Assembly Standing Committee on Budget

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our hearing this morning and thank you for joining us bright and early on a Thursday morning for what we hope will be a great start to your day. We are nearing the end of our journey, and today's informational hearing will allow us to hear seven Budget Trailer Bills that are part of our August budget cleanup package. This is our 77th hearing of the year, continuing our commitment to an open and transparent budget process.

Today's hearing is informational only as the Bills are currently on the floor and not in the possession of the Committee and there will be no votes in Committee today. Erica Lee from the Department of Finance will provide a brief overview of the Bills, followed by comments from our Legislative Analyst Office. Christian Griffith and the Assembly budget team are on the panel to answer any questions if needed. At the end of this hearing, we will have an opportunity for public comment on the seven Bills before us today. But first, let me ask Assemblymember Lackey if he has any opening remarks.

Well, first of all, I'm happy to say that there's just a fraction of the amount of Trailer Bills this year, and I think that's refreshing. Even though we're in a deficit, you would think maybe just the contrary would be the case. But I'm grateful to have at least a glance at some of these technical changes, and I look forward to vigorous discussion. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. We'll turn it over now to the Department of Finance. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Gabriel, Members of the Budget Committee, Erica Lee with the Department of Finance, and I will be here to present on several Budget Bills which, as mentioned, largely include technical cleanup and adjustments to the current and prior budget agreements. And Chair Gabriel, would you like me to walk through all seven bills prior to any questions?

That would be great. Thank you.

Okay, beginning with SB 157, which amends the 2024 Budget Act, this Bill makes various technical adjustments to the 2024 Budget Act, including extending the availability of existing funds for court based firearm relinquishment programs to give the Judicial Council more time to administer the third round of grants. It also aligns program expenditures for the Department of Pesticide Regulation with AB 2113, which increased the pesticide mill fee to align revenue and expenditures with program needs and to address the fund's structural deficit.

The Bill appropriates resources and authorizes positions in the 24/25 fiscal year for the Department of Conservation, the State Air Resources Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board to support implementation of SB 1137. 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 technical amendments to K-12 and higher education investments.

It allows the California Department of Public Health and Emergency Medical Services authority to recover funds from by the state for surge staffing during the pandemic and makes other technical adjustments to the budget agreement. Moving on to the next Bill. SB 158, amendments to the 2022 and 2023 Budget Acts. This 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 includes authority for CDCR to pay settlement costs related to a lead case that awarded specified supervisory correctional employees additional compensation for work activities they must complete before and after their official shift times. It also includes other clarifying 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 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 and makes additional clarifying adjustments. The next Bill is SB 177, the Health Trailer Bill. 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, as well as makes other technical adjustments. The next Bill is SB 178, the Resources Trailer Bill.

This Bill authorizes a one time supplemental assessment to ensure funds are available to cover the 24/25 costs associated with implementing SB 1137. It extends the dates of various implementation deadlines to reflect the referendum related delays to implementation, as well as a more refined timeline necessary to accomplish some required actions. It also makes other clarifying adjustments.

The next Bill is SB 179 or the General Government Trailer Bill. 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 on a pilot basis through December 31 of 2030, to set aside a portion of anticipated surplus funds in future fiscal years.

The Bill also 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. It also makes other clarifying and technical adjustments. And the final Bill is SB 181, the Memorandums of Understanding.

This Bill ratifies and funds Memorandums of Understanding between the Administration and bargaining units 8, which is the Firefighters and 10, the Professional Scientists. This Bill also funds statutorily required general salary increases for BU 5 or the Highway Patrol, as well as for judges. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. At this time, I want to turn it over to the Legislative Analyst Office for any comments.

Thank you. Good morning. Carolyn Chu with the Legislative Analyst Office. We're happy to answer any questions. I would note for the Committee, we recently released our analyses on the Memorandums of Understanding with units 8 and 10 for the Committee.

Thank you very much. We will now bring it back to Members of the Committee for any questions or comments. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. Thank you. As it relates to Senate Bill 177, I understand that Martin Luther King Junior Hospital is a critical safety net hospital for, with the need for more funding. However, this Bill does nothing for the other at risk hospitals. And I'm just wondering why other at risk hospitals aren't included all in the language.

So, Mister Lackey, the Martin Luther King Hospital funding was included in the June budget. So this was something that was essentially effectuating that proposal that was already in the budget in June. There was $25 million included and it was subject to legislation. And that was because there's some very complex relationships with the Federal Government we need to work out in order to have this additional funding source. But this is essentially a continuation of that decision that was made in the June package.

