricted general funds. Do members of the Finance Committee have questions on the fiscal notes at this point? Seeing none, will the committee— Senator Steadman. Mr. Chairman, I move House Bill 246, version A, from committee with attached A physical note and individual recommendations. Is there objection?

Seeing none, that bill will move on to the next committee of referral, which will be the Rules Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That brings us to HB 195, Pharmacist Prescription Authority. This is the first hearing on this bill. Invite, uh, Representative Mila Record staff to the table.

Identify yourself and introduce the legislation, proposed legislation to the Finance Committee. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Katie Giorgio for the record staff to Representative Genevieve Mena. She sends her regards. Thank you for hearing House Bill 195 this morning on pharmacist prescription authority.

We all might remember 4 years ago the passage of HB 145 by then co-chair Liz Snyder. And the goal of HB 145 was to use Alaska-based pharmacists at the top of their education, training, and experience by providing what we call other patient care services. When they went to implement House Bill 145, Department of Law realized that there was some ambiguity in that law. So we have returned with a collaboration between the Board of Pharmacy and the Alaska Pharmacy Association to address and better define what other patient care services include. So here we are with HB 195.

So what this— the intent of the law is to, again, allow the Alaska-based pharmacists to practice at the top of their licensure. Since the 1970s, pharmacists in the federal health systems like the VA and Indian Health Services have been used in the capacity that we're trying to do here in Alaska.

It's also part of the Rural Health Transformation Program application because what we see of value here is for rural communities especially. What we're trying to achieve here is for the everyday Alaskan to get very basic primary care as close to home as possible. Alaska has a shortage of hospital beds, ER space, and other healthcare services. Pharmacists can help fill that, that middle-level role so that when a mom wakes up on a Sunday morning and her 8-year-old has an ear infection, they don't have to wait to get an appointment at their doctor. They don't have to go to the emergency department.

They can go down to the Fred Meyer and see their pharmacist and get that much-needed medication right there and then. HB 195 seeks to also reduce the cost of healthcare in Alaska. Like I said, instead of using our emergency departments, uh, or urgent care, we can go straight to our pharmacists and get, again, that very basic primary care. Um, quickly, because I know we're short on time today, I do want to address the elephant in the room. I think we've all been hearing from constituents that are very, very concerned about elements of the bill that they think might allow pharmacists to perform abortions in Alaska.

I would like to say very clearly, nothing in HB 195 changes how abortions will be conducted in the state of Alaska. Nothing in HB 195 changes Title 18, Chapter 16, which is our abortion— our regulation of abortion laws.

HB 195 also does not create a pathway towards pharmacists being able to do this.

A lot of the opposition that we've been hearing is based on misinformation spread on social media, uh, and also hypothetical scenarios that are not based in law.

However, in response to what we've been hearing from constituents across Alaska, we decided that we did need to add additional language to layer on top of the protections that already exist in law. So in the House Finance Committee, we did add language, and I'm happy to go into detail about it, that very clearly states that pharmacists are not allowed to prescribe anything on the, um, FDA REMS list. That's the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. That's about, that's about 74 medications, and mifepristone is the, um, the medication in question generally. And, uh, again, under AS 1816, only physicians in the state of Alaska are allowed to prescribe mifepristone based on those federal rules set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

There was a recent Superior Court case in which there was a court stay, and the, the judge ruled that under that stay, there are two other license types currently who can prescribe mifepristone in the state of Alaska. Those are physician assistants or physician associates and APRNs, advanced practice nurse— registered nurses, excuse me. Those are the only three license types in Alaska that can prescribe mifepristone. Additionally, because of FDA rules, community pharmacies right now cannot even purchase mifepristone to be prescribed and dispensed. Zero community pharmacies in Alaska are able to do that.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to take any questions. We also have Dr. Brandy Signa-Martin, I believe, on the line She is the executive director of the Alaska Pharmacy Association. And I do also believe we have someone from Ledge Legal. Yes, we do have someone from Ledge Legal online.

If members of the Senate Finance Committee have any questions— do we have any questions before we go to invited testimony of Ms. Giorgio?

