Senate Standing Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review

Hey, That's the actually Mcguire yes, well, maybe not. All right, we are 60 seconds is up. The Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review will come to order. And as we have been doing, the Senate will allow public in person testimony and via teleconference testimony. So in person is those of you who are in this room, room 1200.

And for individuals who wish to provide public comment on the phone, our participant number is 877-226-8163, the access code is 736-2834 and I will maintain decorum as is customary. Any individuals disruptive may be removed from the remote meeting service or have their connections muted. Let's see if we have a quorum. But before I call for that quorum, just for those who are here to give testimony and those who might call in, we will have our public comment after the budget bills are presented.

So let's see if we have quorum. Looks like we do. So let's call the roll.

Senators Skinner? I'm here. Niello Becker? Here. Caballero? Dahle Durazo Eggman Grove Laird Mcguire. Minjivar Min Newman. Here. Ochoa Bogh? Padilla, Roth? Here. Seyarto? Here. Smallwood Cuevas? Here. We have a quorum.

Great. We do have a quorum. So let me open with this is our final hearing at least prior to final adoption of our 2324 budget. And the package of bills we hear today represent changes to the budget Bill SB 101 that we have passed already. So when you see things referring to Budget Bill Junior, those are amendments or changes to SB 101.

And then of course, we have the accompanying trailer bills and the first two bills that we will hear are those that amend the budget Bill and then the current year budget Bill. And then of course, the following ones are part of the trailer bills that are part of the 2023 budget package. So after hearing all of the bills, as I mentioned already, we will have our public comment. Just to give an overview, this 23 24 budget has 310.3 billion in total spending.

225.9 billion of that is General funds, the other is Special funds. And of that total spending there are 31.7 billions in solutions or in other words, actions that address the revenue shortfall that we are facing in order to close the budget gap. And we'll go into those some in a bit. The other thing this budget does is maintains 37 8 billion in total reserves. That's the highest reserves that the state has yet in effect saved or set aside.

And those reserves are our budget stabilization account, our special Fund for economic uncertainties. That's the rainy day Fund, the public school system stabilization account and the safety net Reserve. Now in some of the major highlights, great news for our K through 12 schools, especially given the learning loss and other stresses from the pandemic. There is a $2.1 billion increase for K through 12 schools and community colleges than what was presented in the May Revise.

So that we can feel confident that our schools have the funding they need to address these challenges. And it, of course, puts California up into the top tier of per pupil funding from across the US. When just as little as 10 or so years ago, we were in the bottom tier in the whole US. In terms of per pupil funding.

The other great news about this budget is it adds 1.4 billion in General Fund over two years for our childcare programs, supplementing the reimbursement rates to our childcare providers, and 1.2 billion in Proposition Eight monies some additional for our state preschool programs for the same purpose. And additionally for those families that are subsidized for childcare, it waives the childcare and state preschool fees through September 30, 2023 and implements permanent reform to those family fees beginning October 21, 2023 and higher ed.

We've avoided any cuts to higher ed. We've maintained the money for the student housing projects and expanded financial aid programs for our foster youth to help them get depth. Three college in public transit, which we know we have transit operators up and down the state that, again, due to revenue loss from a drop in ridership from the Pandemic, we were able to put back in the budget some of the funding that we provided last year. That was explicitly for capital.

And we are now in this budget bills allowing some flexibility so that those who are in most dire straits can have the ability to use some of that for operations, but with some accountability measures. The other thing that the budget bills do is reauthorizes our MCO tax and increases it. That's the managed care organization.

It's not a tax on Californians and it implements those funds that will be raised from the managed care tax to provide an increase in reimbursement rates to our medical providers and additionally some other investments beginning in 2025 through 2029. And for those Californians who get their health care through Covered California, the good news is that we are going to maintain the ability to continue to have very affordable insurance programs through Covered California with very low copays and deductibles.

We're also expanding nursing programs at our community colleges so that we can deal with our nursing shortage. We've also insured the 10% grant increase for our Cal Works families. Those are some of the poorest families in California, and that is permanent starting in 2425 and a whole variety of other actions which obviously we'll get into as we go through each of these bills.

And I'd say some two final comments that are personally very important, I think to most of us on the dais, but to me personally, that on our homelessness funding. And we know that Californians up and down the state have really looked to us. They see our unhoused the number of people who are unhoused in California as a real crisis and they look to the Legislature as well as to their local leaders to address that.

And we have set the clear expectation and intent to continue the funding that we have been providing to our local regions to combat the homelessness crisis. And with that, I want to thank, of course, the staff and I will do that again at the end of the hearing.

But our budget staff, the Pro Tem staff, Department of Finance and all the other folks, and there's been people in all aspects of both houses that have been working on these bills to finally get to these agreements that are going to be voted on today in this hearing and also heard, obviously, in this hearing. So let me see, Vice Chair Niello, if you have any comments before we begin.

I'm just looking forward to an efficient budget process and hopefully we'll be done before midnight.

Okay, great. Good. And let's begin with Teresa apologies, I'm forgetting your last.

Calvert.

Okay, I got it. Right. Teresa Calvert from the Department of Finance, who will be beginning with the presentation. Go ahead.

Great. Good afternoon, chair Skinner. Vice Chair in yellow and Committee Members. I'm Teresa Calvert with the Department of Finance, and I'll be providing as an efficient overview as I can of the 2023 budget package, which consists of two budget Bill juniors and 20 accompanying Trailer bills. These bills reflect the budget agreement reached between the Legislature and the Governor.

And as the Chair noted, the budget before you closes a shortfall of more than 30 billion, but does so while also maintaining the shared goals and priorities of both the Governor and the Legislature. The first Bill is I'll begin with the two budget Bill juniors, which amend previous budget bills. The first is ABSB 102. This budget Bill amends the 2023 budget Bill and includes climate investments in water and drought resilience in zero emission vehicles in flood and drought areas.

It also includes funding for the transit and inner city rail capital program, as well as another 1.1 billion for the zero emission transit capital program as well. The budget Bill junior also includes investments in K through 12 education that supports schools, students and families, including 381.2 million Proposition 98 General Fund and 136.6 million nonproposition 98 General Fund to be available to reduce family fees. It maintains $4 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund for the Expanded Learning Opportunities program in higher education.

The Bill increases ongoing General Fund support for student housing projects at the UCS and CSUS, and it shifts the approach for affordable student housing grants to local revenue bonds at the community colleges for health and Human Services.

This Bill implements and authorizes funding for significant proposals, including, but not limited to healthcare workforce investments the Distressed Hospital Loan Program, the Small and Rural Hospital Relief Program, the Community Assistance Recovery and Empowerment Act or Care Act, the Cal Aim Providing Access and Transforming Health Path Program, Cal Aim Behavioral Health Payment Reform, the Naloxone Distribution Project, public health workforce investments, as well as Covered California for Our Human Services, this includes language and funds for an IHSS collective bargaining study, includes funds for summer electronic benefits, transfer CalFresh, the California Food Assistance Program for foster youth, programs for childcare, as was noted, and as well as the Health and Human Services Innovation Accelerator Initiative.

Additionally, this Bill appropriates 2 million General Fund for the Government Operations Agency to support various leadership initiatives. It requires state agencies to aim to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2035. It also provides funding for two capital projects that will support the transformation of San Quentin from a maximum security prison into a facility focused on improving public safety through rehabilitation and education. It includes savings associated with prison closures and facility deactivations.

It also includes various reentry proposals and includes funding to support court Administration of the Care Act, which was mentioned previously. This budget Bill, Junior, also includes funding to support implementation of the Racial Justice Act and includes funds for the Local Government Sustainability Fund and the City of Fresno to support its public Infrastructure Plan to invest in the downtown area. And finally, it notably extends the California Competes grant program for one year. Moving on the second budget Bill, Junior amends the 2021 and 2022 budget acts.

This Bill authorizes 343.1 million Proposition 98 General Fund as well as nonproposition 98 General Fund to be available over the 2023 and 24 and 24 25 fiscal years. It extends the timeline for the Superintendent of Public Instruction to enter into a contract to develop an Individualized Education Program facilitation network. It authorizes the Judicial Council to use existing funds to support a firearm relinquishment program for the removal of firearms from individuals who become prohibited from owning or possessing firearms pursuant to criminal court proceedings.

It also provides authority for CDCR to increase rates for current reentry providers by 50% for 2324 and makes other changes to facilitate the continued operation of reentry beds. Moving on to the trailer bills. The first trailer Bill is SBA 114, the K through 12 Trailer Bill. This Bill provides several significant ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund investments, including a $3.4 billion discretionary increase to the Local Control Funding Formula funding to support an equity multiplier add on for the Local Control Funding Formula to accelerate gains.

In closing opportunity and outcome gaps. And an $80 million increase to county offices of education to support county offices serving students in juvenile court or county community alternative schools. It also provides several significant one time Proposition 98 General Fund investments. It makes new statutory changes and modifies the Administration of several existing programs, including the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program as well as the statewide System of Support program.

Finally, the Bill reflects the additional $80 million Proposition 98 General Fund provided for county juvenile courts and county community schools. Next up is SB 115, the Education Trailer Bill. This Bill makes clarifying implementation amendments to the arts and music and school statute to, among other things, allow for the entitlement payments to be issued through California Department of Education's Principal apportionment program and calculate funds for and issue funds to preschool programs and for other clarifying and technical corrections. SB 116, the childcare trailer.

