Senate Standing Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review

Review will come to order. We're holding our hearing here in the swing space, 1021 O Street, Room 1200. We are just shy of a quorum, so we'll start as a subcommittee and establish a quorum as soon as we have it.

Public comment will be heard after discussion of all items, and so we're not going to be doing it over and over again. And since we don't have a quorum, we will just proceed to presentations.

The bills that we will hear today are AB 157, which is a budget bill junior for the 2024 Budget Act, AB 158, a budget bill junior for the 2022 and 23 budget acts, and then five budget trailer bills. These bills include technical changes, issues that were not completed in June, and ratification of various bargaining unit MOUs.

I want to thank everyone who's worked hard in drafting this budget, both from June and for the actions we're taking now, including our Senate budget staff, Assembly staff, the Administration, and the LAO. So, with that, Mister Vice Chair, do you have any opening comments?

Thank you, Mister Chair. I appreciate that. To review, Proposition 25 was proposed by the majority party as a promise to the voters to pass a budget on time if they just didn't have to deal with the priorities of the millions of Californians that we pesky Republicans represent.

What we've seen repeatedly, as has been written by Dan Walters and others, has been a mere placeholder budget developed largely without transparency to be, and always is completed later, like today. But for the PAGA-related allocations and the MOUs, these bills deal with issues that largely existed in June.

So, this hearing gives proof to the lie that that on time budget passed over two months ago. This is nothing new for me of course. I have been redundantly redundant in my criticism of our budget process, and by right, could just oppose everything before us today.

But to explain in advance and avoid the admonition of Ralph Waldo Emerson that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, I will support some of the proposals that I find, excuse me, nonetheless compelling and important. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. We do have a quorum, so we will establish that now.

[Roll call]

Okay, we do have a quorum. We'll now begin with Erica Lee, the Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Finance, who will provide an overview of the bills before us today.

Good morning. Chair Wiener, Vice Chair Niello, and Members of the Budget Committee Erica Lee with the Department of Finance and I am here to present on several budget bills, as noted, that include what I would say are largely cleanup items and technical adjustments to current and prior budget agreements.

The first bill, SB 157, amends the 2024 Budget Act. This bill extends the availability of existing funds for the court-based firearm relinquishment programs to give the Judicial Council more time to administer the third round of grants.

It also extends the availability of funds for the extreme heat and community resilience grant program from four years to five years to align with the intent of the original allocation.

The bill also aligns program expenditures for the Department of Pesticide Regulation with Chapter 60 statutes of 2024 or AB 2113 which increase the pesticide mill fee to align revenue and expenditures with program needs and address the fund's structural deficit.

It also provides funds and positions to the Labor Workforce Development Agency to implement the revised cure process for Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, claims established by SB 92. It provides amendments to K-12 and higher education investments that support schools, students, and families.

It allows the California Department of Public Health and Emergency Medical Services Authority to recover funds fronted by the state for surge staffing during the pandemic and makes other technical adjustments to align with the budget agreement. The next bill is SB 158, and it amends the 2022 and 2023 budget acts.

The bill makes an investment. Sorry. The bill makes an adjustment of 25,000 to accurately reflect budgeted investments to support affordable student housing projects at Santa Rosa, Napa, and Imperial Valley community colleges.

It also includes authority for CDCR to pay settlement costs related to a legal case that awarded specified supervisory correctional employees additional compensation for work activities they must complete before and after their official shift times, and it includes other clarifying and technical adjustments. The next bill is SB 176, the education trailer bill.

This bill further specifies a process for local educational agencies to report unexpended expanded learning opportunities program dollars or ELOP dollars, for Department collection. It delays the instructional continuity plan certification requirements by one year to Fiscal Year 2026-27.

It proposes additional flexibilities that allow specified local entities to apply for remaining California Universal Preschool Planning Grant Program funds. It requires the state fire marshal to promulgate updated regulations pertaining to occupancy standards for daycare centers in consultation with the Department of Social Services, and it makes additional clarifying adjustments. The next bill is SB 177 or health.

This bill implements a new supplemental payment program for Martin Luther King Junior Community Hospital to provide increased ongoing funding subject to federal approval. It allows the state to collect near real-time bed capacity data for certain medical and health facilities to support prompt placement into inpatient and crisis stabilization beds and makes other technical adjustments.

The next bill, SB AB resources trailer bill and I'm sorry I've been saying SB. It's AB 178 resources trailer bill. This bill reinstates Cal Recycle tire recycling program contracting authorities that were repealed in trailer bill earlier this year, which are still needed to enable Cal Recycle to contract with other state departments and agencies to support program implementation.

It provides additional flexibility for compliance and reporting of specified greenhouse gas reduction fund requirements for toxic cleanup funding that was prioritized in the 2024 Budget Act, and it makes other clarifying adjustments. The final bill is AB 181, general government.

This bill includes language to allow the Department of General Services to more efficiently fulfill its duties related to public works projects, job order contracting and contracting oversight, and provides tools to increase efficiencies among state departments. This bill creates the projected surplus temporary holding account to set aside a portion of anticipated surplus funds in future fiscal years.

It clarifies existing law for several departments to obtain federal criminal history or background check information for state employees, contractors and applicants for licensure to continue regular operations and uphold its regulatory duties. And it makes other clarifying and technical adjustments. The next bill is AB 181. Sorry, the previous bill was AB 179. This is memorandums of understanding.

And this bill ratifies and funds memoranda of understanding between the Administration and BU 5, which is the Highway Patrol, BU 8 firefighters, and BU 10 professional scientists. This bill also funds statutorily required general salary increases for BU 5, the Highway Patrol and for judges. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you so much. Before we get to questions, I'm now going to ask for Carolyn Chu from the LAO to present.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Carolyn Chu with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We're happy to answer any questions you may have. And we recently released our analyses of the three MOUs under consideration.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. We'll now open up for discussion or questions from Members. Senator Seyarto.

There you go. Thank you. I had a question. It kind of relates to the MCO and also with the Martin Luther King Hospital and the mechanism that has created the need for them to get $25 million to shore up their budget. The hospital is in a problematic area financially.

It depends on Medi-Cal reimbursement, and yet the MCO tax, the diversion of the $2.3 billion, reduces the very amount that they're trying to use for the reimbursement that's why it was created. Correct? The MCO tax was created to help increase Medi-Cal rates.

So hospitals like Martin Luther King, who largely serve Medi-Cal patients, would be able to get that, because there's a lot of hospitals in the state that are just like them, and yet they're not getting the reimbursement because we are diverting that money away from the reimbursement policy, basically that we wanted to create, which was they would get more and their hospitals would survive.

So, how are we helping the other hospitals besides Martin Luther King by diverting $2.3 billion away from our Medi-Cal reimbursement increases that we were promising these hospitals?

Good morning, Guadalupe Manriquez with the Department of Finance. So, in previous budgets, there was 300 million allocated one time to help various hospitals across the state. To date, most of that funding has been released. So that was in effort to help hospitals that were in distress.

The Administration is also working to develop a new hospital quality assurance fee, and so that will also help increase supplemental payments to hospitals. So, more to come on that next budget cycle.

So, the answer is the MCO tax is going to be. So, the MCO tax can be supplemented by a new tax.

So, it is a fee. It's an existing fee. We've used the hospital quality assurance fee as an important financing mechanism for our hospitals for. I don't remember the exact date, but we. Yeah, it's an existing mechanism.

So, the initial 300 you talked about, that was something that we put forward while we were working on trying to figure out the mechanism, how we're going to continue to help hospitals.

So, we did that to kind of plug the immediately, the immediate hole of a bunch of hospitals closing, and then created the MCO to try to fix that. But now the MCO is all being diverted. Most of it is being diverted away from its intended purpose. And now we're creating another tax to try to fill the MCO.