Seeing none, we will go— we will only have invited testimony today. And we will be hearing from the Executive Director of Alaska Pharmacy Association, Brandy Signe Martin. Please identify yourself and proceed with your invited testimony.

Good afternoon, Co-Chairs and esteemed members of the Senate Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Dr. Brandy Signe Martin. I'm a pharmacist by training. Executive Director of the Alaska Pharmacy Association and a clinical assistant professor at the UAA, Idaho State University, Doctor of Pharmacy program.

I'm here today to provide testimony in support of House Bill 195. House Bill 195 authorizes limited independent prescriptive authority for pharmacists. Pharmacists may independently prescribe only within their education, training, and experience. In accordance with the professional standard of care and without making a new diagnosis. The bill is limited to services already recognized in Alaska law under AS 08.80.337, including for general health and wellness, disease prevention, conditions that are minor and generally self-limiting, or guided by a CLIA wave test, or in other words, simple FDA-approved diagnostic tests with an insignificant risk of incorrect results, such as those used to diagnose COVID-19.

In many ways, this bill clarifies and operationalizes the legislature's intent from House Bill 145 passed in 2022. The law authorized pharmacists to provide other patient care services, but it did not explicitly include the words prescribe and administer. As a result, those services could not be fully implemented. More than half of states already authorize pharmacists to prescribe in some capacity. Pharmacists in federal systems such as the Veterans Health Administration and Indian Health Service have practiced with broad prescriptive authority since 1979.

Pharmacists are highly trained medication experts. They earn a Doctor of Pharmacy degree and complete more than 1,700 hours of supervised clinical training. Their education includes patient assessment, pharmacotherapy, prescribing, and medication administration. If a patient presents with something outside of a pharmacist's competence, the pharmacist must refer the patient to another healthcare provider, just as they do today. Alaska has invested in building its own pharmacy workforce through the UAA Idaho State University Doctor of Pharmacy program.

Since 2016, the program has graduated 60 pharmacists, and approximately 95% of them remain in Alaska to practice today. This year, the Alaska campus achieved a 100% first-time North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination pass rate, and across the three campuses in Idaho and Alaska, the class placed in the top five programs across the in the entire country. So our students are very— coming out very well prepared. House Bill 195 also modernizes collaborative practice agreements, which are currently among the most restrictive in the nation. This will strengthen team-based care and create a pathway for pharmacists to participate collaboratively in medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, arguably the biggest public health crisis of our lifetime.

Time. At its core, this bill is about improving access to safe, timely care. Pharmacists are among the most accessible healthcare professionals in Alaska. They serve communities on and off the road system with extended hours and often without the need for an appointment. Under this bill, pharmacists could provide services such as test and treat for strep throat or influenza preventative services such as smoking cessation and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, treatment of minor conditions such as pink eye, cold sores, or seasonal allergies, and provide support for chronic disease management, including high blood pressure, asthma, and diabetes.

A simple yet tangible example I heard from my colleague that he sees frequently at a Fred Meyer pharmacy A parent comes to the pharmacy with a prescription for a nebulizer solution but no prescription for the nebulizer device. Today, that can delay care while the pharmacy contacts the prescriber. Under this bill, the pharmacist could resolve the issue in real time and get the parent on their way to give their child the care they need. Another example I heard was from the director of pharmacy at the Yukon Pestoquim Health Corporation. If this policy had been in place when the former Typhoon Haiyan had hit, their team would have better been prepared to triage patients as they were getting evacuated and make sure that they had the medication that they need as they were moving around, um, losing their home.

This bill is also a smart investment. Research shows that pharmacist-provided care improves outcomes and lower costs. A Washington State study found that pharmacist management of minor illnesses reduced costs by $277 per episode and produced no difference in clinical outcomes. The economic evaluation of pharmacist-provided care found that for every $1 invested, there is a return of $4.81 in healthcare savings. That comes from fewer hospitalizations, fewer complications, and more efficient care delivery.

House Bill 195 is supported broadly by the Alaska State Board of Pharmacy, the Alaska Hospital and Healthcare Association, the Alaska Native Health Board, the Alaska Doctor of Pharmacy Program, and chief medical officers from tribal health organizations across the state. On behalf of the Alaska Pharmacy Association, I respectfully urge your support for House Bill 195. Thank you for your time and for hearing this bill. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for that testimony.