Okay. The reason why I asked the question is we have a real health disparity in my district. We have a couple closures and others that are at risk of closing. And I just wonder if there was any consideration for any of those hospitals in any Trailer Bill Language.

And so I think we didn't revisit that conversation. Clearly, there are a lot of hospitals around the state that have similar situations. But in the June package, when we did adopt it and finalize it, it did include just for this one hospital. So we're not revisiting that conversation, and I want to acknowledge it as a real conversation that is percolating. There's Bills and other conversations that probably have to continue next year and in the policy process. But here, what we're really trying to do is a continuation of the June package, tying up loose ends. It's not reopening the conversation in any way.

I appreciate that answer. Senate Bill 178, I just wondered how this particular program aligns with the broader effort to address energy poverty in the state. Are there any other long term strategies being developed to reduce significant burden of utility costs on low income households? I can tell you that I've been getting a lot of feedback from a number of constituents in my region that are shocked. I represent the desert, so it gets pretty hot in the summer.

It's been unusually hot this summer, and the rates are alarming for many, many households, and they're very, very concerned on their ability to even arrange to make payment. And that's what's happening now. It's not going to happen. It's happening. So I just wondered if there was any language at all in any of these Trailer Bills that addressed that challenge.

Hi, Assemblymember. Shy Forbes from Assembly Budget Committee. There's nothing in this budget package that's related to electricity or electric rates.

Well, that was pretty direct. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll go. We had Assemblymembers of Zbur, Assemblymember of Bennett, and then we'll go Assemblymember Lee.

So thank you. Thank you for coming here today. I have some questions related to SB 178 and in particular item number three, which delays some of the deadlines in SB 1137 by 18 months, 24 months and 54 months. You know, I just wanted to understand what the justification was for those delays, especially after the folks that were, you know, playing monkey business with this referendum actually already got delays, and why we would be doing this through a Budget Trailer Bill. And second, why we need all of those delays if we need delays at all. So just wondering if we can have an explanation as to why this is in here at all.

Stephen Benson with the Department of Finance. So I think to start addressing the question, the delays are not to the benefit, are not being made for the benefit of those who were doing the referendum. So acknowledging that the referendum delayed things, but during the period of time that that delay was in place, the departments that have to implement 1137 did not have resources in order to do that. So they don't.

The sort of, the clock starts for them when they start getting the funding and the positions to be able to actually do the very challenging implementation that goes along with that Bill. So I just want to make sure it's clear and not characterized as this is sort of a benefit for the industry. They're getting sort of a double delay out of this deal. That's not really. That's not the case at all.

The case is that we have departments that now have a very challenging job to implement some very challenging and important regulations and actions, and those departments need to have adequate time and resources to be able to do that properly. And so we sat down with them and sort of went through, and what is a feasible timeline for being able to accomplish all the very challenging actions that they have to do.

And that's what's presented here, is that this is the time it's going to take in order for them to do thoughtful, science based, carefully crafted regulations to make sure this gets done now. But I also wanted to sort of emphasize that the fact that it's going to take some time to complete some of those steps doesn't mean that there's no implementation of that Bill going on right now. There are already things being done that have been getting done.

So, for example, as soon as referendum was withdrawn, CalGEM sent back all the pending applications for drilling, said, hey, 1137, notice of, to the operators, basically, of compliance with that. That aspect of the permitting is in place. They're not going to be able to drill new wells or do other things like that. Like those restrictions are still in place. So many of the protections in 1137 are still going into effect right now, but there is a need to provide the departments the appropriate timeline to develop the regulations that are very complex for the implementation of this Bill.

I mean, this just seems like a lot of delay without us having any ability to understand, really sort of what, you know, it may be the case that the departments can't, you know, can't implement this the way it's envisioned with the existing resources, but I don't have a comfort level of that without actually going through, having more of an understanding of that and having the ability to ask folks the questions about why they need this kind of delay.

It does seem like a benefit to the industry, and it seems like a detriment to the public. I mean, this is an important Bill that I think was a high priority for many of us. And the fact that this is being delayed up to 54 months through a Budget Trailer Bill just seems inappropriate. I mean, I guess I would ask why we don't, if you need a delay at all, why it is more than the first 18 month delay. This is just like, this is delaying by many years without any kind of policy oversight. So I have significant concerns about this completely, and I'd like to have follow up even on part of that.

