Senate Standing Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review

The Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review will come to order. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference service, so for individuals who wish to provide us public comment today, the participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 7362834 and that information is on the Budget Committee's website. I will maintain decorum in the hearing as is customary. Any individual who is disruptive may be removed from either the remote meeting service or hearing or have their connections muted.

The hearing is being held at our 1021 O Street Building in Room 1200, and again, for any Senators who are listening, please come down so I can establish quorum. We will get our public comment after we have heard all of the items, and we will, of course, hear from the public first and then do the teleconference--the public who are here present in the room. So, since we don't have quorum yet, let me open with my remarks.

Our hearing today--we are addressing or hearing the Budget Act of 2023, AB 101, and that budget act before us builds upon the January budget and the May Revision that the governor proposed, and it represents the work of both Houses of the Legislature, the Senate and the Assembly, which held over 102 subcommitee and full committee hearings and incorporated input that we received at those hearings from stakeholders, Members, staff, and others to represent the bill that you have before us today.

This is a budget plan that includes 311.7 billion in total spending, 227,000,000,000 of which is from the General Fund. It includes 30.7 billion in solutions to close the budget gap, the shortfall that was projected to enable us to have a balanced budget if we project revenues being less than we had budgeted, say, from last year. We have to address that shortfall, and this budget includes 30.7 billion in solutions to do that. But in doing so, we do not draw upon those reserves.

We maintain 37.2 billion in combined total reserves, responsibly budgeting for economic uncertainty in future years, and those reserves include the Budget Stabilization Account, the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties--what we call the Prop 98 or Public School Stabilization Account--and the Safety Net Reserve.

So what AB 101 represents, or rather what it does, is protects the progress that we, we the Legislature, the Administration, and the public have done to protect our core programs against any cuts to ensure that our schools are well-funded, to have no middle class tax increases.

And again, we are able in this budget, to increase funding to our schools, to higher education, and these are planned program increases that represent--commitments were made last year for what I just mentioned, for our schools, for higher ed, for CalWORKs, for SSI and SSP grants, for Medi-Cal expansions, and much more. Specifically, there is 2.1 billion more in this budget than last year's budget for K-12 schools and community colleges.

There's a billion in temporary childcare rate increases and family fee reform to help ensure that we can get our childcare back operating fully to relieve our families who desperately need childcare to be able to go to work and for which we know has not fully recovered since the pandemic, and part of that problem is because the fees that are paid to the childcare providers are too low to cover the costs and then thus pay workers adequately, and so we've not had the reopening of childcare to the same level as pre-pandemic.

So this billion dollar that is in this budget is very important to help us secure the childcare that we know this state needs. There's 5.1 billion for public transit across three years, and this is not new funds. This is commitments that have been made in the past, but what we've done here is added some flexibility.

In the past we committed them to capital, but appreciating that we have operators up and down the state that are facing some real fiscal problems related to their operations, we've created some flexibility, again, that the regional planning agencies and the transit agencies together can figure out how to utilize optimally so that we're not just saying, 'no, you don't have any capital,' or 'oh, you only have operational money.' No, we are giving the flexibility so that they use it in the wisest way possible.

There is 10.3 billion in Medi-Cal increases from December 31, 2026 from the fiscal benefit of the Managed Care Operations Tax, also known as the MCO Tax, and then, rather than over that eight to ten year period as the governor proposed, we've extended that we are allocating the revenue generated from it to, as I mentioned, December 31, 2026.

And we continue 1 billion for the HHAP program, which provides--it's one of our core funding for our homeless programs, so that our localities, our different agencies locally and regionally that provide those services can know that they have some certainty beyond the 23-24 budget year. Now, I think those of us on the dais and our--both Houses know that the Legislature and the governor share many common priorities and our discussions with the Administration to land on the three party deal because what this budget that we are adopting today represents is our two Houses, the Assembly and the Senate.

But our conversations with the Administration are very productive, and I'm very confident that we will reach an agreement on that budget, and while it may not be identical to what we adopt today, there'll be much similarities and very close. I want to thank everyone who worked in the drafting of this budget.

We have remarkable staff who, as most of you who follow this process know, have worked hours and hours from the point that the January Proposal was introduced, May Revise, and on, and of course, the last couple of weeks, intensively, and will continue until we have that three party agreement.

So I just want to really thank all of the staff, and that's not only the staff of our Budget Committee, but staff in the pro tem's office and staff in many of our Member offices, many other Committee offices that just done phenomenal work, but especially our Budget staff. So, as I mentioned, after we hear AB 101, we will have public comment, but before we move to our presenters who are in the hearing room today, we will not be having remote presenters. The presenters are in the hearing room. Vice Chair Niello, do you have some comments?

I do, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I think it's telling that my friend, and I do mean my friend, Senator Skinner, is talking largely about maintaining and increasing spending in an environment where we have a multibillion dollar shortfall, and with regard to the two party and then three party agreement, I think what we mean is two House and then Administration agreement, if we're truly talking about a multiparty agreement.

As Vice Chair of the Budget and a Republican, this budget was crafted over the weekend, and I was nowhere near the Capitol nor was I any part of those discussions. The fact of the matter is, as we will learn from the LAO as we go through the details of the budget, that the proposed budget relies on what are really unrealistic revenue estimates, revenue assumptions, and we really set ourselves up to multiyear deficits unless there is a drastic reversal of current known revenue trends.

There are items in this budget that I can support, but the fact of the matter is, as a whole, I don't believe that the budget is at all supportable, but I look forward to listening to the details. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Let me establish a quorum, and then before we go to presenters, let's have a roll call.

Senators Skinner? Here. Niello? Here. Becker? Here. Caballero? Dahle? Here. Durazo? Here. Eggman? Here. Grove? Laird? McGuire? Menjivar? Here. Min? Here. Newman? Ochoa Bogh? Padilla? Here. Roth? Here. Seyarto? Here. Smallwood-Cuevas? We have a quorum.

Great. We've established a quorum, and Vice Chair Niello, appreciate your remarks, and certainly their staff did a lot of work to negotiate with the Assembly to come up with the bill we have before us.

However, what I do want to make clear to everyone that more than the vast majority, I'm not going to put a percent, I would say probably higher than 85 percent, closer to 90 percent of what's before us are all items that were closed out in our subcommittees, which, of course, our subcommittees include both Republicans and Democrats.

Now, while I don't have the vote count, and there could have been very commonly some disagreement in the close out of those items--that can happen--at least it does represent items that were heard, considered by our subcommittees, and closed out by those subcommittees. So I just want to put that on the record, and with that, let us begin. We're going to have our Legislative Analyst, Mr. Petek, Gabe Petek, present the overview of this bill, the AB 101, the Budget Act of 2023.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and Members. Thank you for inviting us here today. My name is Gabe Petek, your Legislative Analyst, and your staff did ask our office to provide a brief overview of the Legislative Budget Package you are hearing today. So I will walk through this very short handout, which hopefully you have before you, and is also on our website for anyone viewing remotely. So I'll just go to the first page and I'll try to move through quickly.

The Chair actually touched on some of the features that we also took note of as we looked through the package, but the legislative package does include 227,000,000,000 of General Fund expenditures. From a budget structure standpoint, it appears to us that the budget structure and the legislative package is quite similar to the May Revision. As you recall, the May Revision solved for or recognized really a 31.5 billion dollar budget problem, and as the Chair just said, the legislative package solves for a 30.7 billion dollar budget problem.

In general, we think that it uses very similar provisions as the May Revision and takes on, again solving basically a similarly sized budget problem in terms of magnitude. The difference between the two package if I were to characterize it, does seem to be that the legislative package does include a bit more borrowing and cost shifts and maybe slightly fewer spending reductions than the May Revision. Just a couple of other overarching points to make here.

The legislative package does assume the Administration's revenue estimates, of General Fund revenue estimates in particular, and those are higher than our office's revenue estimates in the budget window in particular, though, the legislative package does use our property tax revenues which are higher than the Administration's which affects the Proposition 98 funding, though it does not affect the budgetary bottom line.

Then, as was mentioned, the package does include 26.4 billion in reserves that we view as flexible to be used for a potential budget problem, and then 37.2 billion in total reserves if you include the 10.8 billion in the Prop 98 Reserve. Underneath the hood a little bit, the reserves are slightly different in the sense that the legislative package rejects the governor's proposed withdrawal of 450,000,000 from the Safety Net Reserve and keeps that at 900 million, but then in the legislative package, spends down a bit more of the Special Fund for economic uncertainty to SFEU.

So, those somewhat offset each other, and you wind up with a very similar sized reserve total at the end. Moving to the second page, I was going to just briefly touch on a couple of what we saw as some of the major differences between the legislative package and the May Revision, although, as I said, the Chair did provide a good summary of those so I'll try to be quick here.

First, for schools and community colleges, the package does provide for 78.4 billion in general funding for Proposition 98, which is very similar to the May Revision apart from a small technical adjustment on the Prop 98 amount. However, the total amount of Proposition 98 funding is 2.1 billion higher in the legislative package than the May Revision package and that is because the legislative package does use the LAO property tax revenues which are higher by that amount.

So that provides some additional resources which the legislative package uses to fund some previously approved programs and buy down the governor's proposed reduction to some of the discretionary block grants that were included in the May Revision. The Chair mentioned that the legislative package does provide some additional resources for childcare provider rates and to help keep family fees lower, especially after October 1 when they otherwise would be slated to be subject to going higher. That is done by reallocating some projected unspent funds for those purposes.

Another just--bigger areas in the climate change and energy, the legislative package takes a very similar approach to the May Revision, but it does emphasize a bit more: the legislative priorities over some of the governor's priorities. For example, it restores some coastal resilience funding and funding for water recycling activities while reducing some of the funding that the governor would provide for energy reliability programs.

In transit, this was also mentioned by the Chair, but the package does restore and augment certain types of capital funding but also provides flexibility for the transit agencies to use these funds, either for capital or operations, to address their fiscal pressures. In total, there's about 2.8 billion in the budget window period that can be used this way, but as was mentioned, the legislative package also plans for some additional flexible funding for these agencies in future years.

One other notable item is the legislative package moves away from the governor's proposal to fund certain capital projects with General Fund cash and instead would fund some of these projects using lease revenue bonds. For example, a portion of the funding for the Department of General Services, new Richards Boulevard Project would be funded this way.

And then finally, the managed care organization tax, the MCO Tax, as the Chair mentioned, this is basically being adopted in the legislative package, but with a different plan for spending the additional resources on a more accelerated basis compared to the May Revision. So that's our understanding of the main difference there. So I'll stop there with that overview and happy to take questions or comments. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Petek. Appreciate that, and I'm sure some Members will have questions, but we will, before we take those, I think we'll allow for Erika Li from the Department of Finance to make any comments that she would like to make, and then I will turn to my Colleagues for their questions for either of you. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice Chair Niello, and Members of the Committee. Erika Li with the Department of Finance, and thank you for the opportunity to provide a comment on the Legislature's budget plan.

While the Legislature's budget plan does include different proposals and approaches to addressing the budget problem when compared to the governor's May Revision, we do recognize that, like the May Revision, the Legislature's budget protects core programs, including in health care and human services and education, homelessness and climate, all while addressing an over 30 billion dollar budget problem.

We also note that, like the May Revision, the Legislature's budget recognizes the potential risks that lie on the horizon, including higher interest rates, continued financial institution uncertainty, and again, the delay of over 40 billion dollars in personal and corporate tax receipts that we expect to receive later in October this year, and it does so by maintaining the balance in the Rainy Day Fund, as the Chair mentioned earlier. We see this as a key budget tool and an insurance policy for later.

However, the May Revision, unlike the Legislature's budget, does not include significant new discretionary spending and holds the line on new ongoing spending. At this point, the Administration looks forward to continued conversations with the Legislature as we work towards reaching a three party agreement. Thank you, and happy to take questions as well.

Thank you. All right, let's see if we have comments or questions. I've got Maria Elena and Josh. Go ahead, Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I could make comments on different things, right?

Yes. Anything you'd like or questions.

Okay. I'm going to make several short ones. On the transportation--first of all, thank you, everyone, who has spent weekends and very long days and nights. I really appreciate all your hard work and trying to sum this all up, as the Chair said, over dozens or hundreds of hours of hearings. One on the transportation budget, I am really, really glad to see that there is a proposed resolution of the issue of both transit needs, transit operations.

We need to be able to at the same time remove those who currently have an infrastructure to help those parts of our state that don't have sufficient infrastructure. So addressing that was really important, especially since we fought so hard last year for doubling the investment in our transportation and we found the flexibility. One issue that came up in four hearings that I was involved with is the labor standards and equity standards. It's not specifically included here.

The Biden Administration has been very clear that federal infrastructure funds--that in terms of the distribution of those funds, that they expect states to include strong labor standards and equity, and so if we want to be competitive for those dollars, we need to include that. I urge us to continue to press for enforceable labor and equity standards. On people who help make California progress possible, I was glad to see the safety net for all employers who pay into our system.

