Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration

Thank you Madam Chair. Chris Ryan with the Department of Justice, Chief of the Division of Operations. And I have some colleagues here who can answer questions from the Committee today, the Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, and the California Justice Information Services Division are requesting a total of 4.9 million in 23-24 and 3.2 million in 24-25 to address workload increases resulting from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruen, United States Supreme Court decision.

And I have Michael Redding sitting to my right here, and he's prepared to provide a brief overview of the case and the issues. So I'll turn over to you, Michael.

Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Michael Redding. I'm a special assistant Attorney General for the California Department of Justice. So exactly, I'm here today to talk a little bit about what we'll call Bruen, the case. The question in Bruen was, who has a right to carry a concealed weapon in public? Prior to Bruen, there were, roughly speaking, three different types of regimes.

One was no regime, meaning anybody who had a firearm could carry it in public without submitting an application. And when I say three different types of regimes, I'm saying across the United States, a second bucket was shall-issue states. In these states, if somebody submitted an application and there was nothing disqualifying that person from carrying a concealed weapon in public, that person would be issued a permit or a CCW. California was in the third bucket. California was a may-issue state.

This roughly said that if somebody submitted an application, there could be an assessment, and the issuing agency had some authority to issue or to deny an application. The issue or the statute in question in Bruin was the New York statute. New York required what was, the language was proper cause. It said that in order to receive a CCW had to demonstrate proper cause. Again, roughly speaking, proper cause in New York meant that you had a heightened need for a concealed carry permit.

Often that was interpreted to mean that you had threats against you or you had some special need for having this self-defense at your fingertips. Often in New York, actually, it was people, like famous people, who had demonstrated that they had received some threats. Similarly, in California, we required good cause. In California, CCW is a very local-driven process, meaning that these are issued by the sheriffs and the local police chiefs.

The interpretation of what good cause meant varied from locality to locality, but not unlike New York, it was some other additional need other than being disqualified. In Bruen, the United States Supreme Court struck down New York's proper cause requirement. In short, tracing back to Heller and McDonald, these two decisions that came out in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court found that the core of the Second Amendment was self-defense, not just in the home, but in public.

Accordingly, because everyone has that right to self-defense in public, the presumption is that everyone has a right to a concealed carry permit or a CCW, and states cannot condition the issuance of a permit on this heightened need. California's statute was specifically mentioned in the decision and discussed in the decision, so this was not a hypothetical that California statute was immediately struck down as a result of that decision.

And the California Department of Justice actually issued guidance, I believe, the next day saying that again, issuing agencies, chiefs, sheriffs could no longer require good cause in order for somebody to receive a CCW. So California has transitioned and is not transitioning, but has transitioned to again a shall-issue state. There remain a few other requirements in California.

Requirement to complete a course of training, requirement to be a resident of the relevant city or county, and to demonstrate good moral character. These remain in place today. But the key message that I hope to get across to you today is that the mandate has been placed on us not by a change in statute or a change in approach, not even by a federal law that may later be challenged in some way.

This is a mandate that comes directly from the United States Supreme Court and we are obliged to comply. So accordingly, our numbers are changing. That's my overview. Thank you and the Department welcomes any questions.

Thank you. We're going to go to the LAO, followed by the Department of Finance.

Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst Office. So the Administration is requesting a portion of the funding from the fingerprint fees account and a portion of the funding from the General Fund. We recommend the Legislature fund the General Fund portion, 2.9 million in 2023-24 and 2.7 million in 24-25 from the dealer's record of sale, or DROS special account, instead. State law authorizes fee revenues to be assessed and collected to cover DOJ's costs related to CCW workload.

And our understanding is that these fee revenues are deposited into the fingerprint fees account as well as the DROS special account. But the proposal that you have before here is only asking for additional funding from the fingerprint fees account and not the DROS account. So we did discuss the DROS special account in a prior hearing. Specifically that the DROS special account in recent years has had revenues that exceed expenditures that has allowed that fund balance to grow a bit.