What's to prevent that from being put into the General Fund? Does that language in there that's going to say it can't go to the General Fund and be diverted away from its intended purpose, just like the MCO tax?

So, I would say that the 1.2 billion is still maintained for provider payments as part of the MCO tax. In total, it's 1.5 billion ongoing, roughly 1.5 billion ongoing. And the hospital quality assurance fee is for hospitals.

So, I would say that there is a portion that helps support Medi-Cal, but a majority of it is for hospitals. And so that again is under development and more discussion to come later.

All right. Well, while they're developing it, I would hope they would put in it can't go to the General Fund like the MCO tax has been utilized. Thank you.

Questions, comments? Yes, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I just had a question on item five about this settlement costs related to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Can you expand more on that? What?

Sure. I will allow my colleague to speak more to that.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lynne Ishimoto, Department of Finance. Hi. It's related to a settlement that was reached and it's called walk time. So, for pre- and post-work activities.

So, when supervisory staff at the Department of Corrections are going to their post, they are now going to be compensated for the time it takes them to go to and from any pre-shift briefings or anything like that.

That was part of a labor negotiation for this? Okay. Okay, thanks. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you.

Other questions? Comments? Yes, Mister Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Just a comment about AB 179, item three in the Committee analysis regarding the projected surplus temporary holding account. There got to be an acronym in there somewhere. This is to, as I understand it, an attempt to try to control the significant volatility we have in revenue.

And I know the Assembly Budget Committee had an extended discussion about that last week or the week before. I just like to point out that there's only really one of two ways to truly rein in the volatility. One is to even out our tax structure so that we are less reliant on really high-income earners.

And that's not going to happen. It will obviously be, it would be a tax reduction for the wealthy, but the other way is to, on a formulaic basis, limit the amount of spending when revenues peak, but to allow for and put the difference into a reserve and then allow for that to be spent when revenues dip.

And I know there's not a great deal of support among the Members of the majority party for that because it puts handcuffs on the ability to spend money when there's a lot of money there. But it would tend to limit the pain of the high volatility of revenue when things dip again.

And I'd just like to make that comment that it's something that I've tried to champion over the years to no avail. But I think it's important for, it's an important thing for us to consider in our budgeting process.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. A couple of points having to do with what we are doing on the issue of quality of jobs through our contracting and procurement process. So, just as an example, in AB 158, when CalGEM puts out a contract for the idle wells, are you including job quality and equity standards?

So, you know, because we have examples of how we invested in an oil well capping pilot program, and it resulted in a successful partnership between engineers, laborers, small businesses. But when the CalGEM contract for the work was put out, the standards only referred to minimum labor laws in California, which everybody has to follow anyway.

In other words, there was no, there was no upping of the, of the standard for our, for our investment. So, if you could address that. And also in AB 179, the Biden Administration, again, has made very clear the framework for what is a good job. They've been very specific about it.

We just saw a letter August 9th from the U.S. Department of Labor and how their commitment to principles that should be followed. So, what is California doing to embed job quality into our contracting and procurement policies?

Thank you for that important question, Senator Durazo. I will have to get back to you on the particulars about the CalGEM contract in regards to job standards, as you mentioned, and more generally about good jobs across multiple contracts. So, we can get you some more information on that. I don't have anything handy with me right now.

But do you have a policy that you abide by that you use to be able to, you know, guide you? I mean, we're getting funding from the Federal Government. The Federal Government has made clear they want job standards, they want equity. They want all that to be included.

And yet, you know, we move forward with contracts, and we don't appear as not to have the higher standards that are expected, especially when federal dollars are concerned. So how do you make those decisions? How do you move forward with a policy that we should have in place?

And again, as you stated, there are state standards that are templated, built in, into our contracts above and beyond that. I will have to get back to you on what those particulars are and how it meets the federal standards.

Okay. Actually, what I'm saying is that we don't do, we don't have the standards that we should.

And that's what I'm really concerned about is a lost opportunity that we are not incorporating higher standards when it comes to contracts and procurement, and we're leaving our California workers throwing them under the bus by not having contracts with companies that will do business here in California instead of sending our money to Texas. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, in that case, we will now open up public comments comment please come forward. And again, this is on all items and welcome.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Transformative Programming Works, Root and Rebound, Grip Training Institute and Initiate Justice.

Expressing deep gratitude to Senator Wiener, Chair Wahab, Members of the Sub Five Committee, Senator Becker for the allocations for the right grant for nonprofits providing programming in CDCR and for ending the deductions for clothing and transportation for people being released from CDCR. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Laura Dehen. I'm with Environment California, and we wanted to respectfully request that $9.9 million be reinstated in the final budget agreement so that we can see the implementation of SB 1137 that was passed into law now two years ago. Oil drilling is an environmental nightmare.

It pollutes the source of life, our air, and our water. And the State Legislature voted to protect communities by creating these public safety buffer zones two years ago, and enormous efforts have gone into defending those protections over the last two years.

And so now blocking implementation by not funding the implementation of the law would be a failure to protect our air and our water and a failure of democracy as well. So, we urge you to see if this can be reinstated. Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We want to express our appreciation to the state's ongoing work to prevent theft of food and cash benefits.

We also ask you to continue to prioritize consistent access to benefits during the transition to EBT chip tap transactions to keep families F=fed while we work to ensure that the new cards will work.

We're also excited about the new the state pursuing the TANF pilots, which provide an opportunity for us to truly reimagine CalWORKs as a family-centered program by limiting sanctions, ensuring critical supportive services like childcare, and empowering families to determine their pathways out of poverty. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity strongly opposing delays or defunding of SB 1137 implementation. Communities worked for over a decade to gain these protections, and when the agency failed them, look to the Legislature.

SB 1137 was in part to push the agency for its failure to act on its existing authority to address oil pollution near homes and schools. After that hard won battle, the oil industry spent millions to buy an 18-month delay with its recently surrendered veto referendum.

We were disappointed to see that AB 157 was amended over the weekend to eliminate funding for SB 1137 implementation until next year's budget. This delay imposes another inexplicable year without action for communities who've already waited too long.

This needless delay is a gift to industry, a dereliction of state duties and an affront to the people of California. Implement the setbacks law. Thank you.

Good morning. I am the prince of time. I operate a systems task force with the 28th Chief Justice of California, the Honorable Tani Cantil Sakoye. I am now the highest authority in the State of California, above Gavin Newsom.

What I will be doing with this authority, I will be establishing the value of time, or I establishing universal human rights. And I will be transforming CDCR. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair Members. Kendra Harris, the Climate Center. I'd like to echo the comments of my colleagues. Also here to respectfully request that the 9.9 million for implementation of SB 1137 be reinstated. Final budget deal. Thank you

Mister chair Members Pat Moran, with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW, in support of AB 181, which contains their MOU, and request your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Tim Madden, representing the California chapter at the American College of Emergency Physicians, who were in support of AB 177, which is the Health Trailer Budget Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. Malik Bynum, on behalf of UDW, AFSCME and SEIU, California in partnership as child Care providers United, appreciate the hearing this morning. I want to just express our gratitude and thank your extremely hard working team for the sharp attention to childcare in these final trailer Bill Discussions.

We're always grateful for the work we can accomplish together and look forward to the continued work in the ECE space, starting with rate reform and as we enter our negotiations for our third contract this year.

So thank you, Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee, Terry Mchale, with Aaron Reed and Associates representing CAL FIRE Local 2881 in support of the MOU that's before you. The two most interesting parts of this CAL FIRE will go from a 72 hours workweek to a 66 hours workweek.

Still means they'll work 10 hours more than local entities, but it is a move in the right direction. And second of all, when this contract is over, our seasonal firefighters will be making as much as those who are working at Mcdonald's right now.

So thank you very much, Mister Chairman Members Aaron Read, representing the California Association of Ivy Patrolmen. That makes three of our clients settled this year. They're the only three that were at the table this year. All three settled settled early so your Department of Finance and Lao could have adequate time to evaluate them.