Their employees don't get the benefits from the investment made by employers and so, moving in the direction of allowing, regardless of status, allowing workers to collect an unemployment benefit is really important. I'm glad we're moving forward on funding for the domestic workers and also that our tenants, there is more funding there for our tenants to be able to have legal assistance, and finally, I'm glad, and I hope that we can address and approve the MCO Tax. We've made a lot of investments in our health care system.

One billion dollars in health care workforce investments, 150,000,000 for distressed hospitals. This MCO item would inject significant funding in the hospitals in the billions of dollars. So I'm glad to see all those pieces coming together, and with that urge continued inclusion of the workforce and the issues that the workforce face as well, not only training, but in terms of their wages and salaries. With that, thank you very much and to everyone.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. So you aren't necessarily asking for a response from our Colleagues on the dais, just comments? Okay. No worries. Okay. I have Senator Becker then Senator Min.

Thank you. Yeah, I just want to make some comments as well, as Chair of Sub Two. Want to thank first to the Chair and for hard work and everything she's went through on education and childcare and all that is in this budget. As far as Sub Two, I want to thank all my colleagues for all their input and particularly Senator McGuire and Senator Dahle.

This agreement does protect our progress on a number of issues: environmental justice, flood management, which we heard very clearly from many of our colleagues, including Senator Eggman and Senator Caballero. Funding for implementing the windfall tax on big oil. We've shifted 100 million dollars for zero-emission transit buses as part of the fiscal cliff and of course, providing two billion dollars to deal with the fiscal cliff partly out of our GGRF revenues.

In particular, it funds a lot of our top priorities, including maintaining funding for building, decarbonization, coastal resilience. Looking at my Colleague Senator Laird and so many districts that dealt with issues with the flooding that we had and sustainable agriculture, we also managed to provide funding for the Energy Commission, develop a building performance standard, and support Californians to be able to take advantage of the federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act and the tax credits around for decarbonizing their own homes and hope folks will take advantage of that.

I just want to mention, particularly, I'm excited also about funding to implement legislation from last year at 12/03, which requires all of our state agencies and all of our operations and all of our buildings to be carbon neutral by 2035, and this bill provides planning for that, and beyond the budget agreement, the Senate is still looking at a lot of other ways and future opportunities to advance our fight against climate change, and again, I just want to thank all my colleagues and the Chair for all the effort that went into these investments in our budget. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Becker. Senator Min.

Thank you. I want to echo the comments, my colleagues, and thank the staff for all your hard work on this. You know, in discussions with staff and with other stakeholders, I know that we've looked ahead and obviously none of us can project the future as far as revenues, but I think this is a fiscally prudent approach.

In two to three years, we may face, if we continue facing declining revenues, we may face some tough decisions, but I think given that we don't know what the economy is going to look like, we don't know what revenues look like, I think this is the right approach, a combination of deferrals, some cuts, some trigger cuts, but also preserving for the future in the form of increased reserves to try to make sure that we don't have painful shocks right now when we don't need them, but going forward, we're prepared to deal with those.

In particular, I just want to highlight the work that Senator Laird, as Chair of Budget Sub One, has done in preserving the base increases for educational funding, the 8.22 percent increase for COLA, for K-12 and CCCs, community colleges that was preserved, the five percent base funding increase for the University of California and the CSUs that were preserved. I do want to just note I did see in a line item for deferred maintenance for community colleges, but no corresponding one for the CSUs, and I would just note that we are facing an impending emergency with some of the infrastructure updating needs that our CSUs are facing.

They often get overlooked in these discussions, but that's just something I do want to highlight for the future and for the record. I do have one question for the staff. Repeatedly, I see this mention of no middle class tax increases. I've looked through the analysis and I've looked through the bill, but obviously it's a very long bill. Are there any tax increases in this bill? And that could be for LAO, that could be for Department of Finance, it could be for anyone here.

It's Elisa.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Min. The question, yeah. Our understanding is that the MCO tax is the only one that we're really tracking and, yeah, the key thing there is that the burden of that tax really falls to the federal government, which I guess when you disperse the cost of that burden, Californians do have a share of that, but it's diminished, diluted. Quite greatly, so sure.

All right, well, that's helpful. So aside from the MCO, it didn't seem to me like there were any tax increases, but I just kept seeing this--no middle-class tax increases, which made me wonder if there were other ones. So I appreciate that, and I just want to express my view that at this time, when a lot of people are still struggling to get back on their feet, I appreciate the sensitivity to people's tax burdens in the state. Thank you.

Whoops. Thank you, Senator Min. Let me call in Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And let me piggyback on Senator Min's comments but as chair of the Education Budget Subcommittee. All parts of the education system step ahead budgetarily, 8.22% for K through 14, that includes community colleges and that is significant. If you really look at what has happened the last two years with this on top of it, we're really looking at least a quarter of the previous funding in increase for K through 14.

And I look forward to seeing what the computation is of California compared to other states, because we used to be in the lowest part of the 40th percentile in per capita expenditure compared to other states. And I'm confident we're moving up substantially and that is a very good thing. And just for the record, because I think people seem quizzical how we could have a budget deficit and do that.

And it really is that last year we did one-time funding, some of which that is spread through multiple years, but at the same time doesn't continue in this year. So it allows us, with rather stagnant funding, to figure out how to give an increase in K through 12 so it works budgetarily, and the two segments, CSU and UCs, each get a 5% increase, consistent with what the governor has done the last two years.

Last year, we wanted significantly higher legislatively, and it was paired back this year that 5% actually protects those institutions, given the budget deficit. But the challenge is, particularly with the California State University system is they have labor agreements coming up, they have billions of dollars of deferred maintenance, and they are not keeping up. We are going to have to figure out a way over time to really help the CSU system.

And I think that everybody on this Committee has or is close to a CSU campus, and it is the largest higher education institution by enrollment in the United States and so that is something we're really going to have to pay attention to. I want to thank Senator Becker for what a subcommittee did on coastal resilience and what is in the budget. It was originally a 43% reduction for coastal resilience.

And in defense of the administration, that cut was locked down before the first of 12 atmospheric rivers hit in January and I think together with legislation where money would be in here to fund it, we're trying to have cities and counties prepare, so that we're not having the discussions about what to do after things fall in the ocean and after homes flood, but before this budget is a significant partner in addressing that question.

And I also appreciate, even though I can imagine the discussions aren't final on the MCO, the medical tax and I think to speak to the answer that Senator Min got, in essence, it's an increase. It draws down so much money that it is really a net positive for the budget and for the medical system in California. And this would be something we heard in the discussions about hospitals, about the mix of public and private payers, and that that's one of the reasons for the stressed hospitals.

And this would lead to an increase in medical rates, which is something that would, completely separate from anything else we do in the budget, would help hospitals, and particularly rural hospitals that have that challenge. And so I did read one news column that somehow this budget wasn't real. This budget is completely real. It is the result of tens and tens of hearings and thousands of people participating, it's balanced. If this passes and the governor signed it, we're good.

We still, though, have to have a three-party agreement and negotiate out some of these issues. But this is a solid budget, and I'm very happy about what we're able to do, given the circumstances in education and I look forward to supporting the Bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, too, want to thank the LAO and the staff and those who sat through long meetings. I set on sub-two with Senator Becker. And I just want to start by saying that, yeah, we have had literally hundreds of hours of time spent on the budget. It's the most important document that we do as legislators and again, I want to thank those folks. I do have a question to start out with, though, first to the LAO.

We have extended the time that you can pay your taxes in California until I believe it's October. Can you kind of give us what you think the projections will be in revenues, either up or down come that time in October?

So, senator, our estimates of the revenues for the budget year, budget window, really, which kind of covers the current year and the budget year, are $11 billion below the administration's revenue estimates. And the administration has mentioned this uncertainty around the October tax filing date. We acknowledge there is some uncertainty because of that delay, but we think that we do have enough insight from what we are collecting in terms of our withholding tax on the personal income tax.

We do see the trends that makes up 60% of the personal income tax and it's historically been a very good indicator from a statistical standpoint. The trends in the withholding really set the direction and kind of give us an indication of where things are headed. So while we do acknowledge there's uncertainty, we do think that the likelihood is that they will be lower, kind of in the range that we've estimated.

But we've also acknowledged, in addition to the uncertainty around that timing issue, there's just uncertainty overall and we said in our documents the revenues could be higher by tens of billions or lower by tens of billions so we're both doing the best we can. But I think we would say that we think the revenues are likely to be lower and most likely around that time frame. We would expect that the collections would start to reflect that.

Well, thank you for that. So really, there is a lot of uncertainty in the fact that we're budgeting. Assuming a very different outcome could be realized in the later part of the year, and that may require some triggers to have to balance the budget before the end of the year.

Just to make sure you're asking my view of that. Yeah. Okay. So I think one of the things we've pointed out is that we think the current budget year deficit problem is larger because of the lower revenues. It translates to a $6 billion added budget problem. The reason is with lower revenues we have lower spending requirements in Prop 98 and Prop two.

But with this additional $6 billion problem, and then you add it to the multi-year outlook, which we've indicated the administration's multi-year forecast shows deficits in those years. We think there are also, but at the same time, there is a sizable amount of one-time and temporary spending still in the budget for the budget year and two years thereafter, approximately. And that was a prudent thing for the state to do to allocate those very large surpluses heavily to one-time and temporary purposes.

The other side of that coin, though, is that if the revenues don't materialize to support it, we do think, we did recommend in some recent publications that that would be a place to look for increasing budget capacity by pulling back some of the one time.

And so what I might say in response to your question is that depending on the timing of the disbursement of those planned one-time allocations in the budget year, for example, if the disbursement were to be delayed until later in the fiscal year and the revenues are coming in below what the package assumes, something more like what we said, then that would be a source you could go to to find some solution to the problem. And then, of course, also the package does maintain the reserves but y'know, so.

Right.

Thank you for that. I just want to comment that we are going to have a balanced budget. There's no doubt about it. We have reserves, we can make this budget work. But it's the uncertainty that we don't know on both ways, either up or down when it comes to what revenues are going to come in. So I think we need to be cautious and make sure that we plan for that.

The second question I have is on the MCO tax, something that I think we need. I think there's an opportunity for California to have a windfall. Obviously, Senator Laird talked about that, but we've added 1.2 million people undocs to our healthcare system, we've added a lot of people to our healthcare system and so my question is, how much of this tax is going to the General Fund and how much of it actually is going to healthcare?

In this budget, yes, go ahead.

I know that over years it's billions, but in this budget.

I believe that the allocation is around $3.2 billion to benefit the General Fund position in the budget year. But my colleague here, Jason Constanturos from our office-

3.2 goes to the General Fund?

Let's have him answer. Okay, and then, go ahead.

Hi, Jason Constantouros, is the mic working?

Yes.

Great. So in the budget year, about $3.4 billion is going towards to offset the General Fund spending and then the total net benefit of the tax is around $4.4 billion. And so that remaining portion is for augmenting Medi-Cal's budget. Over the entire period of the tax, so going from the budget year through 26, 27,$8.3 billion is going to offset General Fund spending in Medi-Cal, and then the rest of that is going to augment Medi-Cal's budget.

What's that number?

So the total net fiscal benefit of the MCO tax across all the years is $19.4 billion. So again, that's 8.3 is going specifically to offset General Fund spending in Medi-Cal. And then that remainder, about 10 to $11 billion or so, is augmenting Medi-Cal's budget across all those years.

Thank you. I just want for the people that are providing health care in California to know that we're going to pass an MCO tax, which is drawing down federal dollars to help our health care system. And at a total between now and 2026, I think it is, $19 billion. And in this budget year, $3.4 billion is going to the General Fund. That's going to help things that are not healthcare related, really. $1 billion is going to help the problems we are having with providing health care.

And quite frankly, it's the Medi-Cal, Medicaid reimbursement rate, which is devastating our hospitals. So I think that if we're going to pass an MCO tax, we should dedicate those resources to health care. It's the one thing that disadvantaged communities and Low-income people really rely on for their health care and we are putting that money in the General Fund.

So I want to note that I want the people to understand that the Administration and the two party agreement is saying to you that we are going to put that money in the General Fund and use that not for health care. We're going to use it for other things besides health care. So I want the record to show that. And I think that we should use those taxes for health care.

We really desperately need better healthcare services for our folks, and especially people of color and Low-income who rely on those Medical and Medicaid reimbursement rates to get their healthcare. So I think that that's something that needs to be talked about and needs to be daylighted out for the public to understand. Another comment I wanted to make, and I have a question on, is on the transit. In my district, we don't have a lot of transit providers, but throughout the state we do.

And the reason that we have a problem is obviously we saw COVID and there was less ridership, there's less people paying for ridership. And then we've seen a shift since COVID we've seen a shift in people that work from home or don't commute, and the system is broken. And so the billion dollars that's going into it, the question I have is, is that for maintaining the employees so that they can still run the system, or is it for developing a different kind of a system?

What is actually happening with the infusion of the billion dollars that we're putting into the transit bailout?

Thank you, Senator Rachel Ehlers with the Legislative Analyst Office. So the billion, our understanding is it's a restoration of funding that was committed in last year's budget for the TIRCP program, which has historically been used for capital exclusively, but that there will be proposed language to make that more flexible, to also be able to be used for operations for transit agencies whose kind of base revenue to operate the system has taken a decline due in part to lower ridership, not returning after the pandemic.