And so by shifting kind of support over to the General Fund, that would free up about $3 million in General Fund that could then be used for other legislative purposes, which is particularly important given the state's budget situation. We would finally note that a fee increase or a discussion about fee increase could also be appropriate, given that in our conversations with DOJ, the last time the fees were adjusted were in 2004. So it's been a little bit of time. So thank you.

And Kevin Clark with the Department of Finance. So, just to respond a little bit to LAO's comments on utilizing DROS fees or, excuse me, DROS funds for these transactions. So, like LAO mentioned, DROS revenues have increased over the last few years due to the fee increase in fiscal year 2019-20. And so the fee went from roughly $19 to $31.13, though that fee increase was enacted in large part to support the Firearms IT System Modernization project.

And that's a complex project that modernizes a number of antiquated firearms databases that DOJ maintains. So we would just note that funding this BCP with gross revenues could compromise other firearms priorities in the space, including the fitsum implementation. Happy to answer any questions if you have.

Thank you much, appreciate it, and thank you for the presentation. It appears that the Supreme Court ruling will have significant consequences for the state related to carry concealed weapons licenses. So does the Department of Justice currently receive data on. Well, the Department of Justice currently receives data for CCW licenses from counties. Are those counties in compliance?

So the best answer that I can give on that is that what's required of the California Department of Justice is not to say we're totally hands-off, but we have two points in time when we receive data. The first point in time is when somebody submits a record request. They want a background check. And so we get the ping for the background check, we do the background check, we send it back to the county or Police Chief.

Then on the back end, once the chief or sheriff has done their vetting, whatever they're doing, and issued a concealed carry permit, they send us a copy, a photocopy of the permit itself. We keep that permit for law enforcement purposes, meaning we put it in our system. So if a police officer stops somebody, they can look in their system and say, okay, this person has a concealed carry permit.

So all that is to say, we don't have any specific information about sheriffs or chiefs being out of compliance with that. We only know what we know, and we're collecting that information, again, not really for data tracking purposes. So not, so we can go back and say, okay, on July 19, 2021 there were x number of CCWs in California. We're collecting it so that when we're putting it out to local law enforcement, they have the most accurate data at their fingertips at that given time.

Not sure that quite answers my questions if the counties are in compliance or my follow-up, which would be what can you do to make sure that the counties are in compliance?

And I think the difficulty is that, like I said, we don't really know what we don't know. We get copies of the concealed carry permits on the back end. We don't know how long they've been or how long it's been since they've been issued, if somebody issues a permit and doesn't send us a copy, then we don't actually know that. So far as we know, we're getting that information.

And we think that they certainly have a benefit in getting that information because they want us to have the records. In terms of getting people into compliance, if they're out of compliance, there's not any specific statute or any specific tool that we know of that would say, okay, this is what you have to do. And my point is really just to demonstrate that we're keeping that information, again, for law enforcement purposes. If the Legislature wanted us to be keeping it for data-tracking purposes, then exactly.

We might be in a different world discussing what tools we would have to get that information.

So it sounds like it's kind of an honor system.

Yes.

Then a big trust fall. So you may not be getting all the accurate information to be able to have an accurate representation of data.

That may be true.

Okay. Is the information available to the public.

The number of CCWs at a given time in a given county is available to the public? Yes. So, again, there is lots of data. Some of it is criminal history data and is not available to the public. Some of it is not criminal history data. The total numbers, that is available to the public.

Total numbers of CCW licenses reflected on. Where is that data collected? Is it collected by county, or is it something that's available through the DOJ website?

So when they send us these photocopies of the CCWs, we put it into our system, and then we can say at a given time, this is the number of, number of CCWs that are issued in Amador County as of today.

So it's safe to assume that if a county does not provide you up to date current information on the licenses, because it's a trust system, right, it's like an honor code system, the information reflected on the DOJ website may actually not be accurate.