We appreciate the help of your staff, Lao, and everybody involved. I will say this, the CAHP contract probably isn't enough to solve our recruitment problem. They have 1000 vacancies. Actually, over 1000 vacancies, and we struggle to fill it. The same is true for local law enforcement. So we're not alone.

So the pool is shrunk, and there's a lot of people that just would rather not be in law enforcement these days. So this contract will help a little bit, I hope, but we'll report back to you and see how we're doing. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Sonia Harris. I'm the Executive Director of Imagination Library of California. I'm here, regretfully, in opposition of Section 84, specifically of AB 157.

It takes $68 million of taxpayer money and sends it to a Tenoc based organization with limited oversight by you all, as well as the State of California. Since the board was established last year, we've had great success in terms of appointing board Members, selecting an Executive Director, and really beginning to work with the boots on the ground.

We've got 35 of 58 counties online in some way, whether that's full or partial coverage, and working to get those ones with partial coverage all the way up to cover all those zip codes, and really working with that last 23 greatest rate limiting factors for our local organizations is the one to one match that the program requires.

So a lot of the conversations that I've been having with these partners has really been around. How do we help you with some of that fundraising and really make sure that we've got the diverse children of California in mind. So, again, please, the Section 84 will only further delay implementation and again eliminate California's oversight. Thank you.

Hi, John Benton with California Strategies on behalf of First Life California. Echoing the concerns of Miss Harris regarding Section 84 in SBAB 157. Removing the monies from California and sending them to Tennessee just makes no sense. Thank you.

Good morning, Members. California, Hispanic chambers of Commerce here in opposition to AB 157, particularly Section 84 and its limited oversight of a large California multimillion dollar investment. One of our concerns is we feel that it needs to be based in California, that organization. We do have an organization that does it here in California.

It was our own California based imagination library California Stronger Readership partnership that prompted the national program of the Importance of bilingual Spanish program, which had not happened in other states. Our families need a California based oversight of this program to ensure that our state's diverse needs are considered as we continue to help nurture the children of California.

Thank you.

Tyler Earle, with commuts for a better environment, respectfully asking the Committee to reinstate $9.9 million for the implementation of SB 1137. CBE represents environmental justice communities across California, including Wilmington, Los Angeles neighborhood that contains hundreds of oil wells near homes.

Wilmington residents are among the 2 million plus Californians who are exposed to the toxic emissions from the roughly 30,000 oil wells within 3200ft of homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout the state. SB 1137, when passed, was to lead the country in health protections from oil drilling, but without actual funding for implementation.

We fail in our climate leadership, and we fail the communities who fought hard for this landmark law. The research is clear. Drilling within 3200ft of homes, daycare centers and schools is dangerous. Please reinstate the 9.9 million for implementation of SB 1137. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kayla Karimi and I'm with the center on race, poverty and the environment respectfully requesting the 9.9 million be reinstated for SB 1137 implementation. CRPE has worked on this issue of neighborhood oil drilling for decades. Our organization sponsored the original setback Bill, AB 345, in 2019 with Assemblymember Muratsuchi and SB 467 with U.

Senator Wiener, a Bill CrPE was proud to cosponsor. From the start, the fight to get a health protective buffer zone was an uphill battle. We were told to wait for a study after study to show what our communities have long known. For generations, millions of Californians have faced harmful threats in their own backyards.

CRPEs communities in the Central Valley have too long brunted the harm of the absence of a Bill like SB 1137. They have been living and working near idle wells, active wells, and their health has been suffering. We are not exaggerating when we say SB 1137 will save lives. What we are fighting for wasn't new.

In fact, other oil producing jurisdictions, including Texas and Louisiana, already require oil companies to have setbacks to keep new oil wells a safe distance from people. Delaying funding only sets this important work back. Please reinstate the 9.9 million for SB 1137 implementation. Thank you.

Good morning. Emma Silber with physicians for social responsibility, La. I work with communities living in the shadow of oil drilling, respectfully requesting that the $9.9 million for implementation of SB 1137 be reinstated into the final budget Bill. PSRLA unites the credible voices of health professionals and impacted communities, including frontline communities impacted by neighborhood oil drilling.

Neighborhood oil drilling is fundamentally incompatible with public health. The practice of oil extraction, which involves injection, transportation and storage, produces toxic chemicals that pollute our air and soil. Many of these chemicals are carcinogenic, endocrine disrupting chemicals that cause fertility issues or cause respiratory harm. These chemicals, such as benzene, particulate matter and formaldehyde.

Residents living near drill sites experience headaches, burning eyes and throats, increased respiratory illness, nausea and higher cancer mortality, including increased diagnoses of children with leukemia. These negative health impacts are documented in numerous studies across California and have been confirmed by an expert expert panel commissioned by Calgem, the state regulator.

Delaying funding for SB 1137 implementation allows this public health crisis to continue unchecked. Frontline communities deserve immediate action after fighting to protect their health for decades. Please reinstate the $9.9 million for SB 1137 implementation. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Mabel Tsang and I serve as the political Director for the California Environmental Justice Alliance. We respectfully request the $9.9 million for SB 1137 implementation be reinstated into the final budget deal after SB 1137 was passed in 2022.

Within days, oil industry began collecting signatures to challenges major environmental justice win, forcing over 500 permits to drill, profiting off of the health of communities of color. Say how Members and the community organizations across the state came together to fight back against big oil.

To protect this law, we worked with legislative leaders and Governor Newsom to call on the urgency for Californians to support to keep this law and implement SB 1137. We built a campaign that intimidated the oil industry to abandon their campaign months early before reaching the ballot.

When the referend was withdrawn, SB 1137 went to effect this year, June 28. Our community celebrated this hard fought win, and we were finally ready to begin the hard work to protect our communities now that big oil is no longer standing in the way of California's progress.

However, without funding, the Governor and now you, the Legislature, are doing the work of big oil. We understand that this task is complicated, but our Members are ready to partner with the Legislature Administration agencies to begin the successful implementation of SB 1137.

However, with delaying funding for SB 1137 implementation will not make the task before us any easier. The Governor and now you, the Legislature, are asking communities to continue to wait for health protections. California communities deserved these basic health protections decades ago. Please reinstate the 9.9 million for SB 1137.

Asha Sharma, on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and the Environmental Defense Fund, respectfully requesting that the 9.9 million for SB 1137 implementation be reinstated into the budget deal.

We would like to align our comments with the environmental justice voices shared before me and communities have spent decades fighting for the science backed public health protection, and delaying funding, however, inadvertently hands big oil another win in this fight. Please reinstate the 9.9 million for SB 1137 implementation. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. I'm Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. I'm aligning my comments with all the speakers before us about SB 1137 implementation. Please reinstate that funding. I'd also like to register climate Action, California Sisters of St. Josephs of Orange and Calperg. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Gabriella Fasio with Sierra Club California. I'm here to strongly oppose the delay in implementation of SB 1137 and the 9.9 million be reinstated back into the final budget deal.

As others have already stated, this is decades of work collection data collection of direct impacts to public health, decades of frontline communities fighting for these baseline protections from neighborhood drilling. They shouldn't have to wait any longer. I urge you to reinstate the 9.9 million back into the budget. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Vanessa Orozco, and on behalf of Golden State Opportunity in the Cali ITC coalition, we'd like to express our gratitude for restoring 2 million of funding for California Earned Income Tax Credit, education and outreach, and free tax preparation services.

This funding will greatly benefit hardworking Californians with the lowest incomes and ensuring that they are getting the tax relief that they're entitled to and can file their taxes at no cost. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Doctor Laura Salorio and I am President of Protect Monterey County. I practiced in Salinas at the county hospital for 30 years.