So I think the answer is either capital or operations flexibly, depending on the needs of the agency and then the packages, we understand it also includes some additional funding that similarly could be used for capital or purchasing of buses or for operations, depending on the needs of the individual agency.

Thank you for that. I just want to now make a comment that I think we all want people to use public transit. That's our goal. It's better for the environment, it's better to get around our communities, but at the end of the day, people aren't using our transit system and so we're here now going to bail them out, and I think we need to find out why.

We have had some information about people don't feel safe on public transportation, and that's one of the main reasons that they don't use our public transportation, is because they don't feel safe. And I'm concerned that we are going to be looking at this year after year after year to keep a system that it can't maintain, can't even pay the employees to actually run it because we don't have enough ridership.

So I think that's something we need to dig into a little deeper here in the Legislature and find out why and then figure out how we can actually improve ridership and actually have people use the systems that we are funding. And with that, since we're talking about safety, my last question in the things I wanted to talk about is, they're talking about closing more prisons and there's 400 million estimated in General Fund savings because we're closing prisons in California.

The latest Department of Justice Crime report indicates that violent crime has increased nearly by 20% over the last decade. Homicides during that time increased by nearly 40%, and rapes more than doubled and aggregated assaults increased by 35%. So we have crime increasing 20% for violent crime, 40% for homicides and rapes have doubled, and then assaults by 35% and we're closing prisons. So something is wrong. I know that it's a 400 million savings to the General Fund because we're closing prisons.

But what I'm hearing from my constituents is they don't feel safe and there's no punishment for crime. And so I think it's really not fair to the people of California to see increased crime as we're closing down prisons and there's no punishment for crime. And when you have no punishment for crime, yeah, you may save money by not putting people in prison, but our communities are not safe. And that's the reason, is because there's no punishment of crime.

So I want to go on the record to say that, yeah, we can save money if we close every single prison down the state, absolutely. But are we keeping our constituents safe? The one thing that government is supposed to do is protect their people, and we are not protecting our people from people who are violent and raping other people and assaulting them.

So I want the record to show that, yes, the governor's proposal to close down prisons can save money, but at the expense of safety for Californians. Thank you for giving me your time, and I appreciate all the time that we've had and I want to comment on what Senator Becker said about sub two, which is what the subcommitee that I sit on. I'm concerned about some of the cuts there as well.

When we talk about the environment, we're charging forward on offshore wind at the expense of the environment. And we are also not investing in places where we know we have really good opportunities for clean energy, like the Oroville Pump storage project that had $230,000,000 in one-time revenues allocated last year. And we have $10 million just for studying. Now, that is a perfect opportunity to actually help the environment in a way that the project has been identified as.

It's a battery, but we use water instead of batteries, which is really awesome. So I want the record to show that we should be charging forward on those types of projects that we know versus the projects that we're pushing forward to do offshore wind, where we don't have any really data on what's going to happen in the environment, but we're just charging forward on that. So thank you, Madam Chair, for the time that you've allowed me to speak. I appreciate it.

Certainly, Senator Dahle, I imagine there's some other members who may want to make some responses to some of the comments. But let me tell you who I have on the list and of course, I can always add more. I have Senator Grove followed by Senator Laird. Any other colleagues? All right, we'll go with that. Yes, Senator Niello and then I have a few comments to make.

Thank you, madam.

We'll go with Senator Grove. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair and I'd like to thank you and my budget sub-three chair that I work with on budget sub-three issues. Even though we don't always agree, I appreciate the opportunity to bring my concerns that I have going forward. I'd like to thank the staff also for their participation in the administration, for working with us on the financially distressed hospitals that are in our district, and the MCO techs.

I'd like to thank the plans for coming forward and coming to the table to address a desperate need that I think we all agree that we need, which is the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate to increase so that we can have providers that provide health care to some of our poorest people in the community. So I'm going to start there with stuff that we addressed on budget sub-three if that's okay. I'm going to follow up on some of Senator Dolly's, my colleague from Beaver's questions.

There was a reference to $19.4 billion in the total dollars that are available through 2026. It's my understanding that 77% of that is going to go to the General Fund and a portion of that is going to go to providers and those that provide health care to the population that uses the medical program. Is there a defined list out there? Thank you.

Is there a defined list out there that gives us the exact providers that are going to be able to receive those increases or the codes that are available for us to look at, the codes that would be approved for the medical reimbursement increases in this budget or not? Anybody that has that answer.

Andrew Duffy, Department of Finance. Thank you. So would note that the $8.3 billion reference does stay with the Medi-Cal program to support the Medi-Cal program. As for the providers that will benefit from the $11.1 billion from the Reserve Fund, I believe that has been shared with staff and happy to take that back and make sure that your office has that and the administration looks forward to continuing to work with the Legislature on what that looks like for the final three-party deal.

Okay. Thank you. One more thing that I have on that particular subject matter is, I noticed that, and again, I met with a lot of people, not even within my district, some within my district, but in Los Angeles and San Diego and just all over the state, that are really concerned about not being able to be able to buy into the coalition.

"It was very expensive", were the words they used to buy into the coalition that is working with the administration and the majority party regarding the MCO tax. One of those individuals or not individuals, but one of those groups or entities is the individuals who provide optometry care, well, eye wellness checkups, things like that in the Medi-Cal space, and we're losing more and more of those people. They said they've reduced their numbers by over 50%.

Now, is there any room to include individuals that aren't in the people who invested in the Coalition to sit at the table? Are we listening to any of those concerns, or is it already a done deal?

Hi, Erika Li with the Department of Finance and I would just say I'm not speaking to what's included in the two-party plan at this point. We look forward to having more conversations to get to a three-party plan and talking with stakeholders and others at the table. So just make that broad comment. Thank you.

And just for public information, when you say two-party plan, what does that mean and three-party plan?

I'm sorry, the legislative plan before you has a particular MCO plan, and we, the administration, look forward to continuing having conversations to get to a three-party plan.

Thank you. I do have some questions on the financially distressed hospital, $150,000,000 that has already been allocated. Can anybody tell me if that, and it may be an inappropriate question for this, but have those resources been able to be applied for? Because my hospitals say they're not and I actually have a big announcement from a hospital that's coming on Friday that is very distressing because the administration has not moved or the department has not moved quickly enough to save these hospitals.

Matt Aguilera for Finance.

Thank you.

The department is working on the application process right now, and they're planning to get those funds out expeditiously. So we're working on setting up the review criteria and that will be handled, and then the funds will go out expeditiously. We expect that to happen roughly in 30 days, give or take.

So hospitals that are going to be a hospital that's going to make their announcement Friday because they're trying to give as much notice to 200 employees that will be laid off will be excluded from that, even though they were considered financially distressed because they can't wait an additional 30 days. Is that your opinion or thought?

We understand the need for urgency here. That's why the legislation passed so quickly, and we're working as quickly as we can to get the funds out expeditiously.

I appreciate that. I really do appreciate that and I appreciate, I mean, not very many things work through this building expeditiously. So it was at record pace doing, dealing with, I'd say, government that that was passed. And I appreciate the administration. I appreciate what the governor said about financial. I appreciate sincerely, my colleague from, I guess, Merced Modesto area or Salinas. I don't know, new district. It was Salinas, but now she's in a new district so I appreciate Senator Caballero's input on all of that.

I do also have some concerns on the MCO tax about individuals or parties or industries, or whatever you want to call them, that seem to be at the table getting resources that I agree with my colleague from Beaver that the MCO tax should really go to those that are providing Medi-Cal services to the poorest in our community.

If you have a hospital like one of my district hospitals, that provides 70% Medi-Cal patients, they provide services to 70% of their population, that they provide services to is Medi-Cal. And I don't see anything in here, unless somebody can point it out to me that hospitals themselves will be able to have an increase in medical services. Or are we just relying on the $150 million which all of us, I think, have had conversations and statements that that's not nearly enough.

So is the Medi-Cal or the MCO tax going to include reimbursement rates for hospital services? Anybody, even the chair? Sorry.

Obviously, the details of the MCO tax are still being discussed between the two houses of the Legislature and the administration. So I think it's perfectly legitimate for you to express interest or desires, but those are still in discussion, so we can't answer what it will or won't be yet because it's not landed.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair, for that. I do appreciate that. So I just have one more comment or question about the $1 billion for the homeless prevention program. I think there's been $17 billion, correct me if I'm wrong, $17 billion that's been administered so far in the homeless program. And our unhoused population has increased drastically, especially where I live out here in Sacramento. Not where I live in Bakersville, but where I live here in Sacramento. I drive past the Roseville Boulevard...

I don't know what you would call it. It's like the Sacramento portion of Skid Row in Los Angeles. There's just like hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of RVs and tents. And then coming down Twelfth Street, you see the elderly, you see women, you see just coming down Twelfth Street to come to the Capitol. And then the population of the unhoused and the homeless has increased. Is there any accountability attached to this money, or are we just continuing to give out money?

And I met with an advocate yesterday on a Bill that I have going through the building that is separate from homeless and it was interesting to me that she works with cash here in Sacramento and some nonprofits regarding housing and providing services specifically to women in this population. And she has the same concerns. And she brought up some stuff to me that I had never even heard before and I just want to say it out loud.

It has nothing, like I said, it has nothing to do with the budget process except for the funding. The Bill has to do, going through the building has to do with human trafficking and she brought up something to me that I'd never even thought of. And she says, "ou know, homeless women all over that I see every night, these are her words that I see every night when we go out and try to give them food and things like that. They have survival sex.

Just please don't come in and take my stuff. And she goes, those are the women in the population that we're trying to help. And she says that based on what she's worked with in the several years that she's been involved in this, that no one is helping this population, and there's no accountability with the money.

So I started looking into it, and I want to know if there's accountability with this $1 billion, not specifically for that particular issue, even though that really touched my heart that that is happening. Is there accountability attached to this money for results?

Thank you, Senator Grove. The $1 billion that's in the legislative plan is separate apart from what was included in the governor's plan. So we did not have an additional $1 billion for HAP. However, as you've noted, we have allocated billions of dollars towards fighting and preventing homelessness. There is a trailer bill that the Legislature and the administration are working on to include additional, to discuss, including additional accountability for HAP, future HHAP, and other future expenditures in homelessness.

So specifically, that is something that the governor, particularly, is a priority for him, is the billions of dollars that have gone out should be attached to accountability for the dollars that are at the table as well as future dollars.

Thank you for that. And just out of curiosity, because we're in the minority party, we don't have a lot of discussion on the budget. We can put some requests in and the chair is really gracious in granting some of those requests that we have for district things. Is there the same conciliatory opinion that the Legislature that you work with, the party that you work with, is that something that they care about as well, like accountability for the HHAP program dollars?

And the reason why I asked that is because $17 billion and it's got extremely worse and then the violence in these areas that you hear from advocates is just like I described just now. Is that something that you guys are working on together?

I think that all parties at the table are wanting to see accountability behind these dollars.

Yes. That's good.

Thank you, Ms. Grove, Senator Grove, I appreciate Ms. Li from Department of Finance for responding and also indicating that, which I was going to, is that we are working on trailer bill Language now with additional, it's not that any of the money that was distributed so far had no accountability, however, we are discussing additional accountability measures that would be attached.

But I think it's very important to point out that the estimates of what we would need to address the level of homelessness California has to address it, to really say end it, is close to what's $80 billion a year. And so while we have, I think, and I think all of us are very proud that we have made it a priority over the last three years, it has still not been adequate to the real need.

But I think the other thing we have to recognize is projects with inflationary costs and other things, delays that occur, the projects themselves go up in price. I mean, I've been working with a nonprofit in my district that's building a housing project for homeless seniors. And it is our elderly that are becoming now the percent highest increase in unhoused people and that project, when we first started working on funding for it, the construction for it was estimated at 42 million, has quite a number of units.

It is now up to 54 million. So much of the financing that we secured is now no longer adequate. So we're having to try to find more, but meanwhile, what you might have secured a couple of years ago while you're trying to find the additional shortfall, you can lose because you haven't yet broken ground.

So this is something that all of our projects are facing up and down the state, which Is why I think beyond the budget, there's been so much effort to try to streamline both our affordable housing projects and our projects for homelessness so that they do not experience those kind of delays which increase cost, but I differ now, I apologies for going into way different directions, but I just wanted to make sure we understood that.

But if you have any following comments, then I want to call on the other people I have on the list.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that response. I just have one more question. Again, it's estimated that about 15 million individuals will fall off the Medi-Cal roles and they have to be, I don't know, like re-signed up or I don't even, what is it? Re-enrolled.Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Li Is there resources in the budget to cover that? And are we looking at new technology to do that or are we just going to hire more bodies to do that?

Oh I'm sorry. My apologies. Apologies. No, it's okay. Senator Grove, it was my mistake. Please respond.

And I just was curious about that because I was looking at where that expense would come from. I'm concerned it's going to hit the MCO tax and rate providers or providers still are not going to get the increases they needed. That's my concern.