Ms. Georgiou, do you have any closing comments before we review the fiscal notes? No, sir. Thank you. Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

House Bill 195 has one fiscal note. It is from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development and Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. It reflects an increased cost of $35,000 in fiscal year '27 and then $30,000 in '28 and the out years. That is all receipt-supported services, so designated general fund, and the bill will require the department to update regulations. Thank you, Senator Kiel.

Do members of the Finance Committee have questions on the fiscal notes at this point? Seeing none, we will set this bill aside for further consideration.

That brings us to HB 193, unemployment benefits paid parental leave. This is the first hearing on this particular piece of legislation. I invite Representative Hall or her staff to the table to introduce the bill to the committee.

Sophia, advance your slides.

I think I broke something.

Please proceed. Good morning, Co-chair Hoffman and members of the Senate Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Carolyn Hall and I represent House District 16, which is also known as the West Anchorage neighborhoods of Turnagain, Spinard, and Sand Lake. It is my pleasure to present HB 193 version S.A. before the committee this morning. Thank you for having us.

Current version of HB 193 version S.A. includes a mandatory paid sick leave portion. It is a mandatory paid sick leave provision that applies to all employers with 10 or more employees, and it exempts seasonal employees.

When it comes to paid parental leave in, in the bill, it creates a new program for which the qualifying purposes are childbirth, adoption, and legal guardianship. The benefit is 8 to 12 weeks based on fund solvency, and that is at the discretion of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. It includes one qualifying event per 52 weeks, and it runs concurrent with the federal Family Medical Leave Act. The Alaska Family Leave Act, and short-term disability benefits. The max qualifying wage base is $54,500 a year with a weekly benefit of $524.

The Paid Parental Leave Program Trust Fund is capitalized based on current employee and employer payroll tax contributions. Those current payroll tax contributions are currently being collected by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development for unemployment insurance in the STEP and TFEP programs. Under this bill, employees would contribute 0.15% of those contributions, and employers would contribute 0.20% to the Paid Parental Leave Program Trust Fund. Employer contributions are diverted to the UI Trust Fund when the Department of Labor and Workforce Development determines that it's necessary to protect fund solvency. And after employer step contributions have been diverted.

And Mr. Co-chair, I have a graphic that is the last slide that helps depict what these contributions look like when it comes to the flowchart to make it easier for the committee.

Additionally, with the paid parental leave program, it exempts seasonal employees and employers with as good or better paid leave programs. There is an opt-in provision for those who are exempt should they so choose to participate. And the fund is protected from the sweep. The paid parental leave benefit is available beginning January 1st, 2030. And that, Mr. Co-Chair, is to allow the— allow time for the fund to become capitalized to support the benefit.

When it comes to unemployment insurance in HB 193, the employee contribution would be 0%. The employer minimum contribution would be 0.30% with a max qualifying wage base of $54,500 a year and a weekly benefit of $524.

The— there would be an annual inflation adjustment based on the average taxable wage base so that the fund does not become overcapitalized again, as it has since 2009, and those changes would take effect beginning January 1st, 2027. Pardon me, that slide that was up there was incorrect. That was based on a drafting error that was in a previous version of the bill, but the changes for UI would take effect on January 1st, 2027.

The last part of the bill has to do with updating contributions to the STEP and TVEP programs. Employees would contribute 0.35% to STEP and TVEP Employers would contribute 0.3% to STEP. Importantly, those employer contributions would be diverted to the UI Trust Fund when the department determines it is necessary to protect the UI Trust Fund's solvency. Here, Mr. Co-Chair, is that graphic that I mentioned previously that depicts what those contributions would look like under the current version of HB 193. So the current tax rates— so the tax rates in the bill would be half a percent from employees with 0.35% going into STEP and TVAP, 0.15% going into the paid parental leave fund.

When it comes to the employer tax rates, 0.3% would go to STEP, 0.2% would go to paid parental leave 0.3% would go into the UI trust fund. At this point employers would pay 0.2% less than they currently do. And Mr. Co-chair, the way the contributions work right now, employees contribute 0.5% and employers contribute 1% to the employee trust fund. Employers contribute 1% fully to UI and employees contribute 0.5%, a portion of that going to UI and the remaining going to STEP and TVEP. With that, Mr. Co-chair, that is the end of my presentation.