Sure. Happy to. I can provide some follow up now, but I happy to follow up afterwards as well with some details. I think one point that I'd have put out there, as we're doing it, now, because if we don't do it now, then that will, by default, delay it even further. Because if the departments don't get the resources, then they can't start implementing it now either.

They would have to wait until the next budget cycle, which would put us back to July of next year before we really get started on things. In terms of some of the things that need to get done and why the four years is needed. You have CARB and CalGEM both need to hire up completely new staffing on these. In case of CARB, they've got a higher new manager and all the staff that goes with it, they have to go out and do sampling so they can develop sort of best available source testing, characterization of the, of the leaks and stuff that are happening.

They need to be able to go and analyze, look at the data that comes from that. They're going to have to look, identify different pollutants and how to monitor them, the best equipment for monitoring it. What, so they're going to be establishing requirements that the industry has to follow. And they need time to go out and identify, like what's the best equipment? What's the, what are the correct restrictions? What's the correct level of things that should be in the regulations? And so if CARB doesn't have the time to do that rulemaking process correctly, then we're not going to get the right regulations on the back end.

I guess I just don't understand why after the current delay, I mean, we're at the same place we would have been when the Bill was in place. We had adequate time to do the regulations in the first place. I mean, this just seems inappropriate to me. And the fact that just the delays are so long, I mean, I would rather see the latter, the 24 month and the 54 months be gone on this so that we have an opportunity to really dig in and understand what budget is necessary to implement the plan. But going through a Budget Trailer Bill without our ability to have oversight and have a four year delay just seems inappropriate to me.

And I will acknowledge that some of the delay is a reassessment of how long it takes to do this. So there's the 18 months that the referendum delayed us by. But what my understanding is in working with the departments is even without that delay, had they started implementing right away, they believe it would have taken longer to implement than what the deadlines in the Bill constituted. So there's a portion of this, this sort of reassessing the amount of time needed to do the work in the first place.

I think the last thing I'll say is this is a high priority for us. I mean these delays are about delays to the public health of people in our communities. I mean that's what it's about. And I just think that we need a much more robust oversight of this. And these delays should not be without our ability to look at whether or not this is a priority in the budget as we move forward next year.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Lets go Assemblymember Bennett, Assemblymember Lee and then Doctor Weber.

Thank you. I have very similar questions to my colleague from San Diego, but I will, so I will just try to be real specific since he's hit them. When was the implementation of this Bill first obvious that we were going to need to implement this Bill? 1137.

So when the referendum was withdrawn, essentially right after that is when it's like okay, well now we need to implement. So they and CalGEM and CARB started taking the steps they could right away. So in other words, the day after the referendum was drawn, CalGEM sent out the notice to operators.

And when was that?

June 28 I believe was the actual date, 27th.

That's also when CalGEM gave out a six month notice. On that June 28 date, CalGEM gave out a notice to the operators that they had six months to respond. Now in this Trailer Bill, CalGEM is saying it's going to be 12 months for them to respond. Do you know why they, even though they knew the referendum was pulled, why did they give them six months on June 28 and now they extending that to 12 months?

I would need to follow up on some of the tech, some of the details of that piece.

And then the second question is CalGEM, I would assume as we were building the budget last spring in Budget Sub 4, if CalGEM knew there was this possibility that we had this, was CalGEM asking for appropriate budget at that point in time or is CalGEM now asking for budget supplementation at this point in time?

So during the period of time we were having Subcommitee hearings and whatnot, I don't believe there was discussion of the referendum being pulled at that point. So our understanding was that that was still going to be on the ballot this fall. That came a little later in the process. And so that's why that wasn't put forward in say the May revision timeline. The resources were initially proposed in obviously 22/23 before, sorry, 23/24 before the referendum was on the ballot and that BCP got fully withdrawn.

And so given the timeline of just when the referendum was pulled, we didn't we weren't able to fit this in the regular budget process, but because implementation is now required, rather than sort of further delay being able to take action, we wanted to get going right away. And that's why you're seeing this in the August timeline.

It looks like we have some other supplemental.

Shy Forbes, Assembly Budget Committee. To reiterate what Stephen was saying on the resources to implement the legislation, so the Administration did put forward a BCP last year. They had to withdraw that because of the referendum. We were legally prohibited from implementing the legislation. So no resources were granted for implementation. So now that the referendum was pulled in late June, past our May process, they put forward the BCP and related Trailer Bill now to implement. So those resources are in the two budget Bill junior Bills.

It's very helpful to know why the resources were pulled and now back in. That does help explain this delay some. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember. We will now go to Assemblymember Lee and then Doctor Weber.