Sure. And I'll defer to the LAO for assistance on what's in the two-party plan.

Thank you.

Great. Let me let you all know who I have on the list now. I have Senator Laird, Senator Niello, Senator Menjivar. OK. And then obviously, if there's anyone else who wants to certainly call on you but we do want to get to public comment also. Senator Laird.

Is he going to respond to my question?

I think I would, this Mark Newton LAO, and allow the administration to add this issue has certainly been on the state's radar knowing that this redetermination process will be coming up and there actually are certainly resources dedicated. There is a plan in order to minimize sort of errors in the redetermination process, make sure that people are aware of the process.

I know the Biden administration has just put out sort of notices, again, just really encouraging states to try to make sure that the redetermination process is as accurate and efficient as possible so I'd say there are built-in resources and the state is doing, I think, quite a bit in that area.

And one effort of the state that is maybe somewhat unique is ensuring that individuals that legitimately lose coverage, that they are aware of the opportunities with Covered California and the state has a good process in place to ensure that those coverage can continue under the other means. So I would say it definitely is built into the budget.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I know that during COVID when we had an enormous amount of individuals applying for unemployment benefits, our offices, I mean, all of our offices were contacted, and a lot. And so I was just concerned as people started losing healthcare benefits, they go to the hospital or go to the doctor, and they want to get treated and their Medi-Cal has expired, and they weren't aware.

I just wanted to make sure that you guys were aware of that issue and that you were trying to address it. So thank you for that.

Certainly, Senator Grove. Senator Laird.

Just wanted to make two brief comments on the discussion of MCO. I didn't want the comment to hang in the air that some of it was just going to the general fund as if it was serving other things. I was around when it was first enacted, and I believe under Governor Schwarzenegger, and it went entirely to the general fund to keep there from being cuts to the Medi-Cal system while there was a major budget deficit.

And I think the same principle is in part true here, where of the 19 billion, 8 billion-plus goes to the general fund to keep it from being cut in a time of a $31 billion deficit. And then the 11 billion will do what wasn't done last time, which is actually increase Medi-Cal rates. So even though I know that it's two party and there's a third party to come and maybe that'll fluctuate a little bit, but that's the principle.

It wasn't just going off into space. And on offshore wind, I just wanted to say that compared to pump storage, offshore wind provides exponentially much more energy. And if we're looking at meeting our goals or doing it, I mean, it provides more than Diablo Canyon in case that is ever decommissioned. And that that's a significant thing. And contracts have been let already for the wildlife mitigations to make sure that there is no damage to it. And I think it's important to bring that level of energy online, and that is the difference. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I have a few comments and a clarification with regard, first of all, to the majority party's publication of decade of responsible budgeting and maintaining our progress as the loyal opposition with our budget staff, we've drafted an alternative analysis of that which is available on the Senate website. I just wanted to point that out. But with regard to some specific points, I note that one item is a statewide collective bargaining approach for in-home support services, which is proposed by a current legislation, I think not yet passed, Assembly Bill 1672. This sets up a process to take a look at how to implement that.

And I'd just like to point out that if we bargain statewide, that means we take it away from the counties, and that sort of approach ends up with the same agreement, the same costs, same wages and benefits for Los Angeles as well as Modoc County, which kind of doesn't make sense, and that is an item proposed in this budget. Another thing I notice is the phrase reimagining CalWORKS. Now, I just like to point out as an historical fact that the welfare reform of 1995 was tremendously successful. I was on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors when the federal reform measure was implemented here locally, and it was mandated that it be reviewed five years after implementation.

And so the review was done and presented to the board in my last year on that board and the welfare roles in Sacramento County had been reduced from what was typically 30 to 40,000 down to about 25 to 30,000. And that sounds like an awful lot. It was a significant reduction. But the really interesting fact at that point was that of those 25 to 30,000, 5 years on, there were less than 1000 of those who were on welfare at the beginning of the program.

Now that is truly success. A couple thousand went on, a couple thousand went off every month, but that is truly success. And since then we have gotten further and further away from the components of 1995 welfare reform that really created its success. And I fear that reimagining CalWORKS, as is stated in the budget, gets us further away from that and therefore not benefiting those people that fall on hard times. And what we really knew need to do is get them back to self-sufficiency.

Another item is the borrowing to pay the interest on the unemployment insurance deficit that we owe to the federal government. Not only did the governor significantly reduce what he had indicated that he would use to pay back some of the unemployment insurance, and that is included in this budget, but the interest is the obligation of the state. And this budget proposes to borrow that interest from the unemployment compensation disability fund as opposed to paying it out of the general fund.

Now I know why, but I'd just like to point that out. And one more point to add to the discussion of homelessness. The governor, in a recent interview, and by the way, I compliment him greatly for going into the lion's den for him and having that interview with Sean Hannity. But in that he said he owns the problem with homelessness. Good for him. But in my opinion, one of the problems is that a lot of the homeless policy and spending is from the top down.

There is the pot of money that is flexible for counties, and I think there's 1.6 billion in this budget to provide the counties for flexible funding. And I agree completely. There has to be accountability. But in the last five or six years, we've spent, I think, $20 billion, and most of that has been on 30 plus programs that are designed from and implemented from the state level. And eventually, maybe we have to consider the possibility that the top-down approach is what indeed is not working.

Traditionally, counties are health and human service providers in the state, and with regard to flexible funding, they can perform that with accountability. But a fundamental problem is that the governor has stated that he's not interested in making commitments beyond one year, and local governments can't effectively treat a problem as complex and multifaceted as homeless, particularly given a significant shortfall statewide of mental health beds.

Those are not something you can provide with one-year funding that, that is hampering local government from providing what has traditionally been its responsibility. And there would be an added benefit of remanding most of this responsibility with accountability to counties by seeing a number of different approaches. And some counties can profit by successes in other counties, and we've just gotten away from that. And I'd like to point that out. My last point is a clarification in the LAO's overview of the Legislature's budget.

It talks about lease revenue bond financing, and this budget rejects the proposals for the governor to use general fund cash to pay for certain capital outlay project costs, including a portion of the General Services' new Richards Boulevard Project, which is here in Sacramento, and instead, lease revenue bond financing will be used for these costs. Now going on my memory of what lease revenue bonds are, those are bonds the debt service of which are paid by the lease of the lessor of the facilities. Do I have that correct?

Senator, yes. That may be where the payment is coming from. I think of it ultimately as a general fund expenditure, however.

And that's my point. Lease revenue bonds do not need to be approved by a vote of the people. General obligation bonds do. And I would point out that, as Mr. Patek pointed out, that this is really from one pocket to the other. They are not true lease revenue bonds in the sense that lease revenue bonds were initially adopted because it was typically a third party that would be the less, or, and the assumption is that those will cover the debt payments, and that's what justified not going to the people for a vote. And these instruments have been perverted ever since I was here before, and nobody seems to raise the question. And it's merely a means of financing a facility through bonds that are effectively general obligation bonds in practice, and we avoid going to the people for a vote. So thanks for that clarification, and those are my comments.

All right, let me fill people in on who we've got on the list here. We have Senator Menjivar, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I find it interesting that we define the welfare reformer of the 90s as success. I guess you could only define that as success if your definition of success is kicking poor families off of aid. As sub three chair I'm very proud of the work that we did in that sub to reimagine CalWORKS. If anyone would have been here during the panel, we heard from mothers, parents about how it wasn't working.

And we heard also that the number that we have on CalWORKS is nowhere near the individuals who are eligible for CalWORKS because it is so hard to get assistance. And these are families who are working one, two, three jobs, can't afford daycare, don't have transportation. This myth of the welfare queen has been going on even before my time, since my existence continues to go on, even though there are studies and endless studies that show the contrary.

As a state, I'm excited that California, even before the debt ceiling agreement came about, had set something and we put in action in sub-three to start a foundation to help with able bodies without children to see to combat what the federal government is doing. Right now, we're going to be seeing in about two years or so a decrease of benefits of approximately $8 per individual per day, if I'm not mistaken.

We're going to see it harder for individuals to get to benefits and create a bigger bottleneck. And for every $1 we invest in these services, we save $8. That's how much more money we're going to have to invest if we don't invest right now. Senator Laird took my chair three sub talking points about the MCO. So definitely talk to him later about that.

But this is the first time ever that the MCO tax has gone into what it was intended to do since in the inception, 100% has gone to the general fund. I'm also glad that in this year in the budget cycle, we've started to reallocate the funds that were created or special funds to do what exactly they were intended to do.

Just like the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, we're finally able know we took action to reject that reversion of it and to go to Covered California lives to actually do what it was intended to do. And for those who don't know what that is, that's the mandate that you pay when you do your taxes and you don't have health care. That fund is supposed to go back to individuals in Covered California and we were able to actually reverse that.

I'm proud in sub-three, we're actually taking the approach to use the funds as they were intended to go in the pockets of individuals or for the MCO tax to see Medi-Cal reimbursements. I'm not saying I'm 100% happy that some of it is going to the general fund. I agree. It's about whatever 43% is going to the general fund. Approximately 8.3 billion out of the 11.1 billion, I believe. But if it weren't that way for at least this year, we would have to make cuts in other areas.

And if you haven't sat in a sub-three subcommittee, I invite you to come here. Which stories you would cut, what families, what demographic of individuals with disability, our seniors, our children, our foster youth complex needs? Where would you make the cuts? It would be very difficult for you to make that decision. So if for right now, we have to put some of that into the general fund to ensure that those programs don't have cuts, then that's a pill I have to swallow for right now.

Yes, the end game is if should we get the MCO tax again, I would fight very hard, and if we're not in a deficit, for it all to go to Medi-Cal reimbursements. But in the negotiations, I am proud of the consultants, of the teams who fought very hard to get to the point that we are right now. So thank you so much for what you did.

Senator Menjivar, thank you. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to just echo and appreciate the comments of my good colleague of the San Fernando Valley. I remember coming out of high school and going into college in the 90s and I was a journalism student, and we were talking about new terms that were being added to our style handbook. And homelessness was one of those terms. And it really came from years of disinvestment in anti-poverty programs and really slashing housing subsidies, for example, to local states and cities during that very dark period. And so we're catching up. These budgets are about trying to catch up on decades of disinvestment and attacks on the poor and working people.

And in California, where the cost of living is so high, we have to really double down on how we're investing, ensuring that all of Californians have the opportunity to catch up and to be able to have that self-sufficiency which we all value so much. And I want to thank Chair Skinner for her work in educating us on the developments of this budget and the work that's gone by so many of the budget sub-chairs. I serve on budget sub one and it was quite heartbreaking in terms of the decisions that had to be made to ensure that the progress that we've made to again help our education system catch up from previous decades of disinvestment, that we were able to maintain the level of education that we value here in the State of California and to ensure those workers earn and have a living wage in this state. We started this year with a deficit, and as a freshman, this was our first budget.

We didn't have the years of surplus, but there was a real effort to preserve the progress, to protect communities, and to ensure that those hardest hit and vulnerable communities were protected. And I'm very proud of this budget and thank the staff for updating us on all of the work that we've done being resulted in this budget. One of the things that I'm most excited to see is that we were able to restore hundreds of millions of dollars into workforce development in terms of training teachers and nurses, doctors to make sure that our COVID worker outreach project continues such a valuable resource of educating workers on how to stay protected in the workplace.

Something that we need to continue to engage, particularly for those low-wage and vulnerable workers, to understand the ways in which the State of California is ensuring that they are safe in our workplaces. We've restored the funding to ensure that our faculties and particularly our most vulnerable students are able to access higher education and also to be housed to ensure that we continue to maintain these housing projects that are so important not just to the students, but also to the workers in those communities who need access to good and quality jobs at this time.

So I want to say that this budget came through a difficult process, but it is about making sure that Californians land on higher ground and that we make sure that those workers are protected. And I look forward to the coming weeks and working with the colleagues in the Assembly to ensure that we continue these investments to make sure that California continues to move forward. So thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, staff, for all that's been done and the Administration and this two-party deal moving forward.

I've got Senator Eggman, followed by Senator Padilla.

Thank you. And I would never want to step on Senator Menjivar's comments, and I want to thank her for her great job this year chairing budget sub three as a freshman and just really doing an outstanding job. And I'm also pleased that the two-house deal spends a lot more of the MCO tax sooner than later.

Just one thing I want to say, just going forward for everybody, I mean, thank you for everything to Chair Skinner and thank you to the staff, LAO, Finance, and everybody else. As we go forward and start working on the trailer language, like some of the homelessness money, the workforce development money, especially the social work money, all of that, can we really see if we can start attaching some numbers to those dollars and goals of how many folks we think we're going to either house and or get through the program? How many slots will be expanded? How many new professionals do we hope to see out the other side, really try to attach some goals to some of the funding that we're coming forward with. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, want to extend my thanks to you and to the budget staff team and certainly my appreciation of my colleagues who serve with me on sub-four and to the staff work that's been diligently done there. It's often said that the most comprehensive signal of policy document that exists is the budget. But that's the planning phase. Where the budget lives, frankly, is in the organs of administration and how that's applied.