I'm happy to take any questions. Do you have a slide that shows what the estimated payroll would be and with these percentages what numbers we are talking about monetarily? Mr. Co-chair, I do not, but I wonder if maybe the department might have some information on that. Maybe we can have that provided before this bill comes before the committee. Do members have questions on— of the prime sponsor?

Senator Kaufman. Thank you to Representative Hall. Do you have any kind of projection of the fund solvency? So this bill as it's currently crafted, what that solvency projection would be? Does it pull it down?

Does it hold it flat? Do we have that information? Through the co-chair, Senator Kaufman, I believe the Department of Labor has projections. My understanding is that under the current version of this bill, the fund remains solvent through 2040, at which point there is there does start to be diminishing amount in the revenue in the fund. But my understanding also is that the fund is— does remain solvent through 2084.

And that is with the balance coming down over the course of those 40-some-odd years when you are looking out beyond 2040. But I am not the expert I would defer to the department for their expertise to more fully answer that question. Senator Kaufman. Thank you. If not today, at some point it would be good to see the further information on that.

Further questions?

On the slide, I think it's the second or third slide that— on slide 3.

Under the second bullet point where you say qualified purpose adoptions, would people be eligible for this program if they adopted a 10-year-old? Mr. Co-Chair, yes. What is the logic behind that? The logic— through Mr. Co-chair, the logic behind that is that it would allow time for the new child to be integrated into the family and to spend time with the parents in order to become fully integrated and have time to spend with one another to be able to really develop a bond. I will say that when it comes to details of adoption and legal guardianship and childbirth, there is a number of It will be developed in regulations, but in the bill there are provisions to ensure that things are legally sound with ensuring that you're going through the right steps when it comes to an adoption agency or a tribal court or state court or through a hospital and the birth certificate process and whatnot.

Further questions of the prime sponsor at this point?

Mr. Peale. I was here a little late last night, Mr. Chairman. I'm slow on the draw. It's my understanding that there was something added to the bill that was not related to the unemployment trust fund training or parental leave. Can you briefly walk the committee through the changes to the citizen initiative on sick leave?

Through the co-chair, Senator Keel, happy to. Yes, there was an amendment on the House floor on Saturday that included— that added the mandatory paid sick leave provision to, I believe it's section 1, sections 1 through 4 of the bill. And that was based off of, I suppose, feedback having to do with Ballot Measure 1, where businesses have found it difficult to implement a paid sick leave provision. And there is a bill currently, HB 161, that would essentially do the same thing, which is basically increase the floor from all employees have to be able to have the option of paid sick leave. Employers have to offer paid sick leave to their employees, um, but in HB 161, the floor would be 50 employees.

And so when it comes to, um, 50 employees, if you have 50 employees or fewer, you would be exempt from the mandatory paid sick leave. The amendment that went into the bill, um, states what you see on the screen there, where, um, if you have 10 or more employees that you would be mandatory. It would be mandatory to provide paid sick leave. So if you have 9 or fewer employees, then you would not have to provide paid sick leave to your employees. Senator Akhil, I am operating on not great sleep, so I apologize if my words are kind of fumbling out of my mouth a little bit this morning.

Senator Akhil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The small business— smallest business provision, I guess, makes sense. Can you talk about at all the complete exemption for seasonal employees? That one, I guess, is potentially a little concerning.

Seasonal employees interact with the public. They get sick? What would be the reason for a complete elimination of sick leave, paid sick leave for seasonal employees?

Through the co-chair, Senator Keele, I believe you are referencing page 5 of the bill, line 15. I believe the reason for of this is when it comes to tourism, seafood industry, that kind of seasonal work, it can be difficult for businesses to have the employees during that critical high-peak period in order for them to operate their business efficiently and effectively. And so I believe that is the reason for the exemption for seasonal employees. I will say when it comes to hospitality industry and food service and whatnot, personally, I would think that it would be really important for employees to have the ability to not come into work sick. Senator Keehl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've heard from seasonal employers who have real concerns about the end of the season and the potential for abuse by that, you know, there's always exceptions, right? Exceptional case where somebody just doesn't take sick leave and they don't show up the last week of work. That's a legitimate problem.