Just this year, Caljam released its final public health report, which showed definitively the closer homes are to oil and gas wells, the greater likelihood of adverse health outcomes such as asthma, other respiratory illnesses, preterm births risk high risk pregnancies, and increased cancer risks. This is our own agency's information.

Please reinstate the $9.9 million back into the budget and implement SB 1137. We are paying the health and environmental costs every day. People are sick. We're fighting fires, floods. Pajaro is in my district. You know, we're paying for it one way or another.

So if we could just implement this and kind of take a, get a handle on this, it'd be great. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Katie McCammon with 350 Sacramento. I'm respectfully reiterating what all the great people who came in front of me are saying, and I'm sure a lot more are going to say, please. We're going to respectfully request that 9.9 million for implementation of SB 1137 be reinstated in the final budget deal.

Over 2.7 million Californians live within 3200ft of an operational oil and gas well, and 69% are people of color. These communities have fought for decades for basic protection from neighborhood drilling. There is no reason to make them wait longer.

Removing this funding will provide the oil industry with the delays they want at the expense of the health and well being of these communities. Please reinstate the 9.9 million back into the budget deal. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'll chat on behalf of the Asian Pacific environmental network, respectfully requesting the 9.9 million we reinstated for the implementation of SB 1137 into the final budget negotiation in Wilmington and Carson. Our Members live near oil drilling sites in their local parks, in addition to massive refineries that also perimeter their areas.

They are amongst the 2.7 million Californians that live within 3200ft of an operational oil and gas well, almost 70% of which are people of color. Removing this funding continues to delay, as desired by the oil industry, at the expense of our communities. Please reinstate the 9.9 million for the implementation of SB 1137. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Members. My name is Nicole Guillaud. I'm with Friends of the Earth. We are the largest grassroots environmental network in the world with over 2 million Members and supporters across the United States, including Members like me here in the State of California. Echoing the voices before me.

I am here to urge you to reinstate the $9.9 million for implementation of SB 1137. You've already heard from many representatives from communities that are directly impacted by neighborhood drilling in California. But 2.7 million Californians live within 3200ft of operational oil and gas wells. 69% of those people are people of color.

These communities have fought for basic protections from neighborhood drilling for more than a decade, and they should not have to wait a minute longer for these protections. Removing funding continues to give the oil industry the delays it wants at the expense of impacted communities and public health. Please reinstate the $9.9 million. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium. Going to mix it up for a minute here and talk about childcare.

Really appreciate the Legislature and the administration's quick response when they heard about what we're facing in the child care field with some new building regulations about fire inspections that is preventing us from opening new child care facilities, as well as transitioning to serve infants and toddlers from older age groups.

So, again, appreciate the Administration and the Legislature's quick response. And so, obviously, we're in support of AB 176, the education trailer Bill.

Thank you good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Greg Spooner, and I'm an organizer with scientist Rebellion, a climate justice group. And I'm a physicist myself.

And I wanted to make it personal for you because I just stood in the neighborhoods of Signal Hill, California, and Long Beach, California, with other scientists and local activists, and I saw the oil wells being drilled down there, new oil wells being drilled down there, and I could see just how close those wells were to people's backyards.

And I just wanted to make you feel personally how important this is. So please, with all the other citizens here urging you to reinstate the $9.9 million in the final budget Bill to implement SB 1137. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Zach Liu and I'm with the California Green New Deal Coalition. We're joining the chorus of organizations and communities that are respectfully requesting the reinstatement of $9.9 million for the implementation of SB 1137.

As people have talked about, this was a landmark Bill that was fought for, for many years by our communities and by many of you all for urgently needed health and safety protections for millions of Californians that live within 3200ft of oil and gas wells.

Cutting this funding now contradicts the stated goal of getting staffing and resources in place to carry out the law. And we know further delays will come at the continued expense of impacted communities. Please reinstate the $9.9 million from implementation back into the Budget and Act urgently to make this landmark law a reality. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Adria Okoro and I am the Senior Counsel of public policy for United Way California Capital Region here.

Also aligning myself with the comments of my colleagues to remove Section 84, FB 157, transferring $68 million to an out of state entity, United Way California Capital Region, in partnership with Dahle Parton, has distributed over 3000 books to people of all communities throughout the state, and we need to make sure that there's proper oversight.

Why would we send $5 million in advance to an out of state entity? We really need to think and be mindful of our communities and making sure that we center equity and we have an entity that can support equity. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee, Erin Nimala with Niemala Papas, on behalf of a campaign, the campaign for a safe and Healthy California. We want to thank the Legislature for having the foresight to Fund the implementation of SB 1137, Senator Gonzalez's setback law.

But we oppose the amendments taken this weekend to remove the funding as part of what we understand was a three party deal. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members, Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. First of all, I'd like to express our thanks and gratitude for everything that the Legislature and the Administration has done this year related to Head Start early learning child care programs.

Specifically, I'd like to express our thanks for the provisions in AB 176 to allow enrollment for two year olds in the program. And that is, of course, a priority for the Los Angeles County Office of Education as we serve over 8000, nearly 9000 Head Start and early learners. So this is very important.

We know an early start is an important start, so we want to thank you for that. Also, I'd like to align myself with the comments of the previous child care speaker related to the fire safety provision. We want to thank the Legislature for moving quickly on that as well, and urge your. I vote for the Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Miriam, I'm with fossil free California, and I'm here to respectfully request that the $9.9 million for implementation of SB 1137 be reinstated into the final budget Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Zoe Johnk.

I'm the lead organizer with 350 Bay Area, and I would like to align my comments with my colleagues who are here in opposition to the amendments to AB 157 that would remove funding for the implementation of SB 1137 as this is a bill that cannot be delayed any further as there are lives and health on the line.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Krisha Camille Velcroz. I am a community organizer with oil and gas action Network to respectfully request that SB 11307's funding be reinstated back into the final budget deal. Ogan represents and supports climate grassroots movements and fighting for a sustainable and livable future for all.

It is unconscionable that any community and majority communities of color in California continue to live next to and breathe in harmful toxins after decades of fighting for basic protections from neighborhood drilling. Please show us you can prioritize people and planet over profit and reinstate the $9.9 million for implementation back into the final budget deal. Thank you.

Hi, excuse me, I am Zach Norris. I am the California Climate Director with Greenpeace, aligning my comments with the previous speakers to respectfully request that the $9.9 million be reinstated. Attorney General Rob Bonta has sued the oil and gas industry for decades of lies and deception, and they continue to thwart and delay common sense regulation.

Communities cannot wait a moment longer. Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Romero with California environmental voters here to, again, with all the others who have done so, urge you to reinstate the 9.9 million allocated for the implementation of SB 1137 into the final budget deal.

If we do not Fund measures like these now, we will see escalating healthcare costs due to increased health issues linked to oil and gas drilling. The removal of this funding only benefits the oil industry by further enabling delays and neglect of our most vulnerable communities. So please reinstate this funding. Our communities cannot afford to wait any longer.

We urge you to have the political will to act decisively. I was also asked to voice this position by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earth justice and Climate Action California as well. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members Jamie Pugh with NextGen California, here to respectfully request that funding for the implementation of SB 1137 be restored in the final budget. The communities that live near these wells deserve to breathe clean air.

To give in to the oil industry's demands for delay in a last minute budget deal two years after this Bill was passed is a continuation of the injustice that these communities have faced for years, for decades. Please reinstate funding for this law. Thank you.

I'm Alan Hirsch. I represent the RAC, the religious action center of California. We have 99 congregations with 148,000 Members. We ask that SB 137 Fund be restored. SB 3137 is about one of Judaism's core values. Tacom Halom, which is in Hebrew, is literally healing the world. In this case, 137 is about literally healing the world.

Punctured by oil wells, oil wells that are polluting the air in your schools and Low income communities. These oil wells are gassing off high impact greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. And many of you came across the old causeway this morning that is being widened.