And to that end, I'm grateful for the work that we did in the sub. I think that this is a responsible, balanced, near-term framework. I think we're going to have other issues as we look to forward cycles. But I think this is an appropriately balanced and strengthened framework for which, if we move this legislative package forward, hopefully, will be the framework from which we can get a successful three-party agreement.

There's a lot of conversation in our sub with respect to oversight and accountability around housing and homelessness. We've heard a lot of my colleagues comment on that before we take testimony today. I'm particularly happy that we were able to move up the 180,000,000 in HHAP funding that was deferred prior. I like the direction we're moving, both in the basic budget framework and what I expect to be in the trailer language around accountability requirements for regional planning.

And I would echo the comments my colleagues have made with respect to clarifying for the public's benefit how we are applying MCO in this budget cycle. So a lot of good programs got restored in this two-house deal that match up with the values. And the comments that are made are often not followed with action. And I'm appreciative to the leadership and to the Chair for getting us to this point. And obviously, I'm looking forward to see where we end up with the final final. And I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Senator Roth, followed by Senator Becker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just pile on and thank you and budget leadership and legislative leadership, actually, for the efforts to restore the proposed delays in healthcare and in particular behavioral healthcare workforce programs, nursing, social work mentioned by my colleagues, psychiatry, and others. I do look forward to the outcome of the MCO tax discussions, in particular with respect to provider rate increases in the area of inpatient psychiatric, in the area of emergency room physicians, and many others that I know are being worked.

And I particularly look forward to eventually working with legislative leadership and the governor and the administration on the contemplated behavioral health infrastructure financing proposals that have least generally been discussed in the newspaper, papers, and elsewhere because we certainly need more capacity, inpatient and otherwise, in the behavioral health area. So thank you all very much.

Thank you, Senator Roth. Senator Becker.

Thanks. Just a couple of quick follow-ups. Thank you, Madam Chair. Number one, in response to my colleague who I worked with on many issues this year, including, along with Senator McGuire, worked with Senator Dahle, of course, on over 500 more positions for CAL FIRE and millions more for wildfire prevention that are in this budget. I want to make sure that's recognized. We got off lightly last year on fire, and we're hopeful this year, but we need to keep investing and really proud of that in this budget. I did want to say on offshore wind, it has enormous potential between 10 and 20 gigawatts. We've now seen it. Many of our senators have been to other countries where we've seen onshore wind fixed and now floating. And we proceed, I think, in a very prudent way in this budget, funding positions in the Coastal Commission to advance that.

And I thank Senator McGuire for his leadership on that. Two last things. One, on cuts, there were some cuts in this budget, and I do want to note that we are developing our Senate bond, SB 867, that will backfill some of the investments that we, unfortunately, had to cut this year and actually then move us forward on resources. And also just noting today that a bicameral group of legislators today have released a letter asking the LAO provide information on how to stop tax subsidies to big oil and gas companies as we face and anticipated looking at budget shortfalls in the future. And that effort supported by over 50 climate, environmental, environmental justice groups, and look forward to discussing that as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, so I don't have any other members on the list. I want to just make a few comments to our colleagues, comments before I go to the public. But let me just alert those who want to call in, though, we will have the comment from the public in the room first.

But for those who want to call in, the participant number is 877-226-8163. The access code is 7362834. But let me just, there were some of our, I think maybe only one, but colleagues made a reference to transit and that perhaps it's not ever going to return to what pre-pandemic ridership. And we don't have a crystal ball. That very well could happen just in the same circumstance that it's looking. But again, do we know this for sure? That working in an office, the way that pre-pandemic seemed to be the norm for almost everybody may never return to be the norm. That yes, there will be some percent of people that travel to work, but otherwise, it seems like this is becoming a permanent. So there's lots of things that we can't yet predict.

However, when it comes to transit, we do know there are still a good percent of our population that is transit-dependent, whether that's a disabled person, a student, a senior, a low-income person, they are transit-dependent. And so from my point of view, even if we do not ever return to pre-pandemic levels, we need to support transit. And it is more than just an environmental issue. It is a lifeline for many, many people.

So there will be when we get all the trailer bills and such, there will be some requirements put on the metropolitan planning organizations in terms of this money to make sure that we're not just utilizing operations money for whatever. There will be some, as our favorite word, accountability measures in that, and those are still under discussion. Then the other thing I wanted to respond to, because it's thrown around a lot, and I think we see it now.

I just think it's so unfortunate that regardless of the news entity if we say if we take television news, the lead story is always some crime. And while, yes, there was an increase in violent crime in year 2022, I mean, excuse me, in 2021. Let me make sure I'm being correct. In 2021, there was not an increase in 2022. And even with the increase in 2021, if we look at the numbers since 2010, we have remained relatively low and stable compared to the highs of the past in the 90s. And I think it's very important when there's this narrative that while I know facts sometimes don't matter, there is not the type of increase that is being in crime or especially violent crime that keeps being bandied about. And additionally, when we are looking at our prisons, we have a minimum of 15,000 empty beds.

So that means all of us, every California taxpayer is paying for 15,000 prison beds right now that are empty. Now. I think intelligent budgeting would say you do not need to reserve 15,000 beds for, yes, we could have some population increases. You have to have a cushion. But 15,000 cushion, that's an expensive cushion. So I think that's the direction that our trailer bills are going, is to try to recognize that and to try to make sure that we are directing our general fund dollars and notice those are general fund dollars in a way that benefit the vast majority of Californians and address the types of concerns that almost every member raised around, whether it's health care or other things that we may be able to direct that funds for instead.

So I just wanted to make those key comments and then on the well, I'll leave it alone and we will turn to the public comment now. So those of you who are in line, as you can see, there's a good number of you, we always appreciate hearing from you, but if you can be as brief as possible, we'll appreciate it. And I would add time limits if I need to, but right now I will appreciate your brevity. Thank you. Go ahead.

Madam Chair and members. Michael Pimentel, executive director for the California Transit Association. I wanted to be here today and show our support for this two-party agreement and specifically to voice our support for the transit investments that are included within it, including the restoration of TIRCP funding to the full $4 billion total, as well as the appropriation of $1.1 billion for zero-emission transit capital. Now, as you know well, we have been actively engaged with you throughout the year on addressing operating needs of our transit agencies, and I want to show our appreciation that the Legislature is authorizing flexibility to use the funding for capital for operations purposes as well.

We see this flexibility as a critical step forward in meeting our most urgent near-term operating needs, while we still recognize it doesn't address the full balance of our five-year shortfall. And I want to thank you, Madam Chair and Subcommittee Chairs Durazo and Becker, for working with us in good faith to find an actionable path forward as the budget does move forward itself. You have our commitment as an industry to continue to work.

You could wrap up.

On accountability reforms and also just want to note for you that we're also interested in seeing if we can secure some additional resources.

Thank you. If you could wrap up.

In the months ahead. Thank you.

You are not my best model for brevity, but that's okay. Please proceed. And as I said, if I need to, I will put a time limit.

Sure. Madam Chair, members, Oracio Gonzalez, on behalf of the Salton Sea Authority. We are a joint powers authority consisting of the Coachella Valley Water District, the Imperial Irrigation District, the County of Riverside, the County of Imperial, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla tribal people that has inhabited the Salton Sea region for hundreds of years. We want to thank the committee for restoring 50 million of the originally proposed 169,000,000 that was slated to be shifted to a forthcoming revenue bond. But that certainly still leaves us $119,000,000 that are now subject to uncertainty in a bond that may or may not be passed by voters. We encourage you to please restore the funding as you engage in your three-party conversations because the conditions on the ground necessitate visibility on those funds.

And on behalf of the California Alliance for Digital Equity and NextGen California, we are concerned with the proposed reduction of $500 million from the middle-mile infrastructure account as well as $600 million from the Loan Loss Reserve Program. These dramatic divestments of the state's historic investment to bridge the digital divide is only going to delay the length of time it takes us to really ensure that everyone in California has access to the broadband. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Beth Olhasso on behalf of Water Reuse California. I want to thank the committee, especially Senator Becker and his subcommittee, for restoring water recycling funding, recognizing that we need to prepare for our next drought, and water recycling is a way to do it. We encourage the Senate to make it a priority when speaking with the administration to keep it in in the final version. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and members. Raquel Yoffie here on behalf of the California Alternative Payment Program Association. We'd like to first thank the Legislature for including childcare in your budget priorities. As we are aligned with the ECE Coalition, increasing reimbursement rates remains our top priority. During the pandemic, the Legislature temporarily allowed for a single voucher type, resulting in fair and equitable access to quality childcare for all low-income families, while also guaranteeing childcare providers a set payment for the slot provided. Our concerns are for what comes after this policy expires on June 30, 2023. Come August, when the childcare providers receive their first reimbursement based on this reversion and policy, it is anticipated that tens of thousands of children will be disenrolled from their stable childcare settings. Allowing for the continuation of a single set voucher type for all income-eligible families is fair and equitable to families, keeps children in stable childcare settings, and provides guaranteed funding to any childcare provider that accepts such a voucher. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and we thank you and your colleagues for the TIRCP funding and thank you for working with transit agencies, particularly in these difficult budget times, for not only transit agencies but obviously the state. And we also ask you to give consideration to the governor's streamlining package. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Jennifer Baker, representing the California Association for Bilingual Education. We'd like to thank you for the inclusion of $20 million to fund the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Grant Program. We also urge you to continue to consider the amendments that CABE has proposed in regard to the governor's reading difficulty screeners proposal. And we encourage you to ensure that English learners are indeed protected by whatever is put forward in the final amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Honorable Chair Skinner and esteemed members, Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wildcat Consulting, representing the California Community Land Trust Network. First, thank you for championing the People's Budget regarding Item number 167, the Foreclosure Intervention Housing Preservation Program, the FIHPP. First, we want to thank you very much, like from the deepest part of our heart, the 82.5 million in the 2023 and 2024. Full stop, thank you. But we respectfully request that you reconsider cutting the 30 million, which reduced it to 170,000,000 from the FIHPP, and ask that you bring the funding amount back to the full 500 million. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Good morning. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty. First, we want to thank the Legislature and the staff for all your hard work and inclusion of important investments that help low-income Californians. On the human services side, along with grace in child poverty, we support funding to implement the first phase of reimagined CalWORKS, which moves CalWORKS from a punitive compliance-oriented system to a trauma-informed model that centers family well-being. And we appreciate the subcommittee's chair's comments as well as leadership, we also support making permanent CalWORKS grant increases, initiating the CalFresh minimum pilot program, and food assistance to individuals who lost their benefits due to federal time limits.

On the health side, we support rejecting the general fund sweep of the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund and using the funds as intended funding to extend the Comprehensive Perinatal Service Program and approval of the MCO tax, including shorter spending timeline and removing triggers for continuous Medi-Cal coverage for young children and share of cost reform. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Cristina Salazar with Californians Together. I want to thank you for the inclusion of the 20 million for the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Grant Program and also want you to consider the language for the panel for reading difficulties that Californians Together put together to ensure there are safeguards for English learners. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Kim Lewis representing Aspiranet, serving foster youth in 35 counties, really appreciative of the Legislature's inclusion of $8 million for the one-time bridge funding for the foster family rates as we get to the CCR permanent rates, hopefully next year. And on behalf of the California Coalition for Youth, greatly appreciate the 1 billion out year dollars for homelessness funding, which includes set aside for young people and ensure that our accountability measures really address the needs of our young people as well and look forward to working with you on that language. Thank you.

Good Morning Madam Chair and senators. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. We'd like to thank the Legislature for including funding for the students who are attending juvenile court and community schools. These children are our most at promise students and they are attending schools in very challenging settings, so we thank you for that. We also wish to thank you for the funding you provided for the Diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative. This funding will go a long way to diversify our education pool by maintaining recruitment and retention efforts for the educators that we bring into the system and also encourage others who haven't previously considered becoming a school leader to do so with additional funding. Thank you very much for your support and we look forward to working with you and your amazing staff.

Thank you.

Good morning, Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties speaking on several issues of importance to counties. First, as part of our ongoing efforts to advocate for ongoing homelessness funding, we are grateful for the additional year of HHAP funding for homelessness accountability. The identified elements of regional collaboration and additional accountability mechanisms are consistent with the CSAC AT HOME Plan and we look forward to continuing conversation as this language is finalized with regards to Care Act.

We appreciate the funding for implementation and just would advocate for continued additional assistance for county Behavioral Health and County Council costs. With regard to behavioral health, counties continue to support the administration's proposal of 375,000,000 one-time general fund for Behavioral Health Payment Reform that does go into effect in July. On broadband, we are appreciative and grateful for some of the backfill for some of the broadband deferrals that were proposed and look forward to continuing to work to bridge the digital divide throughout the state as it relates to the imminent closure of DJJ this month. Successful transition and positive outcomes for all youth requires proper placements, programming requires resources for proper placements, programming, and specialized treatments. And finally, we're grateful for the Legislature's unwavering support to prevent the proposed $50 million cut for the Public Defense Pilot Program. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Chair, members, thank you so much for this budget and all your hard work. I'm Tiffany Mok with representing CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. We'd be remiss if we didn't thank you for all your hard work in ensuring an 8.22% COLA for our members. And we wanted to further thank you for rejecting the proposed one-time cuts. We hope that the final budget can include a master plan for schools to be climate resilient, which we believe will have long-term cost savings, and utilize the federal dollars that are coming down on this to help infrastructure. And we continue to want to discuss funding for the Calbright program. Thank you so much for your time.