The— but I guess as you noted, when it comes to seasonal food service, seasonal hospitality, you know, driving the tour bus with, you know, the doors and windows shut because it's raining. There's some concern about no sick leave provision there. Comments? Representative Duvall. Through the co-chair, Senator Keele, yes, I would absolutely agree with you, and especially when it comes to the ramp-down period of seasonal employment.

If an employee is a bad actor and/or, you know, for whatever reason may have banked up a certain amount of paid leave and then they choose to take the last 5 days, 2 weeks, 3 weeks off from seasonal employment, that can really be difficult for businesses. Senator Keele, I'm not sure if I'm fully answering your question, but I'm trying. Senator Keele. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, I don't know about 2 weeks, they still earn 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.

So that's a lot of shifts in a season to get 3 weeks. Have paid. But yeah, I have concerns about going to zero as much as the problem of the end of season does need a fix. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further questions of the prime sponsor at this time?

Seeing none, we will have only invited testimony. I invite Paul Maharty, Paloma Harbor with the Department of Labor to the table to give us her limited invited testimony.

Good morning. For the record, Paloma Harbor, Director for the Division of Employment and Training with the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. I didn't have any prepared testimony. I was more available to answer any questions the committee might have. Thank you.

Do members of the Senate Finance Committee have questions of the Department of Labor at this time? Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Harbor, there was discussion about the health of the fund, and it sounds like the projections— this bill has clearly gotten tightened down since its initial versions. Can you talk about the flexibilities that the department will have, especially on the parental leave thing that's new, should the actuaries look at the projections and have some concerns?

Ms. Harbor. Thank you. Through the Chair, Senator Keele. Yes. So in the legislation, The maximum qualifying weeks or the maximum number of weeks that you can qualify under the paid parental leave fund can be anywhere from 8 to 12 weeks.

That is at the discretion of the department depending on the solvency of the paid parental leave fund. Senator Keehl. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's helpful. Thank you, Senator Keehl.

Further questions of the Department of Labor by the Finance Committee?

Seeing none, we will go to the review of the fiscal notes. Senator Keehl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are 4 fiscal notes. There's only one with a number on it, so let me start with fiscal note number 4. It's the Department of Administration Division of Finance. And Admin Services. They assign a zero fiscal note but simply flag that the bill does create a new fund they will administer.

The next fiscal note I have is from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development Workforce Investment Board. That shows an FY '27 cost of $200,100 and one full full-time position. In FY '28, that rises to 2 positions and a cost of $380.6 million. And that is from designated general fund from the STEP, the State Employment and Training— I think I have the initials— I'm missing an initial, but the State Employment and Training Program Fund. The next fiscal note is also from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

This one is workers' compensation. That shows an FY '27 cost of $1,475,300, so $1,475.3. That is a designated general fund in the parental leave fund. And then in FY '30, you see that rise significantly as the grants and benefits begin to pay out. So FY '30, $11 million plus.

FY '31, $21 million. There is not an estimated FY '27 capital appropriation here, but you'll note on page 2 there's a separate capital appropriation required. And then there are regulation changes needed. Last fiscal note. That also Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

This one is from unemployment insurance. Um, that shows an FY27 cost of $765.0. Uh, that's from the Paid Parental Leave Fund designated general funds. Uh, that cost drops and stabilizes in FY28 and going forward. It's $477.9.

The revenues line here, um, is the big one, Mr. Chairman. Uh, revenues of $34.4 million in the STEP Fund, designated general funds, $37 million plus in the Parental Leave Fund, also DGF, and that rises slightly in FY '28 and then decreases gradually in the out years. Unemployment Insurance also notes the new fund and that they will need to change regulations. Thank you, Senator Keele. Do any members of the Senate Finance Committee have questions regarding the fiscal notes?

Seeing none, we will set this bill aside. That concludes this morning's agenda. Our next meeting is scheduled for 1:30 this afternoon. Is there anything else to come before the committee at this time? None.

We are adjourned.