It will take, Caltrans estimate, that will take drilling 100 over 100 new oil wells to fuel the cars driving across that freeway. The people in Northern California should not benefit from cheapening the repair of the oil wells in Southern California. Please refund 1137. Thank you.

Hi, Jason Fifel with the Center for Biological Diversity. I'm echoing the comments previously made urging you to reinstate the $9.9 million for funding implementation of California's landmark health buffer law, SB 1137. Thank you.

Greg Lucas, California State Librarian, joining with some of the speakers you heard earlier in opposition to Section 84 of AB 157. That's my recollection. State libraries worked with the groups that have been trying to expand the imagination library in California for the past two years. You've heard the progress that's been made.

I'm telling you what you know already. California isn't like any place else where the most diverse group of people brought together as equals in the history of human civilization. UC says there's 200 to 260 languages and dialects spoken here. We have a population higher than 159 of the 195 countries on this planet.

And I think it's important to have a program in California that is governed by Californians. Secondarily, as a grant making entity concerns me that we would write a check of upwards of $68 million to a nonprofit, no matter how virtuous their goals are, in another state where there's no recourse in case something happens that we don't like.

The language in this Bill begins with notwithstanding any other section in law, which means all of the transparencies and all of the accountabilities that we subject every other grantee at the state library to are absent in this case. And I don't. There's no justification in the Bill for this change in policy.

But if the intent is to speed up putting more books into the hands of kids, this isn't going to accomplish that. And we would respectfully urge you to remove that language from the Bill and let the program continue to work as it's working now. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Andrew Melendez. I'm a lifelong Richmond resident, and I'm here to respectfully request that the 9.9 million for the implementation of SB 1137 be reinstated into the final budget deal. As a youth growing up in Richmond, I've lived my entire life in close proximity to the local Chevron refinery, which has polluted the airways of my community and threatened the well being of the tens of thousands of Richmond residents who over the last decades have faced increased chronic negative impacts like asthma and cancer.

Cutting this funding now will only delay the work that has been done to hold polluters accountable and will only allow big oil companies to continue to exploit low income BIPOC communities like mine and many others across California. In a time of heightened concern over the climate crisis, it's more important now than ever before to make this address, make this happen. I hope that in making your decisions over this budget, you keep into consideration the generations of young people who will be directly impacted by the actions that you make today. Thank you very much.

Hi. I just want to start out by thanking the Members and Chair People of this body for taking time to listen to our statements. My name is Kyndelle Johnson. I work with the Richmond Progressive Alliance as well as the Richmond Shoreline Alliance, and I would like to urge each of you to stop the amendment of SB 1137 and request that the $9.9 million of implementation is supported. You know, over 2.7 million Californians live within 3200 ft of operational oil and gas wells.

69% of those folks are people of color. The health and economic impacts that affect these communities last generations, and so tens of generations have already been affected by these negative impacts and those will affect their children and their grandchildren.

So, to echo what my youth counterpart mentioned, that these communities have fought many years for basic protections for neighborhood drilling rights, and even with the support of the implement of the $9.9 million, there will still be a lot more need to support and rebuild these communities. So I appreciate y'all's time and please, please reinstate the 9.9 million back to the budget deal. Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Saul from Lost Hills. I'm here to ask you to support SB 1137, as my community has been in attack by the oil industry. A school in Lost Hills is only a quarter of a mile away from an oil field, and this disturbs the education of children who have to deal with the odor and the impacts of oil drilling. I've been here many times to ask legislators to support Lost Hills and protecting the community from the impacts of oil drilling.

[Translated] Our community of Lost Hills has been impacted both in odor and illness, with high rates of asthma and cancer. You can go look in Kern County, the rates of cancer in both Lost Hills and Bakersfield. The money spent on the oil industry should instead be used for hospitals and to care for the people who are sick. And for you who have the power to have a vote today to help our communities, I ask you to support us. And I'm not against oil drilling. I'm just against the health impacts that it has on my community. Thank you.

And if it's okay, I'm doing a separate comment. Good morning. My name is Ivan Ortiz with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, and I'm here to ask you to implement the, to approve the $9.9 million for the implementation of SB 1137. As a community organizer, countless of times I've heard stories from community members in Lamont and Arvin of cases in the community of cancer, of kids who have leukemia due to them living down the street from an oil refinery.

Personally, I've been witness of leaking oil wells and oil tanks that are right behind a clinic. And it's important for this bill to be supported because these communities have faced these negative externalities for way too long. And I feel if we wait too long for these protections to be implemented, the cost of life and the cost of health care would be too great. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ileana Navarro. I am a community organizer with the Central California Environmental Justice Network. I am also here with the residents from Lost Hills and residents from Buttonwillow. These small farm worker communities cannot continue to be negatively affected by oil and gas infrastructure and drilling.

We have traveled here today to ask you to reinstate the funding for the implementation of SB 1137. Four more years can be super detrimental for health impacts of these communities, and these are already overburdened communities. As Saul, the previous commenter, mentioned. We needed 1137 now. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Chelsea Young. I'm a physician here representing Climate Health Now, a group of California healthcare providers advocating for climate health policy in California. I'm here to respectfully request that the 9.9 million for implementation of SB 1137 be reinstated into the final budget deal.

We are all familiar with the negative health impacts associated with living near oil and gas infrastructure and drilling, which disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Countless cases of respiratory disease, neurodevelopmental disease, and neurodegenerative diseases, among many other health issues which have been identified by previous speakers, could be prevented by timely implementation of these funds. Please prioritize the health of California's most vulnerable communities. Thank you so much.

Good morning. I'm Rebecca Wendt with the California State Library. And as a librarian and someone who works directly with our grant programs, I'm here to give you information, because librarians are into information. I'm speaking relevant to Assembly Bill 157, specifically Section 84, that is speaking about the Imagination Library.

The Imagination Library is an amazing program that gives free books to children zero to five throughout the participating areas within the state. And because we already have had this program for a while, and because there is already a California iteration of the Imagination Library, I'm here to tell you about what will happen if we restart this with the language that's in the bill today. This would restart efforts, delaying the implementation.

We already have boots on the ground, as we have heard from speakers today, and these folks have been making sure that the communities are able to sustain a program. We don't want the program to go away when the initial seed money disappears.

This is not good for our California kids, and we don't want the older brothers and sisters to get the books and the little ones to be all excited and then not be able to have a program for them. So in the instance of making sure that the program is sustainable with California people in charge, it makes much more sense not to send the money directly to Tennessee. Of course, at the State Library, we're very interested in fiscal responsibility, and we believe that the sustainability component would be a big part of that.

So it makes more sense to continue on the road that we're going down. We have the boots on the ground, we have people interested in a sustainable program, and the efforts of two years have been going into this program already. Just wanted to let you know, this language in the bill makes that all a moot effort, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. So as a librarian, I'm hoping that you got the information you needed today, and thank you for listening.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Dan Jacobson, and on behalf of Clean Water Action, the Planning and Conservation League, the Environmental Defense Center, as well as the Sacramento Area Congregations Together, and AltaSea, headed by former CalEPA Secretary Terry Tamminen, we're urging the restoration of the $9.9 million. We think that's critically important. Also, we're urging that we can move forward on continued sustainable blue economy measures, which are going to be so important not only to our health but to the economy of the state as well. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and Members. Greg Hurner on behalf of Miller Industries. Here to talk about a quick, very important program called the Freeway Service Patrol. Affects every one of your districts. It provides 700,000 assists to motorists annually. Free assists to motorists annually. We have a serious problem with the CARB rule under the Advanced Clean Trucks and omnibus. Many of you heard about this. Bay Area Metro has reached out to every Member in their district that they serve, the nine county region.

There are 16 Freeway Service Patrols in the state from Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Marin, Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Fresno. You're all affected. Your constituents are all affected. And the reason Bay Area Metro reached out is because this is a program that UC Berkeley has documented to save over 18 million gallons of fuel annually, over 10 million hours of motorists sitting in traffic annually, over 164 million kilograms of CO2 reductions annually.