Bill this Bill authorizes 445.7 million Proposition 98 General Fund and 186.5 million General Fund to be available to Fund any adjustments related to reimbursement for preschool providers subject to a ratified agreement and future legislation. With the funds appropriated through this Bill and the budget Bill Juniors the budget provides a total of approximately 2.8 billion Proposition 98 and Nonproposition. 98 General Fund for preschool and childcare providers over two years.

The Bill also suspends the statutorily required COLA in fiscal years 202324 and 24 25, and declares legislative intent to make any adjustments in those years related to reimbursement for preschool and childcare providers subject to a ratified agreement and Future Trailer Bill language. It also extends current reimbursement flexibilities related to childcare and preschool reimbursements.

It also authorizes the forgiveness of childcare and preschool family fee debt that accrued but remained uncollected prior to October 1, 2023, and revises the family fee schedule for childcare and preschool programs beginning October 1, 2023. The Bill also makes or requires the Department of Social Services to develop a cost based alternative methodology in collaboration with the California Department of Education, and requires the alternative methodology be used to set reimbursement rates for childcare and preschool programs subject to approval from the federal government.

SB 117, the higher education trailer Bill. Among many other things, this Bill provides 60,000,001 time Proposition 98 General Fund for five years starting in the 2024 25 fiscal year to expand nursing programs and Bachelor of Science in Nursing partnerships to grow, educate and maintain the next generation of registered nurses through the community college system. Subject to future legislation also provides an add on to the Student Success Completion Grant. It also clarifies service requirements for the Golden State Teacher grant program.

It expands the Middle Class Scholarship program to provide debt free college for former foster youth at UC and CSU related to the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. The Bill reflects a shift in approach from General Fund supported construction grants to local revenue bond support construction grants for the community colleges. For the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund. It appropriates 1.71,000,000,001 time, General Fund over the next six years for the California Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund. SB 118 is the Health Trailer Bill.

Among other things, this Bill reflects cleanup language for AB 988, which was related to suicide and crisis lifeline. It allows a 988 surcharge revenue to be used to pay state departments for their costs in administrating the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline and aligns commercial and medical coverage. It also removes the medical Doctor requirement as a part of the eligibility criteria to serve as the Director of the Emergency Medical Services Authority.

It implements the budget agreement to fully Fund the Healthcare Access and information workforce investment of approximately 988.3 million over several years for all programs. It also includes provisions related to CalRx cleanup as well as conform state law with new federal policy that permits Pharmacists to dispense certain reproductive health drugs. As mentioned as well sorry. Moving on to SB 119 trailer Bill. The budget reflects a renewed MCO tax for 3 and 3 quarter years starting retroactively to April 1, 2023.

Revenues will support the medical program, including increased provider reimbursement and additional healthcare related investments. Specifically, the revenue will support 150,000,000 for a one time loan to the Distressed Hospitals loan program, 50,000,001 time for the small and rural Hospital relief for seismic assessment and construction.

75 million each year, starting in calendar 2024 to expand graduate medical education programs, 75 million for a medical workforce pool and increase base rates to at least 87.5% of Medicare for primary care, maternity care and non specialty mental health services effective January 1, 2024. Effective also in this trailer Bill, effective January 1, 2025, additional rate increases will be evaluated for other provider categories.

Finally, the Bill shifts individual responsibility mandate penalty collections from the General Fund to the Healthcare Affordability Reserve Fund starting in 202324 and ongoing, and authorizes a General Fund loan. SB 120 is the Human Services trailer. Bill in the bill's provisions, the Bill amends the current penalty structure for counties that fail to reach an in Home Supportive Services collective bargaining agreement from 7% one time to 10% ongoing until an agreement is reached.

It also amends statute to eliminate provider eligibility requirements that only apply to minor recipients and allows all minor children to have access to the provider of choice like all other IHSS recipients. It also specifies the supplemental rates for foster youth and supervised independent living placements, and implements the new supplement beginning July 1, 2025, or upon necessary automation, whichever is later.

It makes changes and reflects ongoing funding to provide a 3.6% increase to CalWORKS maximum aid payment levels beginning October 1, 2023, requires automation implementation of a pilot program related to CalFresh. It extends the sunset of the California Fruit and Vegetable Electronic Benefits Transfer pilot program from January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2027. Lastly, it requires DSS to maximize participation in the Summer EBT program in collaboration with the California Department of Education.

SB 121 Developmental Services Trailer Bill clarifies when Regional Centers should pay for medical services when individuals and families experience prolonged delays in accessing similar generic services through health insurance. It authorizes the Department of Developmental Services to improve consumer access to social, recreation and camping services by designating these services as participant directed services. It also adjusts service provider rate reform implementation and focuses on promoting stability and predictability for service providers.

It also establishes the Employment First Office to support statewide career and job initiatives for individuals with intellectual developmental disabilities, particularly as the state phases out the sub minimum wage. It also contains an appropriation related to the family support services Pilot program. Next up is SB 122, the Resources trailer. Bill this Bill, among other things, extends the California Water and Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program and extends the end date of the eligible period of arrearage forgiveness from June 15, 2021 to December 31, 2022.

It authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Boards to assess fees for recycled water permits to support required permitting staffing at the boards. It also updates the fee structure for dam applications to support required workload for the Department of Water Resources and establishes a new dam safety and climate resilience program to provide grants.

It also streamlines regulatory requirements to allow for a diversion of floodwater for underground storage subject to screening and other conditions, protective of public health and Fish and Wildlife, and extends streamlining exemptions for drought activities. The Bill also provides the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with the authority to enact a new and comprehensive landscape level conservation approach for the western Joshua Tree.

Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control to pay per diem to Committee Members and provides necessary enforcement authority to the Secretary of Environmental Protection so that program goals are achieved. Next up is SB 123, which is one of two energy trailer bills for SB 123. This Bill authorizes the Department of Water Resources to reimburse utilities for additional energy imports above their resource adequacy requirements this summer in furtherance of statewide grid reliability. It also shifts regulatory responsibilities associated with electric vehicle supply equipment.

Payment standards from the State Air Force Resources Board to the California Energy Commission requires the California Public Utilities Commission to direct all funds in the residential solar and storage program included in the 2022 budget to support Low income populations, and extends deadlines associated with the required framework for measuring carbon intensity of construction materials. SB 124 is the second Energy trailer Bill.

This Bill provides clarification on the statutes governing the Demand Side Grid Support Program and Distributed Electricity Backup Assets Program at the California Energy Commission and the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve Program at the Department of Water Resources. It extends the California Public Utilities Commission authority to convene the Diablo Canyon independent peer review panel if plant operations continue through 2030. Also clarifies that the independent safety Committee for Diablo Canyon was established by the California Public Utilities Commission. It also makes technical changes to the extraordinary special session.

Bill SBX 12 related to the transportation fuels assessment. Lastly, it allows Ibank and the Department of Water Resources to access federal funding and utilize tax incentives provided in the Federal Inflation Reduction Act to finance projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Next up is SB 125, the transportation trailer Bill. Most notably, this Bill establishes the Transit Transformation Task Force. It establishes reporting and accountability requirements for transit agencies receiving $4 billion transit and inner city rail and capital program funding and 1.1 billion for transit Zev funding.

It also continues the current statutory relief provided to transit agencies that have seen ridership impacted by COVID-19 and has other technical and reporting provisions. Next up is SB 127, the General government trailer Bill. This has a number of provisions, and I will try to highlight the most notable quickly. The first one allows the Department of General Services to install emergency sleeping cabins or small homes in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose and San Diego County to serve people experiencing homelessness.

It specifies the Department of General Services will perform all standard maintenance of a monument to California's native people on state capitol grounds. It makes changes to Chapter 773 statute of 2022, which is AB 2135, which requires state agencies not under the direct authority of the Governor to adopt and implement specified information security standards. It creates an enterprise Fund allowing the Department of Technology to receive revenues and pay expenses in support of the state's Middle Mile Broadband Initiative network.

It makes various changes to the Department of Justice, including authorizing finance to issue certain budgetary loans establishing the Children's Data Protection Working Group within the Department of Justice and establishing the Racial Equity Commissioning and Statute and transferring the Youth Empowerment Commission under the Administration of the Office of Planning and Research. It makes various changes to the Made in California program requirements.

It also includes the Office of Planning and Research's Community Resilience Center program with the Advanced Payment Pilot program, which explores possible improvements to the state's existing advanced payment practices for state funded local assistance grants. There's also additional technical and clarifying changes. Next up is SB 128, which is related to cannabis.

This Bill authorizes the Department of Cannabis Control to receive criminal history record information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its applicants, licensees and Department employees by submitting to the Department of Justice fingerprints and related information. It also exempts an owner who has previously submitted fingerprint images and related information required by the DOJ in connection with a valid state license from submitting the same information for a subsequent state license application.

The intent is to minimize Duplicative fingerprinting of applicants for more than one license, and it adds a Type 13 license classification to the list of existing cannabis license classifications. Next up is SB 129, the housing and homelessness trailer Bill.

This Bill creates a regional coordination framework for round five allocations of the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program HAP that holds cities, counties and continuums of care accountable by requiring a coordinated regional plan identifying jurisdiction's roles, outcome goals, and how local entities are using various state and federal funding sources to reduce homelessness. It also includes other housing and homelessness related provisions for SB 130, which is the Labor Trailer Bill. The Labor Omnibus Trailer Bill makes several changes to implement the 23 Budget Act.

Most notably, it removes the 2024 sunset date for the Domestic Workers Education and Outreach Program and expands prevailing wage registration and fees to housing projects subject to prevailing wage requirements that are afforded streamlining through recently enacted legislation. It also includes other related provisions.