Yeah, I share my concerns with my colleagues from Los Angeles and Ventura County, and I just want to reiterate that. Are you saying that because of the threat of the ballot measure that CalGEM and the Administration, even though this Bill was signed and passed into law in 2022, almost two years ago, that CalGEM could do no prep work whatsoever?

So the referendum prohibited the implementation of the Bill, so weren't legally allowed to implement it. So there was very little they could do.

At which window was it where you were prohibited from doing so, because it didn't qualify until much more recently.

So the initial proposal for the resources to implement it was in the 23/24 budget. Right. Then the referendum was filed. Because the referendum was filed and we couldn't implement, that BCP was withdrawn, so the departments had no resources to go towards that. And with the referendum under consideration, we couldn't implement the Bill.

So until it was withdrawn on June 27, there was not any meaningful implementation of the Bill. I mean, there's still certain things you could be doing and working on. Like I said, they were in a position. As soon as the referendum was withdrawn, they could send out notices, they started sending back all the applications.

So there are things that are being done now to help with the health protections that are in 1137. It's not a matter of like all of the protections that are in that Bill are just getting pushed off and nothing's going to go in place. They are doing things now to help with those. Sorry, the health protection zones are in place and there will not be new drilling in those zones, because that's a restriction. So that piece is in. There are more technical aspects of some of the monitoring and permanent regs and things like that. That's what's taking the time. And it's because CalGEM and CARB need the time to do that process correctly, not because we're trying to buy the industry any more time for what they're doing.

So just read it and understand. Starting basically today, there will be no new oil drilling near communities. Is that still.

That 3200 foot health protection zone is enforced today.

Is enforced. And how does CalGEM be able to have the resources to enforce that now?

Well, I mean, they were reviewing applications when they came in before, so that same workforce gets those applications. And if they're, you know, they have to demonstrate that they're not in a health protection zone in order for those to move forward.

So it's safe to assume that there will be no new drilling put in the health protection zone. So next year, or even while this is still being formulated, we're not gonna see any new drilling.

That's my understanding.

Very good. Well, I share a lot of the same, very similar concerns from my colleagues on here about the delays and how it's coming out quite last minute. But happy to talk more about this and share my concerns about this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Now I'll go to Doctor Weber.

Thank you, Mister Chair. This has been my first year on the Budget Committee and my first year as Chair of one of the Subcommittees. And we've had a lot of difficult conversations this year about some of the very important programs that we have to help a lot of vulnerable Californians. But specifically in the health realm, I do want to acknowledge that I do think that we have struck the right balance and these Budget Trailer Bills are clarifying and necessary to continue the work in the June budget. I specifically do want to call out the issue of the Martin Luther King Hospital in south Los Angeles.

You know, I'm not sure if many people understand or know the way in which MLK Hospital was created. It was created through legislation, and the way in which it was created has caused a lot of difficulty with their financing situation, which is very unique than any other hospital in this country, in this state, I should say. You know, last year there were over 100,000 visits to their emergency room, and if that hospital were to close, those particular individuals would have nowhere to go.

You know, I am very well aware of the issues that we have within our hospitals up and down the state, within our labor and delivery units within our specialty subcare. And, you know, we'll continue to fight for them. And, you know, even though this hospital is not in my district, not even in the city in which I live, you know, I recognize that it's important not only to the LA area, but the entire region. And that's why it was very important to me for us to work on this, not only fix the legislation that created it, but also ensure that their funding stream was there.

So I do want to take a minute to thank the Department of Healthcare Services and the Department of Finance and the rest of the Administration for their collaboration on this year's budget. You know, I know this process isn't easy. I haven't always, you know, been your cheerleaders on some of the things, but I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done and really thank you for, you know, in light of all of the difficult circumstances that we've had this year. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Doctor Weber. We'll go to Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

Thank you, Mister chair. And I, too, want to express this has been my first year on budget, and I have found it not only an honor to work in this area, in this space, but also, not only with my Subcommitee, but the other Subcommittees. So my question is out of the Subcommitee that I'm on, and it's on SB 176, and it's number three on the attendance recovery program.

As a former teacher, understanding how important ADA is to districts, and understanding, I would say, the innovative ways school districts are trying to get attendance recovery. If you can just kind of summarize what this actually looks like for districts. I mean, I know what it is generally, but I know a lot of us don't know this because this is pretty innovative.

Absolutely. So, Erin Gabel from the Assembly Budget Committee. So, in the June budget, we adopted a brand new attendance recovery program to help school districts are struggling with chronic absenteeism post pandemic. To be able to go beyond the very unpopular Saturday school model that you may be familiar with as a former teacher.