Correct.

Understood. What trends have you seen so far since the Supreme Court ruling from last June?

For that, I'm going to turn it over to Allison Mendoza of the Bureau of Firearms.

Hi, good afternoon. Allison Mendoza, Director of the Bureau of Firearms. So, trends in firearms I think you're asking about, CCWs specifically. So since the Bruen decision, the bureau has already seen an increase of about 46% in initial live scan applications. That's the first step in which a law enforcement agency will send us an application to do a firearm eligibility check on an applicant before they decide whether to issue or not. So that's just in the last 10 months since the Bruen decision.

Are you amenable to funding this request from the DRO special account for the General Fund portion, as the LAO is recommending?

Thank you, I'm going to turn it back to Chris. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Chris Ryan with the Department of Justice. I think, as we've talked about in our previous hearing, these proposals were not considered in terms of the fund balance. So we would need to go back and see whether or not the fund could afford it or not. And I think we spoke to that in the earlier hearing when there was proposals related to firearms, and the recommendation was to Fund it from DROS. So we would have to go back and take a look at that.

Can you provide maybe a timeline that you might be able to go back and look at that to the Committee?

We can provide information to you before the end of this budget development cycle. I can provide it to staff within the next couple of weeks, if that works, before they May revise.

Yes, that'd be helpful. Thank you

Okay.

Thank you. I have no other comments or questions. We're going to leave this item open. Thank you very much. We're going to move on to issue two, ammunition authorization program fee increases. You may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair, Chris Ryan with the Department of Justice again. And this proposal is twofold. It provides for resources needed for the program to conduct the work that's associated with ammo registration, the Prop 63 program. And it also provides language that would allow the Department of Justice to adjust the fee needed to support the program. So while it is not currently a fee increase the language would allow the Department to adjust its fees to support the program.

I have Allison Mendoza here to answer any questions about operations, and if you would like further description of the program, we can do that as well.

Can you provide just a short description, please?

Sure, the ammunition authorization program provides a background check for an applicant prior. I'm sorry, is that better? So the ammunition authorization program, we conduct ammunition eligibility background checks prior to somebody being able to purchase ammunition. This went into effect July 2019. And as part of the authorization program as well, we do the licensing of ammunition vendors within California.

We do compliance inspections on the ammunition vendors to make sure that they're in line with state laws and regulations, and then also we provide certificate of eligibility background checks on ammunition vendor employees, as well as firearm dealer and firearm dealer employees.

We're going to go to the LAO, followed by the Department of Finance.

So the Ammunition Safety and Enforcement Special Fund is the special Fund that supports this program. And since that Special Fund was created, the revenues that have been deposited into it have not been sufficient to support costs. So a fee increase is reasonable. However, we are recommending that the Legislature reject the proposed trailer bill language that would authorize DOJ to adjust the fee through the regulatory process.

And the reason for this is because we think that this approach would reduce legislative oversight of the program, as legislative approval would not be needed to set the fee level, including increasing that fee. And that's particularly important because the Special Fund, the Ammunition Safety and Enforcement Special Fund, is continuously appropriated, which means that DOJ does not need to seek legislative approval for expenditures as long as there's sufficient revenue that's available.

So instead, we recommend that the Legislature change state law to increase the fee because that approach would ensure that the Legislature retains some oversight over the program and operations in thinking about those fee levels. In considering fee levels, the Legislature does have different factors that could be considered and balanced. So, for example, is there a maximum transaction fee that the Legislature wants to cap it out at? Does the Legislature want the general fund loan to be repaid within a certain amount of time?

And then also, when does the Legislature want the fee increase to go into effect? So, as an example, using kind of updated data and assumptions, assuming that the proposed General Fund loan is provided, we estimated that increasing the ammunition fee by $4 for a total $5 fee could ensure that there's sufficient revenue to support DOJ costs, but also to repay those General Fund loans within 15 years.