The state has already funded this because it has a cost benefit ratio of $7 of benefits for every dollar the state invests. What's happening now, though, is that CARB can't fix this regulation fast enough. So Members such as Senator Becker, Senator Ashby, Senator Caballero, Senator Rubio, and Senator Umberg, who have facilities in their district that manufacture new tow trucks for this program, are going to go out of business before the end of the year.

And we are going to lose from 250 to 500 direct jobs at these facilities if we don't put in a quick fix to make sure that these trucks can be made and manufactured in California for the Freeway Service Patrol. So we're urging you to adopt amendments that have been provided to the Committee to make sure that we don't lose these jobs in California and that we can continue these great programs for the citizens and your constituents. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog, and also I've been asked to register the opposition of Clean Water Action, both to the removal of implementation for SB 1137 funding. You all have heard from the many, many people here, who is not even everyone, all of the groups that are strongly opposed to this. When I think about cutting that funding, I think about Nalleli Cobo, who is now a 23 year old activist. She started at the age of nine with her mother fighting against the oil well that was 30 ft from her home that caused her to have headaches, nosebleeds, stomachaches.

She was diagnosed with cancer as a result of the exposure at the age of 19, has had three surgeries, and still suffers health effects from that, and has really devoted her life as an activist to trying to make sure that other children don't suffer the same health problems that she has. You all know the history of this bill. Huge, long fight getting it passed and then two years where the referendum prevented it from being implemented. And it just feels tragic to not fund implementation. And so I urge you not to do so. Thank you.

Great. Any other public comment? Okay, we will now close public comment, bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Colleagues? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just had a question, just listening to all of the public comment, and realized that this is information that, as a Member, I haven't been able to really wrap my head around. Is there more than what we received on the appropriations analysis on the retail crime bill package in terms of what the actual costs are? I think the general framework was that the costs were unknown but substantive, but there wasn't an actual dollar figure. I'm curious, what is the cost of the total package and how can we get that information?

Yes, what was included in these sets of trailer bills are adjustments to the Budget Act. So I'll have to get you that total number after the hearing.

Yeah, I think it's important. We know that incarceration and this state's experience with mass incarceration is deeply extractive and impacts our ability to do the work that we need to do to keep communities safe. And it also creates obstacles when we are building pipelines into prison for nonviolent property crime, basically crimes of poverty.

And we're not investing in building pathways for the same disadvantaged communities into quality jobs and careers. For example, you know, the investment that the federal government is making in our climate resilient economy. California is expected to receive $100 billion. But we aren't building pathways to ensure that there are disadvantaged communities that are front and center in those opportunities. So it would be good to see what the overall costs now that we are on the hook for as a state around these bills.

And what are the impacts it will have on our ability to create not extractive but contributory pathways that help us move our folks out of poverty and in those situations of these nonviolent crimes. So I look forward to seeing that information so that we can figure out how to do better.

Thank you very much, Senator. I'll also note for the record that there's been analysis about a pending ballot measure that could add billions to the budget as well. So it's an important thing to be mindful of, and I appreciate you raising the issue. Senator Cortese.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief. I just want to essentially associate my comments with those of Senator Durazo earlier when she was questioning the lack of labor standards inequity thus far. I think the Administration is quite aware of what the position is of several of us that have been working on that for a couple of years now. So I don't want to go on and on about it when we've got documents and letters and the original basis of SB 150.

But I would say that, independently, each and every one of us that's been working on the issue in the Senate, at least in the Senate, have heard from consultants and agency personnel at the federal government that they're really taken aback by the fact that what they assumed would be the case, what they would assume would be the case, and that's almost the exact words of the last federal consultant I spoke to, that California would have equal or greater labor and equity standards than what was put into the two stimulus acts, which is extraordinarily surprising. And there's nothing like talking to people like that face to face, to see the reaction, to see the body language. So I think, again, I'll stop there.

But I didn't want Senator Durazo to be out there alone or on that issue making representations that there's a concern about misalignment or disalignment or just lack of alignment with what our own federal government is trying to get us to do on that topic. Because that's definitely been confirmed by others of us. And we hope that as we continue to work on the issue going forward, that we'll make a breakthrough here. I know we're not going to give up on it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Additional questions, comments? Senator Blakespear and then Senator Durazo.

Yes, I just wanted to ask for a response about the delays that are proposed by the Administration being longer than what would be expected given the referendum and subsequent withdrawal of the referendum. So can we, can we just have a response? There were many public comments about this, and I'd like to affiliate myself with a lot of the public comments and just ask for an understanding of it.

Stephen Benson with the Department of Finance. So the timeline changes reflect a review of the realistic and current timeline necessary to fully implement the requirements of 1137 based on those who have to actually carry out the work. So what happened is during the period of time of referendum, there was a review as a proposed, prepared proposals to implement the bill that went through and looked at everything that had to get done and what was going to be necessary to do that. And the proposed timeline changes reflect what those actually implementing the bill indicate as necessary to get all of that work done appropriately.

Okay. Thank you. I think it's really important that this be done. So I would just like to add my comments to the, to prioritizing this when we are deciding on our state budget and also have the Administration prioritize it. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Along those lines, but related to it, if you could remind me in terms of the plans that are going to be submitted, is there a space in those plans for socioeconomic impact in the communities? I could be, like, this may be not the right place for it, but since we're talking about the oil industry and the community, I just want to know, is there connected to this or how it's connected to it, Is the socioeconomic impact?

Just to clarify, in regards to the work that's being done for SB 1137?

Yeah. I don't remember enough to be able to say yes, but if it's there, or is it, where is that space to get a socioeconomic impact?

I don't think the requirements of the bill itself delineate socioeconomic sort of valuation. It's more an evaluation of the actual content contaminants that are coming out and what standards need to be met in order to make sure those things get plugged and the leaks prevented. And so I think that's sort of broader than just the socioeconomic impacts.

And the idea is that the contaminants will be shut down sort of across the board is the aim. And that would be what the plans would be seeking at, is identifying what metrics have to be met and what equipment and things are necessary to properly monitor those things and read the levels of contaminants in the air so that there can be elimination of them.

Okay. So that information through this process is not available?

So part of that needs to, well, most of that needs to be developed by the Air Board as a part of the regulations that are required by SB 1137. And that's actually a big part of why the time that we were just talking about is necessary, is there's substantial research and testing and monitoring that has to get done in order to identify and establish the standards that need to be in regulation in order to fully implement those plans.

Thank you.

Senator Wahab, followed by, or Senator Seyarto first, then Senator Wahab.

So just following up a little bit on that. The issue isn't manpower at CalGEM, it's studies that need to be done by Air Resources Board that's hanging this up?

So the proposal included positions at CalGEM, the Air Board, and the Water Board. So actually, the amount that's been cited today of 9.9 million isn't actually correct. The proposal is 14.9 million. The 9.9 million is the part that's specific to CARB. Sorry, specific to CalGEM. But there was also 2.2 million specific to CARB and 2.6 million specific to the Water Board. And a lot of the initial upfront work needs to be completed by CARB because there's significant regulatory work that has to get done in order to implement the leak detection and response plans.

Doesn't CalGEM have, like, 60 people assigned to fracking? We don't have fracking anymore. So where is there delay in getting people up and running to be able to do this?

So, again, most of the work that needs to get done to get this up is CARB, not CalGEM. So CalGEM does have positions. They need some additional positions for some of the new enforcement actions related to this bill.

How many positions do they need? They have a lot of people over there. They've doubled or tripled the size of CalGEM in the last couple of years. A few years here.

This proposal includes 37 positions for CalGEM.

Does any of those 37 positions include the number of people they have assigned to the fracking unit that is not doing anything anymore?