And to look at how to integrate into their after school hours and other ways for recouping not only student attendance time for purposes of ADA, but also reengagement of pupils long term to try to address chronic absenteeism. So that package was actually adopted in the June budget, and we're just making technical changes that have been recommended by the Department of Education to be consistent with that new program.

So you're saying that if a student is attending an after school program, and they've been absent during the regular school day period, they can apply those after school hours as a day of attendance or certain hours. How many hours does it take to make up a day, I guess.

Great question. So the program has minimum increments of 1 hour with a certificated teacher of record meeting the content standards you should have had during the regular school day and meeting the student to certificated teacher ratios that are consistent with the after school program, which is 20 to 1 for children who are first grade and older, or 10 to 1 for kindergarten and transitional kindergarten. The programs are allowed to be integrated with their pre existing ELOP programs they may have on their campuses or maybe sunrising on their campuses.

But they're also allowed to be standalone and they can be not only during the after school hours, but other intercession days. So it's a brand new program. It won't sunrise until the 2025/26 school year. So it's going to give the Department of Education some time to develop all of the guidance around the programs. But the intent is in 1 hour increments to be able to start to recapture entire days of student attendance for purposes of their ADA, but also for purposes of bringing the students back to pace with their class.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee?

Just have one quick question.

Vice Chair Flora.

In SB 158, it does seem like the funding for hydrogen infrastructure was struck. What was the rationale for that?

Shy Forbes, Assembly Budget Committee. So no funding was struck. It was just Budget Bill Language describing which program certain appropriations were for. So it does look like, it visually looks like the hydrogen component, as well as some medium and heavy duty funding was struck. I'm still working with the Administration specifically on why that was suggested, but my understanding, and I could be wrong, I'm still betting with the Administration.

Is that in 2022, when we approved the sort of large ZEV multi year funding package, there was a specific program that was only intended, as was proposed in the BCP and heard in Committee and adopted, for fast charging stations which are only electric and those are typically only for light duty. You know, it's possible a medium duty truck could charge at those, depending on the speed, but my understanding is the original approval was only for those.

And so it seems as though the Administration is finally getting around to maybe correcting some older boilerplate language, to reflect what was actually approved two years ago. But I am still working out that, and I can reach out to your office once they get full clarification, or they can be here now.

Good morning. Jeff Bell, Department of Finance. Yes, that is a summary of the intent of the language that you find in the Trailer Bill before you now.

Okay, awesome. And then I would love it if you could maybe get some clarity for us. Get it to our office. Appreciate that very much. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

All right, thank you. Any other comments, questions from Members of the Committee? All right. With that, I want to thank the Department of Finance Legislative Analyst Office, all the talented folks at the Assembly Budget Committee. Obviously some issues for us to consider, to think about as we move towards the finish line here and appreciate the hard work and collaboration of all involved as we get close to the finish line. With that, I'm going to open it up to public comment.

Mister Chairman, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed & Associates representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. And I'll just take 1 minute. First of all, I want to thank our Sub Chair, Mister Bennett, who is extraordinarily cooperative and open and collaborative. We have an MOU, I think, that reflects the best not only of the Administration, but of this Legislature. In two years, our seasonals will be making $20 an hour. We're now approached hour by hour comparison to 75% of local government.

We're seeing a 66 hour workweek being implemented. At a time when this budget crisis was severe, you showed not only imagination, but a willingness to work by in a bipartisan fashion to make a difference for all of the people of California. And on behalf of the Firefighters of Local 2881, I want to thank you very much for your endeavors. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for all the hard work of our Firefighters.

Mister Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed & Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW. We're in support of SB 181. It includes their MOU, and we'd also like to take the time to thank all the legislators that have supported them throughout the last several years. They've been without a contract for almost four years, and this remedies that. So we appreciate all of your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Christina. Scoring with the Center for Biological Diversity in strong opposition to the SB 178 provisions to unnecessarily delay implementation of and compliance with SB 1137 mandates. Communities worked for these protections for decades, and when the agency failed them, they looked 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 a two year delay with its recently surrendered veto referendum, but now SB 178 gifts big oil years more to comply, sacrificing communities once again to suffer the repercussions of toxic oil pollution. Four more years, doubling the time these polluting wells will spew toxins upon communities, homes and schools. This needless delay is a gift to industry, a dereliction of public duty and an affront to the people of California.