While a $5 increase for a total $6 fee would probably result enable repayment in about 10 years, pending the fee increase, we do think it is reasonable for the proposed additional General Fund loan to ensure that the program's operational levels are maintained. We would note that the Legislature might want to adjust the exact amount that is loaned depending on whatever action the Legislature chooses to take on the fee increase.

So, as a very quick example on that, if the Legislature chooses to increase the fee as part of the 2023-24 budget and have it go into effect right away, then it could mean that only one out of the requested two years would require a General Fund loan. And so that's kind of what we mean by you'd want to adjust it to make sure the actions were complementary. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Clark, Department of Finance. So, just to respond to LAO's comments, in terms of rejecting the TBL, I think the regulatory process has a robust system of checks and balances, requires DOJ to solicit public comment from stakeholder groups, and also, changes are reviewed by Department of Finance for fiscal impact, as well as the Office of Administrative Law to ensure that any regulatory change is clear, precise, necessary, and legally valid.

So, with that, we think there still really is a robust system to promote effective oversight. In terms of increasing the fee and statute, the specific, there's still a lot of uncertainty about the revenues of this fund. And so there's no real clear trend that has emerged over the last five or six fiscal years that we've been collecting revenues. And so providing DOJ with authority through the regs process could allow DOJ to take action, set the fee to align with costs of actually regulating the program.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Can the DOJ speak to general trends regarding general gun ownership, and can you give us an estimate as to the new number of gun owners?

Yes. Thank you. Alison Mendoza with the Bureau of Firearms. So, in 2022, we had approximately 148,000 new gun owners. Over the last couple of years, especially through Covid and the pandemic, we saw a growth in DROS transactions, and gun dealers reported to us that a lot of them were first-time buyers that had never owned a firearm. Just looking at trends of firearm ownership over the years, since 2008, we had about 927,000 recorded individuals of firearm owners. In 2022, we have over 3 million.

Expression says a thousand words. Thank you. Wow, that's really alarming. I want to make note that our country so far has experienced more than 160 mass shootings. 14 of them have been in California, leaving 36 people dead and 47 people injured. Apart from this fee needing to support the ammunition program, increasing the fee for the purchase of bullets sounds reasonable as a matter of policy, but I want to do make a point of clarification.

Under current law, if I were to buy one bullet in a single transaction or 1000 in a single transaction, is the fee a dollar for each transaction?

Correct.

Has the DOJ estimated what the fee increase would need to be in order to fund the program and pay off the original loan and the loan requested in this proposal?

Madam Chair, Chris Ryan with the Department of Justice. We did a preliminary estimate and we estimated that it's approximately $6.82 to pay off the loan and provide resources for the program. And that would be paying off the loan over 10 years. Our number is slightly different than what LAO was talking about earlier, and I think there's probably some costs that occur at the fund level that may not be operational costs.

And so we'd like to work with the LAO on, if there's a fee proposal going forward, what that right number is.

So the $6.82 per transaction, would that be the same as my previous kind of scenario? If I were to buy one bullet, I'm paying an additional $6.82, but if I buy 1000 bullets, I'm still paying $6.82?

Yes.

Do you think that seems reasonable?

I think that's the way the language is written. So we're just implementing the law as currently written.

Is there an opportunity, just thinking out loud here, an opportunity to potentially think about percentages of what you buy versus this fee?

I think that we would have to talk about it and brainstorm. Obviously, there's many ways to create a fee and we're implementing it based on the transaction language that's currently there. I think this was a new program, this was a new fee structure, and a new regulatory operation when the Proposition went through.

So we have to go back and talk with our firearms experts to see would we recover the same amount of revenue with these other types of scenarios that you're considering, but it's something that we'd be willing to listen to.