Good morning. Becky Silva with the California Association of Food Banks. First and most importantly, thank you Madam Chair and committee members for your leadership and commitment to centering the lives of people experiencing hunger and poverty in this budget. In particular, we're incredibly grateful for continued investments in Cal Food, which is absolutely essential for our food banks and continuing to meet the need in their communities. But as we often say and is especially true now, food banks cannot end hunger alone and we need robust investments in programs like CalFresh. Thank you for prioritizing an increase to the Calresh minimum benefit to $50 per month and protecting CalFresh recipients from the cruel and failed federal ABOD time limit rules, restoring benefits, and improving EBT cards and investments towards Food For All to ensure everyone has access to food benefits regardless of their immigration status.

Thank you also for continued investments for School Meals For All, ensuring that California's landmark policy can continue to serve all children across the state, as well as funding to ensure that California can fully maximize the potential of summer EBT starting in 2024. And finally, thank you for taking bold steps to reimagining CalWORKS so that it can be the family-centered program our communities deserve. Thank you.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the Transformative In-Prison Workgroup, expressing deep gratitude to the Legislature staff, specifically Senator Skinner, Becker, and Durazo, for continuing to support community-based organizations providing rehabilitative programming within CDCR and including additional funding for the RIGHT Grant in this year's budget. Also expressing gratitude on behalf of the Debt Free Justice California Coalition for Senator Skinner's continuing championship on ending harmful criminal fines and fees. Thanks.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Maddie Munson on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association. I'm in support of the preservation of the $40 million in food processor investment program funding at CEC, as well as the GGRF plan for $35 million in the enteric emissions reduction incentive program and the farmer ag engine replacement program at CARB. And special thank you to Senator Becker and his subcommittee for championing those important programs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good Morning Adonai Mack with Children Now. First, I would like to thank you for minimizing the best that you could the cuts to K-12 education and one of our priorities this year, aligning ourselves with the ECE Coalition, is childcare. We value Legislature's unwavering support for childcare and their efforts to include a rate increase and a permanent solution for equitable family fee schedule in the proposed budget.

We ask that you stand steadfast in your negotiations with the Governor to ensure that this proposal stands true and supports our care providers because we believe that it's important that we fix and transform our childcare system and our early learning system in California ensure that these rates are increased. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Anna Ioakimedes, on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District, we would like to thank the Legislature and the Administration for their ongoing commitment to education. In particular the 8.22% COLA and the Legislature's proposal to maintain the learning recovery and arts and music discretionary block grants with minimal cuts.

However, while we await the details of the final budget agreement with the Newsom Administration, we remain concerned with moving to a one to 10 ratio while simultaneously increasing the qualification requirements for paraprofessionals in universal TK classrooms without appropriating the corresponding funding augmentations to lower the ratios and consideration for staffing shortages. Thank you.

Good Morning, Chair Skinner, Members, My name is Juliet Terry. I am with the Childcare Resource center and we are a proud member of the ECE Coalition.

I'm here today to express a deep gratitude for your sustained efforts to keep the 25% increase for childcare and offer a permanent solution for a more equitable family fee schedule. We do ask the Governor to support this proposal and ensure that we are able to finally fix childcare in California because we know that care cannot wait. Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members. Jared Call with Nourish California. I'll be brief, just here to say thanks for all that the Legislature did, but particularly sub-3 in the Senate to address the hunger cliff, specifically accelerating the implementation of the Food4All proposal, the California Food Assistance Program expansion, continuing those CalFresh pilots that are getting extra dollars to people right now, the safe drinking water pilot and the fresh fruit and vegetable pilot.

Of course, the CalFresh minimum benefit increase and removing the harmful time limit for able-bodied adults without dependence. Thanks. We're going to go call the Gov.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Janice O'Malley With AFSCME California, just wanted to thank you all and Committee staff, especially for your work to protect core programs, services in the workforce and the public sector as we attempt to weather the downturn in the budget. In Health and Human Services, there were key investments in the joint budget proposal that we wanted to uplift and extend our appreciation for, hope it ends up in the final budget.

The allocation of $1.5 million to convene a working group to determine the best approach to implementing statewide collective bargaining for the IHSS program, funding healthcare for striking workers and restoring funds to eliminate deductibles and lower premiums for Covered California. We look forward to ongoing conversations on the MCO tax and the upcoming TBL to include and consider 911 ground emergency transportation.

We also want to recognize the work that the Legislature has done on restoring the $1 billion in transit funding to ensure that the state's transit agencies do not fail during this time of massive transition in the public transportation sector. We appreciate the $33 million for the VLF vehicle license fee to address revenue shortfalls in San Mateo County. Lastly, the retention and recruitment of the workforce in state hospitals and in our state prisons is at a crisis level.

To support the governor's concept of true rehabilitative services to the justice involved, we need a committed and supported workforce in these facilities. Something has to be done. We appreciate the Legislature keeping the Gov's proposal to support telehealth services. We hope that this helps retain the workforce. We appreciate the Legislature's work to include the supplemental reporting language for DSH and CDCR so we can get accurate data on the issue of contracted staff and vacancy rates.

And finally, thank you for hearing our concerns on the lack of worker and labor representation on the advisory board for the San Quentin Rehabilitation Program so we can create a collaborative, comprehensive and modernized rehabilitation system. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members, Beverly Yu on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council of California. Thank you to the Committee, Committee staff, the Legislature and the Administration for your work on the budget.

We would like to highlight and thank the Committee leadership, both houses, for the restoration of the Women Construction Unit. This is very important. We would also like to thank the Legislative Women's Caucus and Senator Skinner for your leadership on this item. This will provide job training and employment opportunities for women, nonbinary individuals and underserved communities. We also support the $50 million for the Fresno Public Infrastructure Plan. We are ultimately looking to Fund the full amount of 250,000,000, which would create 25,000 jobs in three years.

We also want to ensure the inclusion of funding for Exposition Park. This is the 14 million for construction which would create hundreds of jobs for the local communities. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Abby Alvarez with the California Medicine Scholars Program. I want to thank the Legislator for including the California Medicine Scholars in the two-party agreement.

This small allocation of 2.8 million per year will allow CMSP to continue addressing California's physician shortage crisis and supporting students of color matriculating from community college all the way to medical school. Thank you very much.

Hello, Madam Chair and Committee. I'm Greg Crawford. I'm a UC Davis student, and I'm also one of the student operators for UniTrans, which provides public transit services for UC Davis and the City of Davis, and for my casual address. I'm here on short notice, but I wanted to thank the Legislature for providing some transit operations funds in their budget.

As a college student and as a driver for transit systems, I have come to understand how important they are for my community, and I appreciate you recognizing that. However, I did want to note that the amount of funding that it has been provided so far is not enough to avoid cuts.

And so, in the long term, as the Committee is looking to provide changes for the future, I suggest doing things like providing flexible highway funds and continuing to make every effort to fully fund transit services because the community can't afford to have the impact that cuts would provide. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Thomas Howe. I'm also a UC Davis student, though I'm a rider, not a driver. I'm also a bit concerned about transit funding, and I really hope that we increase funding over the coming years. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Gerald Dentes. On behalf of UDW/ASFCME Local 3930. We represent over 165,000 IHSS and the childcare providers in California. I would like to provide support for a few items related to childcare. The inclusion of 1 billion on the budget to provide rate increase to all childcare providers. The allocation of 56 million for a permanent family fee reform. The 20,000 childcare slots being released on July 1, 2024 related to IHSS.

The allocation on 1.5 million to convene a work group to recommend the best approach to implementing the statewide collective bargaining for IHSS program, the extension of HCBS Spending Plan, which includes the IHSS Career Pathway Program, and also in support of the 531,000 for the Council on Intellectual Disability and the law enforcement established by SB 882. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. I'm Mari Castaldi. On behalf of Housing California, I'm here to really express gratitude for the Legislature for continuing to provide leadership on the need for sustained investments in homelessness and affordable housing and for clear consideration of equity driven, collaborative accountability measures. And just want to note that really accountability and sustained funding for homelessness go hand in hand as we're thinking about how to create accountability over the long term and focused on outcomes that really end people's homelessness permanently.

We also have to be thinking about the sustained investment. So really appreciate the work there. Also appreciate the Legislature's addition of $100 million for the multifamily housing program and really encourage us as we go forward to think about the kind of comprehensive investment strategy that we'll need to address the over 1 million unit shortfall in deeply affordable housing and help almost 200,000 Californians who are sleeping on our streets and in shelters permanently and their homelessness. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Voleck Taing with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. SCLG has played a leading role in advocating for transit funding in the Bay Area, including several measures to fund BART to Silicon Valley. We appreciated that the Legislature reversed the $22 billion cut to transit funding and included a $1.1 billion in new funding that can be made for transit capital or operations usage, which can help us finish competing for federal matching funds to complete the downtown San Jose extension.

We ask the Legislature to support this expenditure and thank Senator Wiener for his role as a champion in avoiding transit agencies falling off of a fiscal cliff. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members and Committee staff. Michelle Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials and 24,000 of our members. Really appreciate all the hard work you've done this year for this budget.

And also CASPA supports the 8.22% COLA for the LCFF and categoricals outside of LCFF, including school nutrition and special education, and appreciate the Legislature's continuous efforts to maintain it. We want to thank you for reducing the proposed amount of mid year cuts to both of the block grants. We support the extension of the Expanded Learning Opportunity Program funds.

School meals are also really crucial part of student's well-being and we appreciate this and support $110 million increase in the 2022-2023 budget year and 191,000,000 increase in the 2023-2024 budget year to cover the full cost of California's Universal Meal program. We support the $80 million towards the County Office of Education and we look forward to working with the Legislature and Administration to work on best efforts for our schools and students. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Alyssa Yum, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union. First and foremost, we'd like to thank you for your commitment to the 5% compact for the CSU. We also want to express our strong support for the transparency language that directs the CSU to report back next year on how it spends its appropriated funds. We think that'll be an incredibly useful tool.

Looking ahead, we'll continue to work with the Legislature and the CSU on implementing merit salary steps to ensure an equitable wage structure for the non-faculty staff at the CSU, which will be part of a key solution to solving the staffing crisis at the CSU as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Thank you, Chairwoman Skinner and Members of the Committee. We thank you for crafting a very robust budget, especially with regard to childcare. I'm Lori Firstenfeld, on behalf of the Childcare Law Center and Proud member of the ECE Coalition. We support the two party agreement to fund the increase in childcare rates and rate and family fee reform. With affordable childcare, families can pay down debt, put their kids in nourishing activities, get some relief from toxic stress, pay for groceries and other necessities.

The rate increases in long term rate reform will allow providers to support their own families, help end systemic racism, provide immediate relief to families in a time of inflation and economic turmoil. We're in strong support of AB 101, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Michael Jarred, on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. CAFF represents over 8000 small and historically underserved family farmers. We appreciate and strongly support the Committee's decision to reverse the roughly $25 million in proposed cuts that would have impacted California's smallest and most vulnerable farmers, specifically CDFA's Food Hubs program, Urban Agriculture Program, and the Beginning Farmer and Farmworker training program. We also strongly support the flood relief contained in the California Underserved Small Producer Program.

CUSP has a strong track record of directing resources to the farmers, who are typically left out and can move funds quickly, which was essential to getting farmers back up on their feet after the winter storms. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. Here to say thank you for including in the legislative budget an initial $5 million of funding for the California Firefighter Cancer Prevention and Research Program. Cancer is the number one killer of firefighters in California.

We feel like this program will go a really long way to study the biomarkers of exposure and the biomarkers of effect in firefighters in California and really be able to produce usable changes that we can make in the fire service in training and PPE to prevent cancer on the front end. So again, we are very grateful for this initial funding for this program and appreciate your support to getting it to this point.

Would also like to express our support for the additional COLA on the apprenticeship side in education for the RSI funding to ensure that our firefighter apprenticeship program is stable and can continue to grow and expand and reach populations outside of populations we are currently reaching. And on behalf of the Writers Guild of America West would like to also express our support for the funding for health care subsidies for striking workers. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Faith Whitmore, representing the 26 Family Justice Centers throughout California. Simply and profoundly, want to thank you all for supporting the work that we do on behalf of victims of domestic violence and elder abuse and human trafficking. It means so much to us. So thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Derick Lennox, on behalf of the 58 County Superintendents of Schools. We're strongly in support of the Legislature's version of the TK through 12 education budget. We think you did an excellent job there in particular. And on behalf of the students that we serve in juvenile court and community schools, we're deeply appreciative of the Senate's leadership with respect to the $80 million to help those programs. As we know that you're all working on a three party deal relative to TBL.

We do ask in particular on behalf of the counties and schools in Mendocino County, Contra Costa County, Stanislaus County and Santa Clara County for that one technical amendment that we've been working with your staff on. It's really important to ensuring that we don't have inadvertent cuts to those schools as a result of the otherwise excellent proposal. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Reefe, on behalf of California School Boards Association.