And Ms. Calvert? Yes? In our agenda, item 15, SB 126 on vehicular air pollution wasn't mentioned. So we can go back to it if you want, but I just wanted to.

Okay. I might have to go back to that at the end. We'll do it at a number of colleagues here. Thank you for noting that.

Excellent. And just for Members to know, Ms. Calvert's, referring to SBS, our ABS and SBS in the Trailer bills are identical. Our budget binder refers to ABS because That's what we're hearing. But they're 6 and 1, half a dozen. The other, they're the same. The text is the same. What we take up on the floor, we will see what it is depending on how we pass them back and forth from each house. But they are identical, so we can just in case anybody was wondering, go.

Ahead and I'll switch to AB.

Great. Okay.

AB 130 is the labor trailer Bill, and the labor omnibus trailer Bill makes several changes, most notably removing the 2024 sunset date for the Domestic Workers Education and Outreach Program. zero, I think I've already done that one. AB 131 is the Revenue and Taxation trailer Bill. This Bill includes several tax policy proposals. It expands access to the new employment credit and increases the credit amount for semiconductor companies in certain green energy industries.

It requires that income derived from an incomplete gift non grantor trust be included in the grantor's gross income, closing a tax loophole that allows high net worth individuals to avoid state income taxation. It clarifies existing law that personal income tax refunds issued as a result of the Foster Use Tax Credit will not be reduced by the Franchise Tax Board for debt collection for other entities. It also adds an end date for issuance of new payments related to the middle class tax refund.

And it also includes several amendments to certain FTB data sharing agreements to identify individuals who receive social service benefits who would also qualify for certain antipoverty programs. AB. 132 is specific to the film tax credit trailer Bill. This creates a Film Tax Credit 4.0 program, extending the current program at 330,000,000 per year from 202526 to 2029 30, and contains provisions related to that. Film tax credit is the courts trailer Bill. This Bill authorizes equal Access funding to be used for loan repayment assistance.

It eliminates the sunset dates for various civil filing fees that are set to expire on July 1, 2023, and it requires the Judicial Council to develop regulations that establish training requirements for legal counsel appointed to Racial Justice Act claims. AB 134 is the public safety trailer Bill. This Bill includes language that supports and expedites the transformation of San Quentin from a maximum security prison into a facility focused on improving public safety through rehabilitation and education.

It also requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide an assessment of its system wide and institution specific capacity and housing needs based on its population projections to help inform prison closure and right sizing decisions. It also temporarily exempts the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training through January 1, 2027, from the Public Records Act to enable the Commission to focus on implementation of Chapter 40 Nine statute to 2021 SB Two. The noteworthy is that the records for Post will be temporarily exempt from provide.

The records that Post will be temporarily exempt from providing are still available from local law enforcement entities. And I believe that should be it, with the exception of 126. I might need to turn to one of my finance colleagues to help out with a presentation of that one. It I think it's okay.

Great.

Thanks. Mr.

Members, this is Item 15 in our agenda.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Christian Belcher with the Department of Finance. AB 126 is trailer Bill that extends the sunset on the funding for the Clean Transportation Program and the Air Quality Management Program as well, and revises the terms for those programs. Some of these terms include requiring a funding allocation of 10% annually for hydrogen refueling stations through the CTP until 2030, or until there is a sufficient network of those stations to support a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles of all types.

It requires the guidelines to ensure each replacement vehicle in the program be either a plug in hybrid or zero emission vehicles unless the State Board makes a specified determination. And it also changes the emphasis of the program to the development and deployment of zero emission technology and fuels in the marketplace where feasible, and near zero emission technology and fuels elsewhere.

Great. Thank you. All right, so those were brief overviews of these trailer bills. And now, Members, if you have questions about any of the trailer bills that are before us, let me know and I will take a list. If there's anyone who does have a question. Mr. Dahle? Go ahead, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, the Lao's estimates is that we don't know what's going to happen, actually, because of the delayed tax filing. What happens in, let's say, October when we don't receive the same amount of revenue that has been expected? What would be the process at that point? I don't see triggers in this. Basically, what I'm asking is I don't see triggers if we don't meet the revenues expected.

I don't know if that was directed to us or elio, but the first note we have is, so far, the revenue forecasts seem to be tracking closely to May revision. As has happened before, we would fold in any updates with our budget development, which is happening in that same time in the fall. So we would be working in the fall on the next 20, 24, 25 budget development, and any updated forecasts would be folded into that work.

If there's a revenue shortfall, though, that would mean. That this budget would not be able to be implemented if there's not the revenues there. So would the Legislature have to come back into session to balance out the books for 2023? LAO could answer that.

Or Carolyn, too. LAO. So, as is typical in prior years where there have been revenue shortfalls coming back in January the Legislature would face a budget deficit and through that budget process would need to address that budget deficit. Depending on the size, the Legislature may wish to take early action to address the budget problem but otherwise could address the budget problem.

Like this year, through the course of.

The regular budget proceedings.

I just had to thank everybody for getting all this done. A question on clinics in the MCO tags. They're not explicitly called out, but my understanding is that they will be part of that under the specialty bucket. Is that correct?

Can answer. Great. Excellent. Let's see. Senator Eggman,

Thank you. Adam Dorsey, Department of Finance. So the budget does include $50 million for services and supports that cover primary care, obstetrics, mental health. And that amount is certainly could include clinics. They certainly do provide services. And so the agreement is to have that pot of money available for a proposal that would be introduced in the fall.

All right, so I have excuse me, Senator Menjivar and then Senator Newman.

Thank you, ma'am. Chair. I kind of want to talk about that even further. We took action in sub three, and they were specifically annotated there with a pretty chunk amount of money, and now they seem to be just completely carved out.

They're not excluded from the pot. Exactly right. But we're still doing more work on that. Yes. Okay. Because we all understand that they serve a huge population of very poor people. Thank you.

Just wondering what happened there. I know same day billing was also taken off, something that clinics benefit a lot from, something that helps with mental health. If you could explain a little bit more of that. And then also, can you explain the rationale behind some starting in MCO tax or reimbursement, some starting in 2024, and others starting in 2025?

Sure. On the first point, I think that it's really hard to sort of just weigh all of the various priorities between the administration's proposal and the Legislature's proposal. And I think that the agreement that was reached was a reflection of a compromise. And so I can't really speak to why one individual augmentation was favored over another at the end of the day, but I think that both the Senate, the Assembly, and the Administration got a lot of what they wanted out of the final agreement.

I will say that on the timing piece, there's a couple of things happening. So we have a very significant pot of money here that's available, and this is a much larger MCO tax compared to anything that we've ever done before. And this is the first time that we've used the MCO tax for provider rates. So this is a really historic investment in rates in the MediCAL program. And the risk, of course, is that the federal government may not approve another tax like this in the future.

And so we have tried to come up with a way to extend those payments over time. And in an effort to get provider rates to 87.5 percent of Medicare rates, there is some further analysis needed on where we need to land for some of those codes. So not all of them start right away. But we're very excited about the good that we think it'll do in the program.

That actually starts before the rest of them?

Yes, some do, and some are later.

So you wouldn't need that much time for that. Specifically, one specific one, because that would start a year before all the rest of the reimbursements. The other ones would start in 2025. The one you'd mentioned about Medicare primary care at 87.5% starts a year before.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I'm more than happy to have additional conversations with the staff in the timelines and happy to provide more information on those.

I know some of my colleagues here have heard me. It's been a little frustrating with how the MCO breakdown came to be or the finalized product of it or who was included in the conversations of who got a piece of the pie. I think about the clinics I mentioned, private duty nursing saved the state a lot of money and who was able to afford to be part of the coalition.

And if we're really here to uplift our most marginalized communities, I don't think there should be a price tag to be included in the conversations of this coalition. And I want to make sure my piece is out in the record.

Madam Chair, if I could just go back one more time on this issue. Yes, because I understood because we've been working on same day billing for the clinics, too, and I understood that that fell out also.

Yes, That's my understanding.

Well, I just want to add my voice to my colleagues on the issue of what's facing the clinics. And you're saying that this is something That's going to be moved on into the later in the summer, in the fall?

Okay, so just double urgency then on making sure we get the clinics whole as we continue to work on this. Just on that. Okay. Go ahead, Senator Durazo. No, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead, Senator Durazo.

Because I know you understand how important it is and especially to I think all areas, metropolitan areas, could speak to a surgeoncy as much as rural areas, but we need to make sure that they survive and handle all the people who need them.

All right, Senator Newman, followed by Senator Laird.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, just a comment on AB 102, the reinstatement of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Just want to note I'm among those who's a little bit concerned that this does not seem to have much of a budget nexus, and it would appear to be a fairly big deal, especially as it relates to some recent legislation. So some concerns there. But I do have a question on AB 126, the extension of the Clean Transportation Program.

First, it requires a funding allocation of 10% annually for hydrogen refueling stations. That's half of what we saw in the first 10 years of the programs. That's obviously a substantial change, but in the analysis we have, it says until 2030 or until there is a sufficient network of these stations. The question what agency or entity is going to discern what constitutes a sufficient number of stations?

We're going to have to take that back. Senator Newman that's a level of detail I don't have in my notes.

I appreciate that because if the terms are until 2030 or until there is a sufficient network, if it's a greater number, it's beyond 2030. If it's a smaller number, it's prior to it seems like a reasonably big distinction. So I'd appreciate an answer there.

Having said that, this is kind of a continuation of a legislative conversation that I think we've been having for while sits I'm among those who's a little bit pained that this has become part of the budget conversation where there were two competing vehicles, one in each house that clearly had not secured the 2/3 vote threshold. So doing that within the budget here is less than ideal from my point of view. Just want to make that clear. Thank you.