Okay, that just seems interesting that one bullet versus 1000 bullets is still the same fee, $6.82. Just interesting. If this trailer bill were implemented, can you clarify the ceiling limit as to how much the fee can be raised? My understanding is that the fee cannot be more than what it takes to support the program, but can you clarify the limits proposed by Prop 63?

Yeah, I think we're currently in the process of having our Gov. Law folks take a look at that. You had Prop 63 that went through with one language, one description, and it had a ceiling of about $50. SB 1253 was the bill that followed that and replaced a lot of that language and specified a dollar. So we've been having conversations.

We've also been consulting with our government law section, and I don't want to speak for finance, but I think they may have some of their attorneys looking at this language as well.

And what is the vote threshold for this trailer bill?

I'm going to defer to finance on both thresholds.

Yeah. Kevin Clark, Department of Finance. So, according to Ledge Council staff, this change in statute wouldn't require a two thirds vote, nor would it require or, nor are the changes bound to the vote requirements of Prop 63, which would be a 55% threshold, as well as being to further the intention of the Proposition. That's in conversations with Ledge Council staff.

Thank you. And just out of my own curiosity, and I don't even know the process, but is there any kind of training required, considering if you're buying your first-time gun owner, what does the process look like considering, I think it's really alarming that we went from 2008, 927,000 gun owners to 2022, 3 million gun owners. California has different sets of policies in place, but what's required exactly?

Yes, Allison Mendoza with the Bureau of Firearms, in order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a firearm safety certificate or some sort of authorized exemption. And so there is a training material that's provided. There's a firearm safety instructor that would provide a test. You have to have a passing score which would issue you that firearm safety certificate that you would have to present at time of purchase.

What are the exceptions?

There's a hunting license exemption, which, to get a hunting license, you have to go through a training course as well. There's peace officer exemptions. Again, training that's involved at a peace officer level. Those types of exemptions.

Thank you. I appreciate it. We're going to leave this item open for the moment and go on to issue number three related to government operations agency language access pilot program update. Thank you.

Thank you. Issue three, Language Access Pilot program update. Please begin when ready.

Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair Carillo and staff. I'm Pam Chu, State Chief Equity Officer at the Government Operations Agency. I'm joined by some colleagues here who will introduce themselves.

Sorry, I'm sorry. Before we begin for this update, we are joined by. Actually, we can allow for you guys, to you folks to introduce yourselves, please. Please continue. Apologies.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Maureen Keffer, and as of yesterday, I am the Language Access Manager at the Government Operations Agency. Because this is my first time appearing before this Subcommittee, Pam asked that I share a little bit of my background. I can do that now, and then we can move forward through the rest of the introductions, if that's okay. For about seven years before coming to the state, I worked at California Rural Legal assistance, primarily supporting the indigenous farmworker program.

One of my first clients as a practicing lawyer in CRLA's Salinas office was a triqui-speaking farm worker who was denied interpreter services when dealing with a life-threatening medical condition. So language access issues have been close to my professional heart for a long time. For the last five-plus years, I've worked in civil rights policy and equity focus programs at the Department of Social Services, where I was lead on the Cal HHS-wide language access efforts. Thank you for having me join the Subcommittee today.

Hi, Madam Chair, my name is Justin Howard. I'm Deputy Secretary for Fiscal Policy and Administration at the Government Operations agency and I'm here in support of my colleagues.

We can begin. So the Budget Act of 2022 included 5 million to create a language access pilot program to test how to provide interpretation and translation in various languages at all government hearings and meetings that are open to the public. The Government Operations Agency is tasked with the implementation of this program. I do recall mid-Covid I myself was interpreting for Spanish speakers that were on the call.

GovOps is tasked with researching how to use the various translation methods and technologies to ensure any member of the public can participate in government meetings, regardless of language spoken. In addition, GovOps must look at ways public comment can be provided and responded to in the preferred language. GovOps has begun the preliminary phases of researching and implementing this program, and this panel is an opportunity for the agency to provide their first update to this budget Subcommittee. Please begin.