I don't believe this includes a redirection of those. I can certainly go back and look at what those staff are being redirected to.

It just seems that manpower shouldn't be the problem with CalGEM, and it seems to be. And we're asking for more positions and more money for more positions when we already have positions we're not even using. But a lot that doesn't make a lot of sense to people.

Sorry, Senator. A lot of it is with CARB though. That's the difference.

I get that.

Thank you. Senator Wahab, followed by Senator Dahle.

Thank you. I've said that a couple of times while we've been having these budget discussions, and I do echo some of the comments from my Republican colleagues here. From an administrative standpoint, as well as just the amount of money that we are spending and continue to spend in each of these departments, I'd like to see more oversight, accountability, and potentially even auditing of exactly what are we doing. What are the metrics for success? I still don't see that in any Department.

And at the same time, how does that translate to better quality of life for the average Californian? Right. So I'm saying this now and on the record just to ensure that we have some of those metrics in as we're talking for next year and starting those conversations as of now, as you guys are planning moving in for the next fiscal year.

But the reality is, for example, in health, we are spending billions and billions and billions of dollars in health. And yet one of the things that people complain all the time about is their wait times, the lack of service, the delays, the lack of information being properly handled, and so forth.

And at a certain point in time, we're going to have to say, with investments in technology, with the investments in the positions and much more, what are we trying to improve? And that hasn't been clearly, and I've stated this many, many times, that hasn't been clearly shown nor seen nor experienced by the average resident. Right.

And so I'm all for investing in new measures, new efforts, new technology, new everything. But unless we're able to say that these are the dollars that we're using for this, and this is the outcome and this is the impact to the average patient, to the average Californian. Across the departments, timeline wise, implementing new technologies, it is taking way too long.

Across the board, in any department. It's like the fact that it's three to five years where in the private sector it should be roughly about a year, year and a half max for full implementation, including parallel service, I just consistently see this as a problem.

We are the fifth largest economy in the world, and yet I would still argue that the needs of the average residents aren't being serviced properly. Right. I will say health is one of my biggest concerns, primarily just because of the amount of money that goes into it. We did a lot of revamping right now in the departments that I oversee for the most part, and there's still a lot more work to do in regards to cutting bloat. That's the honest truth of it.

Nobody wants to say that. We are spending a lot of money consistently talking about increasing taxes in every single department or fees or things like that. When are we going to look at the bloat? And governments have this problem of using it or losing it. So they will say that they're spending it on this or that.

But is it factually done? And what is the benefit of continuing to throw money at a problem without a legitimate solution? And I will say that across the board. Because I think that there are efforts and new ideas. And people want to say they did this and did that. But what is the outcome?

So I say that in hopes of having a more defined idea and plan for every single department. Specifically, the most bang for our buck of how much money we're spending on the largest departments and budget sectors. Because I want to see some of the change moving forward next year, genuinely. Right. And my office is always happy to help. But at the same time, you know, I think that the public does have to understand that there is a lot more we can do. And I hope that the Administration takes that very seriously.

Because at a certain point in time, what are we doing if the average resident is still upset about, you know, how their healthcare is being treated, or the fact that it keeps going up, or the fact that we're trying to increase their taxes or fees or for what? Especially if we're investing in technology and it's supposed to reduce everything. Because the whole point of technology is to make the cost cheaper. Right? So I say that. I will move AB 157 and get the show on the road.

Okay, Senator Dahle.

Glad you're done. Now we can move on. I just wanted to say for the record, I spent five years on Sub 2. Obviously we had Covid. But every year in Sub 2, the Administration asked for more positions, around 50 positions to go to CalGEM. And I questioned the fact that we weren't filling the positions, really. We kept allocating those positions.

Which are paid for by the oil industry in many cases. And we were getting like two or three positions filled for the 50 we allocated. For five years it's been the same story. CalGEM needs an audit. We need to have an audit. Figure out what's happening there. Because we continue to add positions.

Some of those positions are getting filled. Some of them are not getting filled. So it would be very wise in the future to do an audit of CalGEM and CARB to see what we're getting for those positions. Because there's a lot of work that's pushed by legislation to them, but we're not getting those positions filled.

So I just want to say. On the Sub 2 Committee I sat for five years. We have put the money up to fill those positions. Sometimes we couldn't get the people to fill them. Their expertise wasn't there. But at the end of the day, you can't expect them to get it done until you figure out what's going on. So I just want to put that out for the record that it's not the Administration. Somebody needs to audit it and figure out why we can't fill those positions and get the work done.

Senator Durazo.

Yes. Thank you.

My apologies. I skipped over you.

No, that's okay. I'm sorry. I'm going back and forth, but some of the things just come to mind. And we're being asked to vote on this today, so some of the answers, Ms. Li, I know about getting back to me on my questions will pretty much be too late. And so this is something...

This issue of labor standards for our taxpayer investments in the economy is very important to me and a number of legislators, is how do we make sure that our investments lead to good paying jobs and careers? We've been talking about this for several years now. We had SB 150. We've had have clear, clear direction from the Biden Administration in exchange for the dollars. And if I may, I don't know if this is through the Chair or through Ms. Li, would see if Ms. Calvert could come and answer that question.

And Senator Durazo, I did want to go back to one of your questions in regards to the standards, the state standards versus the federal standards for some of the federal funding that has come down.

And I would point out that for the state fiscal recovery fund, those dollars that came 27 billion for through ARPA, at that point, the state standards were higher than the federal standards in regards to construction projects. So that's, I know that's a specific set of funds outside of the IIJA and the IRA.

But in response to your comment about trying to get back information to you timely, and I know you have another question as well, but I'd also like to say to Senator Wahab that I also wanted to mention that our efficiencies and our vacancy sweep that was part of our 24 budget act are in part, they're taking place now.

The Department of Finance is working with budget departments and other state departments in regards to how to find some of that float, as you say, so that we can achieve the savings that we, that are, that is included in the 2024 Budget. So, those are things that we're hoping to work with departments on as well.

I appreciate that, and I do just want to highlight that the budget savings and the cost savings for the vacancies is very temporary. We all know this, right? And oftentimes a lot of departments keep the budget or the vacancies open so they can use that salary for something else, some smaller project. This is a consistent standard.

But at a certain point, I would like for the Administration as well as every head of each department to talk to the Senators as to addressing some of the concerns we have. Consistently we have these meetings. Of course it happens. You know, the budget takes a long time.

Lots of conversation internally within the own specific departments, but also the direction of the Senators. We are also like, for example, every single time we're asked about labor standards. So instead of like, coming back and saying, I'm going to respond back, as Senator Durazo was told, it's, this is our plan moving forward.

This is what we have going forward. This is what we're seeing. So. besides vacancies and cost savings for vacancies, I'd like to see bigger numbers as these were the programs that were done 30 years ago. They're really obsolete. They don't serve a real purpose in today's time.

We need to take a look and absorb the cost and saying, and suggesting several programs be shut down because of the fact that it's either integrated or working in conjunction with another program or something. Those types of suggestions are very welcomed on my behalf. Right?

Because at a certain point in time, we, we're just feeding into a system that doesn't seem to be necessarily serving the masses the way that it should in the fifth largest economy of the world. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. Miss Calvert, good to see you. If you could, since you've been involved in a lot of these conversations, is the changes to state contracting and procurement in this trailer bill. I'm asking is how do our, how do the Biden Administration guidance on higher standards, very high standards that they're talking about?

That's why they're investing a quarter of $1 trillion into infrastructure and many other ways of investing in our economy, but a very explicit about the kind of quality jobs. So how do you, how did, how does this address that high priority for the Administration and for the dollars that we're getting?

Teresa Calvert with Department of Finance. So, I don't have a satisfying answer for you right now. We are in response to your earlier questions, still looking at some of the questions you raised earlier in the hearing and looking at the federal funds and also the contracting side.