I know that the staff in the DOF that was specific to this Bill is not here, but just to be clear, the provisions in AB 126 are not the same as the bills that were going through the house. So they are different. And just want to put that on the record.

I will say, if you don't mind, they are different, but they certainly affect the same constituency. I appreciate that.

Correct. And did you have anything else? Okay, great. So let me go to Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. And I have a question about higher education housing, which will cause at least a seat to be vacant and maybe to somebody to come up. But let me just say first, I can see how tired some of the people are here and I just appreciate all the work that has gone on with the intensity that it does to get us to this point. So I just appreciate that and thank you.

And on the higher education housing, from the time of our budget hearings in the Education Subcommitee and the original legislative budget, funding for community colleges changed and it changed. So it is now going to be bonding. And I don't understand if that bond cost is now going to have to be wrapped into these projects. Because when we had the hearings, we had a ranking. They submitted the projects based on the previous statute.

And if this bond cost is being put on the community colleges, then these projects won't pencil out the way they did when they applied for them and we thought we were funding. So could you speak to that? What is the actual situation based on what's in front of us?

Sure. Michelle Nguyen with the Department of Finance, the May revision, as you note, the UC and the CSU, or the May revision proposed that the UC and the CSU were going to their General Fund was going to be reverted. And in exchange the UC and the CSU would issue revenue bonds, and then the state was going to provide support for these projects.

So at the Budget Act for this proposed legislation, there's a similar kind of construct for the community colleges where the General Fund is proposed to be reverted. The local districts would then issue local revenue bonds, and the state is providing support for those projects as well. So it's very similar to the

But let me understand, because the way it seemed to be explained on UC and CSU is that the funding mechanism was just changing. And it was the state, I thought, that was issuing the bonds and the General Fund was paying the interest of the bond.

This sounds like we're asking community colleges to do the bonds and then they have the interest cost and now they have to bear the interest cost in the projects, which would mean that they'd have to raise the rents for all this housing based on that. And it's like is that the case?

No, our expectation is not that the rents would increase as a result of this change. And to clarify for the May revision, the state was not issuing the revenue bonds for those UC and CSU projects.

The state was paying the interest, wasn't it?

Yeah, the state was providing support for those projects yes.

Those you know, support is very artful. Are they paying the whole thing or now there are these additional bond costs and support for some of it is coming from the state. What does that really mean? Because I'm trying to understand if there's a cost shift here that's going to result in people at the community college level having to pay more.

Our expectation is that there would not be a cost shift for the community colleges and that this is similar to what we had proposed at the mayor vision, that this would be a funding.

Shift, this is a change in financing. But when they submitted their applications, this would still make those applications whole without having to change rents or doing things from what they submitted.

Yes, correct.

Thank you very much. And thank you for bearing with me and making sure I got to what that answer was.

Great. Senator Seyarto, followed by Senator Menjivar again. And then Senator Roth.

Thank you very much. We're going to go back to the MCO tax and sort of the winners and the losers in the MCO field. I think what happened with Optometry is that not included in this reimbursement for MCO because it's really important for people to see, and especially marginalized communities where we have young kids, they're trying to use computers. They can't even see them. How does that get left out? Were they at the table?

That's a real struggle because there are a lot of kids who are failing in school. And the reason they're failing is because they can't even see the number or the letters to be able to try to read. Or when they're switching to their computers, they can't even see them.

Adam Dorsey, Department of Finance again, I really can't speak to who is at the table. I am not seeing a line item for Optometry in the final agreement

And what they do when they do that is they just stare at it and they check. So if we're worried about overall health care, and especially when we have a historic collection and investment opportunity through the MCO Tax, everybody needs to be at the table by us, by our demands, not by industries coming to us begging for money, but us seeing the need. And that's part of medical care.

And for people and for entities like that to be left out is hard for me to accept because we're leaving out the very things that we're trying to do, which is help kids learn. I'm struggling with that because I know a lot of people got left out of this thing. And this is one of the more glaring ones that I see, is eye care for marginalized populations, people on Medi Cal.

If they're not going to get reimbursed, they're not going to be part of this reimbursement plan. How are they going to provide services? So thank you. I appreciate the answer to the question, but I think it's something we have to think about real hard when we have these type of opportunities, is decide put everybody in the pot first and then figure out what goes where, because everybody should be getting part of this. But what we have is we have things going to management committees.

$75 million to a management committee that we could be using for this. These kids need it. So, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on that and absolutely appreciate all of the hard work that people have been doing over the weekend to try to get this information to us in semi timely fashion as we kind of try to go through it. But those are a couple of the things that we've been able to pull out of here.

There's a mountain of other things that I have absolutely no idea where we're at on some of this. So we're going to be studying a little bit more. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't want to be a Negative Nancy. Well, I don't think I use Nancy. Never mind. So negative, neighbor.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. I have Senator Menjivar, followed by Senator Roth, followed by Senator Smallwood - Cuevas.

Negative Kelly.

I do appreciate a lot of the great wins we got. I do understand at the end of the day, this is the first time we're utilizing so much of the MCO Tax for medical reimbursements and the child care reform that we've have and the eliminating family fees. I mean, That's huge. I'm not going to take away from that. Am I in front of someone? No. Okay, you're fine.

But on SB 102, line item number 70, that was one of the most disappointing things to see that this Committee had taken action to add $10 million for the first phase of Reimagined Cowworks for the program to be family centered, antiracist, and participate inclusive. And it was taken out, the $10 million to Reimagine that individuals on this Committee were in favor of not moving forward with that.

Now it seems like he was on the correct side of how the Administration or how DOF wanted to move forward with Reimagining Cowworks. Could we dive in a little bit more about what happened there? And this was going to be just historical and how we could revamp how we're providing more services to our most marginalized community.

So on this issue, I think that our budget negotiations sort of coincided with some changes at the federal level related to the debt ceiling on changes that were happening to the TANF program. And we just believe that we needed more time to evaluate changes to the work participation rate penalty.

There's a lot already studies I would have welcomed you. Your colleagues were here during the panel that we had in sub Three with Cal Works and we heard it firsthand from participants from counties, how the system wasn't working for them. And we had more individuals just not participating just because of just the horrendous bureaucracy around that I don't know what other studies else what other studies we needed to show that this was needed in the State of California.

The line item right above it, 69 coincides with that and the fact that with the federal debt ceiling negotiations and the new federal laws coming down, it's going to be harder for able bodies without the dependents to get help. They're going to fall off. We already have a hunger cliff. It's going to further impact the State of California. And mark my words, we're going to be here in a year and two years talking about this thing because we didn't take action now.

And we're going to have more people in hunger because these cuts 69, item number 69 and 70 of AB 102 are going to be really detrimental for the State of California. Thank you, Senator Roth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just a little curious. My colleague brought up the Industrial Welfare Commission provision. It's not in our material, but it's apparently in Section 215 of the budget document for those of us who are broken down, former labor and employment lawyers who worked under the IWC in the 1980s. And we're familiar with the various wage orders in the occupations and industries.

And we talk about firing this up in January with a final recommendation for wages, hours, and working conditions in new wage orders adopted by October 31, 2024. That seems like an incredibly short period of time to convene. Wage boards comprise wage boards because my recollection is we don't have wage boards that are currently standing with appointees from labor, employment, and the other components that form the wage boards in each of the subject matter areas for the various wage orders.

I seem to remember there were 15 of them or maybe there were 16 of them in the old days. And I've not heard any discussion about this. Not that I would, because I don't sit on the relevant anything.

But maybe someone could highlight for me how this is going to work and how you really expect to form wage boards, conduct public hearings, take testimony, have transcripts have the IWC debate whatever the wages, hours and working conditions should be, if different from the ones that are currently posted on our break room door. Anybody? Any takers? Because you're going to get some ink on this in the press, so I just thought we might as well hear it first today.

Right. Chris Cook with Department of Finance. So as you noted, the budget includes $3 million for Dir to convene the Industrial Wage Commission and adopt wage orders. At this time, they would still need to elect the board and to appoint those Members to decide which wage orders they would be pursuing. But at this time, the investment is a limited term investment to convene the board through that short period of time.

So then a broader question is the intent to reinstate the Industrial Welfare Commission's authority to periodically review wages, hours, and working conditions in the various occupations and professions that we utilize in the State of California and issue periodically updated wage orders?

I can't speak for future work that they'll be doing, but at this time the investment just is making a limited term investment to convene that board and to well, you're good.

The IWC convenes and the IWC has wage boards that take testimony and provide the input to the IWC. If the model that we used for decades actually going back I think to 1915 or 16 with women and children, is that the same model that you envision with this $3 million investment?

The budget does not include any statutory changes, so whatever model was in statute will remain and it will be consistent with how it was in prior years.

Okay, well, it's probably a fairly modest investment for the IWC to do anything. So I guess we'll see how this pans out. But you'll keep somebody up here posted, right? Thanks. Appreciate it.

Okay, go ahead. Sender. I just want to add as one of my colleagues, Senator Newman and I, on budget sub five overseeing labor. And we didn't completely exclusively focus on IWC, but the results of many hearings were about the level of wages and wage theft. And we could just go on and on about all the issues facing a third of Californians are at federal poverty level.

So I think this is one piece of many others that we addressed, including adding funding for wage compliance and other things. So the way I see it is if we step back, we have an urgent need to really look at the wage levels in several industries. We have some that have just somewhere the business model became let's either pay the lowest wages possible or rely on wage theft. We got to do something about it in a broader way.