Just going to echo the comments of my colleagues from the California County Superintendents, I want to just really thank the Committee and especially thank sub-one Committee, Senator Laird and his staff and leadership staff on the issues of fully funding the COLA, reducing the cuts to the arts and the Learning and Recovery Emergency Block grant, maintaining the investments in a lot of the big substantial wins that were in last year's budget on home school transportation.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. As well as universal school meals, of course. Regarding the juvenile court and county community school dollars, really want to thank the $80 million being put out in the budget year. That was critical. We know that accountability continues to be a conversation, and so that is something that we continue to looking forward to having with the Committee, and also not making that $8 million contingent upon future legislation. That was something that was critical for us. So thank you.

Thank you.

I thought I was last. All right. Barrett Snider, on behalf of the San Diego, Sacramento County Office of Education, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Cruz County Office of Education. Want to reiterate the comments made by my colleague Derick Lennox from the County Superintendents Association. Just call out that important to get a solution for those four remaining counties that would be negatively affected. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Cotton Growers and Ginners Association, Western Ag Processors and others, to express our appreciation for the inclusion of $100 million for the Farmer Funding Program. On behalf of California Dairies Incorporation, for the $35 million for enteric emissions, and for the emergency flood funding that's in the Bill as well.

And while we support the effort of the additional 25 million to help small disadvantaged farmers with the flood issue, we hope that the inclusion of that money does not delay the expenditures of the money in last year's budget to help those small disadvantaged farmers and small agribusinesses that have been impacted by the drought. That $75 million has yet to be spent, and we would hope that the inclusion of this 25 does not delay that spending. Thank you.

Thank you. So that was all the comments from the folks who are personally in the room. We have about 56 on the phone line. So what I'm going to ask is that on the phone line that you identify yourself, and if your issue is already covered, you say, just me too. You just go yes, support or no, and I will cut off at a certain point the entire phone line.

So in order to get through all of you, I need those of you who called in to basically do what I've asked, which is identify yourself and indicate, yes support MCO tax or yes support transit funding and without a lot of detail if we've already gotten the details. So that's what I'm going to request. And moderator, why don't you start with those who've called in on phone lines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, for support opposition of AB 101, please press one, then zero at this time. We will go to line 14. One moment, please. Line 14, you're open?

Yes. Chris Chavez with Coalition for Clean Air, as well as the Charge Ahead California, Invest in Clean Air Campaigns. We support legislatures proposed additional funding for clean cars for all and equity programs, as well as additional support for AB 617 communities in transit.

Going forward, we need to see more support for medium and heavy duty trucks, which are a major source of health harming smog and carcinogenic diesel particulate matter. We also support the reauthorization of AB 118 clean transportation programs with language directing more funds to disadvantaged communities. While we have concerns about carve outs for special interests and prefer technology neutral approaches, we're open to a proposal that includes guardrails and support for medium and heavy duty sectors.

And lastly, we need to align our limited resources, climate and air quality commitments by not subsidizing fossil fuels through tax breaks and continued support for highway expansion projects. Thank you.

Line 25.

Let me just intervene. I allowed that individual to go on because the points he was making had not been brought up by anybody who had been here in person, but anyone who goes into detail on things that were already brought up by those in person, I will cut you off. But go ahead.

Good morning, Connie Choi with Public Advocates. We are here to sustain funding for the National Board certified in Future and Center program and Golden State Pathways.

Please also strengthen the equity multiplier by requiring focus school funds to be used on new or modified actions to ensure effectiveness in funding school sites based on the number of students in focus school subgroups not receiving state aid. Also, please delay funding to COEs for their court and community schools or consider specific accountability mechanisms and trailer Bill. COEs have not historically been transparent with CDE or their local communities for funding they already received.

Lastly, given our deficit, please consider rescinding or just delaying the cap of school district reserves this year. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 11.

Hi, I'm Stephen King with Environment California. I'm aligning my comments largely with the Coalition for Clean Air, but essentially we need a budget that supports zero emission vehicles, prioritizes investment in clean mobility and transit, cuts programs that subsidize the fossil fuel industry, and creates stable funding for clean transportation in the future. Thank you.

Line 35.

Good morning. This is Diana Douglas with Health Access California. We support the Legislature's proposal to safeguard the hundreds of millions generated from our state's individual mandate penalty and to quickly extend the affordability assistance in 2024. We support the rejection of the administration's proposal to continue sweeping these funds. Health access also supports the proposal for a larger and more immediate MCO tax spent over a three to four year period.

And finally, we again thank Legislature for the continued commitment to fully implement medical expansions in 2024.Thank you.

Line 38.

Good morning. Tiffany McCain, on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or CALCASA. We would like to thank the Legislature and the Administration for restoring the budget agreement made last year that will allocate 20 million to help CASA improve the lives of foster youth. Thank you.

Line 42. Okay, Line 42, you're open.

Hi. Thank you. This is Olivia Seideman with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability on Water. We support funding going to DWR for ongoing SGMA implementation. However, we continue to strongly oppose investments to develop a groundwater trading implementation plan. We were surprised to see an appropriation to DWR and State Water Board regarding proposed judgments in SGMA. We look forward to engaging the State and Legislature in this appropriation on climate and energy.

We were extremely disappointed to see that the budget Bill reflected the governor's May revise in completely defunding TCC and Community Resilience Center programs at SGC in fiscal year 23-24 and reverting TCC funding from fiscal year 22-23. These are crucial climate equity programs and defunding both of these programs will severely impact disadvantaged communities, undermine California's climate commitments, and hamper California's emergency response capabilities during acute climate events.

We were also disappointed to see $35 million for livestock-related methane reduction programs and urged that there be language to ensure that that money does not go to the Dairy Digester Research and Development Program, which funds polluting dairy digesters that significantly impact air and water quality in surrounding communities. We were grateful that the budget Bill reversed the proposed $97 million and cuts to the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program. Thank you so much for that.

We were also very grateful to see the $20 million each for flood recovery in the disadvantaged communities of Planada and Pajaro. And as for the allocation, the $50 million allocation to Fresno, we are concerned that the proposed appropriation to the City of Fresno includes no guarantee that the funding will support development of affordable housing units despite increasingly unaffordable rents in the city, and that there is no guarantee that residents of Fresno will have a voice in how that money is spent. Thank you.

Line 50.

Good morning. Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership. The Children's Partnership is extremely grateful and supportive of many of the investments contained in the Legislature's budget, in particular of removing trigger language associated with continuous medical coverage for children zero to five and funding for the expansion of the Comprehensive Perinatal Services program.

Additionally, we would suggest including a thriving wage for community health workers as part of the MCO tax, expanding the California Food Assistance Program to include children, youth and all ages, expanding unemployment benefits to include all people and reconsidering delays in broadband funding as digital equity is a key social determinant of health for kids. Thank you for your consideration.

Line 53.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Steve Cruz, on behalf of the City of San Jose and Mayor Mahan. Yes, and a thank you to the Legislature in support of transportation and homeless funding and registering support for Governor.

Line 34.

Good morning. This is Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of several county clients, and I will be brief. For Riverside County, we're exceptionally grateful for the 150,000,000 for the Rapid Response Program to assist with services for asylum seekers in border communities. On behalf of the Urban Counties, we appreciate the restoration of health and human services workforce investments. And we also appreciate on behalf of the urban and rural counties, the $36 million included for insufficient ERAF amount.

And we joined ESAC in raising concerns about Care Act funding, in particular costs associated with legal representation for counties, and thank again the Legislature for restoring the last year of Public Defense Pilot program. Thank you so much and appreciate your progress on the budget.

Line 27.

Good morning. Alex Walker, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, where we set our second highest ridership date since the pandemic. Thank you A's fans. Just want to acquire support of transit funding in this Bill and looking forward to working with you on future details and accountability. Thank you.

Line- One moment please. Line 59, please go ahead.

Thank you. Vanessa Cajina, with KP Public Affairs on behalf of CalPACE. We appreciate the Budget Committee's oversight of programs of all inclusive care for the elderly and your inclusion of additional support to DHCS to expand these critical inclusive health care programs. And on behalf of Vision y Compromiso, we want to express our deep gratitude for the Legislature's inclusion of funding to work with community based organizations to employ Promotora so they can become truly integrated into the state's efforts to improve health equity in underserved communities. Thank you so much.

Line 61.

Hi, Natasha Castro with the California Working Family Coalition. I'm calling in regarding the proposal to borrow money from the Disability Insurance Fund to pay the interest on the Unemployment Insurance Loan balance. We're happy to see that necessary guardrails to monitor the adequacy and health of the DI fund have been included in the budget Bill. It's important that these guardrails are also included in the final budget. Disability insurance, unlike Unemployment insurance, is 100% funded by California workers.

We need to ensure that we can continue to pay workers benefits in order to improve access to the benefits and address areas-

If you could wrap up.

And then we also support funding for the working group on SafetyNet4All in the California State budget.Thank you.

Line 64.

Thank you, Chair Skinner, Members. This is Andrew Shane from GRACE End Child Poverty California. Thank you for your leadership, Senator Menjivar, Durazo and others. Childcare, CalFresh $50 minimum and the care benefit, medical postpartum and the protection against the trigger cuts, SILP, SafetyNet4All, bolstering school meals for all and ensuring maximum summer EBT. The budget should fully fund food for all and eliminate government owned child support debt.

Last and very much not least, on reimagined CalWorks, thank you Senator Menjivar for correcting the record and I want to highlight that this package includes a new period product benefit in addition to moving.

If you could wrap up. At this point I really want callers to just say their name and their support unless the point has not been made. If you are repeating a point that was made earlier, I will cut you off. So appreciate it. We have a lot more callers and just appreciate this from this point on. Okay callers, thank you. Appreciate it.

Line 62.

Julia Tuer with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. Voicing strong support for the previously discussed transportation funding. Thank you.

Thank you. Great Model.

67

Good morning. Kyle Highland, on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education, it's more than 120 Members. We thank the Legislature for rejecting trailer Bill language to obstruct the relationship between school districts and their Special Education Local Plan Area labeled the SELPA Administration fee cap. This proposal will not result in any better services for our students with disabilities and will cause confusion and conflict for SELPAs and LEAs.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Legislature to continue to reject this proposal and stand firm in negotiations with the Newsom Administration. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 69.

Hi, Erica Romero, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps. We want to express our appreciation to the Legislature for restoring 11 million of the local and tribal core nature-based solutions funds for fiscal year 23-24, and especially want to thank Senate leadership and staff for recognizing that this funding will provide life changing opportunities to underserved young adults and disadvantaged communities across the state. Thank you much.

Line 70.

Good morning Carlos Amador, with the Safety Net for All Coalition. Thank you Senate leaders for including the Working Group on Safety Net for All California in the state budget. I ask that the Senate continues to prioritize this proposal and make sure that it's in the final budget. Thank you.

Line 57.

Good morning Chair and Members. Elise Fandrich from TrattenPrice Consulting. First, on behalf of Coalition for Community Solar Access, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the Green New Deal Coalition and the California Environmental Justice Alliance, we want to thank the Senate for including the 400 million for the Equitable Community Solar and Storage Program in the Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan.

This funding is critically needed to provide equitable, reliable and affordable renewable energy for vulnerable communities and we're asking that this House continue to advocate for inclusion of this in the final budget with regards to Transformative Communities Program and Community Resilience centers. We're aligning our comments with Leadership Council and ask that that be included in the budget as well.

At Line 60.

Good morning. This is Kelsey Chapple with Bet Tzedek Legal Services, in support of the funding provided for the Safety Net for All working group. Thank you.

Line 37.

My name is Aaron Dover and I am the Project Director for Educational Leadership Program for the Los Angeles County Office of Education. I'm calling in support of the 10 million allocated for the Diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Line 63.

Good morning. Danielle Bautista from the United Ways of California. We align our support with priorities that were previously shared by other Members in the End Child Poverty Coalition. Thank you.

Line 55.

Good morning. Laura Lane on behalf of the California Association of Port Authorities. We appreciate your maintaining many of the investments in our ports, specifically the Port and Freight Infrastructure Program and other critical funding. However, we do respectfully request the restoration of the 400 million for Zero Emission Vehicles, or ZEV, funding for the California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission. The ports have made aggressive commitments to reach zero emissions and we recognize that there are budget constraints in this year's budget.

However, this is an investment in our future and we urge you to consider reinstating the funding for ZEV in the budget. Thank you.

Line 66

Good morning. Jenna Cummings with Bet Tzedek Legal Services, also in support of the funding for the Safety Net for All working groups. Thank you.

Line 73.

Good morning. Kim Delfino on behalf of NRDC. Want to echo the support for the community food hubs and Organic Transition programs. However, we request that you reconsider the reversion of the 60 million for farm to school funds, which is essential to the success of those programs, as well as for advancing equity and climate resilience in our food systems.