We urge you to maintain the original timelines, and I've been asked to offer 'Me Too' opposition for the following organizations: 350 Contra Costa Action, Elected Officials to Protect America, Code Blue, California Environmental Voters, 350 Sacramento, Sierra Club, Protect Monterey County, The Climate Center, Citizens Climate Lobby Santa Cruz, Climate Brunch, Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility Sacramento, Climate Hawks Vote and numerous individuals from communities who said they could not be here on such short notice, including Emily Brandt, former Secretary of Cal Dem Environmental Caucus, Doctor Nguyen, co founder of San Diego Pediatricians for Clean Air and Doctor Wang, President of PSR Sacramento. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, commenting also on SB 178 registering opposition to the proposed CalGEM delays on behalf of Black Women for Wellness, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and Communities for a Better Environment.

We really appreciate all the questions that were asked by Members today raising these same concerns. Communities we have worked with have waited long enough for these essential public health protections. We oppose doubling the delay and giving this gift to the oil industry, even if it's not being framed as such. Instead of giving the oil industry two more years after all the state work is done, this Bill would give the oil industry twice that long. While this may not be done, please move back to the original timelines. Thank you.

Jessica Bartholow with SEIU California. First and foremost want to say thank you to the Budget Committee for the work you did to save the safety net and this year's budget. Thank you. For today's package, I wanted to highlight a couple of things in alignment with the comments made and the concerns raised with the delay of CalGEM. SEIU is in support and grateful for the questions and concerns raised. Additionally, we wanted to say thank you for the funding for the PAGA reform implementation. Grateful for that.

Grateful also for the additional components of the state preschool addition of the two year old to ensure that the two year olds being moved into state preschool have rights and protections for diapering and toilet training that are necessary for two year olds. Finally, I wanted to raise one thing we were hoping to see here, which is confirmation that childcare providers who are unionizing will not be economically punished when they participate in collective bargaining, and hopeful that there is room for additional pieces in the budget package. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair, Members of the Committee, Malik Bynum with UDW AFSCME Local 3930. Also, on behalf of Childcare Providers United, I want to thank you for the cleanup hearing today and also express our support for SB 176 in the toileting and diapering provisions for CSPP programs. And also, like my colleague Jess Bartholow just said, as we come down to the wire here, we recognize the need to codify protections for our providers going into their third contract negotiations this fall. We've had conversations with your staff, as well as the Administration as well as Senate budget staff on this, and we're just hopeful for the inclusion of this and final Trailer Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Peter Kellison, on behalf of the California Hospice and Palliative Care Association here in support of SB 177. In particular, we're supportive of the component that would extend a soon to expire moratorium on new hospice licenses. We provide the Department of Public Health tools to ensure that there is reduction in hospice fraud in California and want to thank the Committee and particularly the Committee staff in getting this done.

Good morning, Chair and Members Cassandra Mar with Niemela Pappas & Associates on behalf of the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California. I want to start off by thanking the Committee, the staff, and the Members for all their questions and for all the great work they're doing. Unfortunately, we oppose SB 178, doubling the delay that oil industry has to comply with the requirements of SB 1137. We respectfully ask that you revert back to the original compliance timeline and SB 1137. And thank you again.

Good morning Chair and Members. Keely O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty, here in appreciation for the state's ongoing work to prevent theft of food and cash benefits. We also ask that you continue to prioritize access to food benefits during the transition to the EBT chip tap cards just to ensure that we don't have a crisis as we make sure that the new cards work.

And then also, we're excited about the state pursuing the new TANF pilots, which will provide us an opportunity to 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

Good Morning Mister Chair and Members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in strong support of SB 181. I would echo the comments of Mister McHale previously and just thank the Legislature and Administration for working with us and our colleagues to protect firefighters this year. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members Teresa Cooke, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, I apologize if I missed this and my tardiness today, but the budget Bill junior SB 158 strikes hydrogen fueling infrastructure from Energy Commission Dollars set aside for heavy duty. That is very concerning for our community, given the fact that I often hear that the only role for hydrogen in the zero emission transportation future is in the heavy duty space.

And so to that end, any clarity that can be provided as to what is being happened or what is happening with that pot of money, and then two, what the rationale is there for making hydrogen ineligible for that would be greatly appreciated by our community. Thank you.

All right. Thank you to the Members of the public for your comment today. Thank you to Members of the Committee for joining us, to the sergeants, to all of our witnesses and the staff, and thank you, everyone, for starting your morning with the Assembly Budget Committee. We hope you have a great day. This hearing is adjourned.