So in that sense, just in some ways to add to the response.

Madam Chairman, I just follow up.

Yes, please.

With your permission. I'm not complaining, I not necessarily objecting. In fact, I've suggested, as we're doing these piecemeal bills in the Legislature, that if what we need to do is review wages, hours and working conditions, we did it sort of in a holistic way in the old days. And I'm not sure that that if done properly, would be a bad thing since I hadn't seen this before.

I was just sort of curious as to the implementation plan and since the implementation plan was fairly short and I know in the old days it was fairly long to get to consensus, to actually come to an agreement on what to put in a wage order for a particular occupation, profession, industry. But we'll see how this rolls out. And thank you for the effort.

Thank you, Senator. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank everyone for their hard work in getting through all of the negotiations and getting us to this point, especially to the Chair of Budget Committee who has been a lot of sleepless nights the last few nights working through these pieces.

I have a couple of questions on the Film Tax Credit in particular I was looking at really excited to see the additional funds put into the Pathways program into expanding the diversity and equity and inclusion expert seat on the board and staffing. What struck me was the addition of the term voluntary in terms of the race and gender data collection related to the diversity plan.

Seems to me that if we are investing in strengthening the diversity plan, adding board seats, staff and additional funds for the pathway, that we would not make it voluntary to track that information and to collect that data. It was not in the first iteration of the Bill, but it seems to be added in this version. So I wonder if someone could speak to that.

Thank you for that question. Danamun with the Department of Finance. So the Film Tax Credit 4.0 Language has had provisions that strengthen the diversity requirements in the program. If we compare it to 3.0 and Soundstage program, the reporting that pertains to the diversity of the workforce are consistent and are voluntary to comply to the extent that is feasible by state and federal law.

And so we do have additional reporting requirements in the 4.0 program such as requiring the diversity work plan checklist with the application in order to be considered, requiring an interim assessment and a final assessment to ensure that the diversity work plan and the applicants are making good fifth effort to meet those goals. But the extent to which we are able to require some of those details on the diversity of the workforce are limited by what is feasible by state and federal law.

Okay, well, I'm glad you clarified that there will be a requirement for collecting that data in line with state and federal that it's not a voluntary opportunity. We talked about communities of color, BIPOC folks that are in poverty and low wage working communities where we're trying to build pathways into opportunities and careers. We want to certainly keep this industry in California. These are good union jobs, but we also want to make sure those hardest hit communities have access to them.

If we don't have the data, we can't evaluate and measure how well we're doing in that area. So I'm glad to see that it's not voluntary. But it is in accordance with state and federal laws.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is for the Legislative Analyst Office. With regards to the AB 1116, the childcare, I'm not sure if are we good? Okay. The Bill requires that the Department of Social Services and the Department of Education develop an alternative methodology to set the reimbursement rates for subsidized childcare.

Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, Senator Ochoa-Bogh, followed by Senator Durazo.

It also requires that this methodology builds on the recommendations of the Joint Labor Management Committee and the Rake Work Group that met last year. The question is as follows do you have an estimate on the potential total cost at full implementation of an alternative methodology that aligns with those recommendations?

Anthony Simbol from the Legacy Balance office. I know we've done a little bit of work. I just don't have that information. And our lead person on that is not here at the moment. So I can follow up with her office, though.

Okay, so we don't have any set. Are you in the process of figuring that value, that amount, or do we not have any idea yet?

I can't remember if the study specifically published an amount. I know we've done some research in the area in the past. I don't have anything in front of me right now to cite.

So then I have a follow up question with regards to the Care, and this is for the Legislative Analyst Officer or the Department of Finance. What is the total funding provided across all childcare programs in the state preschool program to provide rate increases and waive family fees? And also, in addition to that, is there more information on what the rate increases are, or is the plan to rely on the final agreement between childcare providers United and the Governors or the state?

Adam Dorsey, Department of Finance. Again, so the total amount for childcare overall, I don't have that number in front of me, but I'm happy to follow up with your staff and get that information with respect to what's being done in the budget versus what's being done at the table. So the Administration and the Legislature have come to an agreement on a total bucket of funding. And the nature of how that funding gets utilized is subject to bargaining.

And so we're currently in negotiations with the union right now with respect to family fees. The cost for the family fees is $56 million in 23 24 and $81.8 million in 24 25.

Senator Ochoa-Bogh, I might be able to eliminate a little more. I mean, obviously the Assembly is having its budget hearing at the same time. So we have our Department of Finance spread out between the two. And as one would imagine, same as our staff, we have experts from different parts that negotiated and not everyone in the DOF in the room.

So on that, on your question, we are providing 1.4 billion General Fund over two years to supplement reimbursement rates for all the childcare providers and 1.2 billion Prop 98 General Fund along with 3.12 312. 312,000,000 General Fund for the California State preschool programs for the same purpose and of course, without a lot of specification because there's clearly collective bargaining underway and we will additionally need future legislation for that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, I don't have questions, but I just want to show my appreciation as well for everyone who worked so hard on this and my colleagues here. I just want a little shout out to some of the issues that either I worked on or the staff worked on. Really important. And some of them are huge and very impactful and some of them are smaller in terms of impact, but nonetheless, extremely important.

Great. So now, Senator Durazo,

Sure. And I do appreciate all the work that is being done. And I know everybody's overextended.

Funding for the domestic workers and employers, MCO tax for Medi Cal reimbursement rates, investments in our healthcare workforce, a big issue right now. Our transportation funding to allow for the flexibility of transit and capital. Brilliant idea. It seemed like it was just going to be a fight, fight conflict all the way. And thank the chair for that zero emissions jobs roadmap, really. Again, important for these good jobs. The Family Dignity Act. The Family Dignity Act is so important.

This is about families who go visit their loved ones who are incarcerated. And all they wanted think about this all they wanted was the ability to take diapers, the ability to take baby formula, the ability to take women's products. I mean, it must be so humiliating not to be able to take those things when they go to these prisons to visit their loved ones, not to have those things. So to me, a lot of us, the majority of us have no idea what that feels like.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Let me just look down the line. Okay. I would also like to give a few shout outs in a budget like this, which is in total 300 and some billion only. Not only but 210 or so General Fund.

But it's a really important human dignity issue. And I just want to do a shout out to those, amongst many other great things like childcare. Thank you.

When I point out something like 400 million, it seems like, I suppose in that whole scheme kind of budget desk. But one of the things That's reflected in AB 120 is an application for summer EBT which would enable the California to be able to access about 400 million of federal funds that we otherwise would lose. Which means then that we would have kids, school kids, school age kids in the summer going hungry.

But now it's because it's included in this and it was not in our I don't think it was in the one we adopted. So it's a modification this trailer Bill, it's a great thing. So there's many items like that and I'm sure all of our Members have different ones, as Senator Durazo just pointed out, a few. There's many items like that and all of you and your budget know obviously gotten in the weeds around a lot of those things.

Some things clearly landed, but as Senator Menjivar pointed know, some did not. That's always frustrating, but there's many things that did. And I'm very proud of this budget and I really appreciate all of the work that all the staff, whether it was Department of Finance staff, our own budget staff and our different Committee staff and the pro temp staff did to figure these out. And as what we know from anytime there's negotiations.

And given that this represents a three party agreement, there's always some things that we don't accomplish and then other things that we do. So with that, I want to get to the public comment so that we can then get to voting for those of you zero, yes, if I could. I'm sorry, Senator Niello.

That's okay.

Please go ahead.

I didn't have any specific questions. But I continue to be concerned overall with regard to the sustainability of this budget. And in my opinion, it is not a balanced budget. And I evidence that by the Lao's estimate of revenues being less than what this budget estimates. So I still believe that this all due respect to what you just said, Madam Chair, I still believe that this budget is significantly challenged. And what also is significantly challenged is the work of our staff.

And there have been several comments made about that. And I received the materials that we're looking at well, initially last night, but really effectively this morning. And I was amazed at how quickly our Republican staff was able to put together a lot of detailed information on that and big shout out to them. Specifically, the meeting that we had this morning was helpful, but there is still a lot of detail here and they had a lot of detail to go through.

And I know everybody else worked very hard over this on this over the weekend, so we can't say that too many times.

Thank you, Senator Niello, I just was informed that we do have LAO staff here that could address the question Senator Ochoa Bogh raised. So let's do that before I turn to public comment. Go ahead.

Good evening, editor Kalra with the Legislative Analyst Office. Just make sure to clarify, because I'm coming over from the other hearing. I believe the question was about the single reimbursement rate structure that was recommended in the work group and the overall cost of that. We did do a cost estimate earlier this year. Our estimate that the cost associated with it was roughly $12 billion at full implementation. So that would be if you implemented all of the costs as recommended by this.

There was a specific report that was developed and they had some specific rates for different settings. And we just took that and tried to take those costs and apply that to the current programs that we have based on the settings and ages and families that we currently have in our program.

Madam Chair Members, Brendan tuig. On behalf of Ed voice. We are in strong support of the budget trailer Bill Language in AB 114 and SB 114, requiring universal screening for reading difficulties and risk of Dyslexia in grades kindergarten. First and second. We believe that it will improve literacy rates and opportunity for all California's children, and then also for a separate client, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

Great. Okay, now we'll go to those of you in the room with the public comment. Go ahead.

We very much appreciate your investments in the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program and the Farmer program, both very cost effective programs, both on the greenhouse gas reduction and air pollution side of things. So thank you very much.

Mikhail Scavaro here on behalf of the California Council. Here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council. We're here opposing less amended on the AB 126. It was mentioned that there were two policy bills. This Bill is not substantially different from those two, other than a cap on all hydrogen at 10% for five years. That includes heavy duty.