So, I would also note that a number of the federal fund programs are very different and across very different areas. So, it might be different for different programs as to what the outcomes or the standards are related to, like the high-quality jobs or better-paying jobs.

So, I don't have a great, satisfying answer for you right now.

Okay. I mean, unfortunately, and I'll just end with this, is, I've been hearing that kind of response for over and over and over again. And I just, it's just getting to the point where there's nothing. What's serious on behalf of the Administration of carrying out the things that we all say we want. People don't want a handout.

They want a hand up. They want a good-paying job. And we have in our disposal billions of dollars that could be used to create good-paying jobs, so people don't have to line up, you know, at a soup kitchen to be able to get a meal.

I mean, just enough is enough with how are we spending our dollars and making it available in a way that brings dignity with it. So, it's end of my questions, but I'm just disappointed that we don't have more specific answers here. Thank you.

And I. Sorry, Senator. I do have a, some information to share in regards to the CalGEM contracts. According to CalGEM, their contracts adhere to the federal standards, which also includes skilled and trade requirements that would start in 2028.

Thank you. Vice Chair, Mister Vice Chair, and then Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. And I think that's what I see. And then we would move to a vote.

Thank you, Mister Chair. First of all, I'd like to associate with the comments of Senator Wahab. I've been involved in public sector budgets going back about 25 years now.

And the maneuvering of departments, budget maneuvering of departments through the intentional use of vacant positions is as old as at least the time I've been involved with public sector budgets. And I've always found it somewhat frustrating.

But one vacancy that we have that was mentioned today is real and that is with regard to the Highway Patrol, 1000 positions unfilled. And that's not a budget maneuver.

It's because they're having a hard time hiring people, as are local law enforcement, at least partially due to perceptions that have been created in the last couple of years that are very unfortunate. But I have always felt, and I continue to believe we have far too much CHP presence here in this location.

But more importantly, our Governor has redirected the Highway Patrol, Highway Patrol responsible for patrolling safety on highways to retail theft activities. I have not been able to understand that. That is contrary to their fundamental mission and that creates additional vacancies in fact, with regard to the mission of creating safety on our highways, which is drastically needed.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. And Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, followed by Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I just want to follow up on something that Miss Lee mentioned and just for clarification that the skill and train provision applies to construction. I think one of the things we're talking about is the labor and equity standards in the new economy, which is the green, the manufacturing space.

There has been work, I think we've had over seven field hearings, six oversight hearings, two reports, and a stakeholder table of agencies to agencies on this. And the evidence is pretty clear in terms of what standards are needed in California and how we need to set a universal labor and equity standard.

I also want to point out that the Biden-Harris Administration has been very clear in terms of a gender equity executive order, a racial equity executive order, a jobs with justice Initiative, and toolkit that provides and prescribes for states ways to ensure competitive edge by having set universal labor standards and mechanisms for building equitable workforce in the green, investing in America funds.

And you know, that means really addressing those underrepresented, disadvantaged, vulnerable communities in those jobs. And this I want to just reiterate from SB 150 to the work that many of us on this dais have have worked toward. We in California still don't have a competitive edge.

We don't have a set standard that deals with the issue of labor standards and racial equity. Based on some of the feedback we heard today that will allow us to best utilize these dollars and multiply them in our economy. So, I look forward to seeing the information that you will provide.

But I just want to clarify that I think the Federal Government has been very clear on the guidelines, but also the flexibility.

And that's what we, this is the point that we're making as we're hearing that we are cutting things out of the budget as we are implementing, you know, these crime bills, which are going to add substantial cost to the state, we should be prepared to use and activate those federal dollars in a way that creates good, high-quality jobs and calls in our most disadvantaged communities.

It's about a balanced approach. It's about ensuring that we are providing opportunities while we're also holding communities accountable.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I was sitting here listening to a lot of the debate, trying to unmind my better angels to not say anything, but I cannot. I was in those chairs when I was in the Administration.

I remember being in a hearing where a Member of the Assembly said to me, will you guarantee that the budget includes, and I think three times I had to politely say, well, you actually do the budget. You're the one that has to decide if something is actually in the budget.

And I think in, and some of the discussions that we have had about oversight, it's like we are the ones that do the oversight. It is, when I was budget chair in the Assembly one year, we were not getting, we had 100 reports we were not getting from the Administration.

And I basically said we would not approve a budget where a report was overdue until we had the report. And it remarkably led to those reports being submitted. So, in the budget process we could do it. And I think looking to the Administration to do oversight on itself is not the right place.

It is really us that have to do that and us through. We had 15 subcommittee hearings in education. We were really asking what the results were. We were really trying to tie it down. And I think that we're to the point that the budget in front of us is mostly technical amendments and we should approve it all.

But what we have been doing is having a discussion about what the agenda is for next year in making sure that we do oversight on the questions that have been raised.

Make sure if there are any unaddressed issues, whether it gets back to good jobs or other things that, that is where we start when we come back next year.

And I think it really is involving us taking our own power and control and doing it, whether it's oversight or setting those agendas in the beginning, rather than feeling frustrated at the last hearing of the year, that oversight has not been done or we have not addressed that issue.

So, with that, I will look forward to supporting the budget bills in front of us,

Thank you very much, Senator Laird. And seeing no further discussion, I do just want to say one thing before we go to vote on the setbacks issue. And I say this is someone which was noted in public comment.

I carried one of the iterations of the setback bill as part of the generation of generational, multi-generation of authors who tried to get it across the finish line. Ultimately, the Governor got behind it, and we were able to get it passed.

I will just say, speaking for myself, that I am highly eager to get that law implemented. The money that is not in the budget is because we don't have an agreement with the Administration on that issue.

And so, we need to get to an agreement so that the funding can go in, so that we can get it done and we can protect communities from the toxic impacts of having oil production and oil drilling near their homes and schools. So, with that, we will move to votes, and we will start with item number one.

AB 157. I believe Senator Wahab already moved that bill. And before we start voting, do we have any indication Senator Grove is? We don't know. Okay, so we'll put stuff on. We'll put everything on call. We have a motion by Senator Wahab on AB 157. Please call the roll.

AB 157. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll put that on call. Item two, AB 158. Can I have a motion, please?

So moved.

Motion by Senator Skinner. Please call the roll.

AB 158. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

Okay, we're going to put that on call. Item number three, AB 176. Motion by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.

AB 176. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

Oh, it's okay. Welcome, Senator. Can you please call the absent Members on item three, AB 176.

[Roll call]

Okay, what is the? What's the vote on that? Can I have a pen? Do you have a pen? Thank you. What's the vote on that?

15-0.

What? 15. Okay, on item number three. The vote is 15 to two. That item passes.

15 to zero.

I'm sorry. 15 to zero. That item passes. Let's go back to item number one. Please call the absent Members.

AB 157. [Roll call]

13-5? Okay, the vote on item number one, AB 157, is 13 to five. That item passes. Please call the absent Members on item two, AB 158.

AB 158. [Roll call]

Okay, the vote is 13 to five. The item passes. We'll go to item number four. AB 177. Please call the roll.

AB 177. The motion is do pass. [Roll call] 18-0.

That vote is 18 to zero. The item is out. We'll now go to item number. That was number four, right?

Yes.

Go to item number five, AB 1178.

AB 178. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't not get a motion.

178. So moved.

Okay. Actually, Elisa. Sorry. Okay. Moved by Senator Skinner, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, that vote is 15 to zero. The item is out. Item number six, AB 179. Can I please, please have a motion? Senator Skinner moves. Please call the roll.

AB 179. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

Okay, the vote is 14 to one, and the item is out. Item number seven, AB AB 181. Can I please have a motion? Moved by Senator Dahle. Please call the roll.

AB 181. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

18 to zero. The item is out so that. We're done? Okay, that covers everything. Thank you, everyone. We're adjourned.

Nice job.