On the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, CNPs, California Audubon, Sonoma Land Trust, Mojave Desert Land Trust and NRDC, we thank the Legislature for working hard to preserve core funding for climate, environment and equity programs, particularly the addition of funds for fine scale vegetation mapping, coastal protections, WCB and Salton Sea. Finally, we urge you to reject the administration's infrastructure trailer bills, especially the ones related to CEQA, administrative record, judicial streamlining, and fully protected species. Thank you.

Line 65.

Good morning. Mario Valadez with TransForm. We are grateful to our legislative leadership and the Newsom Administration for providing transit with significant funding, support and flexibility. Although the amount committed in the state budget will be very helpful over the next three years, it is not yet sufficient to meet the magnitude of the financial challenge confronting transit agencies.

We call on the Legislature to pass the budget proposal and we will continue to work with the state to identify additional funding, including flexing state highway funds, so that transit in California can survive and thrive. Thank you.

Line 75.

Hi, my name is Megan Whelan. I'm calling from Oakland with the California Domestic Workers Coalition. Calling to thank Chair Skinners' subcommitee, Durazo, and all of the Senate budget leaders for including funding for domestic worker health and safety education outreach in the California State budget. We hope the Senate will continue prioritizing this proposal in the final budget. Thank you.

Line 30.

Hi, my name is Ron Zucker. I live in Petaluma. From the state's access to federal highway funds, I would like to see at least some of those funds go to help our mass transit situation to make up what would otherwise still be shortfalls. Thinking mostly about the climate crisis. Thank you very much.

Line 80.

Good morning. Joe Philipson with Bet Tzedek Legal Services in support of the Safety Net for All working group.

Okay, Line 16, one moment please. Line 16, you're open now.

Good morning. This is Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California. Thank you for the partial restoration of funding for programs that support 30 X 30 and HR based solutions. And we'll echo prior comments urging rejection of the governor's infrastructure trailer Bill package. Thank you.

Line 82.

Hi there, my name is LeeAnn Chang. I'm from San Francisco and I'm just calling with my strong yes on funding for transit using highway funds.

Okay, Line 23.

Hello?

We can hear you. Please proceed. We can hear you, go ahead.

I'm Sara Greenwald with 350 San Francisco congratulating your support for transit funding. Transit is a great climate.

Thank you. It's me too right now. Okay.

Hope you let the Federal Highway fund for Transit operation.

Great. Thank you.

Line 90.

Hi, my name is Aidan Jones. I'm a resident of Southeast San Francisco, just putting in my support to fully fund public transit. Thank you.

Line 93.

Hi, my name is Daniela from the California Immigrant Policy Center, calling in support of funding for the working group on Safety Net for All and the California Domestic Workers Coalition budget item. I urge the Senate to continue prioritizing these proposals and work to ensure that they get in the final budget. Thank you.

Line 96.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation calling in support of the broad agreement, two pieces in particular. One, we strongly support the funding of health care for striking workers and also enhancing labor law enforcement by Supplementary Hiring funding for the Labor Commissioner's Office and the grant program to fund local labor law enforcement. And a particular thank you to Senator Durazo and her staff for their commitment to labor law enforcement. Thank you.

Line 97.

Hello, Lucia Juegos with SODE from the Inland Empire, Coachella Valley, calling in support of the funding for the Safety Net for All working group and for the CalFresh expansion to all California, regardless of immigration status. Thank you.

Line 98.

Buenos dias. Mi nombre es [uninteligible]...del Centro de los Trabajadores de las Bodegas.

Line 99, one moment, please. 99, you're open now.

Hi, good morning. My name is Andrea Gonzalez. I am calling from the LA area. I live in Compton. I'm calling on behalf of the Safety Net for All Coalition. I'm here part of the Clean Car Wash Workers center and we're calling in support of the working group on the Safety Net for All California State budget. Thank you so much.

Line 95.

Can you hear me?

Oh, yeah, hell of a lot. Please proceed. We can hear you. Go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Jeff Tartagia. For Transportation, I represent Sac, true for California for SSI Coalition. Thank you for the funding and thank you, Senator Skinner, for the repeated work that you continue to do. And thank you for the champions of the many programs for pilots and other things to go forward. Again, thank you.

Thank you.

Line 85.

Bob Hawley from San Jose. Please reject the proposed solar tax to fund the Energy Commission. Subcommitee two has already rejected the solar tax. You should do the same. Solar users are held power in California with clean energy and reduced-

Thank you.

Line 106.

Hello? My name is Adina Levin with Seemless Bay Area in alignment with the comments, giving thanks for the funding to keep public transportation running and also in support of future work to flex highway funding to prevent service cuts and enable our environment and equity goals. Thank you.

Line 107.

Hello, this is Jennifer Greppi with Parent Voices California. We align our comments with the ECE Coalition, the Child Care Law Center and Child Poverty California. Thank you.

Thank you, line 109.

My name is Janet Resendiz with Warehouse Workers Resource Center and part of the Safety Net for All. I support SC 227. Thank you.

Line 112.

Hello, my name is Yesenia Barrera. I'm in the Inland Empire region with the Warehouse Workers Resource center, and as part of the Safety Net for All Coalition, I am in support of SB 227. Thank you for your time.

Line 111.

Good morning. Kevin Torres with the Warehouse Worker Resource Center, taking part with the Safety Net for All Coalition, in support of SB 227. Thank you.

Line 110.

...with the Warehouse Workers Resource Center, calling also in support of the working group Safety Net for All, SB 227.

Line 102, 102 your line is open.

Yes, my name is Tom Edison Diego. I urge you to reject the proposed solar tax opposed SB 101. Thank you

Line 116

Morning, chair and members. This is Dan Gleeson Camp from the California Institute for Biodiversity calling in support of your decision to invest in equity and climate resilience and especially funding for intertidal biodiversity, urban greening and extreme heat. The Wildlife Conservation Board, CAL FIRE monitoring, vegetation mapping and much needed positions and perks. We appreciate your work and we hope you can protect these investments as you complete the three party negotiations. Thank you again.

Line 118

Hi, this is Anne Harvey from Oakland calling in strong support of saving public transit, including using federal highway funds. Thank you

Line 122

Good morning. Ebony Wheaton, on behalf of the Diversity and Leadership Institute calling to register need to support for the $10 million investment in the Diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative and also expressing deep gratitude for Senator Stephen Bradford and Assembly Member Mia Bonjour who championed this initiative.

Thank you Line 127

hi, my name is Sasha Falkin [inaudible] for All Coalition in support. Thank you

Line 128.

My name is Michael Dawson from Merced. Thank you for restoring funding for the coast, ocean and especially enter tidal biodiversity.

Thank you Line 51

Good morning, Senate. Leadership on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and especially Thousand Oaks transit. We appreciate the restoration of transit funding and the flexibility for use. We also appreciate funding for homeless and wildfire mitigation. Thank you for all your good work.

Line 56

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Specialty Equipment Market Association also known as SEMA, in opposition to the reversion of the remaining CBRP funding in relation to ZeV, I'll line my comments with previous callers. Thank you.

Line 84

Christina Marcellus, on behalf of the Contra Costa and Stanislaus County Offices of Education, supportive of the 80 million for juvenile court and community schools, and also a fix for the four county offices previously mentioned by the California County Superintendent. Thank you

Line 68

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Emily Loper with Bay Area Council. Very strong support for this transit package. We look forward to working with you on the accountability measures. Thanks very much.

Line 78

California Bicycle Coalition

One moment please. Go ahead. 78

Hi there. Jared Sanchez with the California Bicycle Coalition. Just want to thank the Legislature for standing up for the Active Transportation program and trying to fully restore that program in the future. Moving forward, just hoping to divert our highway expansion money that are killing climate and communities for complete streets and infrastructure. Thank You

Line 48

Good afternoon. Stephen Jones from AC Transit in Oakland, echoing the comments of the California Transit Association and others about transportation funding flexibility and accountability. Really appreciate the hard work and thank you, chair Skinner, for your comments about how important it is to continue to support transit riders. Thanks again.

Line Nine

Michael Gold from San Francisco, concerned transit rider in support of the transit funding as well as flexing highway funding to continue transit operations. Thank you.

Line 74.

Hello, Matthew Hurley with Community Action Partnership of Orange County and the OC Food bank in support of Cal Food and Cal Fresh, as voiced by Nourish California and the California Association of Food Banks. Thank You

Line 81.

Morning. This is Megan Shumway. I live in Sacramento's ardent Arcade. I want to register my me too. And please reject the proposed solar tax to fund the Energy Commission. Thank you.

Line 58

Thank you very much, chair and members Chris Grogan with a pray, and McKaylee on behalf of the California Workforce Association, which represents the state's 45 local workforce development Boards, in support of the $5 million for the Breaking Barriers to Employment initiative. Thank you very much.

Line 131

Good morning. Jamie Morgan with the American Heart Association expressing our support for the funding for childcare, cow fresh pilot project and school meals for all. Thank you.

Moderator I'm going to allow four more caller comments, and I'm just giving that alert so that Senators who are in their offices can come down. I'm going to allow four more call comments and then we are going to see any other comments from our own Members and vote. So go ahead moderator and there will be four remaining. And just for those of you who called in and are on the line, my apologies. I would point out that the Assembly does not even have call in comment only requires in person. We do our best in the Senate to try to hear from everyone, but due to time limitations, I will be cutting it off after just four more. Okay, go ahead. Moderator thank you.

Okay. All right. Line 132

hello, I'm Dean Penchef. I'm program manager for the Diversity Initiative for the Southern California Ocean at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. I want to thank the Senate for restoring funding for coastal and Ocean conservation, in particular the Intertidal Biodiversity Initiative. Thank you for your diligence and for your patience.

Line 87

hello, my name is David Link. My wife and I live in Elk Grove. We are retired public school teachers and agree that SB 101 solar tax should be rejected. Thank you.

Line 137

Good morning. This is Sarah Loliis, Executive Director for Teach Plus California. We associate our comments with those of Public Advocates in the LCFF Equity Coalition opposing the cuts to the National Board Certified Teacher Incentive Program and the Golden State Pathways Program. Thank You.

Line 45.

Fanelly Millan with the Pomona Economic Opportunity center, also part of the Safety Net for All Coalition in support of funding for the Working Group on Safety Net for all. Thank you.

Okay, Madam Chair, back over to you at this time.

Thank you so much. Now, again, those Senators who are part of the Committee, I need you to return. And as we get you all to return, I'm going to just very quickly make a few comments. This is obviously not the final budget, but it does reflect the agreements between the Assembly and the Senate, the Legislature, and I just wanted to communicate that I personally am very proud of the increase to our K through 12 schools that utilizing the LAO's property tax revenues allowed us to do that because we know that many of our school children are still suffering from learning loss from the pandemic and other impacts and so being able to increase our funding at our public schools, even though right now we should be very proud. It is at the highest level per pupil that it's ever been. But I think the needs are great. So it's very important and also very much appreciate the Legislature's commitment to continue the homeless housing funding, because we know that the crisis of unhoused people, many of whom live on our streets, is a priority that is communicated to each and every one of us from our constituents up and down the state. So we know that that is very, very important. And then finally. Well, not finally, but two other comments. One is that we also know that the inflationary pressures have put restraint on a lot of California families, and that as a result, many of them have prioritized rent or other payments over food. And so food insecurity has increased. So I'm very, very proud that this budget has significant increases for our food programs, whether it's calfresh, our food banks, or our universal school meals program, which, as all of us know and I think are very proud of, provides every one of our K through 12 school children at public schools, two meals a day. And then, of course, our childcare and the investment that we know is going to be needed in order to bring it back to what it was, pre pandemic. So with that, let me see if there's any other comments, and then I'll entertain a motion or just a motion. All right, Senator Min has moved again. All right, then we shall do a roll call.

AB 101. Motion is due pass. Senators Skinner, Skinner aye. Niello, Niello no. Becker, Becker aye. Caballero, Caballero aye. Dahle, Dahle no. Durazo, Durazo aye. Eggamn, Eggman aye. Grove. Laird, Laird aye. McGuire, McGuire aye. Menjivar, Menjivar aye. Min, Min aye. Newman, Newman aye. Ochoa-Bogh, Ochoa-Bogh no. Padilla. Roth, Roth aye. Seyarto, Seyarto no. Smallwood-Quevas, Smallwood-Quevas aye.

All right, we have just a few Members who I'm going to leave it open for the moment so that they can add on, but I would appreciate it for those Members who do want to add on. And I think who we are missing is Senator Grove and Senator Padilla. If they could return to the Committee, that would be great. And the current vote we have is 12 aye and four no. Correct? Yeah. So let's see. Mr. PadillA is in here. Let me just open the roll for Senator Grove to add on. I am opening the roll again. You can call the absent Members.

Senator Grove. Senator Padilla.

Let's just check with Senator Padilla's office, see if he's coming back. I will leave the roll open for another few minutes. Not yet. All right. We will now open the roll for our remaining Member.

Senator Padilla, Senator Padilla aye.

All right, so we now have. All of our Members have voted, and the final vote is 13 aye, four no. And with that, the motion passes. AB 101 has passed. And I appreciate Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst Office, our budget staff, and our other. All the other staff who have contributed today. And with that, I am going to conclude the hearing of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. Thank you. Adjourned.