And so while we understand the politics and we've been witness to them on the light and medium duty segments, we want to recognize that this is capping all hydrogen within that Fund for $50 million. When the budget bills passed last week had $47.5 million over the next three years for the Administration of zero Emission vehicle infrastructure programs. And so to that end, we're being minimized further. And this is the only program in the State of California that explicitly calls out hydrogen refueling infrastructure.

And to that extent, we'd like to ask the Committee Members to hold this billing Committee, continue to work the policy bills until there's a compromise reach between the hydrogen community and the charging community on the reauthorization of the Clean Transportation Program. Thank you.

Hi. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. First, on Homelessness CSAC has been advocating for a comprehensive homelessness system and pleased to see many elements of our at home plan reflected in ABSB 129. Specifically, the required regional collaboration, comprehensive plan development, and defined roles and responsibilities for all jurisdictions will help local governments make further progress. However, we are disappointed in the lack of an ongoing funding commitment, which will make multiyear progress difficult and hinder our collective efforts to address homelessness.

On IHSS, CSAC is in strong opposition to the collective bargaining penalty in ABSB 120. This provision was included in the final language without ever being discussed at any budget hearings and with no public input or consultation with counties. It will unfairly punish all counties. It will allow all counties to be leveraged into wage increases that can't be afforded without taking funding away from health and human services programs, including those counties that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on wage increases over the last several years.

So we oppose the ongoing 10% penalty. Finally, on Behavioral Health, we appreciate the Fund Funding for Care Act implementation, but would continue to note that we don't believe it adequately funds behavioral Health and County Council costs and for implementation of behavioral health payment reform, we are disappointed to see the state General Fund amount reduce, but do appreciate the elimination of the repayment provision. Thank you.

Appreciate that AB 102 reflects the commitment to both of our provider communities, including 1.4 billion to supplement reimbursement rates for family childcare providers and 1.5 million for DSS to produce an analysis on transitioning collective bargaining from the county level to a statewide or regional approach.

Also, AB 116 contains several provisions aimed at stabilizing childcare, including family fee reform, the extension of hold harmless provisions to the end of September 2023, and the development of the alternative methodology to account for the true cost of care of providing childcare in our state. Lastly, happy to support ABSB 120 that extends the IHS Career Pathways program to allow our home care professionals to drive recruitment and retention in this field, as well as the fiscal withholding of 10% of the 1991 Realignment for counties who fail to bargain in good faith with our providers who are caring for our most vulnerable communities.

We have nine counties without a collective bargaining contract right now, two more that will be expiring at the end of this year. And this is over half of our counties that are struggling to negotiate over pennies on the dollar over a minimum wage. This withholding would only be applied after all other bargaining provisions have been exhausted, including fact finding and mediation, provisions of which are current law.

This withholding would not impact counties who continue to bargain in good faith and bargain towards a good contract that would lead to an increase in progress in IHS collective bargaining negotiations. Appreciate your time today and request your support on these bills. Thank you.

Thank you Chair and Members Chris Zgraggen with Aprea and Micheli on behalf of ChargePoint in support of two measures, the first of which is AB 123, more specifically, the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment payment Standards provision of the Bill. We're very supportive of that provision, as well as AB 126, the reauthorization of the Clean Transportation Program. Thank you very much.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Senators Rosanna Carvacho Elliot here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition in unfortunate opposition to AB 126 by Assembly Member Reyes. As the Committee heard this evening, the AB 126 reauthorizes the Clean Transportation Program. This is the primary mechanism for the development of zero emission vehicle infrastructure and is the only dedicated program supporting the development of retail hydrogen fueling infrastructure for zero emission vehicles.

Currently, for every dollar that California spends on zero emission vehicle infrastructure, less than $0.04 is directed to hydrogen, and this number includes heavy duty fueling infrastructure. As all of you know, the Governor has issued an Executive order to get us to 100% zero emission vehicles in both the passenger as well as medium and heavy duty vehicles in this state.

And the Airborne did an analysis to implement that Executive order, which stated that 17% of our passenger vehicle fleet would need to be from fuel cell electric vehicles by 2035, which would work out to 1.7 million vehicles. And despite this, unfortunately, AB 126 provides very minimal funding to support hydrogen fueling stations at most.

As you heard previously, AB 126 will provide $50 million over the next five years for hydrogen infrastructure, with the funding going to light, medium and heavy duty vehicles, which ensures that there will be insufficient funding for both heavy duty and light and medium duty vehicles. And as you all know, if you were on budget last year, there was 3.4 billion set aside in the budget for heavy duty, zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure.

This fee, the Clean Transportation Program fee, is funded by light duty vehicle owners, and we believe that this money should be going to the users that are paying the fee, not heavy duty. So, for those reasons, we are respectfully opposed AB 126 and ask for your no vote unless the Bill is amended. And then for another client, the Early Care and Education Consortium wants to support the rates, and, unfortunately, also have to oppose the extended acceleration of transitional kindergarten to summer birthdays. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Mike Monagan, on behalf of state building and the construction trades, we are opposed, unless amended to SB 126. Or I guess it's AP 126. Like to acknowledge Senator Newman's remarks simply, the funding in this Bill is not sufficient for us to reach our clean air goals in either 2035 or 2045. So, at some point, we're going to have to admit that and deal with it down the road, I suppose. Kick the can down the road, I think, is the term I'm looking for. Thank you.

Good evening. Chao Jun Liu with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We asked, as a Legislature, stay the course on its broadband infrastructure funding, as set out by SB 156 in 2021, without any cuts or deferrals. The Legislature should be proud of passing SB 151, setting forth an array of local efforts by businesses, local governments, coops tribes and nonprofits to deliver fast, reliable, accessible connectivity to every Californian.

Any delay or cut would derail the years of planning these entities from across the state have made based on the premise and promise of these funds. Further, federal dollars cannot be used as a substitute to the promised state funds. In fact, if California were to substitute state dollars with federal dollars, the NTIA would be fully within their right to withhold federal funding from California altogether, which has been announced, I believe, 3 hours ago, to be 1.8 billion.

We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to bridge the digital divide, create unprecedented economic development opportunities, and address systemic harms for generations to come. But only if we stay the course on broadband infrastructure funding. Thank you.

Good evening. Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU California State Council on behalf of our 700,000 Members. I'm just going to do 1 second for every Member. I'm just kidding. I'll keep it brief. I want to align our comments with CCPU UDW here. We really appreciate ABSB 102 investments in childcare. That is an amazing accomplishment and we applaud your efforts. We know it wasn't easy, and we will take that into consideration and fight diligently as we continue to negotiate a contract.

We'd also like to highlight those investments that were mentioned by my peer and UDW for IHSS. We're also very appreciative of EB 102 speaks also to the reviving of the Industrial Welfare Commission. We heard a lot of comments on that today. And we applaud the Legislature's bold action to address after nearly two decades, lifting millions of workers out of poverty. For over eight decades, the IWC was an important feature of labor regulation, but under Republican leadership, we saw problematic undercutting of important labor regulations.

So we applaud this narrowed scope. We are enthusiastic cautiously because we know the direction it has gone in the past, but we do believe that there is a need. That narrow scope of looking at Low wage industries, unfortunately is not that narrow and growing every day. We believe that this is a budget issue because the amount of our workers that are working full time overtime and relying on California subsidies is too many. It's too great. And it's not just one industry, it's many.

So again, we think that this is a smart and cautious approach and we look forward to seeing what we can do to address the growing crisis of Low wage workers. We also support SB 118 and AB 119 MCO Tax, which will support investments for the healthcare workforce. We support AB 133 and the ongoing funding to help recruit and retain official court reporters and the extension of remote procedures with safeguards. And finally, we are grateful for the public health workforce funding being restored. Thank you so much.

Honorable Chair Skinner and Members and esteemed staff, thank you so much for all the hard work that everyone has done. Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wildcat Consulting representing the California Community Land Trust Network in gratitude for the Foreclosure Intervention Housing Preservation program. Numbers the 155,000,000 in 2122, the 82.5 million in 23 24, the 85 million in 24 25, the 100 million in 25 26, and the 62.5 million in 26 27 for a total of 485,000,000.

We greatly appreciate all the effort that worked in order to get this result and restoring the 15 million that was cut previously, and we will do great work with this to preserve affordable housing. Thank you so much. And Fozia would like to say the care crisis is real.

Good evening. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty Related to Health. We support the larger and accelerated MCO Tax, although disappointed the triggers for continuous Medi Cal coverage and for young kids as well as share of cost reform remain. We also appreciate funding for Covered California Affordability Assistance, Healthcare Workforce and Asset Test cleanup language, but would have liked to see the comprehensive perinatal Services program benefit extended on the human services side along with grace and child poverty.

We appreciate making permanent CalWORKS grant increases, initiating the CalFresh Minimum Pilot program funding, SSI SSP Grant increase, maximizing the new Federal Summer EBT program and not drawing from the Safety Net Fund. However, we are disappointed that the Legislature's proposal to implement the first phase of reimagined cowworks was not included, despite UC San Francisco's new report that shows economic shocks are a key driver of homelessness that can be mitigated by reforming sanctions. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration on this as well as the Legislature. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Nick Louizos on behalf of the California Association of Health Plans, representing the entities that are paying the managed care organization tax. I'm happy to be here in support of the MCO tax package and the associated investments in primary care, specialty care and graduate medical assistance or education.