Yes, you captured that very well. Thank you for having us here today to provide an update on this important program. As you may be aware, the State Chief Equity Officer position is newly created with the charge of providing leadership on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility to state departments within state operations, with a focus in the areas of human resources, workforce, procurement, and technology.

This work includes ensuring California's residents, including those with limited English proficiency, have access to vital government programs and services and meaningful opportunities to engage and participate in their state government. For the past eight months since assuming this new role, we've been working to build the foundation for our equity and language access work across the state. This includes the creation of a language access manager position to develop and lead the pilot and other language access work.

We are absolutely thrilled to have Maureen on board and jumping right in on her second day with her vast experience and the closeness that she's had to this work. We're just so happy about that. We have also begun researching various methods, technologies, best practices, as you had shared, to inform our approach.

We are looking to other state and local governments for peer learning through the network of state and local equity offices and national and municipal language access networks, and with the support of experts from the Migration Policy Institute and our partners in the Legislature. For example, we recently met with the City of Seattle to learn about their innovative translation approach, and we are meeting with Los Angeles County soon to learn about their comprehensive efforts to improve interpretation and translation services.

We also plan to draw on the expertise of professional associations, including the American Translators Association and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Of central importance to our approach is the engagement with community-based stakeholders who are offering critical input regarding the needs and priorities of Californians who speak languages other than English. We'd be happy to further elaborate on these partnerships should the Committee desire more information.

Internally, we will continue to utilize the state operations working group to provide a platform for engagement of state agencies and departments that they oversee. Over the next month, we will conduct a survey of state departments to develop a baseline of how departments are delivering language access services, including for public meetings and hearings. In June, we'll compile and analyze the survey results to inform our work, as well as identify departments that are interested in participating in the pilot.

In the meantime, beginning in May and informed by our preliminary research, we will develop scopes of work and leverage procurement processes to select vendors who can provide the expertise and technology solutions required to provide translation interpretation solutions at a minimum of the four public meetings. We anticipate delivering the pilot language access solutions, including prehearing outreach and meeting language services, and postmeeting follow-up from November of this year through June of 2024.

In closing, we do want to express our appreciation for your leadership and commitment to this important program and language access across the board, and we're happy to take any questions.

Thank you for that. We'll go with LAO, followed by the Department of Finance.

Ross Brown with the LAO. We don't have any additional information to add on this item.

Natalie Griswold, Department of Finance we have no additional comments at this time.

Thank you. I do have just some follow-up questions for you, really, mostly on implementation. What is the agency's timeline to begin implementing the pilot program?

Okay, we split this up. So Maureen is up with the question.

Sure. I'm happy to provide the general overview of our anticipated milestones. So, as of May, I think as you heard from Pam, we're planning to administer a survey to state departments that will help us identify what their existing resources are and departments that we may potentially partner with on the pilot. In June, we hope to have nailed down that list of departments that we'll be working with to pilot language access solutions.

On an ongoing basis, we'll continue conferring with language access advocates and community stakeholders, and continuing our research, as well as developing the scopes of work and soliciting and securing those vendor contracts starting now, essentially through November. So we hope to have the contracted vendors in place by November so that we can begin delivering the translation and interpretation services starting then for the series of public meetings through June of 2024.

And what will be the metrics used to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program?

So we're compiling a couple of indicators right now that we're looking at. First would be the number of participants in these public meetings who have limited English proficiency. So we need to look at the outreach strategies employed and whether we're actually reaching the people in languages in ways that are going to attract them to participate in public meetings. We'll also be tracking the number of participants who are actually providing public comment or engaging in languages other than English during the meetings.

We're looking at implementing some surveys that would give us feedback on the quality of the language services provided, the cultural appropriateness of the translated materials developed. That would likely be in partnership with some of those community-based partners that Pam referenced a moment ago.