I should say we want to thank the Administration for working with our Members on making the tax as affordable as possible to our consumers, the Governor's commitment to investing the revenue in the Medi Cal Program and the Legislature for pushing for an accelerated timeframe with respect to those Medi Cal investments. These are significant investments in the Medi Cal program that we believe will positively impact access to care. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association here in support of the provisions related to the reauthorization of the managed care organization tax. I want to thank the Budget Committee, the Administration and staff for your hard work on this proposal. We are pleased to see that the revenue from the reinstatement of the MCO will be directly dedicated to enhancing the Medi Cal program and providing care to patients across the state.

We look forward, along with other stakeholders, to ensure the investment in these benefits in the healthcare system and patients come for years to come. Additionally, would like to thank the Committee Administration for your work for the additional $150,000,000 for the Distressed Hospital Loan Program, as well as the 50 million dedicated to support the Small and Rural Hospital Program for seismic assessment and construction. Thank you.

Good evening, chair and Members. Raquel Yoffie with the California Alternative Payment Program Association. We'd like to thank the Legislature for the multiyear investment in childcare. Increasing rates remains our first priority as we are aligned with the ECE Coalition. We are extremely grateful for the family fee waiver hold harmless and single voucher type until September 30. We also are appreciative for the permanent fix for family fees starting in October. We thank you for streamlining eligibility for families trying to access subsidized childcare.

Further, we applaud the action supporting stable reimbursement for license exempt care and valuing their contributions to keep parents supported and working. Finally, we are grateful for the one time funding provided to community based Alternative Payment Programs that is so needed to better support working with families. Thank you.

Good evening, Committee Members. I'm Dr. LaWanda Wesley, I'm with Childcare Resource Center. I'm also with the EC coalition as well as in Chow, California poverty. And I just want to say thank you for the investments in care.

I was a preschool teacher and childcare worker, so I know how real it is. And so we just hope that the Governor will continue to negotiate with the childcare provider union. But we do want to thank you for the family fees that will support families being able to afford and access childcare as well as the hold harmless and working through having the alternative methodology also honored through the negotiations.

So thank you for all the investments and we appreciate it and we particularly appreciate the Women's Caucus for all of their support. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Members. Adam Quinonez on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, also want to thank the Legislature and the Administration for all of the work on AB 102 that continues to invest in water resilience projects throughout the state. In particular really appreciate the restoration of funding for multi benefit projects that are really going to improve environmental conditions in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. So thank you so much.

Hi, good evening. Dan Gluesenkamp with the California Institute for Biodiversity. Just want to express gratitude and thanks to you for and especially to the Hardworking staff for ensuring that this budget includes funding to support intertidal biodiversity and coastal resilience. Even in this difficult budget here, our coast needs the help and you guys have stepped forward to do it. So thank you very much. It's really appreciated.

Good evening, Chair and Members. My name is Michael Jarred. I'm talking on behalf of the Community Alliance with family farmers. We'd like to say that we support the budget Bill and the budget Bill juniors and really appreciate you protecting three programs at CDFA, the Food Community Hub Program, the Urban Agriculture Program, and the Beginning Farm Worker Training Program. We also really appreciate the $5 million investment in the California Underserved Small Producer Program for really critical flood relief for small and disadvantaged farmers. Thank you for your time. Have a good evening.

Good evening, Mikayla Elder, on behalf of CALSTART, the Electric Vehicle Charging Association and an LX Way, we want to sincerely thank the Senate for addressing payment standards in AB 123, which repeals the existing CARB regulation on Chip card readers. This is extremely important to providing reliable and accessible charging payment methods to customers and especially at this time when CARB's existing regulation will kick in on July 1, 2023.

We are also in support of AB 126 which will provide a stable source of funding by extending existing fees that Fund vital programs that support the transition to zero emission vehicles and reduce vehicle pollution. It also includes a compromise with an earmark for hydrogen refueling stations for light, medium and heavy duty vehicles that we feel is fair and provides certainty that the state remains committed to fuel cell technology as part of California's zero emission portfolio. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We're now going to go to the phone lines, so again, I will moderator if you could queue folks up, I'll quickly remind what the participant number is. It's 877-226-8163. Access code 736-2834. Moderator go ahead. Thank you. For public comment, you may press one and then zero.

Again that is 1 then 0 for any public comment. And we will go to line 56. Your line is open.

Good evening. This is Diana Douglas with Health Access California. We would like to express sincere gratitude to the Legislature and Administration for including an AB 102 and 118 the proposed investment in Cover, California cost sharing of 82.5 million in 2024 and double in subsequent years. This will help hundreds of thousands of Low and middle income enrollees afford to seek the care they need, when they need it.

We're also pleased to see that going forward, the revenue generated from the individual mandate penalty will be rightfully placed within the Healthcare Affordability Reserve rather than within the General Fund. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 57, your line is open.

Good evening, chair Members. Tiffany Phan, on behalf of General Motors, want to express our support for the Clean Transportation Program trailer Bill as contained in AB 126 Reyes, and to be included in AB two, four, one also want to express support from Sony Pictures Entertainment for AB 132, the film and television tax credit. Thank you.

Thank you, line 70, your line is open. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, this is Andrew Cheyne from Grace End Child Poverty, California. More than anything, we thank you all for making clear that you would reject the austerity mistakes of the Great Recession and protect our proven antiproverty programs. We obviously celebrate the incredible wins from the ECE Coalition call for the permanent rate reform needed. I want to celebrate the 10% Cowboys grant increase, the EU plus one view cooperation, minimum pilot bolstering school meals for all. And thank you, Madam Chair, for calling up Summer EBT.

Senator Mendevar, we just cannot thank you enough for your leadership and your passion for the Abod care benefits, the Hunger Cliff and of course, Reimagined Cal Works. We look forward to engaging Administration with the research basis, the analysis of those federal provisions to advance those conversations. Thank you so much.

Thank you, line 75.

Madam Chair Members, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. We just wanted to express our appreciation and its support for AB 132, the film tax credit, especially the provisions around set safety protecting workers in the film industry. Also support for subsidies for health care for striking workers and the funding in the labor Bill, funding for grants to public prosecutors to enhance labor law enforcement. And lastly, we would like to echo SEIU's comments with support for the narrow reinstatement of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Thank you so much for all your work.

Thank you. Line 80, your line is open.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association. I want to join you today to show our thanks and appreciation to the Legislature and the Administration for reaching an agreement on that $5.1 billion for transit capital operations, as well as for the extension of the statutory relief measures to move us forward in what will be holistic reforms to our services and to our statutory mechanisms.

Now, as the budget moves forward, we do intend to engage with you on implementation of the funding, as well as with Cal SCA, which will be charged with overseeing the disbursements. And then finally, do want to note that we look forward to working with you to further inform the accountability requirements as they move forward. So thank you for your time today and for the show of support of the transit industry.

Thank you. Next we'll go, line 85. Your line is open.

Good evening. Matt Klopfenstein from California Advisors, on behalf of SMUD and the Center for Sustainable Energy, both in support of AB 126. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 87.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association. We want to thank you, the Administration and the Senate at large, for your resolve and commitment to securing a once in a generation investment in our MediCal program. The coalition of stakeholders came together to structure a proposal that would maximize access to care for patients, not just today, but well into the future.

The proposed MCO plan will increase access for the millions of Californians that are in the most need of care. Additionally, the proposal will provide much needed funding to boost our physician workforce through the creation of residency programs and physicians. We wholeheartedly support the MCO proposal, which will deliver on California's promise for health care for all and achieve justice and equity and access to care for medical patients. We respectfully request your support for the measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 95, your line is open.

Good evening, Chair and Members. This is Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. Just, thank you again so much for all of your hard work and your commitment to helping support the workforce in the state. I would like to align my comments with my colleague Malik Bynum from the United Domestic Workers related to Childcare and in Home Support Services, that specifically in support of the fiscal penalty to ensure the counties come to the table and negotiate in good faith in ABSB 120.

Thank you. Line 98. Your line is open.

Also in AB 117, just in SB 117. Appreciate your efforts to support the nursing workforce by thinking outside the box to create a pipeline to continue the recruitment of nurses in the state. And lastly, just appreciate the significant investment provided to emergency ground transportation by including EMS and reimbursement rates for the MCO tax. And we hope that this will help support the workforce that is in need of retention and recruitment. So again, thank you so much and have a wonderful night.

Good evening. Kelly Brooks. I'm calling on behalf of a couple of clients. First, on behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, we want to thank the Legislature, the Governor, and all of the staff who have worked so hard on finalizing the deal on the managed care organization tax. The funding is a critical down payment to begin to tackle decades of insufficient funding and rising costs impacting our systems.

Public hospital systems provide more than just hospital based emergency inpatient services. We also provide extensive primary, specialty and behavioral health care services, many of which occur in our 100 federally Qualified health Centers. Second, on behalf of the urban counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California, we are opposed to the ongoing 10% penalty on counties for IHSS collective bargaining That's included in the Human Services Trailer Bill.

We just emphasize this proposal has never been vetted in any sort of public way prior to the hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

All right, from this point on, I'm going to ask the phoners to just do me too instead of explaining, since almost every point we've heard so far was heard previously. So if you're a yes on something, just say yes. When what Bill if you're a not just a me too. Okay, so we can get through these, and I'm going to cut off this public comment in less than 10 minutes, so go ahead. Moderator.

Thank you. Thank you. Line 94, your line is open.

Good evening, I'm Melanie Lucas with the California State Parent Teacher Association, and we are in strong support of the proposed Trailer Bill Language requiring universal screening for reading difficulties and the risk of dyslexia. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Line 79, your line is open.

Good evening. My name is Ghirlandi Guidetti, and I'm calling on behalf of Public Counsel. We're a nonprofit public interest law firm in Los Angeles. I'm calling to urge the Legislature to approve the Pace Restitution Fund, which was submitted by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. Thank you.

Line 77. Your line is open.

Thank you, Madam Chair Skinner and Committee Members. Becky Silva with the California Association of Food Banks. Thank you for the critically needed investments in the budget for our food banks and anti hunger programs to protect CalFresh benefits. Cliff with the end of CalFresh emergency allotment. In particular, thank you very much for investments in Cal food towards the CalFresh minimum pilot to increase it to $50 per month.

Investments in Ssisp benefits accelerating the implementation of food for all for ages 55 plus, and also for the continued investments in California's landmark school meals for all to ensure we can keep children fed while they're at school, and for budget investments to fully maximize the potential of thank you again very much.

Me too.

Line 99. Your line is open.

Good evening. Connie Choi, With Public Advocates. Thank you for responding to our LCAP equity and access concerns in AB 114, and focusing goals, actions, metrics, and spending to close student group performance gaps. We also share appreciation for the equity multiplier, particularly improved Fund distribution to schools with greater concentrations of low performing disadvantaged students. Thank you for clarifying that support be provided to Committee partners to ensure meaningful collaboration in the Community Engagement Initiative, and we're heartened to see preservation of Golden State Pathways in the National Board Certification Grants.

Lastly, advocates remain concerned about ongoing funding to county offices of education, but we're grateful for increased accountability mechanisms and transparency around court and community schools, and we look forward to future opportunities to engage with you in considering COE, alternative education accountability. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 35. Your line is open.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Nick Chiappe on behalf of the California Trucking Association. In support of AB one, two, six. Thank you.

Lindsay Nofelt here on behalf of Reading for Berkeley. We support the Budget Trailer Bill proposed language to require universal screening for reading difficulties and risk of Dyslexia, and grades K through two. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 88.

Thank you. 96, your line is open.

Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair Skinner and Members. Carmen-Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU Cal Action. Out of complete respect for you, Chair Skinner, I haven't heard anybody speak to SB 134, which includes the SB Two Trailer Bill Language.

So if I could just take a moment to acknowledge and express my gratitude for the community based organizations that were the original co sponsors of SB Two. Kenneth Roscinger police act of 2021. For all of their hard work initially and this year, lifting their voices during their trauma by law enforcement officers who engaged in serious misconduct. When SB Two was enacted, the Community was clear status quo was unacceptable, and that the state needed to hold law enforcement officers accountable.

SB Two was created, or created a fair, impartial and transparent mechanism to do exactly that. Recently, the Protect SB Two Coalition worked really hard to prevent the withholding of SB Two records in Trailer Bill language, because that is contrary to the transparent, decertification process that we all fought really hard to enact. I will acknowledge that the language in print in SC One, Three, Four is improved from the draft language that was originally introduced.

However, and still the Protect SB Two Coalition knows that more work needs to be done right away, or else the goals of SB Two will not be achieved. Instead, Community will remain in the dark about the serious misconduct of badge wearing, gun carrying officers. We hope to find champions in this body to help us keep SB Two intact, which includes ensuring post is not excluded from responding to PRA requests. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Line 103. Your line is open.

Good evening, chair and Committee Members. My name is David Gasud, calling on behalf of Fulcrum. Full and complete reading is a universal mandate. I'm calling in to support the Budget Trailer Bill proposed language to require universal screening for reading difficulties and risk of Dyslexia in grades K two. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 107, your line is open.

Hi. This is Rachel Hurd with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board of Education. I am in strong support of the language for universal screening for risk of reading difficulties, including Dyslexia. Thank you.

Line 84. Your line is open.

Good evening. My name is Caleb Logan from the nonprofit qualified legal services provider Elder Law and Advocacy, calling to urge your approval of the Pace Restitution Fund submitted by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. Thank you.

Line 97.

Hi. Lori DePole Co, state Director of Decoding Dyslexia, California DDCA and over 50 other organizations are in support of K through two screening for reading difficulties, including risk of Dyslexia, as outlined in SB 1114. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 93.

Hi, good evening. Kim Rothschild with the California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, echoing CSAC's comments in opposition to the IHSS collective bargaining county penalty from 7% to 10% ongoing. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Line 101, your line is open.

Good evening, this is Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of Warner Brothers Discovery, in support of AB 132, the film tax credit shutter Bill thank you, and.

Moderator, we'll take three more.

106.

Hello Sri Doreen from Equitable Literacy for all. We're in support of the Budget Trailer Bill proposed language to require universal screening for reading difficulties and risk of Dyslexia in grade K two through two.

Thank you. And 105.

Good evening. This is Todd Collins from the California Reading Coalition. We strongly support the Budget Trailer Bill language that requires universal screening for reading difficulties and risk of Dyslexia. Thank you very much.

Line 83.

Good evening, chair and Members, this is Derek Polka with the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, echoing the comments from Victor Eldra from Bas in strong support of all investments in food relief. Thank you.

Apologies to those of you who may be still on the line. We are happy to accept your comments on the trailer bills or the budget before us. You may send them to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and appreciate your participation, appreciate everyone who came and expressed their yeas or nays or different nuances regarding what's before us.

And as I have mentioned many times, it is when there are obviously many constituencies and many stakeholders that have a clear stake in the budget that we are doing of this magnitude and also the size of our state. And we appreciate all the input that we've received.

We cannot necessarily achieve everything that everyone wants, but I think it's a very good budget, and it definitely benefits Californians and protects the progress that we've made in moving towards a more equitable economy because it does not have any cuts to our core services that people so depend on. And that right now, with inflationary pressures and others, many are in need of even more. So I'm very proud of that.

And with that, I think we will move to start taking votes, and we will go to the top of the agenda, and we will start with the item one, AB 102, which is the Budget Act of 2023. And do we have a motion? All right, Senator Durazo has moved. Let us do a roll call.

AB 102. Motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

I believe it's 13-4. Is that correct?

13-4.

Okay, is there a reason we need to keep the roll open? Is there anybody? All right, so that Bill is out. 13-4. And now we'll go to item two, AB 103, the budget acts of 21 and 22. Do I have a motion? So, moved by Senator Eggman. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is also 13-4. Yeah, you did. I got you down. 13-4. That Bill is out. We will now go to item three, AB 114, the Education Trailer Bill. Do we have a motion, Mr. Laird? Senator Laird's moved it. Let's get a roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out, 14-0. We'll go to item four, AB 115. Arts and Music in th Schools. Do we have a motion? Senator Durazo moved and we will have a roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. 17-0. We'll now go to item five, AB 116. Early Childcare and Education. Do we see a motion? Senator Roth moved? We'll have a roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. 13-3.

Correct.

Okay, we'll now go to AB 117, Committee on Budget Higher Education. We'll get Senator Laird. All right, Senator Laird moved. Roll call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes are 17 on AB 117. The bill's out. We'll go to AB 118 on Health. Senator Menjivar. Do you move?

I'll move.

Okay. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Let's do the roll call.

[Roll Call]

13-1. Right, ayes were 13. No's one. That Bill is out now. Medi-Cal Managed Care. Senator Durazo got that one. Okay, roll call.

[Roll Call]

That's Bill, AB 119. Ayes 14. We'll now go to AB 120, Human Services. Senator Menjivar moves. I'm sorry about that, roll call.

[Roll Call]

I believe that's 13-3, ayes 13. No's three.That Bill is out. Now we'll go to AB 121, Developmental Services. Senator Roth moved. Roll call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 17. AB 121. That Bill is out and now AB 122, Public Resources. Senator Becker moves. Let's have a roll call.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. 13-4. That's AB 122. And now we'll go to AB 123, Energy, Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas moves. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 13. That Bill is out. Wasn't there one? No. Is there one? Both got zero. No's. Okay, so AB 123 is out. 13. Now we will 13 ayes. We'll go to AB 124. Also Energy. Senator Becker moves. Let's have a roll call.

[Roll Call]

All right. That bills out with 13. Now we'll go to AB 125, Transportation. Senator Durazo moves. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. 13-2. 13 ayes two no's. Now we go to AB 126. Senator Becker moves. Now we will have the roll call.

[Roll Call]

That bills out 13 ayes, four no's. Now we'll go to AB 127. Committee on Budget or State government. Senator Padilla moves. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

All right, AB 127 is 13 ayes, two no's. Okay, AB 128 on Cannabis. Do we have a motion? Senator Roth moves. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]17 ayes.

17 ayes on 128. That Bill is out now AB 129 Housing. When people are asleep here. Senator Roth moves. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out, 13. Now we have AB 130 Employment. Senator Durazo moves. Yes, I move. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

That Bill--AB 130 is out with 13. Now we have AB 139. Senator Min moves roll call. Did I have 131? It's not what I said. I'm sorry. 131; dyslexia tonight. Go ahead, roll call. Min moves anyway.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 13 ayes, four no's.

Correct.

Four no's. So AB 139 is out; AB 132, Senator Smallwoo-Cuevas moves. We will have a roll call.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 14 on AB 132. Now we have AB 133, The Court. Senator Roth moves.

[Roll Call]

Great. That bills out. 13 ayes, four no's AB 134. Public Safety Senator Durazo moves. Roll call.

[Roll Call]

AB 134 is out with 13 ayes, four no's. And thank you all. That was all of our bills today. Again, appreciate staff, appreciate everyone hanging in there. And that is all staff, collective staff, and I think members also, thank you for hanging in there. And with that, I will gavel down the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee is concluded. Adjourned.