And then we'd be implementing some qualitative experience or satisfaction self-reports gathered by surveys from participants in the meetings themselves, reporting on their experience actually engaging with the interpretation or translation services, as well as the public officials on the receiving end of the input or feedback from community members to make sure that the process is smooth and effective. So we'll be evaluating their impressions of how the experience went through surveys.

What kind of vendors are you considering?

So we're looking into a variety of vendors, both private interpretation and translation contractors, companies, as well as community-based translation or interpretation providers. We find that in many instances, there's a need for specialized services that can only be really obtained by engaging with folks close to the community to allow for the kind of cultural competence necessary. So looking at both the bigger multilanguage vendors as well as smaller community-based vendors.

One thing that I would hope that you might just put on your radar in terms of comparison is, is it more fiscally responsible through public dollars to go through vendors as you go through this pilot program, or to establish in-house interpretation and translation services, considering that in the future some potential meetings may have large number of constituents and Californians coming in to testify both locally here and some may not. Right. So you may be needing different resources for different meetings.

Yeah, I very much appreciate that suggestion. We'll definitely keep that in mind.

Another thing that I'd like to see, and based on your experience working with indigenous communities is translation for indigenous interpretation and translation for indigenous communities, very hard to find, and I'd imagine the cost associated with that is much different than more commonly spoken languages. And there's a variety of different indigenous communities. So would love to see some data, some information as to what those costs could potentially be as we try to assist more Californians across the state.

Absolutely. We'll keep that in mind.

Thank you. This item is for presentation only and appreciate you both taking the time. Welcome to Sub Four and welcome to your new positions and really hope that this is a bold new step for California as we try to accommodate and really ensure that we are providing the resources for all people. So thank you. Appreciate that.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate the collaboration with the staff and continue look forward to continuing this dialogue and conversation and coming back to share updates with you. And without planning, Maureen and I both were our Assembly green today.

Good job.

It's great to be here with you. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you everyone for the presentation. We're now in public comment. We will now be accepting public comment in the hearing room and on the phone. The phone number to connect is on the Committee website and should also be on the screen if you are watching over the Internet. The toll-free number is 877-692-8957, public access code is 131-5447 is there any public comment in the hearing room? Seeing none, let's move on to the phone. Operator, you may begin.

If you'd like to make a comment, please press one, then zero at this time. Be one moment while I collect line number. Thank you for your patience. We'll go to line number 20, please go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon and Assemblymembers and Chair Carillo. My name is Faith Lee. I am with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, a social justice organization that protects and strengthens the rights of AAPI communities, also legal service providers that serve the community in LA and OC in various Asian languages.

We thank GovOp, the Legislature, specifically Chair Carillo and your staff on your leadership to ensure LEP Californians have more opportunities to participate in the political process and Chair Carillo for your thoughtful comment about having in-house interpreters instead of vendors we know that it is difficult often to fill vacancies in various state agencies to provide in language access for community members, and some specifically not so common languages in the indigenous community and in some Asian communities are difficult to find interpreters who can provide interpreting services during public comment, which also means that many LEP Californians actually go to their local community-based organizations for their support in in-language services such as applying for EDD, unemployment insurance, Medi Cal applications.

Therefore, I urge the Assembly Budget Committee to invest in community-based organizations that they often act as a bridge between LEP Californians and governmental services. Specifically, I asked this Budget Committee and the overall Budget Committee to support a budget ass that's currently in process that would allocate $5 million to establish the bilingual-oriented Social Equity Services grant to provide CBOs resources to pay their bilingual staff a bilingual pay and sustain the bilingual workforce. Thank you so much for your time.

We have no additional callers in queue.

Thank you. Appreciate everyone's patience today as we try to be in different places at the same time during one of the most busiest months of the Legislature. Again, thank you to all our panelists and our folks providing public comment. This Budget Sub Four Committee hearing is adjourned. Thank you.